Ms. GSL Priyanka

Page No.1 of 12 CC No. 160 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

: AT : SULTHANABAD

Present:Ms.G.S.L.Priyanka, Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sulthanabad.

TUESDAY, ON THIS THE 16 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No.160 of 2016

Between: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police station, Sulthanabad (Crime No.87 of 2016) …Complainant

AND

A2] Kalvala Vinesh, S/o.Laxmaiah, Aged 19 years, Caste:Madiga, R/o.Shasthrinagar, Poosala. …Accused No.2

//Note the case against the accused No.1 by name Kalvala

Venkatesh, S/o.Laxmaiah, Aged 20 years, Caste:Madiga,

R/o.Shasthrinagar, Poosala is abated since he died//

This case is coming before me on 01.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Shyam Prasad Rao, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V.Ravinder learned Advocate for the Accused No.2 and Accused No.1 is died and having been heard both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Sulthanabad has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 in Crime

No.87 of 2016 for the offences punishable under section 326 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

Page No.2 of 12 CC No. 160 of 2016

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 08.06.2016 at 1600 hours the complainant by name Kalvala Chiranjeevi came to the

Police station and lodged a report stating that on 02.04.2016 at 11.00 PM while he was in front of house of his senior paternal uncle, the water tanker driver kalvala Venkatesh was going on his water tanker with high speed, on seeing which the complainant asked him to go to slow on which the said person abused the complainant saying as “Karroda” this is informed him by one

Surya, the complainant the same was questioned Venkatesh why is abusing him on that Venkatesh and his brother Vinesh came to him and fisted him in his stomach with a stone indiscriminately and on his cries Kavala Nampalli, his mother and others came there and due to injuries he admitted himself in Sunrise Hospital,

Karimnagar and from there went to Asian institute of Gastro

Anthropology and took treatment and as he was under treatment all these days, there is delay in lodging the complaint, therefore the complainant has requested for necessary action.

3.Basing on the above complaint, LW9/SI of Police has registered a case in Crime No.87 of 2016 for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW9 examined and recorded the statement of LW1 by name Kalvala Chiranjeevi and visited scene of offence observed the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW6/Nitturi Raju and

Page No.3 of 12 CC No. 160 of 2016

LW7/Kalvala Ramesh. Then he further secured the presence of witnesses the LW2 to LW5 by name Ashadam Surya, Kalvala

Laxmi, Kalava Nampalli and Kalvala Chandraiah examined them and recorded their statements. On 13.06.2016 at 1100 hours LW9 arrested the accused No.1 and 2 at Shasthrinagar, Poosala village in their house. During the interrogation, the accused No.1 and 2 are voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. He further confessed that the stone which was used in the commission of offence was thrown away somewhere else, hence it beyond recovery. LW9 brought the accused No.1 and 2 to the Police Station at 1200 hours. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence under section 326 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under section 326 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused No.1 and 2 and numbered as CC No.160 of 2016.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused No.1 and 2 as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. During the pendency of the case the accused No.1

has died. Hence the case against the accused No.1 is abated.

6.The accused No.2 was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and he denied the allegation levelled against him. Hence, charges under sections 326 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular. The accused No.2

Page No.4 of 12 CC No. 160 of 2016

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.2 was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced against him by the prosecution witnesses. The accused No.2 denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 326 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC?.

POINT

10.It is the case of the prosecution on 02.04.2016 at 2300 hours at Shanthinagar, Poosala village, the accused No.2 along with the accused No.1 beat the complainant with a stone on his stomach due to petty issue, as a result, the complainant sustained fracture injury and thereby the accused No.2 along with the accused No.1 committed the offences under sections 326 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

11.As stated supra, to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined as many as (07) witnesses and exhibited (04) documents.

Page No.5 of 12 CC No. 160 of 2016

12. PW1 is the complainant and victim. PW2 is the eye witness to the alleged incident. PW3 she is the mother of PW1 who corroborate the evidence of PW1. PW4 and PW5 are the panch witnesses for the Crime Details Form. PW6 is the Medical officer who treated the PW1 and issued MLC. PW7 is the Sub-Inspect of

Police and the Investigating officer. Ex.P1: Report lodged by PW1.

Ex.P2: is the Crime Details Form. Ex.P3: Medical certificate of

PW1. Ex.P4: First Information Report.

13. Now it would be seen how far the prosecution will prove the offences under section 326 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused No.2.

14. PW1 by name Kalvala Chiranjeevi deposed that on 02.04.2016 at about 11.00 p.m., while he was sitting in front of his paternal uncle’s house, accused No.1 and 2 came there in a Auto trolley and drove the same in a rashly, upon which he questioned them, then the accused No.1 caught hold him and accused No.2 beat him with stone. Then,he shouted loudly then his mother/LW3/Kalvala

Laxmi, LW4/Kalvala Nampally and LW5/Kalvala Chandraiah came there and stopped the accused No.1 and 2 and further they threatened him with dire consequences to kill him. Later, he was admitted in Sunrise hospital, Karimnagar from there he was shifted to Asian Institute of Gastro Anthrology, Hyderabad. After getting discharge from the hospital, on 08.06.2016 he went to PS

Page No.6 of 12 CC No. 160 of 2016

and lodged a report accused No.1 and 2.

15.PW2 by name Ashadam Surya deposed that on 02.04.2016 in the night hours i.e., 11.00 p.m., the accused No.1 is drove the

Auto in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and PW1 questioned the same, then A1 and A2 beat PW1 with stone on his stomach, as a result, PW1 fell down. Then immediately, the family members of PW1, shifted PW1 to the hospital. The incident was witnessed by himself, LW3/Laxmi. The witness identified accused

No.2 who present in the dock of the Court.

16.PW3 by name Kalvala Laxmi deposed that on 02.04.2016 in the night hours i.e., 11.00 p.m., Accused No.1 and 2 beat PW1 with stone on his stomach and the neighbours came and tried to stop them and on hearing the hues and cries, she came out and saw that PW1 was fell on the ground. The incident was witnessed by LW4 to LW6. She has taken PW1 to the Sunrise hospital for treatment from there he was shifted to Hyderabad for better treatment. After two months of the alleged incident, PW1 went to

PS and lodged a report.

17.PW4 by name N.Raju deposed that in the month of June, 2016 in the evening hours, the police came and enquired about the quarrel and asked about the boundaries of the scene of offence upon which he stated that the house in front of PW1 belongs to

Amruthamma, adjacent house belongs to LW5. Then Police

Page No.7 of 12 CC No. 160 of 2016

prepared rough sketch and obtained his signature on it.

18.PW5 by name K.Ramesh deposed that after two months of incident i.e., in the month of June, 2016 the police came to them and asked about the boundaries of the scene of offence, upon which he stated that the house in front of PW1 belongs to

Amruthamma, adjacent house belongs to LW5. Then Police prepared rough sketch and obtained my signature on it/Ex.P2.

19. PW6 by name Dr.Praveen Singh Naik deposed that he is working as Doctor in Sunrise hospital, Multi Specialty & Critical care Centre, Karimnagar from 2010 onwards. On 04.04.2016 at 11: 30 A.M., one Kalvala Chiranjeevi/PW1came to their hospital by stating that known person beat him on 02.04.2016 at 10.00 p.m. Accordingly, he examined, treated him and found the pain in

Abdomen and the same was caused with hand which is grievous in nature. Accordingly, he issued Ex.P3 :Medical certificate of PW1.

20.PW7 by name S.Rajaiah the then SI of Police Sulthanabad

Police Station and the Investigating officer who deposed about the investigation done by him in this case.

21 As seen from the evidence of PW1 to PW7, PW1 is the complainant and the Injured and PW3 is the mother of PW1. PW2 is the independent eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The

Page No.8 of 12 CC No. 160 of 2016

evidence of PW1 to PW3 is not cogent, consistent and corroborating with each other. As per the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that the alleged incident occurred when PW1 questioned the rash driving of the Auto Trolley by the accused No.1 and 2. Whereas PW3 who is the mother of PW1 did not state in her evidence that why the alleged incident was occurred. Hence, the evidence of PW1, PW2 is not corroborating with the evidence of PW3 why the alleged incident was occurred. Further, PW1 deposed that the accused

No.1 caught hold him and accused No.2 only beat him with stone.

Whereas PW2 and PW3 did not state that the accused No.1 caught hold of PW1. They only stated that the accused No.1 and 2 beat PW1 with stone. Further, PW2 and PW3 deposed that the accused No.1 and 2 beat PW1 on his stomach. Whereas PW1 only deposed that the accused No.2 beat him with a stone but he did not state the place of body in which the accused beat PW1.

Further, PW1 deposed that he shouted loudly, PW3, LW4/Kalvala

Nampaly and LW5/Kalvala Chandraiah. Came there and stopped the accused No.1 and 2. Whereas PW2 deposed that himself and

PW3 were witnessed the incident. PW3 deposed that the alleged incident was witnessed by LW4/Kalvala Nampaly, LW5/Kalvala

Chandraiah and LW6/Nitturi Raju. Hence the evidence of PW1 to

PW3 is not corroborating with each other in regard to the eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Further PW1 deposed that the accused No.1 and 2 threatened PW1 with dire consequences to kill

Page No.9 of 12 CC No. 160 of 2016

him. Whereas PW2 and PW3 did not state in their evidence before this Court that the accused No.1 and 2 threatened PW1 with dire consequences to kill him. Hence, the evidence of PW1 is not corroborating with each other in regard to threatening of the accused No.1 and 2 towards PW1.

22. It is the case of the prosecution and the evidence of PW1 to

PW3 that the accused beat PW1 with stone. Whereas PW6/Medical officer who treated PW1 deposed that he found pain in Abdomen of

PW1 and the same was caused with hand. Hence, the evidence of

PW1 to PW3 is not corroborating with the evidence of Medical officer/PW6 about the weapon used by the accused in the commission of offence. PW6 admitted in his cross-examination that no radiologist report was filed by PW6 to show that PW1 sustained grievous injury. No property was seized by the Police which was used by the accused in the commission of offence.

Hence, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 are not use in establishing the guilt of the accused No.2 for the offences under section 326 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

23.Though, PW4 and PW5 who are the panch witnesses for the

Crime Details Form deposed before this Court about the conducting of Ex.P2/Crime Details Form but in the cross- examination of PW4, he admitted that himself and PW1 are working as electrician and they are working together. PW5 also

Page No.10 of 12 CC No. 160 of 2016

admitted that himself, PW1 and PW4 are working as Electrician in together. He further admitted that PW1 is his relative. Hence, the scene of offence panchanama conducted by PW7 in the presence of PW4 and PW5 is doubtful.

24.Further as per the evidence of PW1 and PW3 that the alleged incident was occurred on 02.04.2016 at about 11.00 a.m., but

PW1 gave complaint on 08.06.2016 at 1600 hours. Thus, there is abnormal delay more than (02) months in giving Ex.P1 by PW1, when the police station is just (02) Kilometers away from the scene of offence. PW1 deposed before this Court after getting discharge from the Asian Institute of Gastro Anthrology, Hyderabad, he lodged a report/Ex.P1 before the police but no discharge summary is filed by PW1 from the said hospital to show that after getting discharge, he lodged Ex.P1 which gives rise to any amount of suspicion as to the genuinenity of the case of the complainant.

25. Thus, except, the evidence of PW1 to PW3, which is having full of omissions and contradictions and there is no other evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW1 to PW3. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under sections 326 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and as such, the accused No.2 is entitled to be acquitted of the said offence. Accordingly, the point is answered.

Page No.11 of 12 CC No. 160 of 2016

26. In the result, the Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 326 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the above said charge.

The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case against the accused No.1/Kalvala

Venkatesh is abated since he died.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Sulthanabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: NIL PW1 Kalvala Chiranjeevi (Complainant) PW2 Ashadam Surya (Eye witness) PW3 Kalvala Laxmi (is the mother of LW1) PW4 N. Raju (Panch witness for the CDF) PW5 K. Ramesh (Panch witness for the CDF) PW6 Dr. Praveen Singh Naik (Medical officer who treated PW1) PW7 S. Rajaiah (SI of Police and the Investigating officer)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Report lodged by PW1.

Ex.P2: is the Crime Details Form.

Ex.P3: Medical certificate of PW1.

Ex.P4: First Information Report.

Page No.12 of 12 CC No. 160 of 2016

FOR THE DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil –

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Sulthanabad.

Page No.1 of 9 OS NO.72 OF 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT : SULTHANABAD.

Present:Ms.G.S.L.Priyanka, Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sulthanabad.

TUESDAY, ON THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.72 OF 2023

Between: Katukuri Madhavi @ Endapalli Padma, W/o.Raj Reddy, Age:36 years, Occupation: Housewife, R/o.Kamalapur village and Mandal, now residing at 2-4-123/12/2/2B, 7 Hills Colony, Street No.4, Uppal, Hyderabad City. Plaintiff

AND

1]. Endapalli Sumathamma, W/o.late Komal Reddy, Age: 64 years, Malyala, V/o.Kalva Srirampur Mandal, Peddapalli District, Now residing at Qr. No.941, Block No.68, Pothana Colony, 8 Incline Colony, Ramagundam Mandal.

2]. Endapalli Ravinder Reddy, S/o.late Komal Reddy, Age: 43 years, Occ: Railway Employee, R/o. Qr.No.SA-80, Krishna Colony, Mancherial Town and District.

3]. Endapalli Devender Reddy @ Bathula Devender, S/o. late Komal Reddy, Age: 38 years, Occ: SCCL Employee, R/o. Malyala, V/o. Kalva Srirampur Mandal, now residing at Qr.No.941, Block No.68, Pothana Colony, 8 Incline Colony, Ramagundam Mandal. Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 02.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Sriramulu learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants remained exparte, having been heard and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

This is a suit filed for passing a Preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4 thshare out of the total suit property.

Page No.2 of 9 OS NO.72 OF 2023

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

That the plaintiff, the defendants No.2 and 3 are the daughter and sons of Defendant No.1 and late Endapalli Komal Reddy. The Plaintiff and the defendants are the members of Hindu undivided Joint Family, governed by Mitakshara School of Law.

PEDIGREE

KATUKURI KOMAL REDDY (DIED)

WIFE

KATUKURI SUMATHAMMA (DEFENDANT NO.1)

Ravinder Reddy Devender Reddy Padma @ Madhavi (Defendant No.2) (Defendant No.3) (Plaintiff)

3. That the husband of Defendant No.1 Endapalli Komal Reddy has worked as Singareni Employee in the name of Bathula Shankar and out of his own earnings the said Endapalli Komal Reddy @ Bathula Shankar has purchased the land bearing Sy.No.716/A, measuring Ac.5-00 guntas situated at Malyala, V/o.Srirampur mandal, fully described in the schedule hereto, herein after called the suit land, but he purchased the said land in the name of his wife i.e. the Defendant No.1. In fact the said entry is a nominal entry and the said Sumathamma has no earning capacity and she was only a housewife. Though the defendant No.1 is a registered owner, she has no absolute right over the above said property

Page No.3 of 9 OS NO.72 OF 2023 and the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 3 have been enjoying the suit property and its fruits equally without any interruption from any body. That during the recent past, there were some disputes arose in between plaintiff and defendants and keeping in view of the above said disputes, the defendant No.2 and 3 in collusion of their mother

Sumathamma (Defendant No.1) are not giving the share from the fruits of the suit property. On that on 30-04-2023 the plaintiff has demanded the defendants to give her legitimate share in the suit property or to allot her share by of partitioning the suit property. On that the defendants who have colluded with each other, have bluntly refused to give share to the plaintiff from the suit property. Further it is came to know to the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 taking advantage of having registered document in her favour, is trying to alienate the suit property in the name of Defendant No.2 and 3 without any absolute right or whatsoever.

Even if the Defendant No.1 alienate the suit property in the name of

Defendants No.2 and 3 or any other third parties, they will not get any absolute right or whatsoever over the suit property. Hence the plaintiff got cause of action to file the above suit for partition and separate possession. Hence the suit.

4.After receipt of summons, the defendants did not choose to appear

before this Court as such, the defendants No.1 to 3 are set ex-parte.

5.During the trial, the Plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and got marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 in support of her claim.

Page No.4 of 9 OS NO.72 OF 2023

6.Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for Plaintiff. Perused the

Record.

7.Now the point germane for my determination is :

“Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for partition and 1/4 th share in

the suit schedule property as prayed for?” P O I N T:

8. According to the plaintiff, herself, the defendants No.2 and 3 are the daughter and sons of Defendant No.1 and late Endapalli Komal

Reddy. That the husband of Defendant No.1 was worked as Singareni

Employee and out of his own earnings, he has purchased the suit schedule property but the defendant No.1 has no absolute right over the above said property in collusion with the defendant No.2 and 3 are not giving share to the plaintiff from the fruits of the suit property and finally on 30-04-2023 she demanded the defendants to give her legitimate share in the suit property or to allot her share by of partitioning the suit property the defendants refused the same. Further the defendant No.1 is trying to alienate the suit property in the name of

Defendant No.2 and 3 without any absolute right or whatsoever, Hence, she filed the present suit.

9.The general expectation among parties is that, when defendant remains expate, the suit shall be decreed and there is no need to plaintiff to prove his case. So, it is to be seen whether merely because the defendants remained exparte by itself a ground to decree the suit or it is the duty of plaintiff to prove his case

Page No.5 of 9 OS NO.72 OF 2023 though the defendants remained exparte?.

10.In SHANTILAL GULABCHAND MUTHA VS. TATA ENGINEERING

AND LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER [(2013)4 SCC 396, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

''5. This Court in Balraj Taneja & Anr. V. Sunil Madan & Anr.,

AIR 1999 SC 3381 dealt with the issue and held that even in such fact- situation, the court should not act blindly on the averments made in the plaint merely because the written statement has not been filed by the defendant traversing the facts set out by the plaintiff therein. Where a written statement has not been filed by the defendant, the court should be little cautious in proceeding under Order VIII, Rule 10, CPC. Before passing the judgment against the defendant it must ensure that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted, a judgment could possibly be passed in favour of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any fact mentioned in the plaint. It is a matter of Courts satisfaction and, therefore, only on being satisfied that there is no fact which need be proved on account of deemed admission, the court can conveniently pass a judgment against the defendant who failed to file the written statement.

However, if the plaint itself indicates that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the case regarding which two different versions are set out in the plaint itself, it would not be safe for the Court to pass a judgment without requiring the

Page No.6 of 9 OS NO.72 OF 2023 plaintiff to prove the facts so as to settle the factual controversy. The power of the court to proceed under Order

VIII, Rule 10 CPC is discretionary.

11. Further, the Supreme Court in Swaran Lata Ghosh vs. H.K.

Banerjee, (1969) 1 SCC 709, indicated that adjudication by a reasoned judgment of the dispute upon a finding on the facts in controversy and application of the law to the facts found, are essential attributes of a judicial trial.

The relevant observation reads thus:- "6. Trial of a civil dispute in court is intended to achieve, according to law and the procedure of the court, a judicial determination between the contesting parties of the matter in controversy. Opportunity to the parties interested in the dispute to present their respective cases on questions of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence tendered by the parties, and adjudication by a reasoned judgment of the dispute upon a finding on the facts in controversy and application of the law to the facts found, are essential attributes of a judicial trial. In a judicial trial, the Judge not only must reach a conclusion which he regards as just, but, unless otherwise permitted, by the practice of the court or by law, he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. A judicial determination of a disputed claim where substantial questions of law or fact arise is satisfactorily reached, only if it be supported by the most

Page No.7 of 9 OS NO.72 OF 2023 cogent reasons that suggest themselves to the Judge a mere order deciding the matter in dispute not supported by reasons is no judgment at all. Recording of reasons in support of a decision of a disputed claim serves more purposes than one. It is intended to ensure that the decision is not the result of whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in contest: it is also intended to ensure adjudication of the matter according to law and the procedure established by law.

A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the court has decided against him, and more so, when the judgment is subject to appeal. The appellate court will then have adequate material on which it may determine whether the facts are properly ascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the resultant decision is just.

12. Further the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of K.Balakrishnan

Vs. S.Dhanasekar while deciding AS NO.16 of 2016 on 10.08.2017, followed the above citations of Hon’ble Supreme Court and held that: – “11. When the defendant is set exparte, the burden is heavy on the Court, as it would not have the advantage of defence.

Therefore, the Court should be extra careful in such cases and they should consider the pleadings and evidence and should arrive at a finding as to whether the plaintiff has made out a case for a decree.”

13. In view of above legal position, it is settled principle of law that merely because the defendants remained exparte, by it self is not a

Page No.8 of 9 OS NO.72 OF 2023 ground to decree the suit. When the defendant is set exparte, the burden is heavy on the Court, as it would not have the advantage of defence. Therefore, the Court should be extra careful in such cases and they should consider the pleadings and evidence and should arrive at a finding as to whether the plaintiff has made out a case for a decree.

14.By keeping the above principle in mind, now this court will evaluate the evidence on record to see whether the plaintiff proved her claim with cogent evidence.

15To prove her case, the Plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 on her behalf. The chief of PW1 is nothing but the replica of plaint. Ex.A1: Specimen copy of Pattedar passbook vide

No.T20130150204, Ex.A2 Specimen copy of 1-B Namuna (ROR), Ex.A3

Land details Search-cum-Valuation certificate obtained from integrated

Land records management system Government of Telangana in respect of suit survey number.

16.The documents filed by the plaintiff under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are showing that the defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. All the documents shows that she is the absolute owner of the property. No other document is filed to prove that the property was purchased in the name of defendant No.1 by the father of the plaintiff. So the contention of the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff purchased the

Page No.9 of 9 OS NO.72 OF 2023 property in the name of defendant No.1 is not proved with any cogent evidence. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any partition and share in the suit schedule property as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered.

IN THE RESULT, the suit of the Plaintiff is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer Gr-III, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 16 th of

April, 2024.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Sulthanabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Katukuri Madhavi @ Endapalli Padma None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Specimen copy of Pattedar passbook vide No.T20130150204, Ex.A2 Specimen copy of 1-B Namuna (ROR), Ex.A3 Land details Search-cum-Valuation certificate obtained from integrated Land records management system Government of Telangana in respect of suit survey number.

For Defendants : NIL

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Sulthanabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT : SULTHANABAD

Present:Ms.G.S.L.Priyanka, Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sulthanabad.

WEDNESDAY ON THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024.

CC NO.110 of 2017

Between:- Ojje Sanjeev S/o Bhoomaiah Aged: 42 years Occ: Agriculture R/o. Gadimahal Locality of Sulthanabad town in Peddapally District.

...Complainant

AND

Garshakurthi Ravi S/o Rajanarsaiah Aged: 45 years Occ: Government

Teacher, working at Upper Primary School, Kammarkhanpet Village of

Dharmaram Mandal in Peddapally District.

… Accused

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT.

:: D O C K E T O R D E R ::

Both parties along with their learned counsels are called present.

Learned counsel for the complainant filed memo stating that both the parties have compromised the matter outside of the court and as such, the complainant intends to not press the case and the same is endorsed on the petition. In view of the above, this case is dismissed as not pressed.

Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for the offence under section 138 of NI

Act. The ball bonds of the accused if any shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer Gr-II, Corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 24th of April, 2024.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Sulthanabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT : SULTHANABAD

Present:Ms.G.S.L.Priyanka, Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sulthanabad.

FRIDAY ON THIS THE 19 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024.

DVC NO.21 of 2021

Between:- Gaddam @ Budde Rama Devi, W/o Satyanarayana, Aged:34 years, R/o Odela village and Mandal.

...Petitioner

AND

1. Gaddam Satyanarayana, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged: 38 years,

2. Gaddam Ramaiah, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged: 60 years,

3. Gaddam Chinnakka, W/o Ramaiah, Aged:56 years,

4. Gaddam Srinivas, S/o Ramaiah, Aged: 42 years,

5. Chunchu Rani, W/o. Venkanna, Aged: 36 years,

All are R/o Chinthapally village of Dandepally mandal of Mancherial

District.

… Respondents

:: DOCKET O R D E R ::

Both parties along with their learned counsels are present. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed memo stating that both parties have compromised the case outside of the Court and the petitioner do not want to proceed with the case and not press the DVC. In view of the above, the DVC is dismissed as not pressed. Miscellaneous petitions pending. If any shall stand closed.

Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer Gr-II, Corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 19 th of April, 2024.

sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Sulthanabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT : SULTHANABAD

Present:Ms.G.S.L.Priyanka, Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sulthanabad.

TUESDAY ON THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF APRIL, 2024.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.56 of 2017`

Between:- Mahammed Raheemudin S/o Late Basheeruddin, Aged: 45 Years, Occupation: Photographer, R/o Sriramnagar locality, Sulthanabad village and mandal.

...Plaintiff

AND

Addagunta Rajender S/o.Pochamallu, Aged: 40 Years, Occupation: Reporter,

R/o Katnepally village Sulthanabad Mandal in Peddapalli District.

… Defendant Claim: Suit for perpetual injunction.

:: DOCKET O R D E R ::

Plaintiff and his learned counsel are called present and filed memo stating that the plaintiff has no interest to proceed with the suit, he intends to withdraw the suit and prayed this court to dismiss the suit as not pressed and the same is endorsed on the plaint. The learned counsel for the defendant is called present. In view of the memo filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the suit is dismissed as not pressed. Civil Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2024.

sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Sulthanabad.