Hema Sravanthi Janakiram AJCJ

1 of 17 Fair (O.S.61/2011)

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HINDUPUR.

Present: Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur.

Wednesday, the 24 th day of June, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 61/2011

Between:

K. Anuradha W/o. G. Suryanarayana, aged about 38 years, Hindu, Housewife,

R/o. Somandepalli (V & M), Anantapur (D). … Plaintif.

- And -

1. H.S.Jaheer Ahamad S/o. Shaik Adam Sab,

Urdu Teacher, Lepakshi village and mandal.

2. S. Naveed S/o. Syed Ismail, aged 45 yers,

Business, Eedga buildings Room No.11,

R.P.G.T Road, Hndupur, Ananthapur District.

… Defendants.

This suit is coming on 18.6.2020 before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri K. C. Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the plaintif and Sri B.Abubakar and Sri R.Azmathulla, Advocates for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 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 suit fled for grant of Permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and their men etc., from causing

Dt. 24-06-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

2 of 17 Fair (O.S.61/2011) interference to the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with costs.

The facts of the plaintiffs case, in brief, is that -

2. The suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.397- 1A1C1/A admeasuring East to West 27 feet and North to South 60 feet within the limits of Hindupur Municipality. Originally the schedule property belongs to Vecham Krishnaiah, Chanda

Govindappa and Chinta Rangaiah of Somandepalli village and the plaintif has purchased the same from the above said persons under Registered Sale deed dt.9.4.1998. Since the date of purchase the plaintif is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by erecting wired fencing. One week prior to fling of this suit the defendants tried to encroach into the schedule property and make unauthorized constructions. At that time the plaintif has lodged a criminal complaint before S.H.O I town P.S Hindupur and the defendants stopped their illegal acts.

However the defendants were trying to create some nominal, collusive and fabricated documents to encroach nearby public channel and other sites. The defendants has no manner of right, interest, title or possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. If the defendants are not restrained from continuing their illegal acts, the plaintif will sufer irreparable loss. In the said circumstances, the plaintif is constrained to fle this suit for

Permanent Injunction.

Dt. 24-06-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

3 of 17 Fair (O.S.61/2011)

3.Written statement contentions :

a)The 1st defendant fled his written statement denying all the plaint averments and submitted that, the suit schedule property originally belongs to one J.E. Venkata Swamy and his brother J.E. Lakshminarayana who were in possession of the property since years and has sold the same in his favour on 20.12.2001 by executing a Registered Sale deed and delivered possession. He further submitted that the extent and boundaries of suit schedule property are diferent from the property mentioned in his sale deed. According to 1st defendant the present suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. He has purchased his property with specifc extent and boundaries and the plaintif is creating inconvenience to him by instituting unnecessary suit against him without having any right over the schedule property. He further contends that he never threatened the plaintif on any occasion and he never intended to create any fabricated document. Hence the 1st defendant prays to dismiss the suit with cost.

b)The 2nd defendant fled his written statement denying all the plaint averments and submitted that, the plaintif is not the owner of suit schedule property and she is no way concerned with the schedule property. According to 2nd defendant the owner of suit schedule properties is some other persons and the plaintif has fled the present suit against wrong persons to knock away

Dt. 24-06-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

4 of 17 Fair (O.S.61/2011) the schedule property and to trouble him. He further submits that he does not own any property near and around the schedule property to encroach the same. The 2nd defendant denied the title of the plaintif to the schedule property and avers that the present suit for mere Permanent injunction without claiming declaration of title and recovery of possession is not maintainable. Hence the 2nd defendant prays to dismiss the suit with cost.

4.Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties, the following issues were settled by my learned predecessor - in - office for trial:

1) Whether the plaintif is in possession

and enjoyment of the plaint schedule

property by the time of fling of the

suit?

2) Whether his possession is lawful one?

3) Whether the plaintif is entitled to a

decree for Permanent injunction against

the defendant as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

Evidence adduced on both sides :

5.On behalf of the plaintif, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined.

Exs.A1 to A8, X1 to X4 through P.W.4 (Hindupur Municipality) were marked.

Dt. 24-06-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

5 of 17 Fair (O.S.61/2011)

Ex.A1 – Registered Extract Sale deed executed by the V. 

Krishnaiah, C.Govindappa and C. Rangaiah infavour of plaintif dt.9.4.1998.

Ex.A2 – Photo with C.D 

Ex.A3 – Rough Sketch 

Ex.A4 – Copy of police complaint issued by plaintif before 

S.H.O, I town P.S., Hindpur dt. 18.4.2011.

Ex.A5 – Registered extract sale deed executed by the  vendors of the plaintif dt. 10.8.1983.

Ex.A6 – Copy of building permit order issued by Municipal 

Commissioner, Hindupur dt. 2.7.2017.

Ex.A7 – Copy of plan approval dt. 21.3.2017. 

Ex.A8 – User charges challan payment of Rs.1,79,977/-  through Municipal campus, dt.2.5.2017.

Ex.X1 – Building permit order 

Ex.X2 – Hindupur Municipality town planning department  payment receipt dt.2.5.2017.

Ex.X3 – Approved planning 

Ex.X4 – Property tax on land dt. 7.4.2017. 

6.On behalf of the defendants D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. No documents were marked.

7. The learned Advocate Commissioner was examined as

C.W.1. Ex.C1 to C6 were marked.

Ex.C1 – Commissioner warrant 

Dt. 24-06-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

6 of 17 Fair (O.S.61/2011)

Ex. C2 – Notices four in number 

Ex.C3 – Commissioner rough sketch 

Ex.C4 – Mandal Surveyor sketch 

Ex.C5 – Work memos of both parties. 

Ex.C6 – Commissioner report 

8.Heard both sides in virtual court through Whats app video conferencing App. Learned counsel for plaintif strenuously argued that the plaintif is absolute owner of suit schedule property and the defendants are no way concerned with the schedule property. He further argued that the defendants has no document to prove their alleged title on the Northern boundary of suit schedule property. He also submitted that as per

Commissioner report i.e., Ex.C6 the northern boundary of suit schedule property is 31 meters of tank channel bund. On the other hand the learned counsel for defendants argued that the survey number, extent and boundaries of suit schedule property is incorrect and the plaintif has fabricated documents which are not relating to the suit schedule property. He further argued that the 1st defendant has purchased site on northern side of suit schedule property and laid foundation.

9. Upon thorough scrutiny and analysis of both oral and documentary submissions of both the parties, each issue settled is taken up for discussion as under :

Dt. 24-06-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

7 of 17 Fair (O.S.61/2011)

ISSUE Nos.1 and 2 :

“1. Whether the plaintif is in

possession and enjoyment of the plaint

schedule property by the time of fling

of the suit?”

“2. Whether his possession is lawful

one?”

As both the issues are complimentary to each other, they are discussed together as under :-

10.In support of her claim the plaintif examined herself as P.W.1 reiterating the plaint averments that, she is the absolute owner of schedule property having purchased the same under Ex A1 – Registered Sale deed dt. 09.04.1998 from her vendors Vecham Krishnaiah, Chanda Govindappa and Chinta

Rangaiah. She was in possession of the property from the date of purchasing the same and has also arranged wired fencing and has fled Ex A2 – Photograph of the schedule property. She has also fled Ex A5 – Registered extract of sale deed of her vendors.

P.W.1 has obtained building permission and plan approval from municipality under Ex A6 and A7. When defendants has tried to interfere with her possession she has approached Hindupur I town police station and Ex A4 is copy of such complaint. In her cross examination it is elicited that she has not made any construction in the schedule property for which she added that the defendants are obstructing the construction every time. The learned counsel for defendant has stressed upon the residence of

Dt. 24-06-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

8 of 17 Fair (O.S.61/2011)

P.W.1 which is Somandepalle Village and questioned her that about the place where the schedule property is situated. P.W.1 deposed that the schedule property is situated in her motherfs village. The intention of the defendants behind this question is to elicit that P.W.1 is not in possession of the schedule property as the same is situated in some other village. But possession need not be active always. It can be constructive. At Law, a person with constructive possession stands in the same legal position as a person with actual possession. In the present case, Ex A2- photograph, A6- building permit order issued by Municipality, A7- plan approval, A8- challan for user charges paid to municipality shows P.W.1fs constructive possession over the schedule property. Further the same has been asserted by P.w.4 in his evidence who deposed that before granting permission to P.W.1 for construction of building in the suit schedule property, he has visited the site, verifed the boundaries as per Ex A1, approved the plan vide Ex X3, Town planning department has issued payment receipt under Ex- X2. Later the municipality has issued building permit order under Ex- X1. Like wise Ex- X4 reveals that

P.W.1 has paid property tax also. All these documentary evidence clinchingly shows that P.W.1 is in constructive possession of the property. The onus is more on the defendants who has averred in their written statements that the schedule property does not belongs to plaintif and she is not in possession of the same. In

Dt. 24-06-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

9 of 17 Fair (O.S.61/2011) this regard the defendants who has not took any defence in their written statement about any basement, has suggested to P.W.1 that there is no basement in her site and there is road on south of tank channel. P.W.1 admitted the said suggestion. She further added that the said road is constructed in municipality land. She was again suggested that there are petty bunks in the said land on eastern, western and southern sides. P.W.1 admitted the said suggestion and added that they were installed by the shop keepers with condition that they will remove the bunks at the time of construction of house. Though she testifed that she do not know the property of defendant, later on she deposed that there is a road on northern side of defendantfs basement. The learned counsel for defendants has confronted her with Exs A6 and A7 stating that they does not contain signature or seal of municipal authorities. P.W.1 admitted the same. However when

P.W.4- municipal official is available before this court, he did not put the same to P.w.4 who is the right person to depose about the genuinity of Exs A6 and A7.

11. While the evidence of P.W.1 is that there is road on northern side of defendantfs basement, P.W.2 who is husband of

P.W.1 testifed that he has constructed the basement. Infact the learned counsel has suggested to P.W.2 that there is basement in suit schedule property, P.W.2 admitted the same and added that he has constructed it. Earlier the learned counsel has suggested

Dt. 24-06-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

10 of 17 Fair (O.S.61/2011) to P.w.1 that there is no basement in her site, now he suggested to P.W.2 that there is a basement in schedule property which shows that the defendant is not clear about where the said basement is constructed i.e., whether it is in suit schedule property or in his site. Originally the 1st defendant has claimed the entire suit schedule property in his written statement, but while cross examining P.W.2 it is their suggestion to witness that basement belongs to the defendants. P.w.2 has denied the suggestion and he has earlier testifed he has laid the basement in government land. By this we can understand that the crux of the case is the basement and who has laid the same in whose property. Both the parties did not aver about the said basement in their pleadings. Like a bolt from blue the issue about basement came into picture in the course of trial. The defendants confronted P.Wfs 1 and 2 that defendants has constructed basement, where as the version of P.w.2 is that he has constructed basement in government land unofficially. P.w.1 also testifed that there is no basement in her site. As per plaint schedule there is tank channel on north of suit schedule property. P.w.2 has admitted in his cross examination that basement is on northern side of suit schedule property. In this regard P.W.3 also testifed that there is government property on northern side of suit schedule property, there is a cement road towards south of tank channel. At this juncture he was asked by

Dt. 24-06-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

11 of 17 Fair (O.S.61/2011) the defendants whether he has seen basement on south of cement road for which he has deposed that he has not seen basement to the south of cement road. By this it is made clear that the version of defendants is that they have constructed basement in between cement road and plaintiffs site. As P.W.2 has testifed that the place where basement is constructed is a government land, it is the burden of 1st defendant to prove that it is not government land and it is his own property as stated in his written statement.

12. The 2nd defendant deposed as D.W.1, deposed in chief reiterating his written statement averments that plaintif is not the owner of suit schedule property and the property belongs to some other person. He further deposed in chief that the plaintif is resident of Somandepalli village, schedule property is situated at Hindupur limits and hence she is not in possession of the schedule property. As discussed supra, the plaintif has shown her constructive possession to the schedule property and in the process of cross examining P.Ws, the defendants also admitted that the schedule property belongs to plaintif, but the only issue in dispute is whether the plaintif is in possession of property upto the extent of tank channel or tank channel bund on northern side. In this regard at the time of cross examining D.W.1, the learned counsel for plaintif has suggested that the northern boundary to suit schedule property is 25 feet width

Dt. 24-06-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

12 of 17 Fair (O.S.61/2011) road(Tank/Supply channel). D.W.1 has admitted the suggestion.

Hence the plaintif is also admitting that the northern boundary is road(Tank/Supply channel). The northern boundary is mentioned as tank channel in plaint schedule and while arguing the matter the learned counsel for plaintif also submitted that the northern boundary is Tank channel bund. D.W.1 further testifed that the commissioner has measured the schedule property in his presence. On the other hand, the 1st defendant who averred that he has purchased the suit schedule property from J.E

Venkataswamy and J.E. Lakshminarayana under Registered sale deed dated 20.12.2001 has not deposed so in his chief examination affidavit, and testifed in chief that the schedule property belongs to some other person. He testifed in cross examination that he do not know the plaintif. Though he testifed that he fled his link document, he did not fle any documentary evidence to support his claim. It is elicited that the road on northern side is 15 feet, but when he was suggested that the drainage channel is adjacent to northern side road, he denied the suggestion. He further deposed that he do not know the schedule property. He know that plaintif has constructed a house, but he says that it is not in suit survey number. He also do not know whether the plaintif has constructed her house within the boundaries mentioned in suit schedule. With regard to commissioner report D.W.2 testifed that commissioner has

Dt. 24-06-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

13 of 17 Fair (O.S.61/2011) surveyed the schedule property but he do not know whether the commissioner has mentioned tank channel as northern boundary.

13. Learned advocate commissioner was examined as

C.W.1, Exs C1 to C6 are commissioner warrant, notices, rough sketch, feld measurement sketch, work memos and his report.

On perusal of Ex C6- Report it reveals that on ground the northern boundary of warrant schedule property is not tank channel, but it is tank channel bund in a width of 31 meters.

There is a foundation on northern side of warrant schedule property and as per the observation of C.W.1 the said foundation is laid on tank channel bund, on immediate north of tank channel bund there is a 25 feet CC road and then tank channel bund and then tank channel. As reported earlier by C.W.1 C.W.1 was cross examined on behalf of plaintif. He was suggested that schedule property is very near to tank channel. C.W.1 admitted the suggestion and added that it is situated on western side of tank channel at a distance of approximately 71 feet. He also admitted the suggestion that the defendant has encroached some part of tank channel. In this regard the learned commissioner has stated in Ex C6 that on his enquiry both parties has stated to him that the defendant has laid foundation on northern side of warrant schedule property. Indeed the scope of the warrant is to note down the physical features but not to collect evidence from the parties and the said material collected by C.W.1 is discarded.

Dt. 24-06-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

14 of 17 Fair (O.S.61/2011)

Therfore as per the report of C.W.1 under Ex C6 the plaintif is having property upto tank channel bund on northern side. The defendants though fled objections to commissioner report did not come farward to cross examine C.W.1. Further he has reported in Ex C6 that the foundation is laid on tank channel bund. Plaintif did not cross examine C.W.1 in this regard which infers that plaintif has also admitted the same. Hence it is made clear that the disputed basement is laid on tank channel bund but not in the property of plaintif. It is also made clear that basement property does not belongs to defendants. Both the

parties has suppressed that material facts in their

pleadings. Hence this court concludes not to award cost

to either of the parties. The plaintif has mentioned the northern boundary as tank channel instead of tank channel. At this juncture if the recitals of Ex A1 is perused, it reveals that northern boundary to suit schedule property is tank channel.

P.W.4 has also deposed that they measured the schedule property as per Ex A1. However the plaintif was able to show her possession over the schedule property upto tank channel bund on northern side which was stated by learned advocate commissioner in Ex C6 and not denied by plaintif while cross examining the commissioner. The Judgment relied by both the parties does not applies to present set of facts. Accordingly these issues are answered in favour of plaintif.

Dt. 24-06-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

15 of 17 Fair (O.S.61/2011)

Issue No. 3

“Whether the plaintif is entitled to a decree for

Permanent injunction against the defendant as

prayed for?f

In view of discussion and fnding to above issues this issue is also answered in favour of plaintif.

Issue No.4

To what relief?

14.In the result, the suit is partly decreed granting

Permanent Injunction in favour of the plaintif restraining the defendants and their men etc., from interfering and causing obstruction to the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in Sy.No.397-1A1C1/A ad measuring East to West 27 feet or 8.235 meters and North to

South 60 feet or 18.300 meters as mentioned in plaint schedule, bounded with the boundaries mentioned in plaint schedule on

East, West and Southern sides and with Northern boundary as

Tank channel bund. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 24th day of June, 2020.

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HINDUPUR.

Dt. 24-06-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

16 of 17 Fair (O.S.61/2011)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintif :-

P.W.1: K. Anuradha

P.W.2 : G. Suryanarayana

P.W.3 : A. Narendranath

P.W.4 : B. Anand Raju

For Defendant :-

D.W.1 : S. Naveed

D.W.2 : H.S.Jaheer Ahamed

Court Witnesses :-

C.W.1 : P. Subramanya Sastry

Documents marked

For Plaintif :-

Ex.A1 – Registered Extract Sale deed executed by the V.

Krishnaiah, C.Govindappa and C. Rangaiah infavour of plaintif dt.9.4.1998.

Ex.A2 – Photo with C.D

Ex.A3 – Rough Sketch

Ex.A4 – Copy of police complaint issued by plaintif before S.H.O,

I town P.S., Hindpur dt. 18.4.2011.

Ex.A5 – Registered extract sale deed executed by the vendors of the plaintif dt. 10.8.1983.

Ex.A6 – Copy of building permit order issued by Municipal

Commissioner, Hindupur dt. 2.7.2017.

Dt. 24-06-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

17 of 17 Fair (O.S.61/2011)

Ex.A7 – Copy of plan approval dt. 21.3.2017.

Ex.A8 – User charges challan payment of Rs.1,79,977/- through

Municipal campus, dt.2.5.2017.

Ex.X1 – Building permit order

Ex.X2 – Hindupur Municipality town planning department payment receipt dt.2.5.2017.

Ex.X3 – Approved planning

Ex.X4 – Property tax on land dt. 7.4.2017.

Ex.C1 – Commissioner warrant

Ex. C2 – Notices four in number

Ex.C3 – Commissioner rough sketch

Ex.C4 – Mandal Surveyor sketch

Ex.C5 – Work memos of both parties.

Ex.C6 – Commissioner report

For Defendant :- Nil

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HINDUPRU.

Dt. 24-06-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

1 of 13 Fair (O.S.37/2014)

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HINDUPUR.

Present: Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur.

Friday, the 29th day of May, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 37 of 2014

Between:

D.N.Jagadeesh, S/o. Late D. Nanjundaswamy, Hindu, 54 years, Conductor, APSRTC, Hindupur Depot,

Anantapur District, residing at D.No.29-2-153,

Kotnur village and post, Hindupur mandal,

Ananthapur District.

… Plaintif.

- And -

1. P. Gopinath Reddy, S/o. Late P. Narasimha Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 45 years, Agriculture, Resident of D.No.29-2-155, Kotnur village and Post,

Hindupur mandal, Ananthapur District.

2. Chakali Thippanna S/o. Narayanappa, Hindu,

Agriculture, aged about 50 years, resident of

D.No.29-2-152, Kotnur village and Post,

Hindupur mandal, Ananthapur District.

… Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for fnal hearing on 27-05- 2020 in the presence of Sri A. Gopala Krishna, Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri P.Nagabhushana Rao and Sri P.V.Siva Reddy,

Advocates for the defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

Dt. 29-05-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

2 of 13 Fair (O.S.37/2014)

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit fled for grant of Permanent

Injunction restraining defendants from causing interference to plaintifs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with costs.

The facts of the plaintifss case, in brief, is that:-

2. The suit schedule property consists of two houses with Door Nos 29-2-153 and 29-2-154 along with 206.25 square yards of vacant site in survey no. 279-2A of Kotnur village. The said property originally belongs to Devangam Subbarayappa who has sold the same to Raga Venkataramanappa who is maternal grand father of plaintif. The said Venkataramanappa has got 2 daughters namely Gangamma and Gowramma. After the death of

Venkataramanappa, his two daughters got partitioned his properties orally in which the suit schedule property along with some other properties has fallen to the share of Gangamma who is mother of plaintif. The mother of plaintif was in possession of the property and electricity service connection transferred in the name of D.Nanjundaswamy father of plaintif. The mother plaintif has got 4 children via., plaintif, his brother D.N.Srinivasulu, his sisters

Annapurnamma and Indiramma. After the death of their mother the plaintif and his brother orally partitioned the properties of their mother in which the suit schedule property has fallen to the share of plaintif. Since then the plaintif is residing in the schedule

Dt. 29-05-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

3 of 13 Fair (O.S.37/2014) property by paying property tax and electricity charges. The defendants are neighbours to plaintif and having ill feelings. Due to the ill feelings the defendants are trying to knock away the schedule property. About 2 months back from the date of fling of the suit, one day, the defendants highhandedly tried to make constructions in the vacant place in schedule property. With great eforts the plaintif was able to resist them. Even then the defendants are proclaiming that they will occupy the schedule property and dispossess the plaintif highhandedly. As the plaintif is unable to resist their illegal acts, he fled this suit for Permanent

Injunction.

Written statement contentions :

3.The 1st defendant fled his written statement denying all the plaint averments specifcally and a rough plan. He submitted that he and his ancestors were in possession of ABCD portion of property in written statement plan. According to him

CDEF portion is his residential house with varanda and A B E1 F1 portion is vacant place abutting to the above said house belonging to him towards its northern side. The said vacant place is enclosed with compound wall by erecting kadapa slabs around by leaving 10 feet width lane for ingress and egress to his house. He further submits that he is growing fowering plants and other sepals, tethering cattle and storing hayrick in the vacant place. Thus the 1st defendant contends that the plaintif is not in possession of

Dt. 29-05-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

4 of 13 Fair (O.S.37/2014) vacant place within A B E1 F1 points and in order to trespass and knock away the vacant place belonging to him the plaintif has fled this suit. He further submits that there is 6 feet road on northern side of A B E1 F1 points which is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of 1st defendant and his predecessors in title. As the plaintif has suppressed the above facts and fled this suit, 1st defendant prays to dismiss the suit.

4.2nd defendant was set exparte.

5.Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties, the following issues were settled by my learned predecessor - in - office for trial:

1. Whether the plaintif is in possession and

enjoyment of suit schedule property as

on the date of institution of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for permanent injunction?

3. To what relief?

Evidence adduced on both sides :

6.The plaintif examined P.Ws.1 to 3, got marked Ex

A1 - Property tax receipts ( 4 in number).

7.On behalf of 1st defendant Dws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs B1 to B3 were marked.

Ex.B1 – Photographs 4 in number along with C.D 

Ex.B2 – Property tax receipt 

Ex.B3 – Bunch of electricity bills with receipt. 

Dt. 29-05-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

5 of 13 Fair (O.S.37/2014)

8.Heard both sides at a time through video conference in Blue Jeans App. Perused the record.

ISSUE No.1 :

“1. Whether the plaintif is in possession

and enjoyment of suit schedule property

as on the date of institution of the suit?

9.In support of their claim, the 1st Plaintif fled his affidavit in lieu of chief-examination as P.W.1 which is a replica to the plaint averments that he has got the schedule property under oral partition between himself and his brother. Since the date of partition P.W.1 was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and property tax which is being levied in the name of father. Ex A1 contains 4 house tax receipts issued to the two houses in the schedule property in the name of his father.

Where as the contesting defendant has strongly contended that the two houses belong to plaintif and he is not disputing the same but he is disputing only the vacant place as the same belongs to himself. The learned counsel for 1st defendant also argued that Ex

A1 tax receipts are belonging the house properties of plaintif and they were no way concerned with the vacant site. To elicit the same, at the time of cross examining P.W.1, the contesting defendant questioned him about mode of acquisition of schedule property by Devangam Subbarayappa and whether the plaintif has fled any document to show when the grand father of P.W.1 has purchased the schedule property and also for document to

Dt. 29-05-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

6 of 13 Fair (O.S.37/2014) show the partition between P.W.1, his brother and sisters . Except saying that it is an oral partition, P.W.1 has no answer for the same. At this juncture it is pertinent to peruse the written statement contentions of contesting defendant. It is because though the defendant has questioned P.W.1 with regard to his title, in his written statement he did not dispute the alleged title of plaintif specifcally except a routine denial of plaint averments .

The contesting defendant has claimed that he and his ancestors were in possession of the property and he did not raise any cloud against the alleged title of plaintif. Without disputing the alleged title of plaintif in his defence either posing questions to P.W.1 in this regard or argument that plaintif did not furnish any source for survey number mentioned in plaint schedule will not help the contesting defendant in any way and in the supra stated facts and circumstances of this litigation there is no need to discuss about the title of plaintif. The question involved is who is in possession of the vacant site in the schedule property which according to contesting defendant is situated with in A B E1 F1 points of written statement plan.

10.The core contention of contesting defendant is that there is road on northern side of suit schedule property and the house of Chakali Thippanna is situated on further north to the said road. When he suggested the same, P.W.1 denied. He was again suggested that there is no passage on western side of

Dt. 29-05-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

7 of 13 Fair (O.S.37/2014) schedule property and the western side property belongs to contesting defendant. P.W.1 has denied this suggestion also. One of such suggestions attracts more importance i.e., the contesting defendant suggested that the road on northern side of suit schedule property is used by general public since 70 to 80 years.

P.W.1 has denied this suggestion also. P.W.1 is not admitting that there is a road on northern side schedule property and according to him it is vacant site belonging to him. Where as the 1st defendant in his written statement has averred that the alleged northern side road is in exclusive possession of himself and his predecessor in title, but while cross examining P.W.1 he has suggested that the said road is being used by general public since 70 to 80 years which suggestion is quiet contrary to his own pleadings. Further it is also necessary to discuss that though the contesting defendant has suggested to P.W.1 that the house of

Chakali Thippanna is further north to the alleged northern side road, he did not state so either in his written statement or in his rough plan. Except the above said suggestions , the defendant did not made any efort to elicit from P.W.1 that alleged vacant site on western side of plaintif’s house is not vacant site belonging to plaintif but it is his own property with fencing all over the vacant space between A B E1 F1 points of his written statement plan, growing fowering plants, tethering cattle and storing hayrick.

There is no suggestion to that efect.

Dt. 29-05-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

8 of 13 Fair (O.S.37/2014)

11. When coming to the evidence of third parties on behalf of plaintif, plaintif examined P.Ws 2 and 3 who claims themselves to have knowledge about vacant site on north and western sides of suit schedule property belonging to plaintif.

Picking up crucial evidence from the deposition of P.W.2, he has denied the suggestion that 1st defendant has laid fencing slabs surrounding the schedule property. To impeach his credibility the learned counsel for 1st defendant suggested that he is deposing false in the above matter and the plaintif himself has admitted 1st defendant has laid fencing. Infact no such question was put to

P.W.1 and the plaintif never stated that he has laid fencing.

However P.w.2 stood steady in his version. Hence the contesting defendant has failed in impeaching the credibility of P.W.2 who has strongly denied 1st defendant’s possession over schedule property since 40 to 50 years. P.W.3 also supported the version of P.W.2 in all aspects. Though the defendant has admitted that the houses in the schedule property belongs to plaintif and disputed only the vacant space, he suggested to P.W.3 that he is in possession of entire suit schedule property by arranging fencing. P.W.3 denied the suggestion. Except disputing that P.Ws 2 and 3 are close to

P.W.1, nothing worthy for defence is elicited from them.

12. Supporting his version 1st defendant fled his chief examination affidavit as D.W.1 which is a replica of written statement contentions that himself and his predecessors in title

Dt. 29-05-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

9 of 13 Fair (O.S.37/2014) are in possession of the property situated on western side of plaintif’s house which is shown as A B E1 F1 in written statement plan. Though he has already suggested to P.W.1 that the road on northern side of A B E1 F1 property is used by general public since 70 or 80 years, he further deposed in chief that there is 6 feet road on northern side which in his exclusive possession. If really the 1st defendant is in exclusive possession of northern side road, what made him suggest P.W.1 suggest that the road is being used by general public. This self contradictory suggestion of 1st defendant shatters his own defence with regard to northern side property of plaintif’s house. While cross examining him, plaintif suggested that D.W.1 did not mention any measurements of house and vacant site in his rough plan. D.W.1 admitted the suggestion. A perusal of the rough plan also asserts the same. D.W.1 has barely mentioned in his written statement that he has left 10 feet lane to approach his house with out showing measurements in rough sketch. Like 1st defendant, plaintif also suggested to D.W.1 that the tax receipts vide Ex B2 belongs to his house and not belonging to the vacant site. D.W.1 denied the suggestion. D.W.2 who attends agricultural work for D.W.1, has deposed in cross examination that that he cannot read and write in english, the contents of his chief-examination affidavit was not read over to him, he put his signature after its preparation and he did not depose that it was prepared according to his instructions. Hence it

Dt. 29-05-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

10 of 13 Fair (O.S.37/2014) is clear that D.W.2 has no knowledge about the contents of his chief-examination affidavit. In his cross examination he testifed that the western boundary to schedule property is house and vacant site of 1st defendant. While the above is the oral evidence of defence, the contesting defendant relied upon Exs B1 to B3.

13. On careful perusal and understanding of oral and documentary submissions of both the parties, it is found that the contesting defendant has no objection with regard to house property of plaintif and the dispute only with regard to alleged vacant site on north and western side of plaintif’s house admeasuring 206.25 square yards which according to pleadings and rough plan of 1st defendant is that belongs to him exclusively and further according his changed version northern side is a road being used by general public since 70 to 80 years. As rightly contended to either of the learned counsels with regard tax receipts fled by either of them, they does not stand as evidence with regard to vacant site. Hence Exs A1 and B2 are not helpful to either of the parties to show their possession of that disputed vacant site. Like wise Ex B3 – electricity bills are also pertaining to the house of 1st defendant and not relating to disputed site in any manner. Hence the only relevant material available is oral evidence of parties and photographs fled by 1st defendant under

Ex B1. The oral evidence of parties already discussed supra reveals that the supporting witnesses of plaintif has supported his

Dt. 29-05-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

11 of 13 Fair (O.S.37/2014) version where as D.W.2 testifed that he do not the contents of his chief affidavit. Further as discussed earlier the contesting defendant has shattered his own case with regard to northern side vacant site by taking inconsistent pleas. Now it has to be decided about possession of western side vacant site. In this regard the plaintif mentions in schedule that there are 2 houses and vacant site belonging to him . In the written statement rough plan the 1st defendant has mentioned only one house of plaintif and claims that towards west of plaintif house he is having vacant space which is fenced with kadapa slabs through out except leaving 10 feet infront of his house for approaching to his house. He did not state the extent of the alleged western side vacant site. But according to his pleadings only10 feet width of vacant site is left without fencing as a varanda to his house. When the photographs under Ex B1 were observed, they are not as pleaded by 1st defendant. The alleged kadapa slabs were only at the northern side and they were not erected all around the vacant site leaving only 10 feet. Further though the photographs show fowering plants on the northern end of western side vacant site, they does not reveal that the remaining vacant site is being used for tethering cattle and storing hayrick. In fact the rough sketch annexed to written statement is misleading as it shows some marking as passage from the house of 1st defendant to enter in vacant space within A B E1F1 points and the photographs does not

Dt. 29-05-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

12 of 13 Fair (O.S.37/2014) contain any such passage. The photographs clearly show that the 1st defendant has not fenced the entire vacant site leaving 10 feet passage to his house. The other crucial point is when the defendant is stating that his varanda is 10 feet nothing prevented him mention the measurements of vacant site. But the defendant did not do so. This failure on behalf of defendant raises suspicion that the defendant has intentionally suppressed the measurements of western side vacant site for wrongful gain and he has not come to the court with clean hands. Where as the plaintif has adduced strong supporting oral evidence which was not rebutted by defendant. Hence plaintif has successfully established that he is in possession of entire schedule property.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintif.

Issue No. 2 “Whether the plaintif is entitled for

Permanent Injunction?”

14.In view of discussion and fnding to issue no. 1 this issue is also answered in favour of plaintif.

Issue No.3 “To what relief? “

15.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs, granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintif restraining the defendants and their men etc., from interfering and causing

Dt. 29-05-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

13 of 13 Fair (O.S.37/2014) obstruction to the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29th day of May, 2020.

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HINDUPUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintif :-

P.W.1: D.N. Jagadeesh

P.W.2 : G. Prabhakar

P.W.3 : P. Narayanappa

For Defendant :-

D.W.1 : P. Gopinath Reddy

D.W.2 : T. Narayanappa

Documents marked

For Plaintif :-

Ex A1 - Property tax receipts ( 4 in number).

For Defendant :-

Ex.B1 – Photographs 4 in number along with C.D

Ex.B2 – Property tax receipt

Ex.B3 – Bunch of electricity bills with receipt.

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HINDUPUR.

Dt. 29-05-2020 A.J.C.J., HDP.

1 (O.S.31/2015)

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HINDUPUR.

Present: Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur.

FAC/Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur.

Tuesday, the 12th day of April, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 31 of 2015

Between:

1) G.Sivappa, aged about 58 years, Hindu, Cultivation.

2) G.Gopal, aged about 35 years, Hindu, Cultivation.

3) G.Nagaraju, aged about 30 years, Hindu. All are sons of Late Sanjeevappa, Residents of Utakur Village, Parigi Mandal. … Plaintiffs.

- And -

1) G.Roopa, D/o Golla Chowdappa, aged about 24 years, Hindu, Employee.

2) G.Rekha, D/o Golla Chowdappa, aged about 21 years, Hindu, Employee.

3) J.Varalakshmi W/o J.Chowdappa, aged about 39 years, Senicure.

D1 and D2 are the residents of Kothudam Village, Bagepalli Taluk, D3 is the resident of Utakuru Village, parigi Mandal.

… Defendants.

This suit is coming on 02.03.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.S.Rami Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri P.Ramarathnam Sastry, Advocate for Defendant No.3, Suit against Defendant Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed for default 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 suit filed for declaration of plaintiff’s title over suit schedule property with consequential recovery of possession and for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and their men etc., from

Dt. 12-04-2022 A.J.C.J., HDP.

2 (O.S.31/2015) interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with costs.

2. The facts of the plaintiff’s case, in brief, is that:-

One Hanumanthappa of Utakur Village has got three sons namely

Sanjevappa, Bojappa and Kristappa. The said Sanjeevappa is father of plaintiffs.

Sanjeevappa died leaving behind him the plaintiffs as his legal-heirs. During the life time of Hanumthappa the father of plaintiffs and his brothers has partitioned their joint family properties. Since the date of partition all of them were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective shares of properties by raising crops. While so, on 20-08-1973 the father of plaintiffs i.e., Sanjeevappa has purchased the suit schedule property along with another property from Y.H.

Bheema Rao, Y.Krishna Rao and Y.Rama Rao of Hanugonda Village of Karnataka

State. Since the date of purchase the said Sanjeevappa was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property till his death. During his life time he has dug a bore well in the schedule property and obtained electricity service connection No.435. The said service connection No. 435 is still standing in the name of Late Sanjeevappa. After the death of Sanjeevappa the suit schedule property has devolved to the plaintiffs. Since then the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. While so, defendant Nos.1 and 2 being daughters of Golla Chowdappa are trying to create nominal documents infavour of 3rd defendant to defeat the rights of plaintiffs. In such circumstances the plaintiffs issued legal notices to the defendants on 10.01.2012 demanding them not to create any such documents. However the plaintiffs came to know that defendant Nos.1 and 2 has sold the suit schedule property to 3rd defendant with some other properties. Hence the plaintiffs has filed the suit for

Declaration of title with consequential recovery of possession.

Dt. 12-04-2022 A.J.C.J., HDP.

3 (O.S.31/2015)

3. Written statement contentions:

The suit was dismissed for default against defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 04.12.2017. The 3rd defendant filed his written statement denying all the plaint averments and contended that schedule property originally belongs to Golla

Bojjappa. After the death of said Bojjappa his wife Gowramma and son

G.Sreenivasulu has succeeded to the schedule property. Recognizing their possession, revenue authorities has issued pattadar pass book and title deed to the said Gowramma. The pass book was verified and found genuine in the year 2004. The said Gowramma and her son being in possession of the schedule property has executed a Sale Deed dated 14.05.2007 infavour of daughters of

Golla Chowdappa namely G.Roopa and G.Rekha for suit schedule property and other properties. The vendees being minors, their father Chowdappa being their guardian has took possession of the schedule property on the same day. After obtaining majority the said G.Roopa and G.Rekha has sold the suit schedule property to 3rd defendant under Registered Sale Deed dated 06-06-2011. Hence the 3rd defendant became absolute owner of suit schedule property which is an extent of Ac.0.17 cents in survey No.92-6. The said Sale Deed also includes

Ac.0.11 cents of property in Sy.No.92-10C. The 3rd defendant is enjoying the two properties as one plot. The contesting defendant further submits that the survey number 92-6 was subdivided and the property purchased by her was given sub division No.92-6C. Her name was mutated in revenue records for written statement stated property. She further contended that the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of Golla Bojjappa in the partition effected in the year 1990 between Bojjappa and his brothers and has denied the partition alleged by the plaintiffs prior to the year 1973. The 3rd defendant is rightful owner to the schedule property, the contesting defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

Dt. 12-04-2022 A.J.C.J., HDP.

4 (O.S.31/2015)

4. Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties, the following issues were settled by my learned predecessor - in - office for trial:

1 ) Whether the plaintiff is having right or title to the

schedule property?

2) Whether the relief sought by the plaintiff is correct ?

3) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary relief?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title

to the schedule property with consequential recovery of

possession?

5) To what relief ?

Evidence adduced on both sides :

5. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1. One Chakali Anjinappa is examined as

P.W.2.

Ex.A1 - Extract of Registered Sale Deed dated 20-08-1973.

6. On behalf of the defendants, the 3rd defendant got herself examined as

D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B6.

Ex.B1 – Photostat copy of the pass book.

Ex.B2 – Original Registered Sale Deed dated 14.05.2007 infavour of D1 and

D2 executed by Gowramma and Sreenivasulu.

Ex.B3 – Pass book issued in the name of Gowramma.

Ex.B4 – Original Registered Sale Deed dated 06-06-2011 infavour D3 executed by Defendant Nos.1 and 2.

Ex.B5 – Pattadar pass book in the name of defendant No.3.

Ex.B6 – Adangal and Pahani copy issued by Mee Seva, Hindupur dated 06.03.2015.

Dt. 12-04-2022 A.J.C.J., HDP.

5 (O.S.31/2015)

7. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

8. Upon thorough scrutiny and analysis of both oral and documentary submissions of both the parties, each issue settled is taken up for discussion as under :

9. ISSUE Nos.1 to 3 :

1) Whether the plaintiff is having right or title to the schedule property?

2) Whether the relief sought by the plaintiff is correct ?

3) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary relief?

In support of their version, the 1st plaintiff filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination reiterating the plaint averments that their father namely Sanjeevappa has purchased the suit schedule property under Ex.A1 – Extract of Registered Sale Deed dated 20.08.1973 from its rightful owner and there was in possession of the schedule property during his life time. After the death of their father P.W.1 and other plaintiffs succeeded to the schedule property and were in possession of the schedule property without any interruption. He further deposed in chief that the joint family of their father has affected oral partition in the year 1970 and were living separately by enjoying their respective shares separately. The agony of P.W.1 is that defendant Nos.1 and 2 without any manner of right has sold the schedule property to 3rd defendant. Whereas the contention of the contesting defendant is that his vendors has purchased the schedule property from Golla Bojjappa who has got the same under family partition with his brothers in the year 1990. In order to elicit the same the contesting defendant has cross examined P.W.1.

Though in her written statement she has denied that father of plaintiffs is

Dt. 12-04-2022 A.J.C.J., HDP.

6 (O.S.31/2015) not son of Hanumanthappa, but has suggested to P.W.1 that Bojjappa,

Sanjeevappa and Kristappaare brothers and children's of

Hanumanthappa. The contesting defendant has also suggested to P.W.1 that the father of P.W.1 by name Sanjeevappa, brothers Bojjappa and

Kristappa did not partitioned their joint family properties. It is very clear that though contesting defendant has denied the relationship of father of plaintiff with his brothers, by way of above suggestions she admitted that

Sanjeevappa, Bojjappa and Kristappaare brothers and sons of

Hanumanthappa. It is also elicited from the cross examination of P.W.1 that P.W.1 do not know how much extent of property was owned by the joint family of Sanjeevappa and others which is also contra to the averment of the contesting defendant about the paternity of

Sanjeevappa. When P.W.1 was confronted with Ex.B1 – Photostat copy of pass book standing in the name of Gowramma, the witness admitted that photograph belongs to Gowramma and the witness did not admitted the contents of the pass book. When P.W.1 was suggested that schedule property belongs to Gowramma, P.W.1 denied the suggestion. P.W.1 also denied the alleged sale by Gowramma and her son Sreenivasulu infavour of G.Roopa and G.Rekha. P.W.1 do not know that revenue authorities has mutated the name of 3rd defendant for schedule property. He also do not know that Adangal for Ac.0.17 cents is standing in the name of 3rd defendant but adds that it is a fabricated document. When he was suggested that he has not holding Ac.0.49 cents in suit survey number as

Ac.0.17 cents, Ac.0.10 cents, Ac.0.07 cents and Ac.0.15 cents out of the

Ac.0.49 cents are owned and possessed by Kristappa, Sanjeevappa

Varalakshmi and Bharath. He also denied the suggestion that he has filed

Dt. 12-04-2022 A.J.C.J., HDP.

7 (O.S.31/2015) the suit basing on Ex.A1 to knock-away the property of above said persons. The other crucial evidence with regard to relief of recovery of possession is P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that defendant has dug a bore well in the schedule property. P.W.2 is the 3rd party to the suit as adduced his evidence supporting the version of P.W.1 in letter and spirit.

However in his cross examination it is elicited that he do not know anything about the partition between the sons of Hanumanthappa in the year 1970, alleged purchase of schedule property by father of plaintiffs in the year 1973 and alleged sale of schedule property by defendant Nos.1 and 2 infavour of 3rd defendant. Hence though the chief affidavit of P.W.2 is infavour of P.W.1, his evidence before upon Court did not support the case of P.W.1.

10. It is the evidence in chief of the contesting defendant that she has purchased the schedule property from defendant Nos.1 and 2 under

Registered Sale Deed vide Ex.B4 and her vendors has purchased the schedule property under Ex.B2 from their vendors Sreenivasulu and

Gowramma. After the purchase of Sreenivasulu and Gowramma under

Ex.B2, the revenue authorities has mutated her name in revenue records and issued Ex.B3 – Pattadar pass book in the name of Gowramma.

Likewise, after the purchase of contesting defendant, the revenue authorities recognizing her possession has issued pattadar pass book in the her name under Ex.B5. She has also filed Ex.B6 – Adangal pahani copies for the schedule property standing in her name. In the cross examination of D.W.1 also it is elicited that Sanjeevappa is father of plaintiffs and he has got two brothers namely Bojjappa and Kristappa.

Hence as discussed supra though the contesting defendant has denied

Dt. 12-04-2022 A.J.C.J., HDP.

8 (O.S.31/2015) the relationship between plaintiffs and Sanjeevappa, Sanjeevappa and his brothers the same was admitted by D.W.1. D.W.1 testified that the entire extent of schedule property is Ac.0.35 cents out of which she has purchased Ac.0.17 cents. She do not know that after partition among the three brothers, Sanjeevappa has purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1973. She has denied the suggestion that Sanjeevappa was in possession and enjoyment of schedule property and he has dug bore well in the schedule property and obtained electricity service connection in his name. To this D.W.1 has added that said electricity service connection was obtained when three brothers were not yet partitioned and at that time it was obtained in the name of Sanjeevappa. She has denied the suggestion that Bojjappa has no right or possession over the schedule property when Gowramma and Sreenivasulu has purchased from him.

She also denied the suggestion that as her family and Sanjeevappa has no good talking terms, she along with her family members are causing obstructions to the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. With the above evidence the contesting defendant has strongly denied the title of father of plaintiffs over the schedule property.

On the other hand the plaintiffs has filed Ex.A1 extract of Sale Deed in the name of Sanjeevappa to show that their father Sanjeevappa has purchased the schedule property. In this regard the contention of the contesting defendant is that the schedule property is joint family property of Sanjeevappa and his brothers which has been purchased prior to their partition in the name of Sanjeevappa and the same has been fallen to the share of Bojjappa in the partition entered in to between the brothers of

Sanjeevappa in the year 1990. As the contesting defendant is strongly

Dt. 12-04-2022 A.J.C.J., HDP.

9 (O.S.31/2015) denying the title of father of plaintiffs, the burden is more on the plaintiffs to establish that the schedule property is not joint family property and it is self acquired property of their father. In order to establish the same, except filing of Ex.A1 the plaintiffs did not place any other sufficient material to consider that their father has purchased the schedule property. Mere filing of Ex.A1 does not confirm any title to Sanjeevappa when the same is strongly denied by the contesting defendant. The plaintiffs has not even filed the mother document for Ex.A1 to show flow of title to their father. They have not even filed any type of revenue records to show the possession of their father and also their possession over the schedule property. On the other hand the contesting defendant has filed Exs.B2 to B6 to show flow of title to her and also she has established her possession, along with the possession of her vendors over the schedule property by way of filing pattadar pass books under

Exs.B3, B5 along with Adangal pahani under Ex.B6. In view of all the above material adduced by the contesting defendant coupled with oral evidence, she has resisted the title of Sanjeevappa over the schedule property. As the plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient material establishing title of their father over the schedule property, the contention of 3rd defendant that the schedule property was purchased by joint family in the name of Sanjeevappa and has fallen to the share of Bojjappa in family partition has got some force and substance. Further the plaintiffs has filed the suit for Declaration and recovery of possession without making any averment in their pleadings about loosing of possession. Even the evidence of P.Ws is that after purchasing schedule property under Ex.A1

Sanjeevappa was in possession of the schedule property and after his

Dt. 12-04-2022 A.J.C.J., HDP.

10 (O.S.31/2015) death the plaintiffs were in possession of the schedule property. The same was even suggested to D.W.1 that Sanjeevappa was in possession of the property since the date of his purchase, after his death the plaintiffs has continued their possession till date and denied by her.

Hence it is made very clear that it is not the case of the plaintiffs that they have lost possession over the schedule property. In such case the suit for consequential recovery of possession is incorrect and the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary reliefs. In the light of the above discussion this Court has no hesitation to hold that the plaintiffs has utterly failed to establish the title of their father over the schedule property. Accordingly these issues are answered against the plaintiffs.

11. ISSUE NO.4:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title

to the schedule property with consequential recovery of possession?

In view of discussion and finding to issue Nos.1 to 3 this issue is also answered against the plaintiffs.

12. ISSUE NO.5:

“To what relief ?”

IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed with costs. .

Partly dictated to the Stenographer Gr. III and partly typed to my dictation, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 12th day of April, 2022.

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HINDUPUR (FAC).

Dt. 12-04-2022 A.J.C.J., HDP.

11 (O.S.31/2015)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs :-For Defendants :-

P.W.1 : G.Sivappa D.W.1 : J.Varalakshmi

P.W.2 : Chakali Anjinappa

For Plaintiffs :- Ex.A1 - Extract of Registered Sale Deed dated 20-08-1973.

For Defendants :- Ex.B1 – Photostat copy of the pass book.

Ex.B2 – Original Registered Sale Deed dated 14.05.2007 infavour of D1 and

D2 executed by Gowramma and Sreenivasulu.

Ex.B3 – Pass book issued in the name of Gowramma.

Ex.B4 – Original Registered Sale Deed dated 06-06-2011 infavour D3 executed by Defendant Nos.1 and 2.

Ex.B5 – Pattadar pass book in the name of defendant No.3.

Ex.B6 – Adangal and Pahani copy issued by Mee Seva, Hindupur dated 06.03.2015.

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HINDUPUR (FAC).

Dt. 12-04-2022 A.J.C.J., HDP.

1 of 10 (CC.569/2015)

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS : HINDUPUR

Present: Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of Fist Class, Hindupur

Wednesday the 27th day of May, 2020

CALENDER CASE. No: 569 of 2015

Between:

B. Nagaraju S/o. Late B. Nanjundappa, D.No.5-4, Lakshmipuram, Hindupur, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh state …Complainant

And:

B. Thippanna, Late B. Rangappa, Work Inspector, Hindupur Municipality, Hindupur, Ananthapur District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for fnal hearing on 12.3.2020 in the presence of Sri V.T.Venkata Reddy and B.Rathnamma, advocate for complainant and of Sri C.Manohar Reddy, Advocate

for Accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the record

and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This Calendar Case is fled by the B.Nagaraju/ complainant against B. Thippanna/accused for the ofence punishable U/S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity here - in – after referred as N.I. Act).

Chain of facts unfolded from complaint are that :

2. On 04-05-2014 the accused for his family necessities has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from the complainant and executed a promissory note in his favour. On repeated

Dt. 27-05-2020 J.M.F.C.,HDP .,

2 of 10 (CC.569/2015) demands made by the complainant the accused did not make any repayment. The complainant arranged panchayat with elders

before whom the accused agreed to repay the debt, took back the

Promissory note and issued a cheque bearing No.912485 dated 01-09-2015 drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Hindupur Branch towards

Principal amount. The complainant presented the said cheque in h

is bank i.e., Karnataka Bank, Hindupur branch on the same day for collection. Surprisingly, the said cheque was returned due to “insufciency of funds”.i. On that the complainant understood that the accused has issued the cheque dishonestly to cheat him. The complainant got issued a registered legal notice dated 07-09-2015 to the accused but the same was returned as unclaimed by the addressee. Hence, the complaint.

3. Sworn afdavit of the complainant was fled and the complaint was taken on fle for the ofence punishable U/Sec.138 of

N.I. Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused copies of case documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 of Criminal

Procedure Code,1973 (for brevity here -in – after referred as Cr.P.C).

5. When the accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C.

regarding the accusation made against him in the complaint, he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. This case was transferred from the Principal Judl.

Dt. 27-05-2020 J.M.F.C.,HDP .,

3 of 10 (CC.569/2015)

Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur as per orders of the Hon'ble

Principal District Judge, Ananthapur vide Dis.No.6068, dated

27.09.2018.

Material available in hand :

7. The complainant adduce his own evidence as P.W.1 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P5 documents.

Ex.P1 - Cheque bearing no. 912485 dt.01.09.2015 drawn on 

Karur Vysya Bank, Hindupur.

Ex.P2 -Pay slip dt. 01.09.2015 

Ex.P3 - Cheque return memo dated 01.09.2015 

Ex P4 - ofce copy of legal notice dated 07.09.2015 

Ex.P5 – Returned unserved cover dt. 15.09.2015 

8. After closure of complainant’s evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in oral and documentary evidence. The accused denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

10. On careful consideration, the points that arises for efective adjudication before this court is :

“ 1. Whether there is legally enforceable debt

between the complainant and accused for issuance of Ex.P1 cheque ?

2. Whether the complainant is able to prove the

Dt. 27-05-2020 J.M.F.C.,HDP .,

4 of 10 (CC.569/2015) guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt

of ofence punishable USSec.138 of N.I. Act ?

3. To what order ? “

POINT NO.1 : - “ Whether there is legally enforceable debt between the complainant and accused for issuance of Ex.P1 cheque ?”

11.Before addressing the point it would be apt to survey the facts leading to present litigation. It is the claim of P.W.1 to initiate criminal action under Law against the accused as the accused has borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- from him for his family necessities and in consequence of his failure to repay in time he has issued Ex P1 - cheque for encashment which was dishonored due to insufciency of funds in the account of the accused. It is the evidence in chief of PW1 that on 04-05-2014 the accused approached him and obtained loan of Rs.1,20,000/- from him for his family expenses and executed a promissory note in his favour. He further deposed that he has demanded for repayment of debt due under promissory note. As accused failed to make repayment P.W.1 has convened a panchayat before elders on 01.09.2015 , then the accused issued Ex P1 in favour of P.W.1.

When P.W.1 has presented the same for collection through his account in Karnataka Bank, Hindupur, the same was dishonored.

P.W.1 has fled Exs P2 – pay slip and P3 – cheque return memo, a perusal of which shows that the said bank has returned it due to insufciency of funds in the account of the accused. As such P.W.1

Dt. 27-05-2020 J.M.F.C.,HDP .,

5 of 10 (CC.569/2015) has issued legal notice under Ex P4 which was returned unclaimed by the addressee vide Ex P5. The agony of P.W.1 is to take criminal action against accused under section 138 of N.I.Act as he has intentionally issued Ex P1 knowing well that there are no funds in his account.

12. As per the evidence in chief of P.W.1 he has lent the amount to the accused basing on a promissory note and has demanded for repayment in the presence of elders where the accused has took back the promissory note and issued Ex P1.

Where as in his cross examination, PW1 testifed that the accused did not execute any promissory note in his favour. At frst instance when he was questioned about the disputed promissory note he deposed that he do not remember whether accused executed promissory note and also do not remember whether he took back the same at the time of issuing Ex P1. However within no time he clarifed that accused did not execute any promissory note in his favour. Hence it is pellucid that there is no such execution and the question of taking it back at the time of Ex P1 does not arise at all.

In fact much before deposing the above facts, P.W.1 has testifed that the accused gave him cheque on the date of the transaction

before elders. Indeed the date of transaction is not the date when

accused issued Ex P1, but it is on 04-05-2014. Hence it is evident that there is no legally enforceable debt as averred by complainant and Ex P1 was not issued to discharge such legally enforceable debt.

Dt. 27-05-2020 J.M.F.C.,HDP .,

6 of 10 (CC.569/2015)

13.Section 139 of N.I. Act envisages that “it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Sec.138 of the said Act, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability”.i. In a case between

K.N.Beena

Vs.

Muniyappan and another

Reported in 2001(8) ALD SSC 458 their Lordships held that -

USs.139 of the Act, the court has to presume

unless contrary was proved that the holder of the cheque

received the cheque for discharge in whole or in part of a

debt or liability. Thus in complaint uSs.138 N.I. Act, the

court has presumed that the cheque had been issued for

debt or liability. Thus the presumption is rebuttal.

However the burden of proof that the cheque had not been

issued for the debt or as a liability is on the accused.

14.The Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down in catena of decisions that the standard of proof in discharge of the burden in terms of Secs.118 and 139 of N.I. Act being the preponderance of a probability, the inference thereof can be drawn not only from the material brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relied upon. For better appreciation if we refer to

Krishna Janardhan Bhat

Vs.

Dattatraya G. Hegde

Reported in 2008(1) Supreme Page:306 their Lordships held at para 30 referring to the ratio in K.Prakashan Vs P.K.Surenderan (2007 (12) SCALE 96) that-

Dt. 27-05-2020 J.M.F.C.,HDP .,

7 of 10 (CC.569/2015)

“ it is not necessary for the accused to step into witness

box to discharge his burden”.

15.Like wise, in the present case though the accused did not set up any probable defence he has relied upon the material brought on record by the complainant. As per the aforegoing discussion the accused has took shelter under oral evidence of the complainant who categorically testifed that there is no promissory note as stated in the complaint and the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption under section 138 of N.I Act that has been raised by this court in favour of complainant by way of establishing that Ex P1 was not issued to discharge any legally enforceable debt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

Point No. 2 :

“Whether the complainant is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable

doubt of ofence punishable USSec.138 of N.I.

Act ?”

16.Ordinarily in cases of dishonor of cheques, what the courts have to consider is whether the ingredients of the ofence enumerated in Section 138 of the Act have been met and if so, whether the accused was able to rebut the statutory presumption contemplated by Section 139 of the Act.

Section 138 of the Act has three ingredients viz.:

(i) that there is a legally enforceable debt

(ii) that the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes a legally enforceable debt; and

Dt. 27-05-2020 J.M.F.C.,HDP .,

8 of 10 (CC.569/2015)

(iii) that the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufciency of funds.

The proviso appended to the said section provides for compliance with legal requirements before a complaint petition can be acted upon by a court of law.

The present litigation is pertaining to the 2nd ingredient. The complainant stated in his sworn afdavit that he has lent money to accused on obtaining a promissory note and the same was returned to the accused at the time of receiving Ex P1 from the accused, needless to discuss again the evidence of complainant where in he has changed his version. Undisputedly, the accused did not raise any specifc defence, from his suggestion to P.W.1 that as he is a government employee he has no need to borrow any amount from P.W.1, the accused defended himself saying that he did not issue Ex P1. But it is not his version that the signature in the cheque does not belongs to him. Like wise, it is not his version that he has lost any cheque leaf. Hence the accused did not attempt to clarify the manner in which complainant came in possession of Ex.P1. However he has elicited from P.W.1 that there is no legally recoverable debt due to complainant for issuing Ex P1.

Even if Ex P1 belongs to accused, liability can be fxed only when the questioned cheque came into existence to discharge an existing debt which can be recovered legally as it is frst and fore most pre-requisite to attract the provisions under section 138 of

N.I.Act. Undisputedly, the complainant has failed to prove the said

Dt. 27-05-2020 J.M.F.C.,HDP .,

9 of 10 (CC.569/2015) requisite. In view of the discussion and fndings to point Nos.1 and 2 it has to be held that the complainant miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the ofence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, the point is answered.

Point No.3:

“To what order?”

17.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the ofence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument

Act. Hence, the accused acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.PC. for the said ofence. His bail bond shall stand cancelled after expiry of Six months period as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Accordingly this compliant is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of May, 2020.

ADDl. JUDL. MAGISTATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HINDUPUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED.

FOR COMPLAINANT:FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : B.Nagaraju None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1 - Cheque bearing no. 912485 dt.01.09.2015 drawn on Karur

Vysya Bank, Hindupur.

Dt. 27-05-2020 J.M.F.C.,HDP .,

10 of 10 (CC.569/2015)

Ex.P2 -Pay slip dt. 01.09.2015

Ex.P3 - Cheque return memo dated 01.09.2015

Ex P4 - ofce copy of legal notice dated 07.09.2015

Ex.P5 – Returned unserved cover dt. 15.09.2015

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

ADDl. JUDL. MAGISTATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HINDUPUR

Dt. 27-05-2020 J.M.F.C.,HDP .,

1 (CC.955/2021)

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS : HINDUPUR

Present: Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

Principal Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class, Hindupur

Tuesday, the 12th day of April, 2022

CALENDER CASE No. 955 of 2021

Between: The State : Inspector of Police, Hindupur Rural U.P.S. …Complainant (Cr.No.107/2021)

And

Shaik Asif @ M.Asif, age 23 years, S/o Shafiulla, R/o Rahamathpur, Hindupur Town. … Accused

This case is coming on 07-04-2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri R.Azmathulla, Advocate for Accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, Hindupur Rural U.P.S. laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P

Excise Act, 1968 and Sec. 8 (b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2. The brief allegations of the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 04-04-2021 at 4.00 P.M, L.Ws.1 to 7 (B.Rajashekar, K.Basappa,

C.Lakshmikanth, U.Venkatesh, N.Lakshminarayana, K.Ramesh Babu and

S.Asrar Basha) found the accused in possession of illicit liquor i.e., 9 –

Haywards cheers whiskey 180 ml tetra packets and 16 - Haywards cheers whiskey 90 ml tetra packets of Karnataka State at Kotipi check post, Hindupur

Mandal. On enquiry, the accused got perturbed and admitted the possession of liquor bottles without license. L.W.6 has pick up each one sachet as

Dt. 12­04­2022 P.J.M.F.C.,HDP

2 (CC.955/2021) sample, arrested the accused and seized the crime property under the cover of Mahazarnama. It is further alleged that LW-6 brought the accused to Police

Station and registered a case in crime No.107/2021 under Section 34 (a) of

A.P Excise Act, 1968 and Sec. 8 (b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act. The sample was also sent to analyst for examination. The analysts issued a report opining that the samples are Indian made liquor. After completion of investigation LW-7 filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3. This case was taken on file under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise

Act, 1968 against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and the charge under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act,1968 was framed, read over and explained to the accused, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and M.O.1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has givenup the evidence of L.Ws – 3, 5 and 7.

7. Ex.P1 is the Signature of P.W.1 in confession cum arrest mahazarnama. Ex.P2 is the Signature of P.W.1 in seizure mahazarnama. Ex.P3 is the Signature of P.W.2 in confession cum arrest mahazarnama. Ex.P4 is the

Signature of P.W.2 in seizure mahazarnama. Ex.P5 is the confession cum arrest mahazarnama. Ex.P6 is the First Information Report. Ex.P7 – Seizure mahazarnama. Ex.P8 is the analysis report. M.O.1 - 1 – Haywards cheers whiskey 180 ml tetra packets and M.O.2 - 1 Haywards cheers whiskey 90 ml tetra packets.

8. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating

Dt. 12­04­2022 P.J.M.F.C.,HDP

3 (CC.955/2021) circumstances appearing against him in oral and documentary evidence, he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard the arguments of both sides.

10. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of

accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)

of A.P Excise Act,1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. POINT:-

To bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3.

12.P.Ws. 1 and 2 – Rajashekar and Basappa alleged to be mahazardars present at the time of arrest of the accused and seizure of crime property turned hostile to the case of prosecution saying that they do not know any facts about this case and stated that the Police officials has obtained their signatures under Exs.P1 to P4 on white papers.

13. P.W.3 – U.Venkatesh, Constable deposed that on 04-04-2021 at about 4.00 p.m. he along with L.Ws.3, 5, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the scene of offence which is situated at Kotipi check post, Hindupur Mandal. There they found the accused with a plastic cover suspiciously and on suspicion they caught hold of him and on enquiry accused revealed his identity and confessed that he is in possession of 9 – Haywards cheers whiskey 180 ml tetra packets and 16 - Haywards cheers whiskey 90 ml tetra packets of

Karnataka State. L.W.5 has drew one sample for analysis under cover of mahazarnama. Later L.W.5 took the accused along with crime property and crime vehicle to the Police station and handed over to L.W.6.

14.P.W.4 – K.Ramesh Babu, Head Constable, Hindupur Rural

P.S. deposed that on 04-04-2021 he registered FIR basing on Ex.P5 -

Mahazarnama, as a case in crime No. 107/2021 under Section 34 (a) of A.P

Dt. 12­04­2022 P.J.M.F.C.,HDP

4 (CC.955/2021)

Excise Ac, 1968 and Sec. 8 (b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Ex.P6 is the FIR.

P.W.4 further testified that he has forwarded M.Os.1 and 2 for Analysis under letter of advice. After receipt of Ex.P8 - Analysis report, L.W.7 filed Charge

Sheet against the accused.

15.Section 34 of Act connotes:

“Penalties for illegal import, etc.:-

Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any license or permit granted or issued under this Act.--

Section 34 (a) speaks for speaks for imports, exports, transports, manufacturers, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant.

(i) removes any intoxicant from any distillery, brewery or ware house licensed, established or continued under this

Act...

16.In order to bring the case within the ambit of section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, it is necessary for prosecution to prove that accused was in possession of illicit liquor without any permit. It is also the duty of prosecution to probe by sending the seized sample to chemical analysis to find out as to whether the packets contained illicit liquor.

17.The evidence of P.Ws- 3 and 4 who are Police officials is that on 04.04.2021, they along with other staff reached the scene of offence which is situated near Kotipi check post, Hindupur there they noticed accused with plastic cover, they seized the crime property and got prepared Ex.P5

Mahazarnama.

18. On careful scrutiny of the evidence, it is manifest that the place of offence is situated in the Municipal limits and busy area. According to prosecution they have secured independent witness. Unfortunately the

Dt. 12­04­2022 P.J.M.F.C.,HDP

5 (CC.955/2021) mediators i.e., Pws-1 and 2 has turned hostile Hence, it is clear from the evidence of Pws-3 and 4 that they did not try to secure the presence of mediators but cited Pws-1 and 2 as witnesses cover up the lacunae. Infact, the recitals of Exs.P1 to P4 does not speak about presence of mediators.

19.In S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. The state of A.P., reported in 2009 (4) A.P.L.J., 57 (HC), it was held that :

“ The evidence let in by the prosecution must create confidence and must be reliable. Since no efforts were made to take independent mediator in this case, it appears that it is not desirable to convict the accused on the evidence of PW 3, the Court below did not consider the importance of taking local respectable independent mediators, hence their judgments resulted in miscarriage of justice and liable to be set a side.”

20. No receipt was issued to the accused to show that Ex.P5 was prepared at the place of arrest and the property was seized in his presence.

As Ex P5 is silent about efforts of investigating agency to secure independent witnesses, it gives raise to a doubt about the very presence of accused at the place of arrest and the seizure of property from the accused.

21. Further P.Ws.3 and 4 who are the Police officials deposed with regard to procedural aspects only and the prosecution has failed to examine any of the local inhabitants in support of its case. Except the oral evidence of official witnesses, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968. The learned defence counsel also argued that there is no corroboration.

22. The investigation does not disclose that P.Ws.3 and 4 has made honest efforts to secure presence of mediators as held in Pradeep vs.

State, (1995) 4 SCC 255. If P.W.4 has put his efforts to secure mediators but in vain, he would have stated so in Ex P5 – mahazarnama. P.W.4 did not do so, but has cited P.Ws. 1 and 2 who did not witnesses either arrest of accused or seizure of crime property. Therefore, the failure of investigating officer in

Dt. 12­04­2022 P.J.M.F.C.,HDP

6 (CC.955/2021) making any efforts for securing a mediator is an incurable defect to this case.

This Court places reliance on the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex

Court.

23. Hence, in view of the above decisions, the prosecution has failed to establish its case against accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

24. IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act and thereby, he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C., of the said offence. Bail bond of accused shall stand canceled after six months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 - 1 –

Haywards cheers whiskey 180 ml tetra packets and M.O.2 - 1 Haywards cheers whiskey 90 ml tetra packets vide C.P.R.No.36/2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12th day of April, 2022.

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HINDUPUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : Rajashekar --NONE-- P.W.2 : Basappa P.W.3 : U.Venkatesh P.W.4 : K.Ramesh Babu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is the Signature of P.W.1 in confession cum seizure mahazarnama. Ex.P2 is the Signature of P.W.1 in seizure mahazarnama. Ex.P3 is the Signature of P.W.2 in confession cum seizure mahazarnama. Ex.P4 is the Signature of P.W.2 in seizure mahazarnama. Ex.P5 is the confession cum seizure mahazarnama. Ex.P6 is the First Information Report. Ex.P7 is the seizure mahazarnama. Ex.P8 is the analysis report.

FOR DEFENCE:: NIL.

Dt. 12­04­2022 P.J.M.F.C.,HDP

7 (CC.955/2021)

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

M.O.1 - 1 – Haywards cheers whiskey 180 ml tetra packets

M.O.2 - 1 Haywards cheers whiskey 90 ml tetra packets

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HINDUPUR

Dt. 12­04­2022 P.J.M.F.C.,HDP

8 (CC.955/2021)

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANATHAPURAM

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT HINDUPUR

Date ofDate ofAppre-Date ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport orhensionreleasedcommenceclose ofsentence complainofon bailment oftrial of order taccusedtrial 1234567 04-04-2104-04-2120-04-2129-04-2124-03-2207-04-2212-04-22

Explanation of delay and remarksNIL.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NUMBER 955/2021 IN CRIME NUMBER 107/2021 OF HINDUPUR RURAL P.S. ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT HINDUPUR.

COMPLAINANTS.I. of Police, Hindupur Rural P.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Father’s Religion Sex /Age Calling Village Mandal accused name ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shaik Asif @ M.Asif, age 23 years, S/o Shafiulla, R/o Rahamathpur, Hindupur Town. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFENCEU/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968

FINDINGAccused found not guilty.

IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act and thereby,

SENTENCE

he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C., of the said offence. Bail bond of accused shall stand canceled after six months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 - 1 – Haywards cheers whiskey 180 ml tetra packets and M.O.2 - 1 Haywards cheers whiskey 90 ml tetra packets vide C.P.R.No.36/2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

SEAL: PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HINDUPUR.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur. CALENDAR CASE NUMBER955/2021 DATE OF JUDGMENT 12-04-2022 DATE OF DISPATCH OF CALENDAR 12-04-2022

Dt. 12­04­2022 P.J.M.F.C.,HDP