Sri Gopi Krishna Kumaram

C.C.No. 29 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT DUBBAK

Present: Kumaram Gopi Krishna Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judl. Magistrate Of First Class, Dubbak.

Friday, this the 28th day of June 2019

C.C.No. 29 of 2014 (OLD C.C.No. 755 of 2007)

Between:

The State of Telangana, through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Mirdoddi.

...Complainant

AND

A1. Karadi Shiva Kumar S/o Ramaiah, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Laxminagar,

A2. Billa Bala Laxmi W/o Narsaiah, Age: 58 years, Occ: House hold, R/o Dubbak,

A3. Koyyad Narsa Goud S/o Kista Goud, Age: 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o Akaram now at Siddipet,

A4. Koyyada Laxmi W/o Narsa Goud, Age: 42 years, Occ: House hold, R/o Akaram now at Siddipet,

A5. Thummala Balraj, Age: 37 years, Occ: Realtor,

A6. Hanumantha Rao, Age: 38 years, Occ: Realtor,

A7. Kollakadi Renavva W/o Rajaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture,

A8. Kudedala Pochavva W/o Narsaiah (Died), Age: 36 years, Occ: Agriculture,

A9. Gundelli Yellavva W/o Rajaiah, Age: 33 years, Occ: Agriculture,

A10.Gundelli Mallavva W/o Ramulu, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

A11.Gundelli Gouravva W/o Shankaraiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

A12.Muthyala Suseela W/o Maraiah, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

Page 1 of 11 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

C.C.No. 29 of 2014

A13.Gudikandula Rajavva W/o Nandam, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

A14.Muthyala Lachavva W/o Balaiah, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

A15.Gundelli Chandravva W/o Narsaiah, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

A16.M. Rangavva W/o Budaiah, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

A17.Ch. Pochavva W/o Narsaiah, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

A18.Gundelli Bhoomavva W/o Chandraiah, Age: 34 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

A19.Andheram Lachavva W/o Shivaiah, Age: 34 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

A20.Muthyala Kanakavva W/o Balraj, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

A21.Mythala Laxmi W/o Lingam, Age: 31 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

A22.Kanthi Pochavva W/o Balaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

A23.Gundelli Durgavva W/o Pochaiah, Age: 31 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

A24.Muthyala Yellavva W/o Balraj, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

A25.Chinna Yellavva W/o Sharabandu, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

A26.Ch. Narsavva W/o Rajaiah (Died), Age: 59 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

A27.Anderam Sumitra W/o Ramulu, Age: 39 years, Occ: Agricutlure,

A5 to A27 are R/o Kasulabad.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of the learned Circle Inspector of Police for the State and Sri. V. Raji Reddy, learned counsel for A1 to A6 and Sri. A. Bapu Rao, learned counsel for A7 to A27 and upon hearing both the sides and perusing the material on record and the same is having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following :-

Page 2 of 11 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

C.C.No. 29 of 2014

J U D G M E N T

1.A1 to A27 were arraigned before this Court for the offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) in Cr.No. 50/2007 of

Police Station, Mirdoddi.

2.This case is originally registered as C.C. No. 755 of 2007 and it has been transferred to this Court on 07.05.2014 in view of its establishment and on the point of jurisdiction as per the orders of the Hon’ble Principal District Court, Medak at Sangareddy vide Proc.No.

1852/2014 dated 07.05.2014. Thereafter, it has been renumbered to C.C. No. 29 of 2014.

3.The case of prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:- On 28.06.2007,

LW1/Tahsildar, Mirdoddi lodged a report stating that the agricultural lands in Sy.No. 509, 510, 512, 513 and 514 to the extent of Ac. 21-32 gts located at the outskirts of Mirdoddi village was allocated to the landless SC community people of Kasulabad under the land purchase scheme in the year 1998, bought by SC Corporation, Sangareddy. A1 has purchased the lands from the SC beneficiaries who received lands by the SC Corporation and purchasing or conducting sale of those lands are prohibited. Hence, requested the police to take necessary action.

4.The police has filed chargesheet for the offences punishable under section 420 of IPC against A1 to A27 and the Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under section 420 of IPC against A1 to A27. The copies of the documents were furnished to A1 to

A27 on their appearance as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C).

5.This Court has split up the case against A1 to A6 and a separate calander case number has been assigned vide C.C.No. 276 of 2011 vide docket order dated 16.05.2011 and A7 to

A27 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and upon hearing, charge as per section 240

Page 3 of 11 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

C.C.No. 29 of 2014

Cr.P.C was framed against A1 to A27 for the offence under section 420 of IPC and the contents of the same were read over and explained to them in their vernacular language to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.1. A1 to A6 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and upon hearing, charge as per section 240 Cr.P.C was framed against A1 to A6 for the offence under section 420 of IPC and the contents of the same were read over and explained to them in their vernacular language to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, C.C.No. 276 of 2011 and the case at hand was consolidated vide docket order dated 19.12.2011.

6.The prosecution examined witnesses PW1 to PW8, exhibited documents Ex.P1 to

Ex.P6 in evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The Court has closed the evidence of

LW2 and LW10 as the police failed to secure their presence in spite of several opportunities and conditional orders. The case against A26 was abated on 08.09.2016 on account of his death. The police intimated the death of A8 on 22.03.2018 by filing a report along with a certificate issued by the Panchayath Secretary, however the same is not reflected on the docket on the said date or any other date, hence in these circumstances, the case against A8 is hereby abated.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A7, A9 to A25, A27 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to which they denied and reported no defence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused under section 420 of

IPC, beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt?

10. The prosecution examined LW1/defacto-complainant as PW1, LW2/witness as PW2,

LW4 to LW9/witnesses as PW3 to PW8.

Page 4 of 11 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

C.C.No. 29 of 2014

11. The prosecution got marked the report lodged by PW1 as Ex.P1, the 161 statement of

PW3 as Ex.P2, the 161 statement of PW4 as Ex.P3, the 161 statement of PW5 as Ex.P4, the 161 statement of PW6 as Ex.P5 and the 161 statement of PW7 as Ex.P6.

12. Sri. Harigopal Chary/Tahsildar/defacto complainant is examined as PW1 and he deposed that, in the year 1998 the Executive Director of SC Corporation has purchased the lands from pattadars in Sy.No. 509 to 514 situated at Mirdoddi village for the purpose of distributing the land to the landless scheduled caste people. The Executive Director of the SC

Corporation distributed the land to A10 and 22 others and A10 and 22 others tried to sell their allotted lands by SC Corporation through the mediators i.e. A1, A5 and A6 to A2 to

A4. On knowing the information PW1 issued a letter to the Sub-Registrar, Dubbak not to register the lands in the name of A2 to A4 and on 30.05.2007, PW1 conducted panchanama and took over the possession of the land in above said survey numbers. The Executive

Director, SC Corporation orall y instructed PW1 to return all the patta passbooks of A10 to 22 others who tried to sell their lands to A2 to A4 to the mediators A1, A5 and A6.

Thereafter, PW1 lodged a complaint on 28.06.2007 before the police for necessary action.

13. Sri. K. Rameshwar/Revenue Inspector/witness is examined as PW2 and he deposed that, about 11 years ago (prior to the date of deposition i.e. on 22.03.2018), there was land purchase scheme by the Government and PW2 was informed by PW1 that the assigned lands are sold away by the beneficiaries to others. PW2 conducted an enquiry in the lands bearing

Sy.No. 509 to 514 situated near Kasulabad village and conducted enquiry and PW2 came to know regarding the transactions in respect of the assigned lands. PW1 reported the same to the District Collector by PW1 and in pursuance of the same, the Collector ordered PW1 to keep the lands in the custody of Revenue Department. Therefore, PW2 has taken the said lands into custody on the instructions of PW1 and the same is handed over to VRO of the said village.

Page 5 of 11 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

C.C.No. 29 of 2014

14. Sri. G. Chandraiah/witness is examined as PW3 and he deposed that, he doesn’t know anything about this case and the accused did not commit any offence.

15. Sri. M. Nandam/witness is examined as PW4 and he deposed that, he doesn’t know anything about this case and the accused did not commit any offence.

16. Sri. Md. Khaleeluddin/Junior Assistant & I/C Sub-Registrar, Dubbak/witness is examined as PW5 and he deposed that, he doesn’t know anything about this case but the police enquired him about this case but he doesn’t remember what they actually enquired.

17. Sri. V. Krishnamurthy/Document writer at Sub-Registra Office, Dubbak/witness is examined as PW6 and he deposed that, he doesn’t know anything about this case and police never examined him or recorded his statement.

18. Sri. P. Sudharshan/Sub-Registrar, Dubbak/witness is examined as PW7 and he deposed that, he doesn’t know anything about this case and and police never examined him or recorded his statement.

19. Sri. D. Sarvaiah/Executive Director SC Corporation/witness is examined as PW8 and he deposed that, on 27.07.2007, LW10 approached me and enquired regarding the details of the land purchase scheme at Kasulababad village which was distributed to the landless SC poor beneficiaries of Kasulabad Village and accordingly, PW8 has given him the details. As per the proceedings of the District Collector vide No. D/241/199 dated 29.10.1997, land in

Sy.Nos. 509 to 514 toatling to the extent of Ac.23-36 gts at the outskirts of Mirdoddi

Mandal was distributed to 23 landless SC Beneficiaries and the said land is not heritable.

PW8 has given a loan ranging from Rs.14000/- to Rs. 16,000/- for each beneficiary with a condition that they have to repay the same @ 6% interest in 10 years. Subsequently, they have sasnctioned a subsidy of Rs. 6,000/- per beneficiary as per their eligibility. None of the beneficiaries paid even a single installment and through PW1, PW8 came to know that all

Page 6 of 11 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

C.C.No. 29 of 2014 the beneficiaries through mediators namely Karadi Shiva Kumar/A1, thummala Balraj/A5 and Hanmanthu/A6 collectively sold Ac.23-36 gts to one Billa Laxmi from Dubbak, Koyeda

Narsa Goud and Koyeda Laxmi from Akaram Village @ Rs. 20,000/- per acre. As per the orders of the District Collector, the predecessor of PW8 caused enquiry and submitted the report to the collector and as per the rules of the land purchase scheme, it is illegal for the beneficiary to sell the land acquired under land purchase scheme and any person to purchase the same from the said beneficiaries.

POINT

20. PW2 to PW7 who are cited as witnesses deposed that they do not know anything about this case, thereby resiling from their previous statements and turned completely hostile.

It is petinent to note that, PW5 to PW7 are Government Employees and even they have turned volte-face and the prosecution failed to bring on record anything substantive in spite of conducting their cross-examination. Hence, the testimony of PW2 to PW7 is not useful to the Court for arriving at a conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused and their testimony surely goes against the version of the prosecution.

21. The evidence that remains for consideration is that of PW1, PW2 and PW8. PW1 deposed that, the Executive Director, SC Corporation has purchased the lands from pattadars in Sy.No. 509 to 514 situated at Mirdoddi village for the purpose of distributing it to the landless SC people. In his cross-examination, PW1 stated that on the day of lodging Ex.P1, he didn’t submit any documents to the police but he added that, susbsequently, he had submitted the documents to the police at the time of investigation, however, as seen from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, no document appears to have been marked in evidence for perusal and consideration of this Court for reasons unknown.

21.1.In the further cross examination of PW1, he admitted that he doesn’t know whether

A1 is the pattadar of the lands in above survey numbers and he doesn’t know the scheme for

Page 7 of 11 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

C.C.No. 29 of 2014 distributing lands to the beneficiaries by the SC Corporation. PW1 in his cross-examination further divulged that, he came to know from the VROs, Executive Director of SC

Corporation and the Collector that, A12 to A27 are selling lands to A1 which were allotted to them by the SC Corporation. This statement clearly manifests that the evidence given by

PW1 is nothing but a mere hearsay which is inadmissible in evidence.

21.2.PW1, also admitted that he doesn’t know whether A1 was the pattadar of the lands in the above survey numbers as testified by him and that, he has not gone through the record with regard to the allotment of land to the beneficiaries and that, he didn’t file any documents to show that the land in above survey numbers is a Government land and also the Act under which the accused are prohibited to sell the lands to others. From the preceding discussion it becomes evident that there is no substance in the testimony of PW1 and his entire testimony is hearsay.

22. The testimony of PW2 regarding the alleged transactions between the accused in respecft of Sy.No. 509 to 514 is hearsay as he clearly deposed that it was informed to him by

PW1. Further, PW2 deposed that he went to the land in above survey numbers and conducted enquiry in which he came to know that there was some transactions took place regarding the purchase and sale of the said lands and that, on the instructions given to PW1 by the District Collector, he has taken the said lands into custody and handed over the same to VRO of the village. In this regard, PW2 didn’t depose

(a)whether he has made any written report,

(b)the name and details of the people with whom he caused enquiry,

(c)the date on which he casued the said enquiry,

(d)reasons for his conclusion that there were transactions,

(e)the nature of said transactions,

(f)the parties to the said transactions,

(g)the document which shows the proceedings/instructions issued by the District Collector to PW1 to take custody of the lands in above survey numbers,

Page 8 of 11 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

C.C.No. 29 of 2014

(h)document which shows that he has taken the custody of the lands in the above survey numbers,

(i)the mode of taking custody of the above said lands and

(j)document showing that the said lands are handed over to the VRO of the said village etc.

Therefore, it becomes very evident that the evidence of PW2 is alos devoid of any merit and susbstance and accordingly, his evidence also cannot be taken into consideration and is not useful for the Court.

23. PW8, in his cross-examination stated that he doesn’t have any personal knowledge regarding the lands distributed under the land purchase scheme and also that he doesn’t know the mode of distribution of lands under the said scheme. It could be gathered from the evidence of PW1 that the allegation against A10 and 22 others is only that they tried to sell the lands assigned to them under the land purchase scheme and not the actual sale whereas in his cross-examination, PW8 stated that the said lands were sold to A2 to A4 with the help of

A1, A5 and A6 and it was registered and thereby transpiring into contradiction. The incident took place in the year 1997 and PW8 joined duty in the year 2007 which clearly shows that

PW8 is not having any first-hand knowledge and his entire deposition is based on the records which leads to a conclusion that even his evidence is nothing but hearsay. Therefore, it is discernible that he is not privy to any sort of allged communications and other actions between the District Collector and the revenue authorities and hence, his evidence serves no purpose.

24. In consequence it is clear as crystal that the testimony of PW3 to PW7 was worthless and the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW8 proved to be disadvantageous to the prosecution and therefore, the testimony of the all prosecution witness befalled to be counter-productive.

There is nothing in reocrd which even remotely proves any of the ingredient of section 420 of

IPC and therefore, A1 to A7, A9 to A25, A27 are entitled for an acquittal.

Page 9 of 11 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

C.C.No. 29 of 2014

25. IN THE RESULT, A1 to A7, A9 to A25, A27 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged after expiry of appeal period.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of June 2018.

Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE

PW1 J. Harigopal Chary-Nil- PW2 K. Rameshwar, PW3 G. Chandraiah, PW4 M. Nandam. PW5 Khaleeluddin PW6 V. Krishnamurthy PW7 P. Sudershan PW8 K. Sarvaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1Report lodged by PW1-Nil- Ex.P2161 statement of PW3 Ex.P3161 statement of PW4 Ex.P4161 statement of PW5 Ex.P5161 statement of PW6 Ex.P6161 statement of PW7

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

Page 10 of 11 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

C.C.No. 29 of 2014

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT THE HON’BLE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS AT DUBBAK.

C.C.NO. 29/2014

1.Date of Offence28-06-2007

2.Date of report to PS/Court (transferred to this Court)07-05-2014

3.Date of arrest of accused/Surrender in Court50 of Cr.P.C.

4.Date of release on bail-do-

5.Date of commencement of trial13-06-2011

6.Date of conclusion of trial13-06-2019

7.Date of Arguments28-06-2019

8.Date of Order/Judgment28-06-2019

9.Explanation of delay, if any-

The State of Telangana, through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Mirdoddi.

AND

Karadi Shiva Kumar S/o Ramaiah and 26 others Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Laxminagar,

10.Offence ChargeU/sec. 420 of IPC

11.Plea of accusedNot guilty

12.Finding of the court Found Not Guilty

IN THE RESULT, A1 to A7, A9 to A25,

12.Result of Order/JudgmentA27 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged after expiry of appeal period.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

Dis.No. /201 , Dated: / /201

To

The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

Page 11 of 11 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

O.S. No. 07 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT DUBBAK

Present: Kumaram Gopi Krishna Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judl. Magistrate Of First Class, Dubbak.

Friday, this the 28th day of June 2019

O.S.NO. 07 OF 2014

(OLD O.S.NO. 306 OF 2007)

Between:

1.Payyavula Sathyanarayana S/o Ramulu, Age: 60 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Peddachepyal Village, Mirdoddi Mandal, Medak District.

2.Payyavula Kistaiah S/o Ramulu, Age: 54 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Peddachepyal Village, Mirdoddi Mandal, Medak District.

3.Payyavula Yellam S/o Ramulu, Age: 38 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Peddachepyal Village, Mirdoddi Mandal, Medak District.

...Plaintiffs

AND

1.Arella Chennagoud S/o Veera Goud, Age: 68 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Peddachepyal Village, Mirdoddi Mandal, Medak District.

2.Machapuram Narsaiah S/o Keshaiah, Age: 74 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Peddachepyal Village, Mirdoddi Mandal, Medak District.

3.Machapuram Muthyam S/o A. Lachanna, Age: 25 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Peddachepyal Village, Mirdoddi Mandal, Medak District.

...Defendants

This suit having come before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. L. Sai Baba, learned counsel for the plaintiff, Sri. Y. Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the defendant no.1 and defendants no.2 & 3 having been set ex parte, upon hearing the both the counsels, perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration to this date, the Court delivered the following:

Page 1 of 10 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak

O.S. No. 07 of 2014

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed praying this Court to pass a decree restraining the defendants, their legal heirs, legal representatives, associates, friends or anybody on their behalf from interefering into land in Sy.No. 164 to the extent of Ac. 02-00 gts, Sy.No. 164/A to the extent of Ac. 02-00 gts, Sy.No. 164/EE to the extent of Ac. 01-38 gts, Sy.No. 164/U to the extent of Ac. 01-37 gts and Sy.No. 164/UU to the extent of Ac. 01-32 gts at Peddachepyal village of Mirdoddi Mandal, Medak District (hereinafter collectively referred to as the suit schedule property).

2.This suit is originally filed before the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Siddipet and it was numbered as O.S. No. 306 of 2007. In view of the establishment of this

Court as per the orders in ROC.No. 3977/E1/2013 dated 31.10.2013 by the erstwhile

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and also the orders of the Hon’ble Principal District

Court, Medak at Sangareddy vide Lr. Proc.No. 1805/2014 dated 19.04.2014, this case has been transferred to this Court on 24.04.2014 on the point of jurisdiction. Thereafter, it was renumbered as O.S. No. 07 of 2014.

3.Brief facts of the plaint: Late Ramaiah @ Ramulu is the father and Mangali Balaiah is the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs’ and they both were the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. The father and maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs’ died long ago leaving behind them as their legal heirs and succesors to the suit schedule property and they have become the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. The defendants no.1 to 3 are strangers to the suit schedule property and they do not have any right, title or possession over the possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are illiterates and taking the same as advantage, the defendants manipulated the revenue records with the collusion of revenue authorities and they are trying to grab the suit schedule property with unsocial elements. Hence, the suit.

Page 2 of 10 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak

O.S. No. 07 of 2014

4.The defendants no.2 & 3 are set-exparte vide the order of the Court on 31.12.2007, however, defendant no.1 has filed his written statement.

5.Brief facts of the written statement of defendant no.1: Since the defendants no.

2 & 3 are set exparte and only defendant no.1 has filed his written statement, he shall from thisforth be referred to as the ‘defendant’ unless the specification of the reference of defendants no.2 & 3 otherwise arise. The defendant denied that the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property as alleged in the plaint and also that, their maternal grandfather left them as the legal heirs and succesors to the suit schedule property and also that, he is a stranger to the suit schedule property. The defendant narrated the real facts as thus:

(a) that, the total extent of Sy.No. 164 is Ac.15-19 gts with four sharers namely; Mangali

Ramaiah the father of the plaintiff having Ac.03-38 gts, Boini Narayana – Ac.03-32 gts, Boini Rajaiah – Ac.3-32 gts and Mangali Balaiah S/o Narsaiah – Ac.03-37 gts.

(b) that, the defendant has purchased the lands in Sy.No. 164/AA tothe extent of Ac. 02- 00 gts, Sy.No. 164/E to the extent of Ac.01-35 gts, Sy.No. 164/AA to the extent of

Ac.00-17 gts, Sy.No. 168/AA to the extent of Ac.00-09 gts from Mangali Balaiah and

Sy.No. 166/E to the extent of Ac.00-04¼ gts from Karnala Palli Lachavva W/o

Shivvaiah under an agreement of sale on 15.02.1972 for a total consideration of Rs.

1400/- and he was inducted into the possession.

(c) that, the defendant regularized the said sale under ROR proceedings and got 13-B certificate vide A/3337/1/06 dated 15.02.2007 and his name is recorded as pattadar and possessor and pattadar passbooks were also issued to him in respect of the above lands.

(d) that, the vendor of the defendant died about 33 years ago (prior to the filing of written statement i.e. before 19.02.2008) without any legal heirs or issues.

Page 3 of 10 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak

O.S. No. 07 of 2014

(e) that, the defendant further purchased Ac.00-24 gts of land in Sy.No. 164 from one

Mangali Ramaiah S/o Lasmaiah under an agreement of sale dated 17.01.1983 and subsequently got the same regularized under ROR proceedings and got 13B certificate vide no. E/3337/2/06 dated 15.02.2007 and his name was recorded int he revenue records and pattadar passbooks were issued to him in this regard.

(f) that, the name of Narsaiah in respect of Sy.No. 164/A to the extent of Ac. 00-26 gts is wrongly recorded as possessor in pahanies instead of the name of the defendant without any physical or constructive possession over the same, though the name of the defendant’s vendor is shown as pattadar for Ac.02-00 gts.

(g) that, the plaintiffs are illegally claiming the land in item no.2 and item no.4 of the suit schedule property without any rights therein to grab the land by showing wrong boundaries.

(h) that, the plaintiffs are not the owners or possessors of the suit schedule property in respect of item no. 2 & 4 even as per the revenue records filed by themselves and there is no cause of action against the defendant.

Hence, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.

6.On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and material available on record, the following issues were settled for trial by my predecessor:-

1.Whether plaintiffs is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction?

2.To what relief?

7.In order to prove his case, the plaintiff no.1 examined himself as PW1 and Ex.A1 &

Ex.A2 were admitted in evidence to substantiate his claim. One Mangali Anjaiah is examined as PW2 and Ankani Balraju is examined as PW3.

8.The defendant to fortify his defence examined himself as DW1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6

Page 4 of 10 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak

O.S. No. 07 of 2014

were admitted in evidence and one Gatam Mathadaiah is examined as DW3. The affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of DW2 is eschewed by this Court vide docket proceedings

dated 20.06.2017.

9.Both the counsels reported to the Court to pass judgment on merits.

ISSUE NO.1

10. It is discernible from the facts asseverated and the relief sought in the plaint that the suit is an injunction simpliciter. It is very well established by numerous judgments of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts that, in a suit for perpetual injunction, the

plaintiff must establish that he/she was in the lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit and the defendant invaded or threatened to invade the plaintiff’s right to or enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish all the facts which necessarily preponderate the factum of his/her lawful possession over the suit schedule property in all probabilities and also that the defendant invaded or threatened to invade his/her right to enjoy and possess the same, peacefully.

11. The affidavit of PW1 filed in lieu of examination-in-chief is a mere reproduction of the contents of the plaint. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of pahani for the fasli year 2002-03 and

Ex.A2 is the certified copy of pahani for the fasli year 2004-05. The contention of PW1 that he and plaintiff no.2 & 3 became the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property after the death of their father and maternal grandfather is rebutted by the defendants and in his cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he did not file any document to show that the suit land was on the name of their maternal grandfather which makes the case of the plaintiffs relatively bleak as it would be difficult to understand in absence of other compelling evidence, the fact whether they were in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as alleged. The admission made by PW1 shakes the very foundation of the claim of plaintiffs as if they fail to establish that they have succeded to the suit schedule property from their grandfather as

Page 5 of 10 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak

O.S. No. 07 of 2014

alleged in the plaint, then it is implied that they have not been in lawful possession of the said property, if they could prove their possession.

11.1.Sri. Mangali Anjaiah is examined as PW2 and his affidavit filed in lieu of examination- in-chief exhibit that he is a neighbouring land owner of the plaintiffs. The affidavit filed by PW2 reiterate the claim of the plaintiffs that they have suceeded to the suit schedule property from their ancestors and they have become the absolute owners and possessors of the same after the death of their forefathers and father. In his cross- examination, PW2 testified that the original owner of the suit schedule property was

Balaiah and divulged that, after his death, his son Narsaiah became the owner of the lands belonging to Balaiah.

11.2.This fact elicited by the learned counsel for the defendant is inconsistent with the pleading of the plaintiffs that they were the surviving legal heirs of Balaiah and they succeded to the suit schedule property after his death. There is no whisper about

Narsaiah in the plaint the plaintiffs failed to exert any effort to clarify how and who has succeded to the properties of Balaiah. The above observations add to the existing suspicion of the Court in respect of the ownership and lawful posession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

12. PW2 has testified regarding the boundaries of the suit schedule property at the request of the learned counsel for the defendant and the boundaries towards the eastern and northern side stated by him are inconsistent with the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property. Sri. Akani Balaraju is examined as PW3 and the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief assert the claim of the plantiffs that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. PW3 in his cross-examination testified that the plaintiffs are the paternal grandsons of Balaiah which is contrary to the stand of the plaintiffs.

13. Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 are the certified copies of pahanies for the years 2002-03, 2004-05,

Page 6 of 10 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak

O.S. No. 07 of 2014

respectively and they do not disclose the name of either of the plaintiffs. The land mentioned in Sl.Nos. 1 to 4 in the suit schedule property exhibit the name of people other than the plaintiffs as pattadars and possessors. The name of Ramaiah is mentioned in the possessor column of Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 in respect of Sy.No. 164 but only to the extent of Ac.00-27 gts and the father’s name of Ramaiah is neither mentioned in the plaint by the plaintiffs nor it is mentioned in Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 by the concerned authorities. Therefore it is not clear whether the Ramaiah mentioned the possessor column of Sy.No. 164 to the extent of Ac.00-27 gts is the father of the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the above, the contention of the plaintiffs was that their father Ramaiah and maternal grandfather Mangali Balaiah were the original owners and possessors of the property but nothing is mentioned in the plaintiff whether they jointly owned and possessed or had their respective shares in the suit schedule property.

14. The contention of the defendant as seen from his written statement is that he purchased the lands in Sy.No. 164/AA to the extent of Ac. 02-00 gts, Sy.No. 164/E to the extent of Ac.01-35 gts, Sy.No. 164/AA to the extent of Ac.00-17 gts, Sy.No. 168/AA to the extent of Ac.00-09 gts from Mangali Balaiah and Sy.No. 166/E to the extent of Ac.00-04¼ gts from Karnala Palli Lachavva W/o Shivvaiah (total land to the extent of Ac.04-25¼) under an agreement of sale on 15.02.1972 for a total consideration of Rs. 1400/- and inducted the defendant into the possession. Further, he also stated that he purchased land in Sy.No. 164/A to an extent of Ac.00-26 gts from one Mangali Ramaiah S/o Lasmaiah under an agreement of sale dated 17.01.1983.

14.1.DW1 in his written statement and his affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief averred that he purchased the above land totalling to an extent of Ac.04-25¼ under an agreement of sale dated 15.02.1972 from the above-mentioned persons and later regularized the transaction under section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights In Land

And Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The Court is of the opinion that, section 5-A of

Page 7 of 10 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak

O.S. No. 07 of 2014

the Andhra Pradesh Rights In Land And Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 doesn’t contemplate the transactions made under an agreement of sale. In this regard, the

Court places reliance on the decision of the division bench of The Hon’ble High

Court of Andhra Pradesh At Hyderabad in Konkana Ravinder Goud and Ors. Vs.

Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building Society and Ors, 2003 (6) ALT 1, wherein it was held that, an agreement of sale is not an 'alienation' or the 'transfer' of property, and there was no mechanism provided for under section 5-A, to deal with the agreement of sales, and that section 5-A provides for regularization of unregistered sale deeds of alienations, but not agreement of sales. Therefore, the defence of the defendant is nothing but collapsed.

15. Notwithstanding the above, neither the learned counsel for the defendant elicited anything substantive from the cross-examination of PW1 to PW3 to discredit their testimony nor the learned counsel for the plaintiff elicited anything substantive from the cross- examination of DW1 or DW3 which would have strengthened his claim. However, the plaintiff must prove that he was in lawful possession of the property as on the date of filing the suit and there was an unlawful or unjustified interference from the defendants.

15.1.The plaintiffs failed to substantiate through both oral and documentary evidence the following aspects which are crucial for arriving at a just decision with regards the issue at hand. They failed to prove –

(a) that, they have succeeded to the suit schedule property from their father Late Ramaiah @ Ramulu and Mangali Balaiah,

(b) whether they are owners and possessors of the suit schedule property,

(c) whether they have received pattadar passbooks and title deeds,

(d) if so, the reasons which prevented them filing extract of Form I-B (ROR), pattadar passbooks and their title deeds,

(e) the date of death of Ramaiah @ Ramulu and Mangali Balaiah,

(f) the mode of receiving of suit schedule property,

Page 8 of 10 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak

O.S. No. 07 of 2014

(g) whether the suit schedule property is partitioned among themselves or they are in joint possession,

(h) that, how Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 are relevant to their case,

(i) that, when and how did the defendants interfered into the suit schedule property.

16. In view of the preceding observations and discussion, it is discernible that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and that the defendants unlawfully interefered into the same. In these circumstances, the Court holds that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as claimed. Accordingly, this issue is answered in negative.

ISSUE NO.2

17. Since the issue no.1 is answered in negative, in no stretch of imagination are the plaintiffs entitled for any relief as such this issue has become redundant, hence, deemed to be answered in negative.

18. IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of June, 2019.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Dubbak.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

S.NoFor PlaintiffS.NoFor Defendants

PW1 P. SathyanarayanaDW1 A. Chennagoud

PW2 Mangali AnjaiahDW2 Boini Narayana (Eschewed)*

PW3 A. BalrajuDW3 Gatam Mathadaiah

Page 9 of 10 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak

O.S. No. 07 of 2014

DOCUMENTS MARKED

S.NoFor PlaintiffS.NoFor Defendants

Ex.A1 CC of Pahani for the year 2002-03 Ex.B1CC of Pahani for the year 2005-06

Ex.A2 CC of Pahani for the year 2004-05 Ex.B2CC of Pahani for the year 2006-07

Ex.B3CC of Pahani for the year 2009-10

Ex.B4XIII B Certificate No. A/3377/1/2006

Ex.B5XIII B Certificate No. A/3377/2/2006

Ex.B6Title Deed

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Dubbak.

Page 10 of 10 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak

O.S.No. 50 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDicIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT Dubbak

Present: Kumaram Gopi Krishna Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judl. Magistrate Of First Class, Dubbak

Friday, this the 28th day of June 2019

O.S. No. 50 of 2018

Between:

The Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, Rep., by its Branch Manager, Thoguta Branch. ...Plaintif AND

Vaidya Sarojana W/o Bhasker, Age: 59 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Banjarpalli Village of Thoguta Mandal, Siddipet District.

...Defendant

This suit having come before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the plaintif and the defendant being set ex-parte and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintif, perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration to this date, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed praying this Court to pass a decree directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs. 79,778/- (Rupees Seventy Nine Thousand and Seven Hundred and Seventy

Eight only) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit amount’) with future interest @14% per annum from 19.06.2018 till realization of entire amount.

2.Brief facts as averred in the plaint: The plaintif herein is a bank established under

Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 and the defendant is a borrower. The defendant approached the plaintif’s bank for credit facility towards cropa loan on 02.07.2015 and the bank sanctioned the crop loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 02.07.2015 @14% interest p.a. The defendant accordingly issued a hypothecation agreement and availed the loan amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 02.07.2015 under loan A/c. No. 73035841055. The defendant agreed to pay the said loan

Page 1 of 4Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

O.S.No. 50 of 2018

after harvesting the crop along with interest with a condition that failure to pay the loan amount after harvesting the crop, shall make the defendant liable to pay compoundable interest over the due. The defendant failed to pay the loan amount in spite of several demands.

3.The bank issued a registered notice with acknowledgement due on 13.07.2017 to the defendant and the same is duly served on her but she has not responded and thereafter, a legal notice was issued to the defendant on 08.09.2017 but she failed to respond to even this notice. Hence, the suit.

4.The summonses were issued to the defendant through Court and registered post acknowledgement due and the Court received an acknowledgement on 23.08.2018 reflecting the date of delivery as 07.08.2018. It also bears the signature of the defendant, purportedly.

The Court is satisfied with the proof of service and accordingly, the defendant was intermittently called until rising of the bench on day fixed for her appearance and as nobody entered appearance and as no counsel made any representation, the Court was constrained to set the defendant ex-parte on 01.10.2018 inevitably, and posted the matter for ex parte evidence.

5.In order to prove their case, the branch manager was examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A9 were marked in evidence to substantiate their claim.

6.PW1 reiterated the same facts as averred in the plaint. Ex.A1 is the original loan application dated 02.07.2015, Ex.A2 is the original hypothecation agreement dated 02.07.2015, Ex.A3 is the Meeseva 1B (ROR), Ex.A4 is the office copy of registered notice

dated 13.07.2017, Ex.A5 is the original postal acknowledgement, Ex.A6 is the office copy of

legal notice dated 08.09.2017, Ex.A7 is the original postal receipt dated 08.09.2017, Ex.A8 is the original postal acknowledgement dated 21.09.2017 and Ex.A9 is the certified copy of statement of accounts dated 18.06.2018.

Page 2 of 4Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

O.S.No. 50 of 2018

7.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif and perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is

Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 79,778/- with future interest @14% p.a. from 19.06.2018 till realization of the entire amount, from the defendant ?

9.Point: Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 establish and substantiate the chain of events as averred in the plaint. Ex.A1 clearly shows that the defendant applied for loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 02.07.2015 in the plaintif’s bankand in pursuance of the same executed Ex.A2/the hypothecation agreement pledging the property in the schedule mentioned therein as collateral security. Ex.A3 shows that the defendant is the owner and pattadar of the schedule property mentioned in Ex.A2. Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 strengthens the claim of the plaintif that they have sent a notice to the defendant and that she has purpotedly received it. Ex.A6 to

Ex.A8 further strengthens the claim of the plaintif that they have sent a legal notice to defendant and that she has purpotedly received it. Ex.A9 is the statement of account showing various transactions in respect of the loan availed by the defendant from the plaintif’s bank.

10. The evidence of PW1 coupled with the documents referred to above are deduced to be cogent, clear and reliable since they have remained unchallenged. Therefore, from the evidence of PW1 and the documents appended, the Court opines that, the defendant has indeed availed the loan amount from the bank and later defaulted and the documents marked are true, valid and binding on the defendant. Hence, the plaintif is entitled for recovery of the suit amount. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintif.

11. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed against the defendant for Rs. 79,778/- (Rupees

Seventy Nine Thousand and Seven Hundred and Seventy Eight only) with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit to the date of the decree and with

Page 3 of 4Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

O.S.No. 50 of 2018

further interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the above amount from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of June 2019.

Junior Civil Judge – Cum –

Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Dubbak.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: M. Raj Kumar -NIL-

Documents Marked

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.A1 is the original loan application dated 02.07.2015, -NIL-

Ex.A2 is the original hypothecation agreement dated 02.07.2015,

Ex.A3 is the Meeseva 1B (ROR),

Ex.A4 is the office copy of registered notice dated 13.07.2017,

Ex.A5 is the original postal acknowledgement,

Ex.A6 is the office copy of legal notice dated 08.09.2017,

Ex.A7 is the original postal receipt dated 08.09.2017,

Ex.A8 is the original postal acknowledgement dated 21.09.2017,

Ex.A9 is the certified copy of statement of accounts dated 18.06.2018.

Junior Civil Judge – Cum –

Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Dubbak.

Page 4 of 4Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT DUBBAK

STC. No. 93/2020

etween:- B The State of Telangana, through

SHO, P.S. Thoguta ...Complainant

AND Rajamaina Ravi S/o. Mallesham, Age: 21 years, Occ: Driver ,

... Accused

ADMISSION

Accused present. Copies furnished to him and he is examined under section 251 of

Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 290, of IPC for which he admitted the offence voluntarily. The admission of the accused found to be voluntary. Hence, the accused is convicted under section 252 of Cr.P.C.

Heard the accused about the quantum of sentence and they prayed the Court to take lenient view considering it as first instance.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The accused is convicted under section 252 of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to pay Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine simple imrisonement for a period of days for the offence 290, of IPC in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days for offence punishable under section 290 of

IPC.

Junior Civil Judge,

Dubbak.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT DUBBAK

STC. No. 94/2020

etween:- B The State of Telangana, through

SHO, P.S. Thoguta ...Complainant

AND Aakaram Balaraju S/o. Ramulu

... Accused

ADMISSION

Accused present. Copies furnished to him and he is examined under section 251 of

Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 290, of IPC for which he admitted the offence voluntarily. The admission of the accused found to be voluntary. Hence, the accused is convicted under section 252 of Cr.P.C.

Heard the accused about the quantum of sentence and they prayed the Court to take lenient view considering it as first instance.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The accused is convicted under section 252 of Cr.P.C. and sentenced punishable under section 290 of IPC and sentenced to pay fine Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days for offence punishable under section 290 of IPC.

Junior Civil Judge,

Dubbak.