Sri Gedala Sai Krishna

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur

SCJ Court Complex Kovvur · West Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Sri Gedala Sai Krishna, I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, is posted at SCJ Court Complex Kovvur, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,964 court orders on record since 2023. 30 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, STC cases.

1,964

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/100194/2017

Telagamreddi Aravala Raju alias Aravalu vs Palla Satyanarayana

28 Mar 2025

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur1 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

KOVVUR.

Present: Sri.G.Sai Krishna, Prl.Civil Judge(Junior Division), FAC/I Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Kovvur.

Friday, the 28th day of March, 2025.

Original Suit No.194 /2017

Between:

1. Telegamreddi Aravala Raju @ Aravalu, S/o.late.Naganna, 69 years, Male, Hindu, Cultivation, Door No.4-198, Penakanametta-Savaram (V), Kovvur Mandal, W.G.District, Kovvur.

.. Plaintiff

And

1. Palla Satyanarayana, S/o.late Narsimha Murthy, 55 years, Male, Hindu,Cultivation, Door No.4-83, Dharmavaram (V), Kovvur Mandal, W.G.District, Kovvur.

2. Vempati Krishna Rao, S/o.late.Satyanarayana, 50 years, Male, Hindu, Cultivation, D.No.7-42, Peravaram (V), Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G.District, Kothapeta.

..Defendants

This Suit has come before me on 13.03.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Ranga Rao, learned Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri D.Tata Rao learned Advocate for Defendants and after having heard arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking

Permanent Injunction against them from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur2 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025

2. Summons to the D1 was personally served through court and registered post on 2.12.2017. The summons to D2 was returned, as un-served.

However on 26.12.2017, the counsel for D1 and D2 filed vakalat for the D1 and

D2. On 29.12.2017, the counsel for D1 and D2 filed written statement cum counter claim. On 30.01.2018, the plaintiff filed rejoinder to the counter claim.

3. The averments of the plaint, in brief are as follows:

a) The plaintiff purchased Ac.1.00 of the plaint schedule property under registered sale deed dated 09.01.1989 in two bits consisting of 37 cents and 63 cents situated in R.S.No.216-3D and 216-5A from Vempati Sri

Rama Krishna and Vempati Someswara Rao. Further, he purchased Ac.0.77 cents of the plaint schedule property in R.S.No.216-5A from the same vendors and Alapati Anasuya under registered sale deed dated 13.04.1989. The plaintiff all together acquired Ac.1.77 cents and started personally cultivating it. The plaintiff mutated his name in the revenue records. Further the plaintiff pledged the plaint schedule property in favour of Bank of India, Dommeru and raised Agricultural Crop loan by deposit of original title deed with them.

b) The plaintiff raised banana plants on the West of Plaint Schedule property this season in the month of June 2017. The said plants are nourished with the drill bore water situated on the South West corner. Further, the plaintiff raised in Black gram crop on the East of the Plaint Schedule property in the month of September, 2017. The plaintiff erected thatched hut on the

South West corner of the plaint schedule property. There is Electricity Service connection bearing No.0563 to the plaint schedule property.

c) The D.1’s land is situated on the south of the plaint schedule property and D.2’s land on further south of D.1’s land. The defendants are influential persons and they are meddling with the plaint schedule property on the south west side through survey department of the revenue authorities.

4. The averments of the written statement cum counter claim in brief are as follows:

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur3 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025

a) On 04.11.1942, Vempati Satyanarayana purchased land in an extent of Ac.5.77cents in R.S.No. 216/5 of Dharmavaram village from the family of the Tadi Venkata Reddy. Vempati Satyanarayana enjoyed the said property by accessing the passage in existence in R.S.No.218 and 219 which touches the middle portion of R.S.No.216/5 on its western side. About 60 years back,

Vempati Satyanarana partitioned the aforesaid land with his four sons through his 1st wife and in that partition, the southern side Ac.2.98 cents fell to the share of Satyanarayana with passage right along ABCD with width of 5 yards. The extreme portion i.e.Ac.1.40 cents fell to the share of Venkata Ramana and

Ac.1.32 cents on South of the Ac.1.40 cents fell to the share of Veera Raju who are both the sons of Vempati Satyanarayana. Ac.0.07 cents on the western side of the aforesaid two items was set apart as passage for enjoyment of the share of Satyanarayana.

b) The share of Satyanarayna was divided among the children of his 2nd wife i.e. Suramma. In that partition, the property in R.S.No.216/5B fell to the share of 2nd defendant and his brothers i.e. Ac.1.49 cents each to the share of 2nd defendant and his brother Vempati Satyanarayana. The 2nd defendant and his brother have been using ‘ABEF’ passage of the written statement plan for enjoyment of their share of lands.

c) The passage passing in between RS. No. 218 and 219 is 6 yards in width and it reaches up to R.S.No.216/5. The said passage was in existence from time immemorial and it is meant as passage for men, cattle, tractors to reach their respective lands. The plaintiff purchased his lands from the sons and daughters of Sri Venkata Ramana. The total land purchased by the plaintiff in RSNo.216-5A is Ac.1.40 cents. The D1 purchased his land from Sri Vempati Veerraju under sale deed dated 20.06.1983 and said land fell to the share of D1 in the family partition. The D1 who purchased the land even prior to the plaintiff has been using the ABEF passage for accessing his land. As per revenue records, the total extent of the land in RSNo.216/5A is

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur4 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025

Ac.2.79 cents. The plaintiffs name is mutated for Ac.1.40 cents and D1’s name is mutated for Ac.1.32 cents and 7 cents of land is shown as passage (Bata).

There is no other passage to reach the land of the defendant and another brother of the 2nd defendant situated in R.S. No.216/5B. The above passage right in ’ABEF’ is easement of absolute necessity

d) In March, 2017 when the plaintiff tried to annex the Bata portion, the defendants filed complaint with Tahsildar and then the Tahsildar initiated proceedings, conducted enquiry and on survey found 7 cents as passage to the lands of the defendant. The Tahsildar ordered police for removal of obstruction.

The plaintiff and his son attended before the Tahsildar but during the pendency of the proceedings before him, the plaintiff planted some plants, erected a thatched hut in the 7 cents passage to show that there is no passage in existence. The plaintiffs also laid borewell in ABCD passage. The plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands by suppressing real facts and about the proceedings pending before Mandal Executive Magistrate. The boundary recitals of the plaintiffs sale deed are not binding on the defendants. During the survey, the Mandal Surveyor found 3 cents land on the west of the plaintiff

Ac.1.40 cents and 4 cents on west of the 1st defendant land as passage. The plaintiff has been enjoying his property by passing through the lands of

Telagareddy Saibaba, Venkata Rao situated in R.S.No.215 on the eastern side of the plaintiffs land.

e) The defendants 1 and 2 sought dismissal of the suit and for declaration of their easementary right of passage in ‘ABCD’ of the plaint plan and for grant of mandatory inunction directing the plaintiff for removal of obstruction made by him in the ‘ABCD’ plaint plan within stipulated time and in case of failure of the plaintiff to do so, to get it done through due process of law and for grant of Permanent Injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with the easementary right of the passage of the defendants in

ABCD plaint plan and for costs of the suit.

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur5 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025

5. The averments of rejoinder in brief are as follows:

a) The counter claim is barred by limitation under Sections-58 and

Section 113 of the Limitation Act with respect to relief of declaration. The suit is bad for non- joinder of proper and necessary Parties. The alleged passage between R,S.No’s 218 and 219 is noway concerned with R.S.No.216. Vempati

Satyanarayana never used the passage between R.S.No.218 and 219. There is no passage on the west of the plaintiffs land as per the registered sale deeds executed by the children of Vempati Venkata Ramana who are the step brothers of the 2nd defendant. There is no passage in plaint schedule land at any time much less on the western side. The plaintiff is in settled in position and enjoyment of entire plaint schedule land up to his pucca field bunds.

There is no excess land at all much less 3 cents within the plaint schedule land.

b) Both the plaintiff and the defendants were raising crops up to their length and breadth of the in respective extents of lands within the boundary field bunds for more than two decades. The plaintiff laid bore well of about 15 feet depth with cement rings of 5 ½ feet diameter on the South West Corner along with a thatched hut more than 20 years back . There is a pucca motor shed on the extreme North western corner edge of the 2nd defendant’s land since long time. There exists more than 30 years old Palmarah leaves pucca kattava all along the extreme Western boundary field bund through the plaintiff and Defendants lands. There is no reference to the passage in the 1st defendant Registered Sale Deed dated 20.06.1983 and in the 1st defendants recent family partition deed dated 24.07.2014. The D1 is bound by the recitals of the partition deed under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. The field measurement book in Re-Survey No.216 also does not show any passage.

c) The defendants and plaintiffs are reaching their land from the eastern side pucca field bunds. The proceedings in M.C.No.65/2017 through

Tahsildar Kovvur is out and out collusive and manipulated affair done behind

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur6 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025 the back of the plaintiff. The plaintiff denied paras 6 to 12 of the counter claim in general. The plaintiffs sought dismissal of the counter claim.

6. Heard counsels, for both sides. Perused pleadings and documents.

The learned predecessor-in-office framed the following issues;

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

2. Whether the defendants are entitled for the relief of declaration of ABCD plaint passage as easementary right shown in counter claim?

3. Whether the defendants are entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of obstructions in the ABCD passage?

4. Whether the defendants are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for in their counter claim?

5. Whether the written statement schedule and counter claim plan are in correct?

6. Whether the counter claim is hit under Secs.58 & 113 of Limitation Act?

7. Whether the original owner, survey numbers of lands in R.s.No.218 & 219 and 216 are different?

8. Whether there exists disputed passage between R.S.No.218 & 219?

9. Whether the court fee paid on counter is incorrect?

10. To what relief?

7. As per the pleadings the defendants do not dispute the title or possession of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff and the title and possession of the plaintiff’s vendors under the two registered sale deeds. The defendants disputed the total extent of the plaint schedule property.

8. The plaintiffs as per the rejoinder denied existence of any excess land much less the 3 cents within the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs denied the existence of any passage along ABCD of the plaint plan. The plaintiff denied the usage of any passage between R.S.No.218,219 by Vempati Satyanarayana at any time. The plaintiff disputed the existence of easement of necessity by way of passage right to the defendants 1 and 2 by stating that the defendants as well as plaintiff are passing to their lands from the eastern site pucca field bunds.

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur7 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025

9. The case of the plaintiff rests on assertion of facts to the effect that there is no passage in an extent of 3 cents situated on the western side of the plaint schedule property as an easementary right to enable the D2 and his brother access their 1.49 cents land from 6 yards passage situated in between

RSNo218 and 219 of Dharmavaram village. Further it rests on assertion to the effect that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and that the defendants are trying to interfere with his possession and enjoyment on the south west corner of the plaint schedule property.

10. The case of the defendants rests on assertion on facts to the effect that the plaint schedule property and the D.1s land and D.2s land and the land of

D.2s brother are all part of Ac.5.77 cents of Vempati Satyanarayana and that at the time of partition of the said property, about 60 years back among the sons of the 1st wife of Vempati Satyanarayana and Vempati Satyanarayana, an extent of 7 cents out of Ac. 5.79 cents falling on the western side of

RSNo.216/5A was set apart for passage to Vempati Satyanarayana’s share of Ac.2.79 cents land from the 6 yards passage situated on the western side between RSNo.218 and 219 for the purpose of access to his land. Further it is the case of the defendants, that the said easementary right of necessity for the beneficial enjoyment of V.Satyanarayana’s Ac.2.79 cents land was subsequently transferred to the successors i.e. the children of 2nd wife i.e. D2 and his brother and that the plaintiff placed obstructions in the said easementary right of passage by raising a thatched hut and a bore well in the passage. Further it is the case of the defendants that there is no other passage other than the passage ABCD of the plaint plan to the D.2 for accessing

Ac.1.49 cents land .

11. On behalf of the plaintiff, himself, a third party by name Palla Narayana

Rao, another 3rd party by name Mekala Srinivasa Rao, another 3rd party by name Thota Sai Krishna, another third party by name Gudapati Srinivasa Rao, the Advocate Commissioner by name S.N.Muneendra were examined as Pws 1

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur8 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025 to 6 and their respective chief examination affidavits were affirmed on oath and treated as their examination in chief in lieu. Exs.A1 to 21 were marked through

PW1.Exs.C.1 and C.2 were marked through PW6. On behalf of the defendants , the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant, the relative of D2 by name Vempati

Someswara Rao, Advocate Commissioner V.Suresh, were examined as D.Ws 1 to 4.Ex. D.1 to D12 were marked through D.W1.Exs.C.7 to C.11 were marked through D.W.4. The MRO of Kovvur by name D.Nagaraju Nayak was examined as C.W.2. Exs.C3 to C5 were marked through C.W.2.

12. Issue No.8:

As per counter claim averments, the defendant 2 and his brother have been using ABEF passage to reach a passage touching land on western side which leads to Dharmavaram. During cross, PW1 admitted that on west of the plaint schedule property and D1 and D2 land, there is land of Rebba Pragada

Durga Prasad and on west of part of the plaint schedule property situated in

R.S.No.216/3D, the land of Vempati Gopi is situated. The PW1 denied the suggestion of the defendant counsel about existence of passage between the lands of Vempati Gopi and Durga Prasad with a width of 6 yards. However,

PW1 volunteered that the passage is only 3 yards in width and that it is meant for grazing of grass by cattle. PW1 denied suggestion on that said passage that it extends upto R.S.No.216/5A. PW1 gave evasiee reply when questioned whether there is alternative way for passage of tractors except for 6 yards passage commencing from Dharmavaram. The PW2 during cross stated that there is bata between the land of Gopi and R.Durga Prasad. However,

PW2 denied suggestions that the said passage is 6 yards in width. PW2 stated that he cannot say whether a tractor can move in the bata. Further, PW2 stated that the bata extends up to Ac.10.00 starting from Dharmavaram and up to Palla Ganga Raju’s land but does not extends from there and its width is 3 yards. PW2 admitted that the said bata was formed from the lands of owners situated on either side. PW2 stated that the said bata was not in existence in

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur9 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025 1983. PW2 admitted that lands of Gopi and Durga Prasad are ploughed using tractor. PW2 volunteered that to plough lands with tractors, permission is taken from either side land owners. PW4 denied suggestion about existence of passage from Dharmavaram upto the land of the plaintiff in between the land of

Durga Prasad and V.Gopi. PW4 in cross stated that this space is meant for placing haystack upto the end of their fields.

13. D.W1, during cross admitted that from the beginning the lands on west of schedule property are in different survey numbers i.e. R.S.No.218,219 and not 216 and that at no point of time R.S.No.216, 218, 219 are under single ownership. D.W.1 also admitted that the lands in R.S.No.216, 218, 219 are zeroyati private lands and not Government lands. D.W.1 gave evasive reply that he does not know whether the FMB of R.S.No.216, 218, 219 discloses any passages. The C.W.2 in cross stated that only existence of public passages would be recorded in FMB. The D.W.2 and D.W3 in their chief affidavits referred to the existence of 6 yards passage between R.S.No.218 and 219 immediately on west of R.S.No.216/5. The D.W.3 who is one of the vendors of D.W.1 admitted that the FMB of R.S.No.216, 218, 219 does not disclose disputed passage and the passage between Rebba Pragada and Vempati people.

The PW1 produced FMBs of R.S.No.216, 218, 219 as Exs.A.12 to 13. The

Advocate Commissioner in Exs.C.8 mentioned that on his inspection, he found an existing passage from west to east up to land of the plaintiff. The plan of

Ex.C.8 shows a tractor in the passage.

14. During cross, D.W.4 stated that the tractor ‘T’ in the plan and tractor visible in Exs.C.11 are one and the same. D.W.4 admitted that the land underneath the tractor is covered with grass. D.W.4 stated that he had not taken photos specifically showing existence of western side passage. Further, as per the warrant, D.W.4 was directed to note down physical features of only counter claim schedule property i.e. 3 cents ABEF passage but not the passage on the western side.

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur10 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025

15. From the above evidence of PW1, PW2, D.W1, D.W2 and D.W3 and

D.W4 and Exs.A.11 to A.13 and Exs.C.8, it can be said that there is some open space on the western side of the plaint schedule property in between the land of Rebba Pragada and Vempati Gopi. Apparently, there is no official record in FMB about said passage as admittedly only public passages are noted down in FMB. Admittedly, the alleged passage as per defendants was set out from private lands of various land owners. There is no scope for easementary passage right between R.S.No.218 and 219 upto 216 as there was never joint ownership of the three survey numbers in the past. Although

D.W.4 showed a tractor ‘T’ and stated existence of passage, he apparently acted beyond this scope of his warrant and did not take any photos of the passage itself instead of a tractor parked on grassy land. The land owners of

R.S.No.218, 219 were not examined. Therefore it can be said that the defendants failed to prove the existence of 6 yards passage between

R.S.No.218 and 219. Accordingly, issue No.8 is answered against the defendants and in the favour of the plaintiff.

16. Issue No.7:

As per the pleadings and Ex.A.1, A.2, A.19 to A.21, Ex.B.8 land in

R.S.No. 216 belonged to Vempati Satyanarayana ie. father of D.2 since 1942.

As per admissions of PW1, PW2, Pw4 land in R.S.No.218, 219 belonged to

Vempati Gopi and Rebba Pragada Durga Prasad respectively. However, for how long these lands in R.s.No.218, 219 stood in their names is not clear from the evidence on record. Accordinly Issue No.7 is answered.

17. Issue No.5 :

As per counter claim plan, ABEF is situated in R.S.No.216/5A in an extent of 7 cents and is spread partly on the west of the plaint schedule property and partly on the west of D.1’s land. The D.W.1 produced Ex.B.1, B.5 showing 7 cents land in R.S.No.216/5A or 216/5A3 as bata. The plaintiff produced Ex.A.19 to 21 showing that 7 cents out of the total extent in R.S.

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur11 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025

No.216/5A stood in the name of Vempati Satyanarayana even in the year 2008. The defendants heavily relied on Ex.B.1, B.5 to show that 7 cents set apart is meant for passage. According the defendants, the counter claim schedule property of 3 cents is part of 7 cents passage. The D.1 examined as

D.W.1 supported D.2 claim that ABEF passage is spread on west of his land and land of PW1. Admittedly, the western boundary of plaint schedule property or D.1’s land under Ex.A.1,A.2 and A.9 and A.10 do not show the western boundary of lands covered therein as passage. According to the defendants, said passage was created 60 years back when partition took place among V.Satyanarayana and his 1st wife’s sons. There is absolutely no documentary proof to show the existence of such passage. D.W3 who is party to Ex.A.9 deposed contrary to Ex.A.9 recitals but he is precluded under section 91, 92 of the Indian Evidence Act from leading any such evidence to disprove the content of Ex.A.9. The D.W.4 who inspected counter claim schedule property in Ex.C.8 showed vacant land in D.1 land on western side but no passage on the west of the plaint schedule property. As per Ex.C.1, there is a hut on extreme south west corner of plaint schedule property and old motor well on north east corner of the hut, drill bore on north of the hut, kattava on extreme west of the plaint schedule property. During cross, PW6 stated that he had not mentioned number of Palmray trees present in kattava.

18. According to the defendants, the said hut, bore well were laid after initiation of proceedings before Thasildhar only to show that their exists no passage ABEF. The plaintiff’s counsel in cross of D.W1 elicited that there are field bunds between D.W.1’s land and the land of PW1 and other lands. D.W.1 admitted that D.2 laid a small cement shed on north west corner of his land about 4 or 5 years back. D.W.1 admitted that there is a current pole on west of his land. D.W1 admitted existence of Tati kattava on west of P.W.1s land. D.W.1 admitted that there is service connection in the land of P.W1 since the date of

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur12 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025 purchase of land and he has been using same to operate bore well to cultivate his land.

19. Contrary to counter claim pleading that bore well and hut were raised in 2017 by the plaintiff on his western side, the admission of D.W1 proves that the bore well and motor were in operation with electricity connection from the date of purchase of the land in 1989. Further there is a cement shed on the north west of D.2’s land.

20. In the absence of any documentary evidence demarcating the exact location of 7 cents passage in R.S.No.216/5A, the court can only rely on the oral evidence and the evidence of advocate commissioners i.e., P.W.6 and

D.W.4. Both P.W.6 and D.W.4 did not report any passage on western side of the plaintiff land and D.1’s land. On the contrary, there is bore well, hut, electrical pole on the western side. The admission of D.W.1 with regard to the existence of bore well over a long period also proves that there is no positive evidence to indicate use of western portion as passage. Hence issue No.5 is answered against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.

21. Issue No.2:

The defendants counsel submitted that by virtue of Section 13(e) of

Indian Easements Act, even if he fails to prove apparent and continuous passage on ground, the D.2 is entitled for such right as there is necessity in the absence of alternative passage to D.2’s land.

22. The Ex.A.1, A.2 and A.9 and A.19 to A.21 prove that only Ac.1.40 cents in R.S.No.216/5A is in possession of P.W1. An extent of Ac.1.32 cents in

Rs.No.21/5A is in possession of D.W.1. The adangals indicate the total extent in RS No.216/5A as Ac.2.79 cents and out of it, 7 cents earlier stood in the name of V.Satyanarayana and at present same is shown as bata and is assigned separate R.S.No. i.e. 216/5A3 by the revenue authorities. As the defendants failed to prove that the 7 cents land falls in the plaint schedule property or on its western side, it can be said that the defendants failed to prove

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur13 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025 that the plaintiff is in possession of excess land. There is additional land of 7 cents in R.S.No.216/5A but as of now its exact location i.e. whether in D.1’s land are plaintiffs land was not proved by the defendants.

23. As per counter claim averments, the easementary right of passage arose about 60 years back by application of Sec.13(e) of Easements Act at the time of partition. It is not the case of the defendants that said right of necessity arose due to sudden change in circumstances just prior to filing of the suit. It is their case that the plaintiff caused obstruction to their existing passage right.

In such a case, the burden is on the defendants to prove the existence of such easementary right beginning from the time of partition of properties among

V.Satyanarayana and his 1st wife’s son. According to plaintiff, the D.2 and D.1 have been using the field bunds of lands situated on east from Kunkidikaya puntha for their ingress and egress. Although, the defendants denied using any such field bunds, the PW1 produced Ex.A.25. The Ex.A.25 discloses that during the pendency of this suit, the son of D.2 purchased 36 cents on east of

D.2’s land from Abbisetti people on 06.03.2023 under registered sale deed which specially provides passage right on its northern 10 cents to the son of

D.2 and the D.2’s brother. The eastern boundary of the 36 cents land is puntha. Although the said the 36 cents land is not purchased in D.2’s name, unless the D.2’s son does not permit the D.2 to use said land for ingress and egress into D.2’s land, it can be said that an alternative passage is created and as such the necessity to use the alleged ABCD passage extinguishes.

24. The evidence on record shows that the defendants failed to prove the existence of 6 yards width western side puntha as well as ABCD/ABEF passage connecting it with D.2’s land through R.S.No.216/5A. Hence issue

No.2 is answered against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue No.3 and 4:

25. As the defendants failed to prove the passage i.e. ABCD as well as its exact location and their easementary right over it, it can be said that the

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur14 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025 defendants are not entitled to seek mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. Hence issue no.3 is answered against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.

26. Issue No.6:

As issue No.2 is answered against the defendants and the defendants failed to prove their easementary right in the first place, there is no necessity to answer issue No.6.

27. Issue No.1:

The defendants did not dispute the boundaries on the extent of the plaint schedule property. The defendants although disputed the extent by stating that the plaintiff is in possession of excess 3 cents land were unable to prove that the excess land is located on the west of the plaint schedule property. The adangals produced by the plaintiff as well as the defendants with respect to

R.S.No.216/3D and R.S.No.216/5A prove that as on the date of filing of the suit the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

However, it appears that the R.S. Number of the plaint schedule property was reassigned as R.S.No.216/5A2. Except for the change in survey number, the boundaries and the extent as shown by the revenue records prove that the plaintiff is in possession. The defendant counsel at the stage of argument submitted that the plaintiff came to the court with unclean hands by suppressing the earlier proceedings before Tahsildar. The PW5 in his cross examination stated that the actual dispute between P.W.1 and D.1 is with respect to alleged proclamation made by D.1 that he would damage his black gram crop and not with respect to the passage. The PW5 also stated that subsequently disputes arose between then with respect to disputed passage. The C.W.2 filed Exs.C.3 which is notice issued by the Thasildar, Kovvur to the plaintiff with regard to passage dispute. The C.3 is dated 28.08.2017. It also bears the signature of the plaintiff. During cross examination, C.W2 stated that he cannot say whether the signature on Ex.C.3 documents belonged to the plaintiff as he was not the

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur15 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025

MRO at that time. In other words, although Ex.C.3 was marked for the defendants, the defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff was served notice in the proceedings before the Tahsildar and that he attended the Tahsildar office in connection with those proceedings. Further the Ex.C.3 also does not give details as to who served the notice on the plaintiff and when it was served.

Unless the person who served the notice and obtained alleged signature is examined, the evidence of C.W2 alone is not sufficient to prove the service of notice to the plaintiff. Therefore it cannot be said that the plaintiff suppressed material facts with regard to passage dispute and came to the court with unclean hands. The evidence of PW4 and proceedings of Tahsildar to prove that the defendants tried to interfere with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property in the form of passage dispute. Hence issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and agaisnt the defendants.

28. Issue No.9:

The plaintiff in his rejoinder at para 16 stated that the court fee paid on the counter claim is incorrect., as it has to be paid on the market value of the property in case of declaration of easementary right. The plaintiff stated that

Sec.30 of A.P. Court Fee and Suit valuation act is not applicable. The relief sought by the defendants is declaration of easementary right. Sec.30 of the

Court fee and Suit Valuation Act exclusively deals with suits for easementary rights. According to the said section, only notional value is applicable to such suits. When there is specific provision for easements, the general section for declaration under Section 24 of the Act is not applicable. Hence issue No.9 is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

29. Issue No.10:

1) In the result, the counter claim of the defendants is hereby dismissed.

2) In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed;

a) Restraining the defendants perpetually from causing any interference to the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur16 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025

b) The plaintiff shall be entitled for costs of the suit.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28 th day of March, 2025. SAI KRISHNADigitally signed by

SAI KRISHNA

GEDELA GEDELA Prl.Civil Judge(Junior Division) FAC/ I Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division) Kovvur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined For Plaintiff:

PW1: T.Aravala Raju PW2: P.Narayana PW3: Mekala Srinivas Rao PW4: Thota Sai Krishna PW5: G.Srinivasa Rao PW6: S.N.Muneendra For Defendants: D.W.1: Palla Satyanarayana D.W.2: Vempati Krishna Rao D.W.3: D.Someswara Rao D.W.4: V.Suresh Documents marked For plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of sale deed dated 09.01.1989 vide Doc.No.9/1989 executed by Vempati Srirama Krishna and Someswara Rao in favour of me. Ex.A.2: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 13.04.1989 vide doc.No.239 of 1989 executed by Vempati Sriram Krishna, Alapati Anasuya and Someswara Rao in favour of me. Ex.A.3: Original pattadar passbook issued by MRO Kovvur in respect of my lands at S.No.216-3D, 5A, 215-4B, 224-3. Ex.A.4: True copy of extract of title book in respect of R.S.No.224-3A, 216- 5A2, 216-3D, 215-4B1, dt.18.11.2017. Ex.A.5: True copy of Adangal, dt.19.11.2017 in respect of R.S.No. 216-5A2 for the Fasli 1427 (2017). Ex.A.6: Original certificate issued by Sr.Branch Manager, Bank of India

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur17 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025 dt.21.11.2017 with respect to deposit of title deeds in respect of R.S.No.216/3, 216/5. Ex.A.7: Bunch of two photographs (marked subject to objection). Ex.A.8: Certified copy of sale deed dt.23.06.1967 vide doc 552 of 1967 executed by Palla Pullaiah and others infavour of Vempati Venkata Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana. Ex.A.9: Certified copy of sale deed dt.20.06.1983 executed by Vempati Veerraju and other infavour of Palla Narasimha Murthy, S/o Pattabhiramanna. Ex.A.10: Certified copy of partition deed dated 24.07.2014 between 1st defendant and his family members. Ex.A.11: C.C. of F.M.B. of R.S.No.. 216 OF Dharmavaram Village. Ex.A.12: F.M.B. of R.S.NO. 218 Of Dharmavaram Village. Ex.A.13: C.C. of FMB of R.S.No. 219 of Dharmavaram village. Ex.A.14: True copy of order in I.A.No.1/2018 in W.P.No.782/2018 dt.04.01.2018. Ex.A.15: Bunch of 4 photographs with compact disc. Ex.A.16: True copy of Adangal in respect of RS216-5A3 pertaining to the Fasali 1424 (2014). Ex.A.17: The photographs with compact disc. Ex.A.18: 18 photographs with C.D. Ex.A.19: True copy of adangal in respect of R.S.No.215, 216 and its sub- divisions for the Fasil 1416 (year 2006) Ex.A.20: True copy of adangal in respect of R.S.No.215, 216 and its sub- divisions for the Fasil 1417 (year 2007) Ex.A.21: True copy of adangal in respect of R.S.No.215, 216 and its sub- divisions for the Fasil 1418 (year 2008) For Defendants:

Ex.B1: True copy of adangal dt 09.02.2015 for the Fasil 1424 (2014) regarding R.S.No.216-5A. Ex.B2: True copy of adangal dt 09.02.2015 for the Fasil 1426 (2016) regarding R.S.No.216-5B.

Ex.B3: True copy of Adangal dt 04.09.2017 regarding R.S.No.216-5A1 for the False 1427(2017). Ex.B4: True copy of adangal dt 04.09.2017 regarding R.S.No.216-5A2 for the False 1427(2017). Ex.B5: True copy of adangal dt 30.05.2017 regarding R.S.No.216-5A3 for the False 1426(2016). Ex.B6: Office copy of application to MRO, Kovvur dt. 20.03.2017.

Ex.B7: Electrnoic service receipt regarding field line application 11.07.2017.

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur18 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025

Ex.B8: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt. 04.04.1942. executed by Tadi

Venkata Reddy in favour of Vempati Satyanarayana

Ex.B9: RTI application filed by me before Tahsildar,Kovvur, Kovvur Mandal comprising three notices along with receipt dt 02.02.2018. Ex.B10: Another RTI application submitted by me to Tahsildar, Kovvur dt. 02.02.2018 and information submitted to its urgent notice. Ex.B11: Served copy of in M.C.No.65/2017 dt. 21.12.2017.

Ex.B12: Photographs with CD. Ex.C.W.1: (No such witness is examined) Ex.C.W.2: B.Naga Raju Nayak (M.R.O.) Ex.C.1: Commissioner Report Ex.C.2: Plan Ex.C.3: Compared copy of the notices served and received by the parties concerned and also the documents comprising the attendance of the parties. Ex.C.4: Compared copy of Faslies 1408,1411,1416,1417,1418,1419 of R.S.No.216 of Dharmavaram village. Ex.C.5:Compared copy of Adangal for the Faslies 1408,1411,1416,1417,1418,1419 of R.S.No. 218 and 219 of Dharmavaram village. Ex.C.6: (No such document is Marked). Ex.C.7: Commissioner Report Ex.C.8: Rough Sketch Ex.C.9: photos with C.D. Ex.C.10: Work memos given by both the parties. Ex.C.11: Bunch of photos taken during my first visit.

Digitally signed by SAI

SAI KRISHNA GEDELA

KRISHNA GEDELA

Prl.Civil Judge(Junior Division) FAC/ I Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Kovvur.

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur19 O.S.194 of 2017 Dt.28.03.2025

OS/52/2022

Yedala Lakshmanarao vs Mellimi Harihara Venkatesaralu

11 May 2026

APWG0C0002752022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

:: W.G. KOVVUR

Present : Sri. G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kovvur.

Monday, this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Original Suit No.52/2022

Between :

Yedala Lakshmanarao, S/o.Ramanna, Aged 65 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.1-171, Dommeru savaram village, Kovvur mandal, West Godavari district.

.... Plaintiff.

And

1. Mellimi Harihara Venkatesaralu, S/o.Sundara Rao, Aged 55 years, Rtd., Drill Master, R/o.Near Krishna threater, Sasank Enclave, Flat No.18, Nagaram village, Keesara mandal, Rangareddi district, State of Telangana.

2. Akkabathula Venkata Rao, S/o.late Paddayya, Aged 50 years, Vegetable business, Near Ambedkar statue, R/o.D.No.1-55, Dommeru village, Kovvur mandal, W.G.District.

3. Battu Dinakumari, W/o.Arjunudu, Aged 38 years, Housewife, near Ambedkar statue, R/o.D.No.1-17, Dommeru village, Kovvur mandal, W.G.District.

….. Defendants.

This suit is coming before me on 07.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.T.N.V.Ramana Murthy, Advocates for Plaintiff; and

Sri.A.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Defendants 1 and 2 and the D3 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

‘ 2

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against D1 to D3 seeking a direction to D1 and D2 to deliver the vacant possession of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property respectively to the plaintiff within time stipulated by the court and in case of failure to do so, to have the same done through process of court.

2.Summonses to D1 and D2 were personally served through registered post. Summons to the D3 was personally served through court. At the first hearing, on 28.03.2022, the counsel for D2 filed Vakalat. On the same date, the D3 was set exparte for non appearance. On the next hearing date, i.e., on 22.04.2022, the counsel for D1 filed Vakalat. On 28.07.2022, the counsel for D2 filed Vakalat for D1 with no objection from previous counsel.

The written statement of D1 was filed on the same date. Earlier, on 22.04.2022, the written statement of D2 was filed.

3.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows :

a)The plaint schedule property consists of Western portion of a tiled house and eastern side portion of old tiled house in an extent of 136 Sq.

yards. The total extent of the plaint schedule property is 168 Sq. yards and it is ancestral property of Yadla Nangayya. The plaintiff’s father Ramanna and

Yadla Nagaratnam are the children of Y.Nangayya and his wife Somamma.

Nangayya gave plaint schedule property to Smt.Somamma in lieu of her maintenance. The D1 is son of Y.Nagaratnam. She was given in marriage to

Guda Veerayya of Dommeru village. Y.Nangayya gave Ac.0.05 cents of site in

R.S.No.135 to her towards her share. She lived separately from her father and sold away her site. Later, she left her husband and lived with Mellimi

Sundararao. After the death of Y.Nangayya, his wife Y.Somamma was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and during her life time in a sound and disposing state of mind executed a Will on 18.08.1983. As 3 per the Will, she bequeathed the plaint schedule property to Ramanna.

Y.Somamma died testate on 12.02.1987.

b)The D1 moved to Nagaram village, Keesara mandal of

Telangana state about 40 years back. On 02.07.2019, the D1 obtained a registered settlement deed for 90 Sq. yards of the plaint schedule property from Y.Nagaratnam with wrong boundaries. The D1 has no right in the plaint schedule property. The D2 occupied 78 Sq. yards from the west of the old tiled house which is part of the plaint schedule property. The D1, D2 highhandedly trespassed into the plaint schedule property about 2 weeks prior to issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff in the month of June, 2021 and occupied the plaint schedule property house portion and site. The D1 had let out 90 sq. yards to

D3 without right. The D2 constructed a temporary shed in the plaint schedule site on the western side of the plaint schedule house. The plaintiff lodged police report against defendants in Kovvur town police station and the same is pending.

c) On 28.06.2021, the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendants demanding them to vacate the plaint schedule property. The D1 refused to receive the notice and D2 and D3 received notices. D2 gave reply notice dated.05.07.2021 with all false allegations.

4.The averments of the written statement of D1 in brief are as follows:

a)The D1 is the 5th son of Sundararao through his second wife viz., Nagaratnam. On 11.12.1986, Yadla Ramanna and Mellimi Nagaratnam divided 180 Sq. yards site with tiled house into 2 halves under a partition list.

In that, the western portion fell to the share of M.Nagaratnam and the eastern portion fell to the share of Y.Ramanna. Later Nagaratnam mutated her name in the panchayathi records. From 2019 – 2020, the D1 mutated his name in 4 the panchayathi records. The plaintiff resides in Eastern portion.

M.Nagaratnam executed Registered settlement deed on 02.07.2019 in favour of D1 with regard to western side house portion and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. After the death of Nagaratnam, the D1 permitted the D3 to stay in his portion of house. At present another lady is residing in the house portion.

b)The plaintiff filed this suit with false boundary recitals and extent with a view to grab the D1’s house portion. The Will dated.18.08.1983 was created for claiming the entire property. The D1 denied execution of Will by Somamma and the allegations of illegal encroachment of 90 Sq. yards of plaint schedule property.

c)To the west of D1’s house portion, there is house and site of D2. In the east of D1’s house portion, there is joint house portion of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had no right and title over items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property. The D1 sought dismissal of the suit.

5.The averments of the written statement of D2 in brief are as follows:

The D2’s house and site is bounded on the east by Y.Nagaratnam house portion. The Will dated.18.08.1983 is a created document. The plaintiff and D1’s house portions are joint houses in which eastern house portion belongs to the plaintiff and western house portion belongs to D1. The D1 got constructed a shed for living purpose along with first floor after dismissal of suit in OS.33/2012 on 06.05.2014 by this court. The D2 did not occupy the plaintiff’s site in June, 2021 as alleged by the plaintiff. The D2 sought dismissal of the suit.

6.Perusal of the pleadings discloses that, so far as item no.1, the D1 does not dispute the original title of Y.Nangayya. The D1 admits the 5 relationship between his mother Nagaratnam with the plaintiff’s father

Ramanna. The D1 disputed the title of the plaintiff over item 1, as well as the execution of Will by Y.Somamma. The D1 denied illegal occupation of item no.1 by him in June, 2021. So far as item no.2 is concerned, the D1 and D2 dispute the title of the plaintiff over same based on Will dated.18.08.1983. Both the defendants disputed the correctness of boundaries of items 1 and 2 and denied illegal occupation of item no.2 by D2.

7.The case of the plaintiff rests on assertion of facts to the effect that, both items 1 and 2 exclusively belong to him and in June, 2021, the item nos.1 and 2 were illegally occupied by the D1 and D2 respectively and prior to said dispossession, he was in possession and enjoyment of both the items.

8.The case of the D1 rests on assertion of facts to the effect that, item no.1 exclusively belongs to him and he has been in its possession and enjoyment since the date of execution of registered settlement deed dated.02.07.2019.

9.The case of the D2 rests on assertion of facts to the effect that, item no.2 is part of his house and site and he has been in its possession and enjoyment from even before June, 2021.

10.Heard counsels for both sides. Perused case law filed by the plaintiff counsel. On perusal of pleadings and documents, the learned predecessor-in-office framed the following issues:

1. Whether 1 st defendant occupied item no.1 of plaint schedule property and 2 nd defendant occupied item no.2 of plaint schedule property?

2. Whether the boundaries mentioned in plaint schedule are correct?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek possession of the plaint schedule property from defendants?

4. To what relief?

11.On behalf of the plaintiff, himself, a boundary owner by name

Yadla Ravi, a resident of D.Muppavaram by name Polumati Papa, a resident of Chagallu by name Mandru Prabhavathi were examined as Pws.1 to 4 and their respective chief affidavits were affirmed on oath and treated as their examinations in chief in lieu. Exs.A1 to A11 were marked through PW.1.

Ex.A12 was marked through DW.4 (confronted in cross-examination) but mistakenly it was marked as Ex.A7 instead of Ex.A12. Ex.A1 is the Will dated.18.08.1983 executed by Yadla Somamma, W/o.Nangayya. Ex.A2 is the

Registered sale deed dated.05.01.1987, vide document No.13/1987 of Kovvur

SRO in favour of Guda Nagabhushanam paternal uncle of plaintiff. Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice, dated.28.06.2021.Ex.A4is the acknowledgment cards, dated.03.07.2021 and 09.07.2021 from 2nd and 3rd defendants. Ex.A5 is the return cover of legal notice dated.28.06.2021 from 1st defendant. Ex.A6 is the office copy of complaint to the Kovvur town P.S., dated.15.06.2021 by the plaintiff. Ex.A7 is the ownership particulars for the plaint schedule property in the name of Yadla Somamma issued by village,

E.O., Dommeru panchayathi through RDO, Kovvur to the plaintiff's father

Ramanna, dated.20.12.1982. Ex.A8 is the house tax particulars for the schedule property issued by Dommeru Gram Panchayat, dated.19.04.1990.

Ex.A9 is the original death certificate of Yadla Somamma, dated.21.03.2022.

Ex.A10 is the original death certificate of Guda Nagabhushanam, dated.26.10.2022. Ex.A11 is the death certificate of Akkabathula China

Ramayya, dated.31.08.1985. Ex.A12 is two photographs with CD.

12.On behalf of defendants, D1, daughter of Nagaratnam and attestor to the registered settlement deed dated.02.07.2019 by name Maddila

Sharon Kumari Arora, a resident of Dommeru by name Akkabathula George paul and D2 were examined as Dws.1 to 4 and their respective chief examination affidavits were affirmed on oath and treated as their examinations in chief-in-lieu. Ex.B1, Ex.B2 through PW.1 (confronted in cross-examination), 7

Ex.B3 to Ex.B7 through DW.1, Ex.B8, Ex.9 through DW.4 were marked. Ex.B1 is the photo dated.14.06.2016. Ex.B2 is the photos 3 in number along with CD.

Ex.B3 is the original registered settlement deed, dated.02.07.2019 executed by my mother in my favour. Ex.B4 is the certified copy of house tax demand register, dated.11.05.2022 issued by Secretary, Grampanchayat, Dommeru.

Ex.B5 is the bunch of electricity bills. Ex.B6 is the bunch of house tax receipts.

Ex.B7 is the original partition list dated.11.12.1986 executed between Yedla

Ramanna and the mother of 1st defendant (marked as subject to objection of plaintiff counsel). Ex.B8 is the served copy of plaint in O.S.33 of 2012, dated.29.03.2012 on the file of this court. Ex.B9 is the certified copy of decree in OS.33 of 2012, dated.06.05.2014 on the file of this court.

Issue No. 2 :

13.As per the plaint schedule, item no.1 is a house portion situated in 90 sq. yards bounded on east by plaintiff’s house portion, south by wall of

Mellimi Subbarao and presently Mellimi Papa and on the West by item no.2 and north by site of Yadla Apparao and presently by his son. Further, item no.2 is a site of in an extent of 78 Sq. yards bounded on the east by item no.1, south by wall of Mellimi Subbarao and presently Papa, on the West by D2, on the North by the site of Y.Apparao and presently by his son.

14.As per the written statement pleading of D1, D2, item no.1 belongs to D1, item no.2 belongs to D2 and the house of D2 is bounded on the east by Y.Nagaratnam’s house portion (presently D1), on the south by joint lane and house of M.Chandraiah, on the west by site of M.Kistaiah and north by RCC house of Akkabathula Rayudu.

15.As per written statement plan, item no.2 does not exists separately on ground and it is part of D2’s house and site and its western and southern boundaries are incorrect. Both parties do not dispute the eastern boundary of item no.2 as the house portion (western part of total house).

However, they disputes its ownership i.e., whether it is the plaintiff’s or D1’s property.

16.In otherwords, there is no dispute with regard to boundaries of item no.1, except for its western boundary which according to D2 is his vacant site and according to plaintiff is his own site. In order to prove the boundaries of items 1 and 2, the PW.1 got marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the original Will dated.18.08.1983. Assuming that Ex.A1 is proved, the property covered therein is 168 Sq. yards site and tiled house. It describes the property as

Western side 168 Sq. yards site. There are no separate 90 Sq. yards and 78

Sq. yards with demarcated boundaries shown in Ex.A1. The eastern boundary of 168 Sq. yards site and house is Guda Nagabushanam site as per Ex.A1.

Further, the western boundary is Akkabathula Pedaiah and Mandali

Nangayya’s wall. However, as per the plaint schedule, the Eastern boundary of item no.1 which is eastern side of said 168 sq. yards is plaintiff’s house portion of tiled house and western boundary of item no.2, which represents the western portion of 168 sq. yards site is Akkabathula Venkatarao and D2. The north and south boundaries of items 1 and 2 correspond with respective boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1. As per plaint pleadings and description of items 1 and 2 in the plaint schedule, item no.2 is adjacent to item no.1. Based on the description, the total extent of 168 Sq. yards consists of 90 sq. yards (item no.1) and 78 sq. yards (item no.2) on eastern and western sides.

Therefore, the north and south boundaries are common to both of them. They match with overall north and south boundaries of total extent of 168 sq. yards mentioned in Ex.A1. Based on description, it can be said that the eastern boundary of item no.1 and western boundary of item no.2 which represents the eastern and western boundary of 168 sq. yards should also correspond with eastern and western boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1. Although, the western boundary matches, the eastern boundary does not match.

17.In para 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff mentioned that the eastern boundary of item 1 is property was originally sold by him and his father to

Guda Nagabushanam under registered sale deed dated.05.01.1987.

Admittedly, the western boundary in the said document, which is marked as

EX.A2 is not item no.1 but the site and house of Akkabathula Venkatarao.

According to plaint averments, the western boundary of Ex.A2 was wrongly mentioned by mistake. Subsequent to execution of Ex.A1, in the year 1987,

Ex.A2 was executed and Guda Nagabhushanam who executed Ex.A2 died on 19.05.2019. Nagabhushanam who is the maternal uncle of the plaintiff executed the Will bequeathing the said item covered under Ex.A2 to the plaintiff. Therefore, it can be said that, the plaintiff’s own documents i.e., Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 do not corroborate with the plaint schedule property especially, the eastern boundary of item no.1.

18.The DW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that the boundaries of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property are correct. The DW.3 in his cross admitted that, on the West of the item no.2, there is house of

Akkabathula Venkatarao. DW.4 (D2) stated that, the boundaries of item no.2 are correct.

19.The plaintiff counsel heavily relied on the aforesaid admissions of

DW.1 and DW.4 with regard to the correctness of the boundaries of items 1 and 2. He submitted that, admitted facts need not be proved. However, this court is of the opinion that, other circumstances and evidence on record also has to be considered for deciding the correctness of the boundaries.

20.Although, Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 do not corroborate with each other with respect to the eastern boundary of item 1, the D1 and D2 in their respective written statements rough plans and cross admitted that, the eastern boundary is plaintiff’s house portion. Although, D2 in his written statement and the rough plan filed with the written statement showed his eastern boundary as 10

Nagaratnam’s house portion, during cross, DW.4 acknowledged the existence of his house in blue colour, a shed and another house on the east of the shed and a passage in Ex.A12. Ex.A12 discloses a passage between two houses leading to a blue coloured shed adjacent to a tiled house on one side and blue coloured building on the otherside. Although, D2 did not refer to the existence of the shed between his house and tiled house and did not show it in written statement plan, he stated in written statement that he got constructed the shed in the year 2014 after dismissal of the suit. In fact, the written statement rough plan does not show the building or shed in the D2’s house. The admission of

Ex.A12 by DW.4 only proves that there is a shed in between D2’s house and item no.1 of the plaint schedule property.

21.According to D2’s pleadings, there exists no item no.2 on the west of item no.1 and the area covered under item no.2 is part of his own site.

There is no dispute about the extent of the item no.2 i.e., 78 Sq. yards. Ex.A12 shows a lane/passage on one side of shed. Para 4 of written statement of D2 shows joint lane as one of southern boundaries of D2’s house besides the house of M.Chandraiah. However, the southern boundary of item no.2 of the plaint schedule property is that of Mellimi Subbarao and presently Mellimi

Paparao. Item 2 which according to plaintiff is on the west of item no.1 consists of shed raised by D2 illegally in June, 2021 and it was originally a vacant site. Ex.A12 shows that although the western and eastern and northern boundaries of item no.2 in the plaint schedule are correct, the southern boundary is a lane or passage which as suggested by the plaintiff counsel to

DW.4 is also passage to plaintiff is not reflected in the plaint schedule of the item no.2. Therefore, the southern boundary of item no.2 of the plaint schedule and Ex.A1 do not correspond with southern boundary as disclosed in Ex.A12.

In view of the above, discussion it can be said that the plaintiff proved by preponderance of probabilities that the boundaries of item no.1 are true and correct. However, he failed to prove that the boundaries of item no.2 are true 11 and correct. The aforesaid finding does not automatically imply that the D1 and

D2 admit the alleged title of the plaintiff over item 1 of the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, issue no.2 is partly answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

Issue No.1:

22.The D1 claimed possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since the date of execution of Ex.B3. Similarly, the D2 claimed construction of shed by him in item no.2 after dismissal of the suit in

OS.33/2012 on the file of this court. On the otherhand, the plaintiff claimed that

after the death of Yadla Somamma testate on 12.02.1987, his father Ramanna came into possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and after his death, the plaintiff came into possession and enjoyment and continued in possession until June, 2021 when the D1 and D2 dispossessed him.

23.The PW.1 reiterated the contents of plaint in his chief affidavit. In his cross he deposed that, Nagaratnam is sister of his father Ramanna and she used to reside in the western portion. He stated that, the property tax is being paid separately for each portions of the tiled house. PW.1 stated that, the property tax was issued in the name of Nagaratnam for the year 2020 – 2021. PW.1 stated that, he does not remember when his father died.

24.PW.2 who is the northern boundary owner of item no.1, deposed in his chief affidavit supporting the PW.1 about his continued possession over the plaint schedule property and his father for more than 50 to 60 years and the dispossession at the hands of D1 and D2. During cross-examination PW.2 stated that, when Nagaratnam was alive, she used to reside in her house portion. Upon confrontation of Ex.B1, the PW.2 admitted that the eastern side portion in the house visible in Ex.B1 belongs to the plaintiff and western side belongs to Nagaratnam. He also admitted that, on the western side of house 12 portion of Nagaratnam, there is house of D2. PW.2 admitted that the rough plan of the written statement, which reflects the plaintiff’s house portion on the east and the western side portion on the west as D1’s portion is true. The

PW.2, who is aged 45 years admitted that, from the age of his discretion,

Nagaratnam used to reside in her house portion.

25.PW.3 corroborated the PW.1 and PW.2 in his chief examination.

During cross-examination, she stated that, when she was 13 years old, she left her village. She admitted that Nagaratnam’s house is situated adjacent to D2’s house. She also stated that, she does not know the contents of her chief affidavit.

26.PW.4 corroborated the Pws.1 to 3 with regard to the possession of the plaintiff in his chief affidavit. PW.4 in his cross stated that, Nagaratnam used to reside in the house portion on the west of the plaintiff’s house portion.

He admitted that, Nagaratnam used to reside in the house situated between the plaintiff’s house portion and D2’s house. PW.4 stated that, she di dnot got mentioned about the plaint schedule property in her chief affidavit.

27.In order to prove prior possession by the plaintiff, Ex.A7, A8 were filed. Ex.A7 is a letter addressed by Revenue Information Officer to Panchayat secretary on 20.12.1982 informing that as per Adangal and land survey record, the name of Y.Somamma was updated as the owner of land/site in an extent of 168 Sq. yards in R.S.No.1351B1 in 1965. Ex.A8 is a certificate issued by the Executive Officer, Gram-Panchayathi, Dommeru dated.21.04.1990, showing Y.Somamma against D.No.1-16/1 with assessment No.102 from 1959 until 1987 – 1988. However, from 1984 – 1985, the door number was changed to 2-27 from 1-16/1. As per Ex.A10, Somamma died on 12.02.1987. As per plaint schedule, the door number of item no.1 is 1-71 and not 1-16/1 or 2-27.

Therefore, it cannot be said that Ex.A8 pertains to item no.1. Ex.A7 is merely a letter and it does not state anything about the boundaries of 168 Sq. yards 13 site. No document was filed to show that, the plaintiff or his father enjoyed possession of the plaint schedule properties until 2021.

28.The DW.1 reiterated the contents of written statement in his chief affidavit. Ex.B4 to B6 were filed in proof of possession. Further, the photographs/Ex.B1 was marked through PW.1. PW.1 identified the presence of D1, Mellimi Nagaratnam and brother of D1 in Ex.B1. Ex.B4 shows that, in the property tax records of Dommeru Gram-panchayathi, D.No.1-171 was assessed in the name of M.Nagaratnam until 2017 – 2018 and subsequently in the name of D1. Ex.B4 also shows that, property tax for D.No.1-171 was being paid in the name of D1 since 2019 – 2020. The door number as per Ex.B3 is 1-171 and not 1-71 as described in item no.1 of the plaint schedule. However, as both D1 and plaintiff admitted that, item no.1 is the property under possession of D1 at present and the property document of item 1 i.e., Ex.B3 also shows the door number as 1-171, it can be said that, the correct door number of item no.1 is 1-171 and since 2019 – 2020, the D1’s name was mutated in the revenue records with respect to item no.1.

29.The Ex.B1, Ex.B4, Ex.B6 and the admissions of PWs.2, 3 and 4 prove that, Nagaratnam not only resided in the item no.1 of the plaint schedule property for a long period of time but also enjoyed it in a manner adverse to the claim of the title of the plaintiff by mutating her name in the revenue records. The evidence also proves that the D1 was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since 2019 even though, he is admittedly residing in Telangana state. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove his prior possession of item no.1.

30.The item no.2 admittedly is not vacant site and has a shed as shown in Ex.A12. The plaintiff failed to elicit anything from DW.4 and also failed to file any document to show that, the shed was raised in June, 2021.

Further, as answered in issue no.2, the southern boundary was not proved.

Other than Ex.A1, which does not show separate boundaries for item no.2, there is absolutely no other evidence on record to prove the possession of the plaintiff. Although, DW.4 admittedly did not file any document to show that the shed exists in his vacant site, the initial burden to prove the possession of item no.2 until June, 2021 is on the plaintiff.

31.The question of dispossession arises only when the plaintiff proves his possession of item nos.1 and 2 prior to June, 2021. In view of the above discussion, issue no.1 is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.

Issue No.3:

32.The relief of possession simpliciter in the present suit is based on alleged illegal occupation of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property by

D1 and D2 respectively in June, 2021. The defendants counsel submitted that as D1 and D2 disputed the title of the plaintiff over items 1 and 2 and claimed title to themselves, the plaintiff ought to have taken steps to amend his plaint to seek relief of declaration of title. As the plaintiff failed to do so, this suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. On the other hand, it is the plaintiff’s case that, as defendants did not deny specifically the assertion of claim that the plaint schedule property was given to Y.Somamma by her husband Nangayya in lieu of maintenance, the defendants admits the title of

Y.Somamma and as such her right to execute Ex.A1 in favour of Y.Ramanna.

According to him, Ex.B3 is a void document and therefore, it is not binding on him and consequently, he can seek possession without seeking declaration of title in the first instance. The plaintiff counsel relief on the judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Jagan Santhi Devi (since deceased) through… Vs.

Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC 1105. As per the case law while discussing the applicability of Article 65 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, the Supreme 15

Court held that a suit for possession simpliciter could be filed if possession is taken pursuant to void documents.

33.Although, the argument of plaintiff counsel that in the absence of specific denial by D1 and D2 to specific plaint assertion and failure to prove oral partition between the plaintiff’s father and D1’s mother, simple suit for possession is sufficient is true, the defendants also disputed the execution of

Ex.A1. The D1 and D2 disputed the execution of Ex.A1, on which the plaintiff claims his title over the plaint schedule property. In such a case, the plaintiff is bound to seek declaration of title. In the landmark judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead)

by Lrs & Ors, AIR 2008 SC 2033,it was held at para 17 as follows; “to summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under : (a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter”.

34.The plaintiff counsel argued that absence of specific denial in the written statements with regard to the claim of the plaintiff that the property was given by Yadla Nangayya to his wife Yadla Somamma in lieu of her maintenance shows that, there is no dispute as to title as the defendants are deemed to have admitted the aforesaid fact. The said fact is questioned by the defendants counsel by stating that by filing a memo to the effect that, the specific paragraph i.e., para 3 (A) was subsequently inserted at the stage of numbering by way of neat copy of the plaint but in the copy of the plaint supplied to the defendants through court, the plaintiff kept the original plaint without such paragraph. Perusal of the original plaint discloses that, initially, 16 the plaint was returned on 23.09.2021, questioning the claim of the plaintiff that, Somamma alone got right and title over the plaint schedule property without any legal basis. Subsequently, the plaintiff counsel inserted para 3 (A), adding a sentence with regard to Yadla Nangayya giving the property to Yadla

Somamma in lieu of her maintenance and represented the original plaint along with the neat copy of plaint on 06.12.2021. According to the defendants counsel, he realized that the copy of the plaint supplied to the defendants is the version of the original plaint but not the plaint containing para 3 (A) and therefore, he could not get opportunity to make the denial of para 3(A) specifically.

35.Even assuming that the above claim of the defendants is not true, it can be seen that, the present suit is not a simple suit for possession as the defendants claimed title and possession. On one hand, the plaintiff claimed title based on the Will executed by late Yadla Somamma under Ex.A1 and on the other hand, the D1 claimed title on the same property under Ex.B3 executed by his mother Mellimi Nagaratnam. Further, the execution of Ex.A1 is also in dispute.

36.It is well settled principle of law that, Section.14(1) has to be given liberal interpretation and any property conveyed by a husband to Hindu wife with limited interest gets enlarged into absolute interest even if there is nothing in the recitals of the Gift, Will or other instrument indicating expressly that the interest was created in recognition of the Sastric right of a Hindu Widow or wife to be maintained by her husband. Even in the absence of express words in the instrument stating that, the transfer of limited interest was created in favour of the wife in-lieu of maintenance or in recognition of the right of maintenance, the court can still infer such recognition of preexisting right of maintenance.

37.The claim of enlargement of the property in the hands of Yadla

Somamma under Section.14 of Hindu Succession Act, cannot be determined 17 without going into the particulars and details. The said point cannot be decided merely relying on non denial of the fact by the defendants based on rule of pleadings. It requires thorough enquiry into various circumstances surrounding the giving of such property.

38.As submitted by the plaintiff counsel, the defendants did not examine any of the attestors of Ex.A7, which is a partition list. However, as submitted by the defendants counsel, the PW.1 admitted that, there is separate electricity connection for the plaintiff’s portion and item no.1, which are under the same roof for a very long period of time. The Pws.2 to 4 also admitted that, Nagaratnam used to reside in the item no.1. The judgment cited by the plaintiff counsel in Santhi Devi does not apply to the facts of the present case simply because, the defendants dispute the execution of Ex.A1 and claim that the item no.1 was joint property of the plaintiff’s father and D1’s mother until 1986 and it was subsequently divided orally and recorded in a partition list/Ex.A7. The scope of the present suit does not allow it to go into the issue of title as both items 1 and 2 are not vacant sites but have a tiled house and a shed standing in it. This is a suit where there is substantial question of title, which can be adjudicated only in a suit for declaration and a simple suit for possession is not maintainable for the above reason.

39.The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of possession asserting that he was illegally dispossessed by the D1 and D2 in June, 2021. However, the defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statements claiming possession and filed documents to substantiate their claim. Therefore, after full trial, it can be said that the present suit cannot be decided based on mere wrongful dispossession but only by deciding the title. This is because at issue no.1, the court gave a finding that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the plaint schedule property prior to June, 2021. In view of findings of this court on issues 1 and 2, it can be said that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek possession of the plaint 18 schedule property from defendants. Hence, point no.3 is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.

Issue No.4:

40.In the result, this suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed my dictation by the Stenographer on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Division),

Kovvur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Pw1:Yedla Lakshamanarao.

Pw2:Yadla Ravi.

Pw3:Polumati Papa.

Pw4:Mandru Prabhavathi.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Dw1: M.Harihara Venkateswara Rao.

Dw2: Maddila Sharon Kumari Arora.

Dw3: Akkabathula George Paul.

Dw4: Akkabathula Venkata Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1 :Will dated.18.08.1983 executed by Yadla Somamma, W/o.Nangayya.

Ex.A2:Registered sale deed dated.05.01.1987, vide document No.13/1987 of Kovvur SRO in favour of Guda Nagabhushanam paternal uncle of plaintiff.

Ex.A3:Office copy of legal notice, dated.28.06.2021.

Ex.A4:Acknowledgment cards, dated.03.07.2021 and 09.07.2021 from 2nd and 3rd defendants.

Ex.A5:Return cover of legal notice dated.28.06.2021 from 1st defendant.

Ex.A6:Office copy of complaint to the Kovvur town P.S., dated.15.06.2021 by the plaintiff.

Ex.A7:Ownership particulars for the plaint schedule property in the name of Yadla Somamma issued by village, E.O., Dommeru panchayathi through RDO, Kovvur to the plaintiff's father Ramanna, dated.20.12.1982.

Ex.A8:House tax particulars for the schedule property issued by Dommeru Gram Panchayat, dated.19.04.1990.

Ex.A9:Original death certificate of Yadla Somamma, dated.21.03.2022.

Ex.A10: Original death certificate of Guda Nagabhushanam, dated.26.10.2022.

Ex.A11: Death certificate of Akkabathula China Ramayya, dated.31.08.1985.

Ex.A12: Two photographs with CD.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1 :Photo dated.14.06.2016.

Ex.B2:Photos 3 in number along with CD.

Ex.B3:Original registered settlement deed, dated.02.07.2019 executed by 20 my mother in my favour.

Ex.B4:Certified copy of house tax demand register, dated.11.05.2022 issued by Secretary, Grampanchayat, Dommeru.

Ex.B5:Bunch of electricity bills.

Ex.B6:Bunch of house tax receipts.

Ex.B7:Original partition list dated.11.12.1986 executed between Yedla Ramanna and the mother of 1st defendant (marked as subject to objection of plaintiff counsel).

Ex.B8:Served copy of plaint in O.S.33 of 2012, dated.29.03.2012 on the file of this court.

Ex.B9:Certified copy of decree in OS.33 of 2012, dated.06.05.2014 on the file of this court.

Sd/-G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Division),

Kovvur.

OS/100080/2016

Munisetti Lakshmi vs Aalla Ramakrishna

12 Sep 2024

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.1 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

W.G. KOVVUR

Present : Sri. G.Sai Krishna,

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), FAC/I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvur.

Thursday, the 12th day of September, 2024

O.S.No.80/2016

Between:

Munisetti Lakshmi, W/o.Tirupathi Rao, Aged 36 years, Cultivation, Door. No.2- 17, near Maszid, R/o.Hukkumpeta, Gopalapuram mandal, W.G.District.

….. Plaintiff.

And

1.Aalla Rama Krishna, S/o.Venkata Swamy, Aged 50 years, Cultivation, Dr.No.7- 95, R/o.Rampalem village, Gangolu sivaru, Gopalapuram mandal, W.G.District.

2.Puttepu Gandhi, S/o.Bapanaiah, Aged 60 years, Cultivation, Dr.No.7-31, R/o. Rampalem village, Gangolu sivaru, Gopalapuram mandal, W.G.District.

3.Puttepu Gopalam (Died).

4.Bachala Veerraju, S/o.Jagga Rao, Aged 40 years, Cultivation, Dr.No.7-77, R/o. Rampalem village, Gangolu sivaru, Gopalapuram mandal, W.G.District.

5.Puttepu Soma Raju, W/o.late Gopalam, Aged 50 years, Housewife, Dr.No.7- 31/6, Rampalem village, Gangolu, Gopalapuram mandal, W.G.District.

6.Puttepu Naga Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o.late Gopalam, Aged 39 years, Dr.No.7-31/6, Rampalem village, Gangolu, Gopalapuram mandal, W.G.District.

7.Puttepu Radha Krishna, S/o.late Gopalam, Aged 35 years, Dr.No.7-31/6, Rampalem village, Gangolu, Gopalapuram mandal, W.G.District.

8.Karri Padmavathi, D/o.late Gopalam, Aged 37 years, Dr.No.7-31/6, Rampalem village, Gangolu, Gopalapuram mandal, W.G.District.

(Defendants 5 to 8 are added as Legal heirs of the deceased i.e., 3rd Defendant as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in I.A.No.513/2022, dt.10.11.2022).

….. Defendants.

This suit is coming before me on 28.08.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.N.V.Subba Rao,Advocate for plaintiff, Sri. V.V.Subba Rao,

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.2 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

Advocate for Defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 8 and 3rd Defendant who died and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendants, seeking

(a) grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner and (aa) for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the shed erected in the plaint schedule property within the time stipulated by the Court or else giving liberty to the plaintiff to get it done through process of Court (b) and for costs of the suit.

2.Summons to the original defendants 1 to 4 were ordered and the matter was posted for first hearing on 13.06.2016. Further, on the date of numbering of the suit i.e., on 06.05.2016, the counsel for defendants 1 to 4 filed Vakalat in I.A.No.156/2016 even before receipt of any notice in the I.A. or summons in the suit. On 08.08.2016, the written statement of the 2nd defendant and adoption memo of 1st defendant, 3rd defendant and 4th defendant were filed. The plaint was amended as per orders in I.A.No.58/2017 dated.18.08.2017 adding additional prayer. On 21.11.2022, the plaintiff filed neat copy of plaint with necessary amendments as per orders of the Hon’ble

High Court in I.A.No.513/2022, dated 10.11.2022. On 12.12.2017, the

additional written statement of the 2nd defendant and adoption memos of 1st, 3rd

4th, 5th and 6th defendants were filed. On 21.12.2022, the adoption memos of 5th defendant to 8th defendant were filed adopting the written statement of the 2nd defendant.

3.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows :

a)During the years 1966 and 1972, the plaintiff’s mother

Sankarapu Sattemma purchased the plaint schedule property under four

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.3 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

registered sale deeds and enjoyed its possession peacefully until she executed a registered gift deed in favour of her daughter/ plaintiff on 13.08.2008. Ever since, the plaintiff has been in possession of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

b)The defendants, who are all residents of Rampalem village and also the neighbouring ryots and started acting highhandedly for the past two months and proclaimed to occupy the plaint schedule property by force.

4.The averments of the written statement of the 2 nd defendant in brief are as follows :

The 2nd defendant admitted that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to the mother of the plaintiff. According to the defendant,

Sri Seetharamula vari temple, Rampalem became the owner of the Ac.0.49 cents of plaint schedule property by virtue of agreement of sale dated 21.06.1998 executed by the mother of the plaintiff in favour of the trustees of the above temple i.e., 2nd defendant, 1st defendant and Akula Venkata Rao,

Bachala Jaggarao, Bachala Ramarao, Yesilanka Krishnarao, Puttepu

Venkatarao, Mandapati Krishnarao for total sale consideration of Rs.37,000/-.

The defendant submitted that the vendor/ mother of the plaintiff also gave the remaining property in an extent of Ac.0.49 cents as security for society debt contracted by her in place of the plaint schedule property. The defendants stated that in 1998 itself, the said Ac.0.49 cents was mutated in the name of the 2nd defendant in revenue records with full consent of their vendor. Ever since, the plaint schedule property is under possession and enjoyment of the defendants and other villagers on behalf of Sree Seetha Ramula vari temple continuously. The defendants also stated that the Shiridi Saibaba temple was constructed on the Northern side of the plaint schedule property by the villagers. That the vendor leased out the remaining land to the trustees for cultivation on Maktha basis. The defendant took the defence of fabrication of

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.4 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

registered settlement deed of the plaintiff in collusion with her mother. Further, the defendants submitted that the revenue officials were influenced to mutate the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records. The defendants sought dismissal of the suit.

5.The averments of the additional written statement in brief are as follows :

The defendants denied the contents of para 6 (a) of the amended plaint. The defendants submitted that when the defendants and others on behalf of Sree Seetha Ramula Vari temple are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since long time, the question of them erecting a shed highhandedly does not arise. The defendants and other villagers have perfected their rights and title to the written statement schedule property by way of adverse possession on behalf of the temple to the knowledge of all the villagers and the plaintiff.

6. Heard counsels for both sides, perused pleadings and documents. Perused the case law filed by counsels for both sides.

7.Learned predecessor in office framed the following issues and

additional issues:

1) Whether the suit is bad for Non-joinder of necessary parties?

2) Whether the plaintiff has been in possession over the plaint schedule property?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

8.The following additional issue was framed.

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Mandatory

Injunction?

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.5 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

9.Perusal of the pleadings discloses, that the title and possession of the plaintiff’s mother over the entire plaint schedule property until 1998 was not disputed. The defendants disputed not only the possession but also the title of the plaintiff’s mother from 1998 to 2008 and that of the plaintiff from 2008 over

Ac.0.49 cents of the plaint schedule property. The defendants claimed that they were in possession of the Ac.0.49 cents of the plaint schedule property since the date of execution of sale deed dated 21.06.1998 by the plaintiff’s mother. The defendants claimed incidentally title to the Ac.0.49 cents on behalf of Sree Seetha Ramula vari temple. The defendants claimed that the shed with Shiridi Saibaba temple was in existence in the Northern portion of the Ac.0.49 cents even before filing of the present suit.

10.The case of the plaintiff rests on assertion of facts to the effect that she is in exclusive possession of the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit and that defendants are trying to interfere with her possession. The case of the plaintiff also rests on assertion of fact to the effect that subsequent to the date of filing of the suit, the defendants erected shed with Shiridi Saibaba temple in part of the plaint schedule property.

11.The case of the defendants rests on assertion of facts to the effect that the plaintiff is not in possession of Ac.0.49 cents of the plaint schedule property as on date of filing of the suit. That the registered settlement deed

dated 13.08.2008 is collusive and nominal document. That the shed with

Shiridi Saibaba temple existed in the plaint schedule property even on the date of the filing of the suit. The defendants claimed possession of Ac.0.49 cents of plaint schedule property since the date of the un-registered agreement of sale

dated 21.06.1998 and also possession of the remaining extent as cultivating

tenants. The defendants have also setup inconsistent plea by stating that they perfected the title to part of the property by adverse possession to the knowledge of the plaintiff and other villagers.

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.6 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

12.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and her chief examination affidavit was affirmed on oath and treated as her examination in chief in lieu. Ex.A1 to A11 were marked through PW.1. Ex.A1 is the original sale deed dated.16.04.1966 executed by nagilli pydanna in favour of Sankarapu Sattemma. Ex.A2 is the original sale deed dated dt.19.05.1972 executed by Mallipudi Satyam in favour of Sankarapu

Sattemma. Ex.A3 is the Original sale deed dt. 19.05.1972 executed by

Chadalavada Subba Rao in favour of Sankarapu Sattemma. Ex.A4 is the original sale deed dated 19.05.1972 executed by Chadalavada China

Venkanna in favour of Sankarapu Sattemma. Ex.A5 is the Certified copy of settlement deed on 13.08.2008 executed by Sankarapu Sattemma in favour of me. Ex.A6 is the Adangals 6 in number from paslies of 1420 to 1425 in respect of S.Nos.323/2. Ex.A7 is the C.C of village 1B register in respect of S.No.323-

2. Ex.A8 is the Title deed in favour of me issued by RDO, Jangareddigudem.

Ex.A9 is the C.C. of Encumbrance certificate in respect of S.No.323/2 obtained for 16 years from 01.01.2002 to 08.01.2016. Ex.A10 is the True copy of

Adangals for the faslies 141, 1414, 1417, 1420, 1421, 1422 and 1423, obtained from Public Information Officer of Gopalapuram Mandal in respect of

R.S.No.323/2, 323/2B. Ex.A11 is the Certified copy of Adangal for the Fasalis 1425, 1426, 1427 and 1427 (2015, 16, 17 and 2018) inrepect of R.S.No.323-2 dt.12.11.2018.

13.On behalf of the defendants, the 2nd and 3rd and 1st defendants were examined as Dw.1, Dw.2 and Dw.5 and their respective examinations in chief were affirmed on oath and treated as their examinations in chief in lieu.

Further, Ex.B1 was marked through DW.5. Ex.B1 is the Agreement of sale dt.21.06.1998 executed by Sankarapu Sattemma in favour of Puttepu Gandhi and others. Two third parties by name L.Venkateswara Rao and M.Srinu were examined as Dw.4 and Dw.3 respectively and their respective chief affidavits were affirmed on oath and treated as their examinations in chief in lieu.

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.7 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

14.Issue No.2:

The PW.1 reiterated the contents of the plaint in her chief affidavit.

In order to establish her possession over the plaint schedule property, the

PW.1 filed Adangal/ Ex.A6 for the fasli years 1420 to 1425 of survey No.323/2 of Rampalem village. The said fasli years correspond to calendar years 2010 to 2015. Further, the PW.1 produced Adangals for same survey numbers for the fasli years 1425 to 1427 marked as Ex.A11 corresponding to the calendar years 2015 to 2018. The above Ex.A6 discloses, the name of the plaintiff/

PW.1 as the person in possession of Ac.1.36 cents in R.S.No.323/2 of

Rampalem village. Ex.A11 shows that the total extent of 323/2 as Ac.1.76 cents and that Ac.1.36 cents out of the same is in possession of PW.1 and the remaining extent is in the name of the 2nd defendant. In order to prove the possession of the PW.1 prior to the execution of Ex.A5, the PW.1 filed Ex.A10 for fasli years 1410, 1414, 1417, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423 corresponding to the calendar years 2000, 2004, 2007 and so on . The said documents also disclose the name of the PW.1 as the person in possession of the Ac.1.36 cents in Survey no.323-2. The PW.1 in her cross stated that, in the year 1994 her mother alienated the plaint schedule property in her favour at the time of her marriage towards Pasupu – Kunkuma but she registered the same in her name in 2008. Further, Ex.A8 shows that the Tahsildar of Gopalapuram issued title deed book in the name of the PW.1 for Ac.1.36 cents in R.S.No.323/2 of

Rampalem village. The said Ex.A8 at column No.7 shows that the Tahsildar issued same on 09.02.2010. The column No.11 of Ex.A8 shows that the details of the Ex.A5/ Registered settlement deed were mentioned therein.

Further, Ex.A1 / Encumbrance Certificate shows that in 2007, the PW.1’s mother mortgaged the plaint schedule property to Undavalli Annavaram and that in 2009 the mortgage was discharged and that in 2008, the PW.1’s donor executed Ex.A5 in favour of PW.1 and that in 2010, 2012, 2013 the PW.1 mortgaged the plaint schedule property to P.A.C.S of Gopalapuram.

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.8 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

15.As per the section 6 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and

Pattadars Passbooks Act, 1971, any entry in records of rights shall be presumed to be true unless the contrary is proved. Ex.A7 is ROR (1B), showing the name of the PW.1 against Ac.1.36 cents of R.S.No.323-2 of

Rampalem village as on 19.04.2016. Although, the entries of Adangals covered under Exs.A6, A11 and A10 are not presumed to be correct, the entries of Ex.A7 , A8 are presumed correct unless proved otherwise as per section 6 of the above Act.

16.During cross-examination, the PW.1 initially stated that she does not know the boundaries of plaint schedule property. The PW.1 admitted that

Shiridi Saibaba temple was constructed in Ac.0.10 cents. The PW.1 admitted that, as per entries in Ex.A6, she acquired the plaint schedule property from her mother by way of inheritance. The defendants counsel suggested to PW.1, that she managed the revenue officials and obtained Ex.A8 and the same was denied by her. The defendants counsel also suggested to Pw.1, that there is no revenue record either in her name or in the name of her mother from 1998 to 2008 with respect to plaint schedule property and the same was denied by her.

17.During cross-examination of DW.2, the plaintiff counsel elicited from DW.2, that he did not sent any legal notice or filed any suit for cancellation of registered settlement deed.

18.Perusal of the documentary evidence on behalf of the plaintiff discloses, that the name of the plaintiff appears in Adangal of Rampalem village as early as in the year 2000. The defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption available in favour of correctness of the entries in title deed books, ROR (1B) showing the name of the plaintiff. The title deed book discloses, that it was issued as early as in the year 2010.

Except for suggesting that the revenue records were mutated in the name of

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.9 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

the plaintiff by managing the revenue officials, the defendants counsel did not elicit anything from the PW.1 about the correctness of the entries in Adangals, title deed book, ROR (1B). The Encumbrance Certificate also shows that the plaintiff has been mortgaging the plaint schedule property from 2010 to 2013 in favour of PACS, Gopalapuram. All of the above entries in revenue records and

Encumbrance certificate establish that the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit in the year 2016.

19.It is the defendants case, that the mother of the plaintiff executed sale agreement / Ex.B1 in favour of trustees of Sree Seetha Ramula vari temple and delivered possession of Ac.0.49 cents property on 21.06.1998 to them and that the 2nd defendant got mutated his name in the revenue records by obtaining full consent of the plaintiff’s mother. It is further, their case that ever since the defendants have been enjoying the possession of Ac.0.49 cents of plaint schedule property on behalf of the temple and using its income for temple works. Despite taking, written statement defence about their continued possession and also suggesting said fact to PW.1 during cross-examination, no revenue record or record of Rights were produced to show the name of the 2nd defendant with respect to Ac.0.49 cents for the period until the year 2008.

The defendants i.e., DWS.1 to 5 admitted that at present, the name of PW.1 stands mutated in the revenue records. The only documentary evidence produced by the defendants and relied upon by them is Ex.B1.

20.Perusal of recitals of Ex.B1 discloses, that it is an unregistered, insufficiently stamped possessory agreement of sale. The defendants paid the stamp duty and penalty of Ex.B1 during the pendency of the suit. The petition filed by the plaintiff in I.A.No.109/2023 for de-marking, the Ex.B1 was dismissed by the Court on the ground that the plaintiff counsel did not raise the objection to its marking at the time of its marking and as per Sections 35 and 36 of Indian Stamp Act, no objection can be raised once the document is marked.

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.10 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

21.Further, careful perusal of Ex.B1 discloses that the Ex.B1 is an unregistered possessory sale agreement. The defendants are claiming their possession over the Ac.0.49 cents under Ex.B1. Therefore, the Ex.B1 is a compulsorily registrable document under section 17 of Indian Registration Act, as it purports to create possessory right in favour of the trustees of the temple.

It is not the case of the defendants, that Ex.B1 was marked for collateral purpose. The main purpose of filing Ex.B1 by the defendants is to establish their possession and therefore it cannot be said to be filed for collateral purpose, as the present suit is for injunction based on possession. Therefore, in view of absolute bar Under Section 49 of Indian Registration Act, this Court cannot look into Ex.B1 for any evidence. Hence, this Court hereby ignores

Ex.B1, although it was marked during the course of trial.

22.Apart from above, during the cross-examination of DW.1, the plaintiff counsel elicited that the Sree Seetharamula Vari temple is a small temple and it is not kept under any trust. DW.1 admitted that there is no land in the name of the temple. The DW.1 stated that he did not possess any document to show that he is authorized to look after the affairs of the said temple and to show that the temple is in possession of Ac.0.49 cents. The

DW.2 in cross-examination admitted, that the temple is not having any assets.

DW.2 also stated, that there is no trust or society registered in the name of the temple. The DW.4 stated, that there is no trust deed regarding alleged temple.

23.The DW.5 in cross-examination admitted, that the name of the plaintiff was mutated in revenue records since 2008 and that he knew about the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff and that he did not file any suit for cancellation. The DW.5 stated that the temple is a small temple spread in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents and he could not file document to prove that there are trustees to the temple.

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.11 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

24.All of the above admissions of DWS.1 to 5 prove, that Ex.B1 was allegedly executed in favour of trustees of the temple when there is no trust for the temple in question. As all along the defendants pleaded, that the defendants took delivery of Ac.0.49 cents for the temple and not in their personal capacity. However, all the witnesses for the defendants stated that there are no lands or assets standing in the name of the temple. No documentary evidence was adduced admittedly to prove possession of either defendants or temple over Ac.0.49 cents of the plaint schedule property.

25.This court also took into account the submissions of the plaintiff counsel, that although Ex.B1 was referred in the written statement filed in 2016, the document was produced only at the fag end of the trial. The defendants did not even mention the document in the list of documents of the written statement and did not seek leave of the Court for filing it at subsequent stage of the suit. Fair trial requires that the plaintiff should be furnished, copy of such document at the time of filing of written statement or at least before the trial is commenced. The DW.5 categorically admitted that he knew about the existence of Ex.A5 from 2008 and that the mutation of the plaintiff’s name in the revenue records took place but he did not apply to the Tahsildar for rejection of the entries in the revenue records and also did not file any suit for cancellation of the registered settlement deed/ Ex.A5.

26.In view of the documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff to establish her possession over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and the failure of the defendants to prove their possession over the Ac.0.49 cents of the plaint schedule property, Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

27.Additional Issue No.1:

On the date of numbering the suit on 06.05.2016, even before the notice in the temporary injunction petition was ordered and the summons in

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.12 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

the suit was served, the counsel for defendants 1 to 4 filed his vakalat.

Therefore, no exparte temporary injunction was ordered by this Court on 06.05.2016. Thereafter, the written statement of the 2nd defendant and adoption memos of the other defendants were filed only on 08.08.2016. In the intervening time, on 21.07.2016, the counsel for the plaintiff filed a petition under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. As per the petition affidavit averments, in the said petition numbered as I.A.233/2016, on the night of 14.07.2016, some people installed the Shiridi Saibaba statue by preparing a small pial and raised a tin roof shed over the statue. The plaintiff/ petitioner also stated that on the next day at 01:00 p.m., she went to the field and found the Shiridi Saibaba statue and tin roofed shed and also three flexis with the names and the photos of

Muppidi Venkateswa Rao, MLA of Gopalapuram, Hota Veerabhadra Rao @

Raja of Hukumpeta village, and Karatam Rambabu. The plaintiff in the said affidavit stated the said incident was published in the newspaper on the next day. According to the plaintiff, the shed is situated on the North-West corner of the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the said structure was raised at the instance of the respondents. On 09.08.2016 the court appointed an advocate commissioner to note down the cement work done to the pial of the Shiridi Saibaba statue and also to note the physical features existing on the plaint schedule property. On 29.08.2016, the advocate commissioner filed his report. In this report, the advocate commissioner filed two rough plans.

One for the entire schedule property and rough plan, and another for disputed

Ac.0.49 cents land. As per the para 5 of the advocate commissioner report, the total extent of site is 165 square yards and the total extent of iron sheet roofing shed is 31 ½ of square yards, and of the palmyrah roofing pandal is 21 square yards. Further, the entire iron roofed shed is covered with bamboo fencing up to a height of 5 feet from the ground and the remaining portion is left uncovered. The advocate commissioner report shows six cement benches one in the shed and five other benches on the outside of the shed. The pial stands

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.13 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

at height of 2 feet and its width and length is 2 ½ feet. According to the

Commissioner, the pial is not yet plastered.

28.In the written statement of 2nd defendant filed on 08.08.2016, the defendant stated that there is a Shirdi Sai Baba temple on the northern side of the land. After filing of the advocate commissioner's report, the plaintiff counsel filed a petition for amendment of the plaint in I.A.58/2017, seeking additional relief of mandatory injunction with a direction for removal of the shed erected in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff also sought adding of para 6 (b) in the original plaint. Thereafter, on 18.08.2017 the said petition was allowed and the amendments were carried-out by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant filed additional written statement denying the contents of the para no.6 and ascertaining the possession over the Ac.0.49 cents of the plaint schedule property by the defendants and Sree Seetharamula vari temple. The defendant also denied raising shed highhandedly. According to the, defendants the said Shiridi Sai baba temple is in existence for long time.

29.During the cross-examination, the PW.1 stated that, the Shiridi

Saibaba temple was constructed above 2 years back. Further, she stated that said persons erected the Idol of Saibaba but the have not constructed the temple. During further cross-examination, the PW.1 stated that, she filed the present suit for removal of Shiridi Saibaba temple, which was constructed in

Ac.0.10 cents of land. During cross-examination, the DW.2/ 3rd defendant categorically admitted that they erected the lord Sai baba temple on the West of the disputed Ac.0.49 cents or Ac.0.50 cents land. None of the DWS.1 to 5 in their chief examination affidavits mentioned the date when the Shiridi Sai baba temple was erected. They merely stated that the villagers constructed the

Shiridi Sai baba temple on the Northern side of the temple. Based on the pleadings of the amended plaint and additional written statement and statement, it can be said that the plaintiff asserted that the Shiridi Saibaba temple was constructed during the pendency of the suit and the defendants

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.14 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

asserted that the said temple was constructed by the villagers even prior to filing of the suit. The PW.1 during her cross-examination conducted on 08.10.2018 stated that 2 years back the said temple was constructed. The defendants witnesses during their cross-examination stated, that the said temple was constructed 6 or 7 years back. The existence of the Iron sheet shed with Shiridi Sai baba Idol on the northern portion of the plaint schedule property was confirmed by the Advocate Commissioner in his report. The measurements and detailed description of the features of the tin roofed shed and un-plastered pial and Palmyrah trees were all given in para no.5 of the report and the same was shown as rough plan-2 filed along with report. As the existence of the Shiridi Saibaba temple/ shed stands proved, the only point for determination to resolve the controversy is whether the said temple existed prior to filing of the suit or it was constructed during the pendency of the suit.

The other point for determination is whether the defendants got erected the shed or the villagers did the said act. Contrary to the written statement pleadings, the Dw.2 admitted in cross-examination that they erected the Shiridi

Saibaba idol. The burden to establish the fact that the said temple/ shed was erected before filing of the suit is on the defendants as they asserted the said fact. The defendants did not adduce any evidence to prove that the temple/ shed existed even before filing of the suit. On the other hand, the plaintiff gave a specific date in her petition affidavit in I.A.No.233/2016 i.e., the night of 14.07.2016 as the date on which the said Saibaba statue was installed on pial in a tin roofed shed. The description of the shed by the Advocate

Commissioner at para 5 of the commissioners report clearly shows that the shed is made of tin roof and it is not plastered and it is only palmyrah roofing pandal. All around it had bamboo fencing. It can be seen from the report of the advocate commissioner that Shiridi Sai Baba temple is a temporary structure and cannot be considered a super structure constructed on a foundation.

Further, the description given by the Advocate Commissioner shows that the said structure was recently constructed by the time of his visit. In view of

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.15 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

admission of DW.2 and the description and details provided in the Advocate commissioner report about the Shiridi Saibaba idol and pial, it can be said that the plaintiff established by preponderance of probabilities that the defendants erected the said Shiridi Saibaba idol in a tin roofed shed during pendency of the suit and thereby changed the state of affairs as they existed by the time of filing of the suit.

30.The learned defence counsel during the course of arguments submitted, that since according to the plaintiff, the Shiridi Saibaba idol was installed subsequent to filing of the present suit, the plaintiff cannot seek permanent injunction but instead should seek recovery of possession. In this regard, the point for consideration would be whether the act of the defendants erecting the temporary structure by installing the Shiridi Sai Baba idol on a pial would tantamount to taking possession of the said portion of the plaint schedule property. As per the settled principle of law settled possession is possession for a long period of time to the knowledge of the true owner and its acquiescence by the true owner. Settled possession can be presumed when a super structure is raised in the land. The learned plaintiff counsel relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vishram alias Prasad

Goverkar and others Vs. Sudesh Goverkar (D) by Lrs. And others,

reported in AIR 2017 SC 583. In the said judgment, at para 20 of the

Judgment it was held that “Sporadic act of trespass by the defendants to pull- down existing structure and put-up new structure cannot constitute possession of defendants”. In the present case, the structure erected/ built during the pendency of the suit is only a temporary structure and not a super structure.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has to file a separate suit for recovery of possession instead of seeking mandatory injunction in the pending suit.

31.A mandatory injunction can be granted to prevent beach of pre- existing obligation and also to restore the status-quo ante as it existed by the

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.16 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

time of filing of the suit. In the present case, issue No.2 is already answered in favour of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff is in the possession of the entire plaint schedule property including the disputed Ac.0.49 cents on the date of the filing of the suit. As discussed above the defendants changed the status quo with respect to the part of the plaint schedule property during the pendency of the suit by erecting and or installing a tin roofed shed with Shiridi

Sai Baba idol in it. Ordering removal of the said temporary structure by the defendants is necessary to restore the status quo ante as it existed at the time of filing of the suit. Hence, Additional issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

32.Issue No.1:

Although the defendants in their written statement stated that they took possession of Ac.0.49 cents of the plaint schedule property on behalf of

Sree Seetharamula vari temple, in their capacity as trustees, evidence on record shows that the defendant did not prove the existence of the any trust or trustees of the temple. Admittedly, the temple does not have lands or assets in its name. Therefore, whatever acts the defendants have asserted to have been done by them on behalf of the temple were done in their personal capacity. Therefore, there is no necessity to add any one other than the present defendants as party to the suit. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

33.Issue No.3:

In view of finding on issue No.2, holding that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and the finding on additional issue No.1, that the defendants tried to interfere with her possession before filing of the suit and even after filing of the suit, issue no.3 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.17 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

34.Issue No.4:

In the result, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants: (a) restraining the defendants permanently from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and (b) directing the defendants to remove the shed erected in the plaint schedule property within 3 months from the date of this judgment. In case of failure of the defendants to remove the shed erected in the plaint schedule property within the stipulated time, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to get it done through the process of Court, and (c) the plaintiff shall entitled for the costs of the suit.

Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 12 th day of September, 2024.

Sd/-G.Sai Krishna,

II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Division), FAC/I Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Kovvur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Pw.1 : Manisetti Lakshmi.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Dw.1 : Puttepu Gandhi.

Dw.2 : Puttepu Gopala Rao.

Dw.3 : M.Srinu.

Dw.4 : L.Venkateswara Rao.

Dw.5 : Alla Ramakrishna.

I ACJ (Jr.Division), Kovvur.18 O.S.80 of 2016, Dt.12.09.2024.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Original sale deed dated.16.04.1966 executed by nagilli pydanna in favour of Sankarapu Sattemma. Ex.A2:Original sale deed dated dt.19.05.1972 executed by Mallipudi Satyam in favour of Sankarapu Sattemma.

Original sale deed dt. 19.05.1972 executed by Chadalavada Subba Ex.A3: Rao in favour of Sankarapu Sattemma.

Original sale deed dated 19.05.1972 executed by Chadalavada China Ex.A4: Venkanna in favour of Sankarapu Sattemma.

Certified copy of settlement deed on 13.08.2008 executed by Ex.A5: Sankarapu Sattemma in favour of me.

Adangals 6 in number from pasalies of 1420 to 1425 in respect of Ex.A6: S.Nos.323/2.

C.C of village 1B register in respect of S.No.323-2. Ex.A7:

Title deed in favour of me issued by RDO, Jangareddigudem. Ex.A8:

C.C. of Encumbrance certificate in respect of S.No.323/2 obtained for Ex.A9: 16 years from 01.01.2002 to 08.01.2016.

Ex.A10:True copy of Adangals for the fasalies 141, 1414, 1417, 1420, 1421, 1422 and 1423, obtained from Public Information Officer of Gopalapuram Mandal in respect of R.S.No.323/2, 323/2B.

Ex.A11:Certified copy of Adangal for the Fasalis 1425, 1426, 1427 and 1427 (2015, 16, 17 and 2018) inrepect of R.S.No.323-2 dt.12.11.2018.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1 :Agreement of sale dt.21.06.1998 executed by Sankarapu Sattemma in favour of Puttepu Gandhi and others.

Sd/-G.Sai Krishna,

II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Division), FAC/I Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Kovvur.

STC/7/2024 Convicted

Teegireddy Suresh Kumar vs Palivela Samuel

08 May 2026

APWG0C0000512024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

–CUM - JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : : KOVVUR.

Present : Sri. G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

–cum – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur

Friday, this the 08th day of May, 2026

S.T.C.No.7/2024

Between:

Teegireddy Suresh Kumar, S/o.Atcha Rao, Aged 48 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.1-12/1, Kurukuru village, H/o.Pallantla, Devarapalli mandal, E.G.District. …. Complainant.

And

Palivela Samuel, S/o.Yeshayya, Aged 54 years, D.No.1-126, Head Master, S.C.Peta, Vegeswarapuram village, Tallapudi mandal, E.G.Distirct. Working place: M.P.P.S., School, Thurpugaruvu village, H/o.Kodamanchili, Achanta mandal, W.G.District.

.... Accused.

This case is coming on 27.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.S.Subba Rao, Advocate for Complainant and of Sri.M.Gopi,

Advocate for Accused and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a complaint filed by the complainant against accused to 2 punish him Under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2.The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:

a) On 18.08.2022, the accused borrowed a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant at his house in Kurukuru village for meeting his family expenses. In consideration of the amount received, the accused executed a demand promissory note in favour of the complainant on the even date, agreeing to repay the debt with interest at 12% per annum.

Again on the same day, in the evening the accused borrowed another sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant for meeting his family expenses and executed another demand promissory note on the even in favour of the complainant on the even date, agreeing to repay the debt with interest at 12% per annum. Both the promissory notes were scribed by the accused in his own handwriting.

b)After several demands of the complainant, the accused issued cheque bearing No.171854, dated.28.11.2023, drawn on State Bank of

India, Kotagummam branch, Rajahmundry for Rs.5,00,000/- towards part satisfaction of the above promissory notes debt. Upon presentation of the said cheque into Bank of Baroda of Yarnagudem branch, on 28.11.2023, the cheque was dishonoured on 01.12.2023, with endorsement “Exceeds

Arrangement”. However, the complainant received the return memo from the bank only on 16.12.2023. Thereafter, the complainant got issued registered notice to the accused through his advocate on 20.12.2023, demanding the accused to pay the cheque amount. The accused received the notice on 22.12.2023 but he kept quiet. Therefore, the accused is liable to be punished under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3.Upon perusal of the complaint and accompanying documents a prima facie case was disclosed against the Accused. Therefore, this court took 3 cognizance of the offence Under Section.138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against Accused. Summons to accused through registered post was not returned. However, at the first hearing on 05.03.2024, the counsel for the accused filed memo of appearance.

4.On appearance of the accused on 12.04.2024, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required Under Section.207

Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on 16.06.2025, the accused appeared before the court and on the said date, he was examined Under Section.251 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the sum and substance of accusation alleged against the accused in Telugu. The accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of the trial, on behalf of the complainant, himself, the second attestor of the promissory notes by name Jaddu Govinda

Rao were examined as Pws.1 and 2 and their respective chief examination affidavits were affirmed on oath and treated as their examinations in chief-in- lieu. Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked through PW.1. Ex.P1 is the original promissory note executed by the accused in favour of the complainant for

Rs.3,00,000/-, dated 18.08.2022. Ex.P2 is the original promissory note executed by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.3,00,000/-, dated 18.08.2022. Ex.P3 is the original cheque issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.5,00,000/- vide cheque No.171854, State Bank of

India, Kotagummam branch, Rajahmundry, dated.28.11.2023. Ex.P4 is the original counter foil with regard to the deposit of the cheque issued by accused in favour of the complainant in Bank of India, Yernagudem village, Devarapalli mandal, dated.28.11.2023. Ex.P5 is the Original cheque returned memo issued by Bank of Baroda, Yernagudem to the complainant along with bounced cheque, dated.01.12.2023. Ex.P6 is the Office copy of registered 4 statutory legal notice to the accused along with two postal receipts, dated.20.12.2023. Ex.P7 is the Postal acknowledgment of the accused along with net copy of postal consignment, dated.22.12.2023.

6.After closure of the complainant side evidence, the accused was examined Under Section.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating portion of evidence of the complainant in Telugu, for which he denied the same and reported defence evidence. On behalf of the accused, himself was examined as DW.1. Exs.D1 to D3 were marked through DW.1. Ex.D1 is the original cheque book record slip of SBI of the accused. Ex.D2 is the served copy of legal notice, dated.05.08.2025 got issued by the complainant to the accused.

Ex.D3 is the office copy of reply notice, dated.18.08.2025 got issued by the accused to the complainant.

7.Heard arguments of the complainant and defence counsel. On perusal of the complaint, evidence on record the following points arise for determination of the court;

1. Whether the Accused issued cheque dated.28.11.2023 against the

account of accused maintained with State Bank of India,

Kotagummam branch, Rajahmundry, in favour of the complainant

for discharge of the legally enforceable debt or other liability and

the same was dishonored by the Bank of Baroda of Yarnagudem

branch, on 01.12.2023, for reason “Exceeds Arrangement”?

2. Whether the complainant complied with all legal formalities

required Under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881?

3. Whether the accused discharged his burden to prove by

preponderance of probabilities that the cheque was not issued for

discharge of legally enforceable debt or other liability?

4. Whether the complainant established the guilt of the accused 5

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence Under Section.138

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?

Point Nos.1 and 3:

8.The PW.1 reiterated the contents of complaint in his affidavit. In order to prove the issuance of cheque and its deposit in the collecting bank and subsequent dishonour, the PW.1 got marked the original cheque, original counterfoil and original cheque return memo as Exs.P3 to P5 and office copy of legal notice and postal acknowledgment in proof of service of notice as

Ex.P7. The DW.1 in his cross-examination admitted his signature on the

Ex.P3. Therefore, the PW.1 is entitled for the benefit of presumption under

Section.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, that the Ex.P3 was issued by the

PW.1 towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. However, the said presumption is rebuttal and burden is on the accused to do so.

9.The accused counsel by way of cross-examination of Pws.1 and 2 and the chief examination of DW.1 had put-forth different versions of his defence. Perusal of the suggestions made by the accused counsel and the chief examination of DW.1 is necessary to understand the defence of the accused. During cross-examination of PW.1, the defence counsel suggested to PW.1 that, the PW.2 collected blank cheques of the salary account of the accused as well as his ATM card and blank promissory note and gave it to the

PW.1 and the PW.1 used to withdraw amount from the salary account of the accused using his ATM cards towards interest. The said suggestions were denied by the PW.1. He further suggested that, the accused noted down in his cheque record slips of the cheque book that on 18.08.2022 four cheques bearing Nos.171852, 171853, 171854, 171855 were issued in favour of PW.1 along with Rs.50/- Non-Judicial stamp papers – 2, Two promissory notes. He further suggested that, the accused noted down in his record slip that on 6 27.04.2023, he repaid Rs.2,00,000/- out of the Rs.4,00,000/-. PW.1 stated that, he does not know about any of the said facts. The accused counsel also suggested to PW.1 that, the PW.1 and PW.2 engaged two persons for threatening the accused and obtained documents from him forcibly and obtained his signatures on blank documents covered under Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.

The said suggestions were denied by the PW.1.

10.The PW.2, who is the second attestor to Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 filed his chief affidavit and stated on oath that, the transaction covered under Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 took place in his presence and the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were scribed and executed by the accused in favour of PW.1 and then he signed as attestor after the accused, the wife of accused signed on the promissory notes.

According to PW.2, the Ex.P1 was executed in the morning and the Ex.P2 was executed in the evening. The aforesaid facts corroborate with the chief affidavit of PW.1 with regard to the transaction underlying Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.

11.During cross-examination the accused counsel suggested to

PW.2 that, PW.2 and PW.1 visited the house of accused in Vegeswarapuram and altercated with him and his wife and obtained empty promissory notes and five cheques from the accused. For the first time, the accused counsel suggested to PW.2 that PW.1 did not lend Rs.3,00,000/- on two occasions on the same day to the accused and the accused did not execute the promissory notes in favour of PW.1. The said suggestions were denied by PW.2. The accused counsel also suggested to PW.2 that the PW.2 had ATM card of the accused with him and used the same for withdrawing amount from salary account of the accused for several months. The PW.2 denied the said suggestion.

12.The DW.1 (accused) in his chief examination deposed that, on 7 18.08.2022, he borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from the PW.2 and that the PW.2 took

ATM cards, four cheques and four promissory notes, stamp paper without date and amount from him. He further deposed that, on 27.011.2023, when DW.1 was present in the School, the PW.2 approached him and caused him trouble and therefore, DW.1 gave Rs.2,00,000/- to PW.2. He further deposed that, on 28.11.2023, the PW.2 again came to the DW.1’s house with three persons and pressurized him and obtained empty promissory notes and cheques.

13.The suggestions of the accused counsel to PW.1, PW.2 and the chief examination of DW.1 is inconsistent with each other. On one side, it was suggested to PW.1 that the PW.2 collected the ATM card and blank cheques and promissory notes from the accused and gave them to PW.1 and in turn the

PW.1 used to withdraw amount from the salary account of the accused towards interest. On the other hand, it was suggested to PW.2 that, the PW.1 and PW.2 visited the house of accused in Vegeswarapuram, altercated with the accused and his wife and obtained empty promissory notes and five cheques from the accused and the PW.2 had the ATM card of the accused with him and used the same for withdrawing the amount from the salary account of the accused for several months. It is unclear from the suggestions of the accused counsel, whether the defence of the accused is that, the PW.2 collected ATM card, empty promissory notes and cheques from the accused and gave it to PW.1 and in turn the PW.1 used to collect his interest by withdrawing from the salary account of the accused using the ATM card or whether the PW.2 retained the ATM card collected by him from the accused and used the card for withdrawing amount from the salary account of the accused. It is also unclear why the PW.1 would draw from the salary account of the accused towards interest unless the accused borrowed amount from the

PW.1.

14.The complainant counsel brought to the attention of the court the fact that, the accused counsel did not make any suggestion to PW.1 denying the transactions covered under Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Such suggestion was only made to PW.2. Similarly, the accused in his chief examination only stated about the alleged transaction between him and PW.2 for Rs.4,00,000/-. There is no denial of the alleged transaction between him and PW.1.

15.On one hand, during cross-examination of PW.1 it was suggested that, the PW.2 collected blank cheques and blank promissory notes and ATM card and gave it to the PW.1 including the cheque covered under Ex.P3. It was also suggested to PW.2 that, himself and PW.1 visited the house of the accused and altercated with him and his wife and obtained empty promissory notes and five cheques from the accused. On the other hand, by way of suggestion to PW.1 it was alleged that, on 18.08.2022, four cheques bearing

Nos.171852 to 171855 were issued by the accused to PW.1 along with two

Non-judicial stamp papers and two promissory notes. However, the entries in

Ex.P1 disclose otherwise. The entry dated.18.08.2022 in Ex.D1 discloses that, four cheques were allegedly issued to the PW.1 for loan amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- along with Rs.50/- stamp paper and two promissory notes. The

DW.1 in his chief examination deposed that, on 18.08.2022 PW.2 took ATM

Card, four cheques and four promissory notes for lending Rs.4,00,000/- to the

DW.1 and also once again on 28.11.2023, the PW.2 came to DW.1’s house with three persons and obtained signed cheques and promissory notes. From the suggestions of the accused counsel to PW.1 and PW.2 and the chief examination of the DW.1 and the entries in Ex.D1, it is unclear when the empty promissory notes and cheques were collected by the PW.2 i.e., on 18.08.2022 or 28.11.2023. It is also not clear whether the empty cheques were given to

PW.2 or PW.1.

16. The complainant counsel also brought to the notice of the court that, as per the chief examination of DW.1, he does not know the PW.1 at all by the date of the alleged transaction. Further, it was alleged that the cheques were collected by the PW.2. In such a case, it is not possible for the

DW.1/accused to make the entry in Ex.D1 on 18.08.2022 stating that, four empty cheques were issued to the PW.1. If the accused did not know PW.1 by the date of transaction and only he knows the PW.2, he could not have noted the entries in Ex.D1 as if the cheques were issued to PW.1.

17.During cross-examination, the DW.1 admitted that, on 20.12.2023, the PW.1 issued notice covered under Ex.P6 and it was received. The DW.1 also admitted that, he did not give reply to the said notice. Therefore, it can be seen that, the aforesaid defence that the empty promissory notes and cheques collected by the PW.1 from the accused were pressed into service through

PW.1 is an afterthought and it was never the defence of the accused at the time of receipt of notice from the PW.1.

18.From the above discussion, it can be said that the accused utterly failed to prove his version of facts that the Ex.P3 and Exs.P1 and P2 were originally obtained as blank cheque and promissory notes, later filled up for creation of Exs.P3, P1 and P2.

19.In order to prove that, Ex.P3 was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt underlying Exs.P1, P2, the second attestor i.e., PW.2 was examined by the complainant. The points elicited by the defence counsel from PW.1 in the cross-examination with regard to the two separate transactions, the attestors, the denomination of the currency, the time of the transaction corroborate with the replies of PW.2 in his cross-examination.

Hence, it can be said that, the accused failed to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant under Section.118(1) (a) of the N.I Act, 10 with regard to passing of consideration under Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Therefore, it can be said that the complainant proved beyond reasonable doubt that, Ex.P3 was issued by the accused towards discharge of legally enforceable debt underlying Exs.P1 and P2. Hence, point nos.1 and 3 are answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

Point No.2:

20.By filing Exs.P4 to P7, the PW.1 proved that he complied with all legal formalities to be followed under Section.138 of N.I Act, after dishonour of the cheque. There is no dispute with regard to the issuance or service of the notice within statutory period prescribed under Section.138 of N.I Act. A suggestion was made by the accused counsel to PW.1 that, Ex.P5 is obtained by managing bank authorities and otherwise the complaint is time barred. The said suggestion was denied by PW.1. As per Section.146 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act, on production of bank slip or memo having thereon, the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured the court shall presume the fact of the dishonour of such cheque unless and until such fact is disproved. Ex.P5 bears the seal of the Bank of Baroda. Ex.P5 consists of letter addressed by the Bank of Baroda, Yarnagudem branch to the PW.1, dated.16.12.2023 and enclosed to the letter, there is a return memo, dated.01.12.2023. As per the return memo enclosed to the letter, the cheque was dishonoured on 01.12.2023 but the report of dishonour was generated on 02.12.2023. Apparently, the return memo was issued to the PW.1 only on 16.12.2023 as per the letter. There is nothing in the Ex.P5 to doubt its genuinity. As it bears the bank seal, presumption under Section.146 of N.I Act, is available in favour of the PW.1 with regard to the proof of dishonour of

Ex.P3 and when it was dishonoured. Hence, point no.2 is answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

Point No.4:

21.In view of the finding of this court on point nos.1 to 3, it can be said that, the complainant proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for offence under Section.138 of Negotiable instrument Act.

Hence, point no.4 is answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

Point No.5:

22.In the result, the accused is hereby found guilty for the offence

Under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the accused is hereby convicted under Section.255 (2) Cr.P.C., for the offence Under

Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled forthwith.

Directly typed to my dictation on computer by the Stenographer Grade - III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 08 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-.G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

- cum – Judl. I Class Magistrate, Kovvur.

23.Heard accused on point of sentence, he submitted that he is working as a Teacher and he is in financial distress and sought for lenient view while imposing sentence. The court took notice of the pendency of the civil suit in O.S.206/2025 on the file of this court for recovery of the amount covered under Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.

24. As per settled principle of law the offence under Section.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, is not covered under Probation of Offenders Act.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the above 12 submissions of the accused, I am inclined to take lenient view.

25.In the result, the accused is hereby sentenced to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three months and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only) for the offence under

Section.138 of N.I Act. In case of default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of One month. An amount of Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees Four lakh ninety thousand only) of the fine amount shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.

26.The accused is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment before the Hon'ble District and Sessions court. The accused is questioned about his means to engage counsel in case of any appeal preferred by him and he submitted that he has means to engage counsel.

Pronounced by me in the Open court this the 08 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-.G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

- cum – Judl. I Class Magistrate, Kovvur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

PW1: Teegireddy Suresh Kumar. PW2: Jaddu Govinda Rao.

FOR DEFENCE:

DW1: Palivela Samuel.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:-

Ex.P1: Original promissory note executed by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.3,00,000/-, dated 18.08.2022. Ex.P2: Original promissory note executed by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.3,00,000/-, dated 18.08.2022. Ex.P3: Original cheque issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.5,00,000/- vide cheque No.171854, State Bank of India, Kotagummam branch, Rajahmundry, dated.28.11.2023. Ex.P4: Original counter foil with regard to the deposit of the cheque issued by accused in favour of the complainant in Bank of India, Yernagudem village, Devarapalli mandal, dated.28.11.2023. Ex.P5: Original cheque returned memo issued by Bank of Baroda, Yernagudem to the complainant along with bounced cheque, dated.01.12.2023. Ex.P6: Office copy of registered statutory legal notice to the accused along with two postal receipts, dated.20.12.2023. Ex.P7: Postal acknowledgment of the accused along with net copy of postal consignment, dated.22.12.2023.

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1: Original cheque book record slip of SBI of the accused.

Ex.D2: Served copy of legal notice, dated.05.08.2025 got issued by the complainant to the accused.

Ex.D3: Office copy of reply notice, dated.18.08.2025 got issued by the accused to the complainant.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : Nil.

Sd/-.G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

- cum – Judl. I Class Magistrate, Kovvur.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Principal Civil Judge ( Junior Division) – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

S.T.C.No.7 /2024

Date Offence: 01.12.2023. Date of Report or Complaint: 24.01.2024. Date of Apprehension of Accused: -- Date of release on bail, if any: -- Date of Commencement of Trial: 30.06.2025. Closure of Trial: 02.12.2025. Date of Sentence or other Order: 08.05.2026.

Explanation of delay and remarks : This case was taken on file against the

Accused for the offence Under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

On 12.04.2024, copies of documents furnished to accused under Section.207

Cr.P.C. On 16.06.2025, the accused was present and he was examined under

Section.251 Cr.P.C and on 30.06.2025, trial has commenced and closed on 02.12.2025. On 02.12.2025, accused was present and he was examined under

Section.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material appearing against him, for which he denied the same and reported that he has defence evidence.

The counsel for accused submitted his arguments on 27.04.2026 and posted to 30.04.2026 for pronouncement of judgment. On 30.04.2026, the accused was called absent. On the said date, the counsel for Accused filed absent petition and the same was dismissed and the matter was posted to 08.05.2026 for pronouncement of judgment with a direction to the accused for appearance without fail. On 08.05.2026, the accused called present. Hence, the court

pronounced the Judgment. Hence, the delay.

Name of the Complainant:Teegireddy Suresh Kumar, S/o.Atcha Rao, Aged 48 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.1-12/1, Kurukuru village, H/o.Pallantla, Devarapalli mandal, E.G.District.

Palivela Samuel, S/o.Yeshayya, Aged 54 Name of the Accused: years, D.No.1-126, Head Master, S.C.Peta, Vegeswarapuram village, Tallapudi mandal, E.G.Distirct. Working place: M.P.P.S., School, Thurpugaruvu village, H/o.Kodamanchili, Achanta mandal, W.G.District. Nature of Offence:Under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Plea of the Accused:Not Guilty.

Finding of the Court:Guilty.

Result:The accused is hereby found guilty for the offence Under Section.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 and the accused is hereby convicted under Section.255 (2)

Cr.P.C., for the offence Under Section.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled forthwith.

Heard accused on point of sentence, he submitted that he is working as a Teacher and he is in financial distress and sought for lenient view while imposing sentence. The court took notice of the pendency of the civil suit in

O.S.206/2025 on the file of this court for

recovery of the amount covered under Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.

As per settled principle of law the offence under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, is not covered under Probation of 16

Offenders Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the above submissions of the accused, I am inclined to take lenient view.

In the result, the accused is hereby sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three months and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only) for the offence under Section.138 of N.I Act. In case of default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of One month. An amount of

Rs.4,90,000/-(Rupees Four lakh ninety thousand only) of the fine amount shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.

The accused is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment before the

Hon'ble District and Sessions court. The

accused is questioned about his means to engage counsel in case of any appeal preferred by him and he submitted that he has means to engage counsel.

Sd/-G.Sai Krishna,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

- cum – Judl. I Class Magistrate, Kovvur. Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.

CC/628/2020 Acquitted

The Sub Inspector of Police vs Kothapalli Chinababu

11 Sep 2024

II AJFCM Court, Kovvur. 1 C.C.No.628/2020, Dt.11.09.2024.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) –

CUM – II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : :

KOVVUR.

Present : Sri. G.Sai Krishna,

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – cum – II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur

Wednesday, this the 11th day of September, 2024

C.C.No.628/2020

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Gopalapuram police station.... Complainant.

AND 1.Kothapalli China Babu, S/o.Chantiyya, Aged 21 years, Dondapudi village, Gopalapuram mandal, Tractor bearing No.AP.39.U.6630 and Trailer No.AP.39.TC.5410.

2.Tanukula Mohan, S/o.Subba Rao, Aged 22 years, Dondapudi village, Gopalapuram mandal, Mahindra 575 Model tractor Engine No.AP.37.DE.9065, and Truck No.AP.26.AP.7633.

3.Kotam Suresh, S/o.Sankurudu, Aged 24 years, Kommugudem village, Polavaram mandal, Un-numbered Eicher 380 F/R Model tractor and un-numbered Trailer.

4.Manelli Venkataratnam, S/o.Durgaprasad, Aged 48 years, Dondapudi village, Gopalapuram mandal, Tractor Engine bearing No.AP.37.V.1790 and Trailer No.AP.39.CK.9712.

5.Mallipudi Verraju, S/o.Pentayya, Aged 36 years, Dondapudi village, Gopalapuram mandal, JCB bearing No.AP.39.K.7341.

... Accused.

This case coming on 27.08.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State represented by

II AJFCM Court, Kovvur. 2 C.C.No.628/2020, Dt.11.09.2024.

the Sub Inspector of police, Gopalapuram police station and ofSri N.Ravi Kumar,

Advocate for A1 to A3 and Sri.D.K.S.Prakash Kumar, Advocate for A4 and A5 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of police of Gopalapuram Police station, filed charge sheet against A1 to A5 Under Sections 379 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of

Damage of Public Property Act and Section 21 (1) Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 in Crime No.160/2020.

2. The gist of the case as per the charge sheet are as follows:

a)On 28.09.2020 at 06:00 p.m., the LW.8/ G.M.K.Prasad, on receipt of credible information about illegal transportation of sand at Kovvada canal along with his staff i.e., LWS.1 to 3 and mediators/ LW.6 and LW.7 proceeded to Dondapudi village. When he reached to the Kovvada canal near

Gollapudi road, he found four tractors with trailers loaded with sand and JCB present there. Then the LW.8 questioned the said persons about permit to transport the sand. The said persons stated that they did not have any permit and waybills. Therefore, the LW.8 seized the four tractors along with sand loaded trailers and JCB in the presence of mediators under the cover of the mediator report, prepared at the spot. Later, the LW.8 sent a requisition to the Tahsildar

Gopalapuram and handed over the seized sand i.e., four units to him.

b) Based on the mediator report, the LW.8 registered as FIR in Crime

No.160/2020 Under Sections 379 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of

Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 21 (1) Mines and Minerals (Development &

Regulation) Act, 1957. Later, the LW.8 examined LWS.1 to 3 and recorded their statements. On 29.09.2020, the LW.8 went to the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch at the scene. The LW.8 arrested the A1 to A5 and produced them

before the Court for judicial custody. On completion of investigation, the LW.9/

V.Subrahmanyam filed charge sheet.

II AJFCM Court, Kovvur. 3 C.C.No.628/2020, Dt.11.09.2024.

3. Upon perusal of charge sheet and accompanying documents, this Court was satisfied that there is a prima facie case made out against A1 to A5. Hence, the cognizance was taken of the offences Under Sections 379 or 411 IPC and

Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984. Subsequently, this Court issued summons to accused.

4. Upon receipt of summons the accused 1 to 5 appeared before the

Court and copies of documents were furnished to them as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Subsequently, the Accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and charges Under Sections 379 or 411 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984 were framed against them and they was read over and explained to them in Telugu. The charges were denied by accused and they pleaded not guilty. They preferred to be tried for the charges against them. The summons were issued to the prosecution witnesses.

6.During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution Lw.1/

Ch.Kumar, LW.6/ Pitta Ooha, LW.8/ G.M.K.Prasad, LW.9/ V.Subrahmanyam were examined as PWS.1 to 4. Ex.P1 through PW.2. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 through P.W3.

Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 through PW.4 were marked. The evidence of LWS. 2 to 5 and 7 was given up by the learned A.P.P.

7.On completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating portion of the evidence was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. The accused were denied the incriminating portion of the prosecution evidence and further reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the learned counsel Assistant Public Prosecutor and defence counsels. Perused the charge sheet and accompanying documents and the prosecution evidence on record.

9.Now the following points arises for determination by this Court :

1) Whether on 28.09.2020, the A1 to A5 were found dishonestly moving sand in four tractors cum trailers and JCB from Kovvada

canal without any permit to transport the same?

II AJFCM Court, Kovvur. 4 C.C.No.628/2020, Dt.11.09.2024.

(Or)

2) Whether on the above aforesaid date at Kovvada canal the A1 to A5 were found in possession of 4 units sand loaded in four tractors cum trailers and JCB having reason to believe that the sand is stolen sand?

3) Whether on the aforesaid date at Kovvada canal the A1 to A5 damaged the canal by loading the sand from the canal to the four

tractors cum trailers with the help of the JCB?

4) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused 1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences Under Sections 379 or 411 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984 ?

10.Point Nos.1 and 2:

The Pw.1 in his chief examination deposed, that while he was working as police constable in Gopalapuram police station, on 28.09.2020, he along with ASI and LW.2, LW.3 and mediators i.e., PW.2 and LW.7 went to the

Kovvada canal in Dondapudi village. The PW.1 stated, that there they noticed 3 sand loaded tractors and one tractor being loaded with the sand with the help of

JCB. The PW.2 further stated, that the ASI questioned the drivers of the tractors about the permit to load the sand but they did not given any reply and therefore he took the drivers into custody and seized the four tractors and one JCB. The PW.1 identified all the accused as the persons who were driving the tractors and JCB at the relevant time.

11.During the cross-examination, the PW.1 stated that the A1 was the driver of JCB bearing registration No.AP.39.K.7341 and the A3 was the driver of the tractor without any registration number. The PW.1 stated that he does not remember the registration numbers for other tractors. The PW.1 stated that the

ASI did not weighed the sand at the scene of offence. The PW.1 stated that the drivers of the respective tractors and JCB drove them to the police station.

12.The PW.2 in his chief deposed that on 28.09.2020 at 06:30 p.m., on receipt of phone call from ASI of Gopalapuram P.S., he went to Kovvada canal at

II AJFCM Court, Kovvur. 5 C.C.No.628/2020, Dt.11.09.2024.

07:00 p.m. The PW.2 stated that village Sarpanch by name Achiyya was already present at the canal at that time. The PW.2 further stated, that he noticed four tractors and JCB and that they were loading sand using JCB into the tractor. The

PW.2 stated that by the time they reached the spot four tractors were already loaded with sand. The PW.2 further stated that the ASI interrogated all five persons about permit and that they replied they did not have any permit and therefore, the ASI seized the four tractors and JCB under the cover of mediator report, prepared through a constable. The PW.2 stated he signed on the mediator report. The PW.2 also identified all the accused as the persons present at the

Kovvada canal on the relevant date.

13.During cross-examination, PW.2 stated, that he went separately to

Kovvada canal and by then the police were already present. The PW.2 stated ASI/

Sobhanadri and one constable present at the scene. The PW.2 further stated that the ASI prepared the mediator report by bringing papers along with him. The PW.2 stated that there is no sand ramp near the scene of offence and there is no separate passage other than the canal for reaching the scene of offence. The

PW.2 stated that the police did not weigh the sand in his presence.

14.The PW.3 in his chief deposed that on 28.09.2020 at 05:00 p.m., on receipt of information he along with his staff and mediator went to the Kovvada canal in Dondapudi village and noticed four tractors and one JCB stationed there.

The PW.3 further stated that he interrogated the drivers of the said vehicles in the presence of mediators and questioned them about permit for transporting the sand but the failed to show any proof. The PW.3 further stated that he got prepared mediator report at the spot and arrested all the accused and moved the sand loaded tractors and JCB to police station.

15.During cross-examination, the PW.3 stated, there is another S.I in their station at the time of registration of the FIR but he cannot say his name. The

PW.3 stated that he prepared the mediator report at the spot. PW.3 admitted that at page 2 and 3 of Ex.P1 there is over writing. The PW.3 admitted that there are no tractors or JCB shown in Ex.P3. The PW.3 stated that he took photographs of

II AJFCM Court, Kovvur. 6 C.C.No.628/2020, Dt.11.09.2024.

the scene of offence and handed over them to the S.I.

16.The PW.4 deposed, that on 30.09.2020, he took up investigation in this case and sent a requisition to Tahsildar of Gopalapuram to take custody of the seized sand. The PW.4 stated that he obtained receipts from the Tahsildar, after he handed over the sand.

17.It is the prosecution case, that the A1 to A5 were found while transporting sand from Kovvada canal illegally without any permit. However, the prosecution did not file any documentary proof to prove the prevalent sand policy in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Unless, the sand policy or Government order promulgated under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act is filed by the prosecution, this court cannot determine the exact nature of the ownership of the State over the sand and the restrictions or permissions prescribed in the rules and regulations. The prosecution absolutely failed to file anything in the court with regard to the policy, rules and regulations about sand policy in the state.

18.The PW.2 and PW.3 in their cross-examination admitted that the sand was not weighed by them. As per the evidence of PW.4, he handed over the seized sand to the Tahsildar and obtained acknowledgment from him. Ex.P5 shows that the Tahsildar received four tons of sand. It is not clear from the evidence of PWS.1 to 3, how the Tahsildar mentioned the weight of the sand as 4 tons when the sand was not weighed at all from the time of its seizure until its hand over to the Tahsildar. Therefore, it can be said that, the prosecution failed to prove the exact quantity of sand seized from four tractors cum trailers.

19.As per the PW.3, his name is G.M.K.Prasad and he worked as ASI at the Gopalapuram police station at relevant time. It is the evidence of the PW.3 that he was present at the scene of offence and he conducted seizure of the illegally transported sand. Further, the mediator i.e., PW.2 in his cross- examination stated that the ASI, who was present at the scene at the time of seizure is Sobhanadhri. When the PW.3 is questioned during the cross- examination whether there was any other ASI in their station, he stated that there

II AJFCM Court, Kovvur. 7 C.C.No.628/2020, Dt.11.09.2024.

was another ASI in their station but he cannot say the name. The PW.3 denied the suggestion of the defence counsel that he was not present at the scene of offence at the time of the alleged seizure. Therefore, the evidence of PW.3 does not corroborate with the evidence of PW.2 with respect to ASI, who was present at the scene of offence i.e., ASI/ G.M.K.Prasad or ASI/ Sobhanadri.

20.As per Ex.P3 there are no tractors or JCB shown in the rough sketch.

The PW.3 admitted in cross-examination, that there are no tractors or JCB in

Ex.P3. Ex.P3 only shows the scene of offence inside Kovvada canal. As per the rough sketch/ Ex.P3 there are two roads one on the southern side and another on the northern side of the Kovvada canal. During the cross-examination, PW.2 stated that there is no separate passage other than the canal for reaching the scene of offence. From the rough sketch and the evidence of PW.2 it is unclear, where the PW.3 and the mediators found the crime vehicles stationed. If the scene of offence is a canal it is not possible for the crime vehicles to be inside the canal. If at all the crime vehicles found they should be stationed on the road adjacent to the canal and not inside the canal. The rough sketch/ Ex.P3 shows the location, where the tractors were found otherwise. The PW.3 in his cross- examination, stated that he took photographs of the scene but the PW.4 did not file any such photographs in his chief examination.

21.From the above discussion, it can be said that the prosecution failed to establish the exact quantity of sand that was seized, the exact of scene of offence where the crime vehicles were found stationed and the person, who conducted seizure operations i.e., whether the PW.3 or one ASI/ Sobhanadri.

Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of sand from the possession of A1 to A5 under the cover of mediator report beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, point 1 and 2 are answered against the prosecution and in favour of the A1 to A5.

22.Point No.3: In view of finding on Point No.1, and the evidence of

PWS.1 to 4, which does not stated the extent and the kind of damage caused to

II AJFCM Court, Kovvur. 8 C.C.No.628/2020, Dt.11.09.2024.

the Kovvada canal which is public property, point 3 is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the A1 to A5.

23.Point No.4: In view of findings on points 1 to 3, it can be said that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused 1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences Under Sections 379 or 411 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984. Hence, point 4 is answered against the prosecution in favour of the A1 to A5.

24. In the result, the A1 to A5 are hereby found not guilty for the offences Under Sections 379 and 411 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984, and the A1 to A5 are hereby acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences Under Sections 379 and 411 IPC and Section 3 of

Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall be discharged after expiry of 6 months as per of Section 437-

A Cr.P.C.

The interim custody of unmarked case property i.e., 1) Mahindra &

Mahindra Ltd (Swaraj Division) Tractor bearing No.AP.39.U.6630, Mahindra &

Mahindra Ltd. Tractor bearing No.AP.37.DE.9065, and Trailer bearing

No.AP.39.TC.5410 which were already given to the registered owner/ Nralasetti

Rama Chandra Rao as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.97196/2020 dated 07.10.2020, 2)

Trailer bearing No.AP.26.AP.7633 which was already given to the registered owner/ Nandamuri Ravi Chandra as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.97153/2020 dated 07.10.2020, 3) Tractor bearing No.AP.39.FQ.1638 which was already given to the registered owner/Payum Venkata Lakshmi as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.2866/2020

dated 18.11.2020, 4) Trailer bearing Reg. No.AP.39.CK9712 which was already

given to the registered owner/ Manelli Venkataratnam as per orders in

Crl.M.P.No.1213/2020 dated.07.12.2020. 5) Tractor bearing No.AP.39.V.1790

which was already given to the registered owner/ Cheepulla Sudhakar as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.1214/2020 dated.07.12.2020.6)JCB bearing

Reg.No.AP.39.K.7341 which was already given to the registered owner/ Mallipudi

Veeraju @ Peda Verraju as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.1212/2020 dated 07.12.2020

II AJFCM Court, Kovvur. 9 C.C.No.628/2020, Dt.11.09.2024.

shall become final after expiry of the Two months from the date of this Judgment or if Appeal is made after disposal of the Appeal, whichever is later.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade - III, transcribed by him, corrected, signed

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11 th day of September, 2024. SAI KRISHNADigitally signed by

SAI KRISHNA

GEDELA

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

- cum – II Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate, Kovvur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: -None-

PW1: Ch.Kumar. PW2: P.Ooha. PW3: G.M.K.Prasad. PW4: V.Subrahmanyam.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1 Mediator report. Ex.P2 Original FIR. Ex.P3 Rough Sketch. Ex.P4 Requisition given to Tahsildar, Gopalapuram. Ex.P5 Acknowledgment. Ex.P6 4 receipts obtained from the vehicle owners.

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

SAIDigitally signed

- Nil - by SAI

KRISHNA

GEDELA

GEDELA II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), - cum – II Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate, Kovvur.

II AJFCM Court, Kovvur. 10 C.C.No.628/2020, Dt.11.09.2024.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – cum – II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

Calendar Case No.628 /2020

(Cr.No.160/2020 of Gopalapuram Police Station)

Date Offence : 28.09.2020.

Date of Report or Complaint : 28.09.2020.

Date of Apprehension of Accused : 28.09.2020.

Date of release on bail, if any: 06.10.2020. (A1 to A5)

Date of Commencement of Trial : 23.12.2021.

Closure of Trial : 07.08.2024.

Date of Sentence or other Order : 11.09.2024.

Explanation of delay and remarks : This case was taken on file against the

Accused for the Under Sections 379 or 411 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of

Damage of Public Property Act, 1984. On 01.03.2021, copies of documents furnished to them U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 23.12.2021, the accused were present and they were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and on 23.12.2021 trial has commenced and closed on 07.08.2024. On 07.08.2024 accused were present and they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material appearing against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. The Counsels for accused submitted their arguments on 27.08.2024.

On 11.09.2024 the A1 to A5 were present. Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

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

Name of the Accused :1.Kothapalli China Babu, S/o.Chantiyya, Aged 21 years, Dondapudi village, Gopalapuram mandal, Tractor bearing No.AP.39.U.6630 and

II AJFCM Court, Kovvur. 11 C.C.No.628/2020, Dt.11.09.2024.

Trailer No.AP.39.TC.5410.

2.Tanukula Mohan, S/o.Subba Rao, Aged 22 years, Dondapudi village, Gopalapuram mandal, Mahindra 575 Model tractor Engine No.AP.37.DE.9065,andTruck No.AP.26.AP.7633.

3.Kotam Suresh, S/o.Sankurudu, Aged 24 years, Kommugudem village, Polavaram mandal, Un-numbered Eicher 380 F/R Model tractor and un-numbered Trailer.

4.Manelli Venkataratnam, S/o.Durgaprasad, Aged 48 years, Dondapudi village, Gopalapuram mandal, Tractor Engine bearing No.AP.37.V.1790andTrailer No.AP.39.CK.9712.

5.Mallipudi Verraju, S/o.Pentayya, Aged 36 years, Dondapudi village, Gopalapuram mandal, JCB bearing No.AP.39.K.7341.

Nature of Offences: Under Sections 379 or 411 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984.

Plea of the Accused: Not Guilty.

Finding of the Court:Not Guilty.

Result:The A1 to A5 are hereby found not guilty for the offences Under Sections 379 and 411 IPC and

Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public

Property Act, 1984, and the A1 to A5 are hereby acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences Under Sections 379 and 411

IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of

Public Property Act, 1984. The bail bonds of

II AJFCM Court, Kovvur. 12 C.C.No.628/2020, Dt.11.09.2024.

the accused if any shall be discharged after expiry of 6 months as per of Section 437-A

Cr.P.C.

The interim custody of unmarked case property i.e., 1) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (SwarajDivision)Tractorbearing

No.AP.39.U.6630, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

Tractor bearing No.AP.37.DE.9065, and Trailer bearing No.AP.39.TC.5410 which were already given to the registered owner/ Nralasetti Rama

Chandra Rao as per orders in

Crl.M.P.No.97196/2020 dated 07.10.2020, 2)

Trailer bearing No.AP.26.AP.7633 which was already given to the registered owner/

Nandamuri Ravi Chandra as per orders in

Crl.M.P.No.97153/2020 dated 07.10.2020, 3)

Tractor bearing No.AP.39.FQ.1638 which was already given to the registered owner/Payum

Venkata Lakshmi as per orders in

Crl.M.P.No.2866/2020 dated 18.11.2020, 4)

Trailer bearing Reg. No.AP.39.CK9712 which was already given to the registered owner/

Manelli Venkataratnam as per orders in

Crl.M.P.No.1213/2020 dated.07.12.2020.5)

Tractor bearing No.AP.39.V.1790 which was already given to the registered owner/

Cheepulla Sudhakar as per orders in

Crl.M.P.No.1214/2020 dated.07.12.2020.6)

JCB bearing Reg.No.AP.39.K.7341 which was already given to the registered owner/ Mallipudi

Veeraju @ Peda Verraju as per orders in

II AJFCM Court, Kovvur. 13 C.C.No.628/2020, Dt.11.09.2024.

Crl.M.P.No.1212/2020 dated 07.12.2020shall

become final after expiry of the Two months from the date of this Judgment or if Appeal is made after disposal of the Appeal, whichever is later.

SAIDigitally signed

by SAI

KRISHNA

GEDELA

GEDELA II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), - cum – II Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate, Kovvur. Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.

Order Record 1,951 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/52/2022	Yedala Lakshmanarao vs Mellimi Harihara Venkatesaralu	11 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/400/2023	Polina Sri Hari Babu vs Yantrapragada Madhu	11 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/16/2025	Sri Marri Satyanarayana vs Sri Velaga Srinivasa Rao	08 May 2026	Copy of Order	—
STC/7/2024	Teegireddy Suresh Kumar vs Palivela Samuel	08 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	Convicted
OS/220/2025	Smt. Kiran Deshwal vs Sri Naidu Gangadar Rao	07 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/229/2025	Smt. Ganasala Kumari vs Sri Bellapukonda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	07 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/16/2026	Sri Beera Lakshman vs Sri Madduri Nagaraju	01 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/279/2025	Sri Uppada Danial vs Smt. Jonnakuti Bayamma	01 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1/2024	Sho Devarapalli PS vs Mullapudi Rangarao	30 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/44/2025	Devarapalli Police Station vs Undrajavarapu Janakiram	29 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/312/2025	Devarapalli Police Station vs Chellam cherla Veeravenkata Apparao	29 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1489/2022	Sho Devarapalli PS vs Ryali Venkata Narasimharao	28 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1490/2022	Sho Devarapalli PS vs Ryali Vara Prasad	28 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/80/2025	Devarapalli Police Station vs Mungara Srinu	27 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/89/2025	Devarapalli Police Station vs Vasantda Nagendrababu	27 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/364/2021	Juvvala Raja Rajeswari vs Dande Madhu Mohana Venkata Hari Krishna Prasad	24 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/69/2025	Sri Vasu Kanvilla vs Sri Kakarla Satyanarayana	23 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/223/2024	Atmaramasramam Charitable Trust vs Union Bank of India, Kovvur branch rep by its its manager	23 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/60/2025	Sri Nadimpalli Rangaraju vs Sri Yelubandi Satya Chandra Mukesh	22 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/297/2025	Sri Renduchintala Rama Krishna Murthy vs Sri Talari Srinivas	22 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
STC/72/2024	Smt. Muthyala Venkata Lakshmi vs Sri Jakkamsetti Eliyaraju	22 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
FDP/5/2025	Sri Koduri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Prasad vs Sri Bezawada Satyavathi	22 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/12/2025	The Gram Panchayat,Dommeru, Kovvur mandal, rep. by its Secretary vs Sri Vattikuti Satya Durga Prasad	21 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/10/2026	Sanaboyena Siva Durga Prasad vs Sanaboyena Nageswara Rao	21 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
FDP/8/2023	Tammirsi Bhadrayya vs Tammirsi Narasayya	21 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/238/2023	Susal Showrinath vs Rachuri Srinivas	20 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/61/2025	Sri Narala Anasuya vs Sri Kothapalli Ratna Kumari	16 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
MC/2/2026	Smt. Challangi Anjali vs Sri Challangi Nagaraju	16 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
MC/38/2023	Muppidi @ Kodavati Sainyroy vs Muppidi Prasanth Kumar	16 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/347/2024	Sri Songa Venkata Rao vs Sri Kathiri Venkateswara Rao	13 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/1486/2022	Sub Inspector of Police, Devarapalli. vs Shaik Abdul Ansar	13 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100/2025	Devarapalli Police Station vs Shabbir Malangasabladaf	09 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/198/2025	State Rep., by SHO of SEB Station, Devarapalli. vs Vemula Somaraju	08 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/399/2019	Naraharisetti (Balla) Satyakala vs Naraharisetti Satyanarayana	07 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/9/2026	Sri Gangiboina Venkata Ramana vs Sri Muggalla Rajesh	06 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/69/2024	State Bank of India,Prakkilanka branch, rep. by its Branch Manager, Prakkilanka vs Sri Rayinkula Janardhana Rao	06 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/58/2023	Meripo Adiyya vs Dondapati Vijaya Bhaskara Rao	06 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/112/2024	M/s. Bank Of Baroda, Gopalapuram Rep by its Branch Manager. vs Anisetti Prabhakara Rao	01 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/328/2023	Kanumuri Tirupathi Raju vs Vadavelli Venkata Suryanarayana	01 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/655/2024	Devarapalli Police Station vs Meripo Prasad	31 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/93/2019	Alluri Sri Lakshmi vs Gadde Aruna Kumar	30 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/95/2019	Alluri Ramachandra Rao vs Gadde Aruna Kumari	30 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/138/2025	State Bank of India, Prakkilanka, represented by its Branch Manager, Kovvur vs Sri Pavan Agencies, represented by its Proprietor	30 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1205/2023	Sho Devarapalli P.S vs Samayam Bhaskara Suresh	30 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/241/2024	Sho Devarapalli PS vs Garlapati Venkateswarao	18 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/8/2026	Smt. Dekkapati Lakshmi vs Smt. Bonagiri Sarada alias Alapati Sarada	17 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/274/2025	State Bank of India, Chityala, rep. by its BranchManagerr, Chityala vs Sri Ganta Vinod Babu	16 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/275/2025	State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Chityala village,Gopalapuram mandal vs Smt. Ganta Venu	16 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/276/2025	State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Chityala village,Gopalapuram mandal vs Sri Ganta Veera Venkata Rao	16 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/656/2025	Devarapalli Police Station vs Chapala Venkatapathi	16 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/747/2023	Sho Devarapalli PS vs Muppidi Mahesh Kumar	16 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/13/2026	Smt. Shaik Hamina vs Smt. Kambala Swathi	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/74/2026	Devarapalli Police Station vs Jalasutrapu Karuna Kumar	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/75/2026	Devarapalli Police Station vs Palli Parameswari	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/76/2026	Devarapalli Police Station vs Yangala Chandra Lekha	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/80/2026	Prohibition and Excise Police station Kovvur vs Pasalapudi Subba rao	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/81/2026	State rep. by Proh. and Excise Station, Devarapalli vs Narayana Dhana Lakshmi	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/82/2026	Prohibition and Excise Police station Kovvur vs Marisetti Anitha Durga	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/83/2026	State rep. by Sub Inspector, Proh and Excise Station, Devarapalli vs Kadaluri Janaki Ramayya	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/84/2026	State rep. by Sub Inspector, Proh and Excise Station, Devarapalli vs Sri Varigeti Sivayya	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/86/2026	State rep. by Sub Inspector, Proh and Excise Station, Devarapalli vs Rayudu Sai Babu	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/87/2026	State rep. by Sub Inspector, Proh and Excise Station, Devarapalli vs Kadali Annavaram	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/88/2026	State rep. by Sub Inspector, Proh and Excise Station, Devarapalli vs Pragada Satyanarayana	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/89/2026	State rep. by Sub Inspector, Proh and Excise Station, Devarapalli vs Chelinkula Basavamma	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/103/2026	Devarapalli Police Station vs Sri Bodavarpu Sivaji Ganesh Reddy	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/327/2025	Devarapalli Police Station vs Gella Vikas	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/471/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police station Kovvur vs Golagani Lakshmi	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/478/2025	Devarapalli Police Station vs TAMIRCHI PREM KUMAR	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/649/2025	Devarapalli Police Station vs Chapala Prasanna	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/651/2025	Devarapalli Police Station vs Vangapandu Anil Kumar	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
MC/22/2025	Smt. Digamarthi alias Kaduluri Lalitha Rani vs Sri Digamarthi Phani Deep	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/165/2025	Smt. Katikalapudi Kasamma vs Sri Chenna Yella Rao	12 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/403/2022	Kotaru Revathi vs Kanuri Tulasirani	12 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/280/2024	Sho Devarapalli PS vs Gollamandala Anil Kumar	12 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/776/2025	Devarapalli Police Station vs Pippalla Krishna Vamsi	12 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
STC/19/2025	Sri Vemana Venkateswara Rao vs Sri Komati Srinivasa Rao	11 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
STC/19/2025	Sri Vemana Venkateswara Rao vs Sri Komati Srinivasa Rao	11 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/544/2024	Sho Devarapalli PS vs Gurram Gopalarao	10 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/19/2025	Sri Danam Rama Rao vs Sri Rayudu Naresh	09 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/25/2024	Paramata Mohana Rao vs Anukolu Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	09 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/226/2025	Sri Uppada Danial vs Sri Mulla Srinivas	09 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/27/2022	Saraswathula Sivaramakrishna Prasad vs Repaka Suryanarayana	05 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/107/2025	Sri Kamanchi Kiran Kumar vs Smt. Konjerla alias Chinchinada Jyothi	02 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/4/2023	Chenna Rajyalakshmi vs Chidella Susella Devi	28 Feb 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/271/2025	Sri Kotha Reddiah vs Sri Shaik Hussain	26 Feb 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/355/2022	Dasari Srilakshmi Pavani vs Dasari Papa	26 Feb 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/301/2024	Sho Devarapalli PS vs Rekadi Tatharao@Tatajee	26 Feb 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/27/2025	The State Rep., by SHO of SEB Station, Kovvuru. vs Kandavalli Annapurna	25 Feb 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
STC/83/2025	Kotharu Radha Krishna Kumari vs Bommireddy Venkateswara Rao	25 Feb 2026	Copy of Order	Acquitted
CC/327/2024	Special Enforcement Bureau Station vs Ganusula Suribabu	24 Feb 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/204/2025	Devarapalli Police Station vs Meda Krishna	23 Feb 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/99/2023	Seelam Chandra Leela vs Konjerla @ Chinchinada Jyothi	23 Feb 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/203/2025	Devarapalli Police Station vs Arepalli Ananthalakshmi	19 Feb 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/43/2024	Mudragada Satyanrayana vs Medicharla Annavaram	19 Feb 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/214/2025	Sri Akkabathula Yakobu vs Sri Gandi Posiyya	18 Feb 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1206/2023	Sho Devarapalli PS vs Koyya Suryachandram	17 Feb 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
DVC/30/2024	Madda @ Dhara Swarnalatha @ Lakshmi Devi vs Madda Sravan Kumar	17 Feb 2026	Copy of Order	—
MC/69/2023	Madda @ Dhara Swarnalatha @ Lakshmi Devi vs Madda Sravan Kumar	17 Feb 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/9/2025	Sri Gumpula Srinu vs Sri Gumpula Suryachandram	16 Feb 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/303/2024	Sho Devarapalli PS vs Punnam Satya veeravenkata Satyanarayana	16 Feb 2026	Copy of Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 1,951 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		8
Apr 2026		31
Mar 2026		45
Feb 2026		29
Jan 2026		20
Dec 2025		220
Nov 2025		46
Oct 2025		40
Sep 2025		52
Aug 2025		28
Jul 2025		71
Jun 2025		20

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri Gedala Sai Krishna handled?

Sri Gedala Sai Krishna has handled 1964 court orders since 2023 at SCJ Court Complex Kovvur. The average disposal rate is 58 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri Gedala Sai Krishna hear?

Based on available records, Sri Gedala Sai Krishna primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at SCJ Court Complex Kovvur.

Where is Sri Gedala Sai Krishna currently posted?

Sri Gedala Sai Krishna is posted as I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur at SCJ Court Complex Kovvur, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri Gedala Sai Krishna available online?

Yes. 30 judgments by Sri Gedala Sai Krishna are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri Gedala Sai Krishna dispose cases?

Sri Gedala Sai Krishna disposes approximately 58 cases per month, based on 1964 orders handled over their tenure at SCJ Court Complex Kovvur.

Since when is Sri Gedala Sai Krishna serving?

Sri Gedala Sai Krishna has been serving at SCJ Court Complex Kovvur since 2023.

Case Types

CC 59%

OS 18%

STC 10%

EP 6%

MC 3%

DVC 1%

FDP 1%

PRC 1%

Posting History

Feb 2026 — Mar 2026

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur · 1 orders
Feb 2026 — Mar 2026

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur · 6 orders
Dec 2025 — Dec 2025

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur
Dec 2025 — Dec 2025

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur
Jun 2025 — Jun 2025

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur · 1 orders
Jun 2025 — Jun 2025

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur · 1 orders
Jan 2025 — Mar 2025

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur · 51 orders
Sep 2024 — May 2026

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur · 952 orders
Aug 2024 — Sep 2024

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur · 8 orders
Aug 2024 — Sep 2024

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur · 11 orders
Jan 2024 — Apr 2024

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur · 34 orders
Jul 2023 — Aug 2023

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur · 1 orders
May 2023 — May 2023

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur · 24 orders
May 2023 — Sep 2024

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur · 874 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 12

Convicted 1

Other Judges at this Court

Smt M Anuradha

IX Additional District Judge

1,091 orders

Smt Gandham Venkata Lakshmi Saraswathi

Principal Senior Civil Judge

1,852 orders

V. Nageswar Rao Naik

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magist...

0 orders

Smt K Naga Lakshmi

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additiona...

42 orders

← View all judges at SCJ Court Complex Kovvur