Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Addl. Junior Civil Judge

Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri (Taluka) · Guntur · Andhra Pradesh

SMT. HEMA SRAVANTHI JANAKIRAM, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri (Taluka), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,002 court orders on record since 2016. 20 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC, EP cases.

1,002

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/387/2016

Pagidi Rani vs Patcha Anuradha and three others

13 Sep 2019

(O.S.387/2016)

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

Present: Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

Friday, the 13 th day of SEPTEMBER, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 387/2016.

Between: Pagidi Rani … Plaintiff. - And -

1. Patcha Anuradha

2. Patcha Vinay Kumar

3. Patcha Nirmal Kumar

4. Patcha Suneetha … Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 19.08.2019 in the presence of Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri P. Sarat Chandra Prasad, Advocate for the defendants 1 to 4 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 grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and their men etc., from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule vacant site with costs.

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016)

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

The suit schedule property is an extent of 55 sq. yards with in D.No.278/1 of Mangalagiri Municipality, Guntur District and contains a thatched house with Door No. 1- 1130. The plaintiff purchased the property on 13.11.2014 from one Patcha Venkateswara Rao under a registered sale deed dated 13.11.2014 vide Doc.No.12500/2014 of

SRO Mangalagiri. Since the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The vendor of the plaintiff has got the property towards his share in partition of their joint family site in an extent of 218 Sq. yards in D.No 278/1 and 283/A/B of Mangalagiri. The said partition took place between the vendor of plaintiff, his brother Late Patcha Nageswara

Rao, his sisters Thokala Rojanamma and Dakka Mariyamma . Since the date of partition all of them are in peaceful possession of their respective shares without interruption from others. The vendor of plaintiff also enjoying his share of property by errecting a thatched house. As he is the elder son, his mother Patcha Rajamma lived with him till her death on 31.10.2010. Hence the electricity service connection is standing in the name of v Patcha Rajamma. The vendor of plaintiff has no wife and children and he sold the schedule property to meet his medical expenses. He died on 20.12.2014 due to ill health.

The plaintiff is having another house for her residence. As the thatched house in the schedule property is in dilapidated condition since its purchase, the plaintiff left it vacant did not tried to mutate her name in electricity department. Hence the department is collecting

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016) electricity bill in the name of Patcha Rajamma. While thing are so, the plaintiff decided to construct a RCC building in the schedule property.

On 20.11.2016 at about 9 a.m the plaintiff and her son went to schedule property and talking to workers for removing the dilapidated house, the defendants who are wife and children of Late Patcha

Nageswara Rao( brother of plaintiff’s vendor ) came there and the first defendant demanded the plaintiff to pay Rs 2,00,000/- before removing the house and defendants 2 to 4 supported her. When the plaintiff expressed her inability they threatened her saying they will obstruct the construction. All mediations arranged by plaintiff turned futile. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for grant of

Permanent injunction.

3.Written statement contentions:

The defendants filed their written statement specifically denying the plaint averments and contended that originally Patcha

Rajamma was assigned with 218 sq. yards of house site. She has raised two thatched house for accommodating her family. The suit schedule property is part and parcel of said 218 sq. yards. The said

Patcha Rajamma has got two sons and two daughters. The daughters of Patcha Rajamma got married long back and residing at their in-laws places. Her second son by name Patcha Nageswara Rao predeceased her and defendants 1 to4 are his wife and children. The vendor of the plaintiff is elder son but bachelor. Hence, Patcha

Rajamma used to reside with defendants 1 to 4. While so, on 27-09- 2010 the said Patcha Rajamma in a sound and disposing state of

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016) mind has executed a Will bequeathing the entire 218 sq. yards of property to defendants and died on 31-10-2010. As per the terms of the Will, the defendants became absolute owners to the entire 218 sq.

yards of property. The daughters of Patcha Rajamma namely Thokala

Mariya Rojanamma and Dakka Mariyamma filed a suit in

O.S.No.122/2011 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Mangalagiri against the vendor of the plaintiff and defendants herein for partition of entire 218 sq. yards of property alleging that Patcha

Rajamma died intestate. In the said suit, the vendor of the plaintiff did not contest and was set exparte. The defendants contested the suit and the same was dismissed on 18-01-2016 and hence the alleged registered sale deed dt. 13-11-2014 in favour of plaintiff was subject to pendency of the above suit as per Sec.52 of Transfer of Property Act and has no value under Law. According to defendants plaintiff is not a bona fide purchaser. The defendants further submit that even if it is taken otherwise, as the entire 218 sq. yards of property is assigned property, it can be heritable but not alienable and hence, the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is null and void. In the above circumstances, the defendants pray to dismiss the suit with cost.

5.Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties, the following issues were settled by this Court for trial:

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

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?

3) To what relief?

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016)

6.On behalf of the plaintiff got herself examined as P.W.1, examined P.Ws. 2 to 5 and Sub-Registrar of Mangalagiri as

P.W.6. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked.

Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of Registered Sale deed dated 13- 11-2014 bearing Document No. 12500/2014 executed by Patcha

Venkateswara Rao. Ex.A2 is the bunch of Electricity bills ( 4 in number). Ex.A3 is the Original Pension Book of Late Patcha

Rajamma. Ex.A4 is the Letter written by Pacha Venkateswara

Rao to Pagidi Subrahmanya Murali and to witness Balamala

Srinivasa Rao. Ex.A5 is the Property tax receipt dated 13-05- 2019. Ex.A.6 is the Prohibited Properties list in Survey No.

278/1 of Mangalagiri Town.

7.On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1. Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. Ex.B.1 is the certified copy of will executed by Patcha Rajamma dated 27-09-2010.

Ex.B.2 is the certified copy of Decree and Judgment in O.S. No.

122/2011 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

8.Heard both sides and perused the record.

9.Upon perusing the entire material available in hand, each issue is taken up for determination as under –

ISSUE NO.1:

“ Whether the plaintiff is having right and title to the

suit schedule property ?”

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016)

10.The plaintiff filed her affidavit in lieu of chief-examination as P.W.1 reiterating the plaint averments that she has purchased the suit schedule property from Patcha Venkateswara Rao under Ex.A1, who has got the same under partition between himself, his brother and sisters. Since the date of purchase, P.W.1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. According to her, she is having another house for her residence. As the thatched house in the schedule property was dilapidated, she has left it vacant. During the life time of the vendor of P.W.1, himself and his mother Patcha

Rajamma resided in that thatched house, as such electricity service connection was in the name of Patcha Rajamma and P.W.1 paid electricity bills under Ex.A2 in the name of Patcha Rajamma. As the thatched house was dilapidated and P.W.1 is residing in some other house, she did not mutate her name for the electricity service connection. However, she decided to construct an RCC building by removing the dilapidated thatched house. When she was in the schedule property along with her son on 20-11-2016 and talking with workers to remove the dilapidated house, she says that the 1st defendant with the support of defendants 2 to 4 demanded for

Rs.2,00,000/- and also threatened P.W.1 that she will obstruct the construction, if P.W.1 fails to pay the demanded amount. P.W.1 arranged mediation but the defendants did not heed to the words of mediators. P.W.1 has also filed the pension book alleged to be belongin to Patcha Rajamma. When she was cross-examined she testified that there is a thatched house in the schedule property, she

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016) has purchased the schedule property from Patcha Venkateswara Rao, who got the same from his parents. P.W.1 admitted that she did not verify any link document for the schedule property and also did not enquire about any dispute pending before courts at the time of purchasing the schedule property. She further admitted that she has purchased some part of property out of 218 sq. yards belonging to

Patcha Rajamma for whom B-form patta was allotted. She also did not verify any tax receipt to know whether her vendor is in possession of the schedule property at the time of her purchase. By this PW1 admitted the version of defendants that the schedule property is assigned site alloted to Patcha Rajamma and as rightly contended by defendants she is not a bonafide purchaser. Pw1 testified that her vendor Patcha Venkateswara Rao and his brother Nageswara Rao are having thatched houses in the schedule property jointly. On one hand, she deposes that they are in joint possession and on the other hand deposes that both of them are residing separately in two difference houses in the said 218 sq. yards. She denied about execution of Will by Patcha Rajamma and possession of defendants over 218 sq. yards of property. She do not know about partition suit filed by daughters of

Patcha Rajamma and says that her vendor did not inform her about the same. Finally, she testified that at present the schedule property is not in her possession, and it is in the possession of the defendant .

P.W.1 has filed Ex.A5 tax receipt by way of her additional Chief- examination and in her further cross-examination, she testified that by the time she purchased the schedule property, there was a thatched

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016) hut for which there is a door number. She also testified that since the date of purchase she is paying house tax to the thatched hut, but receiving demand notices in her name from this year, but not earlier.

11. PW 2 is a third party to the suit, supported the claim of the plaintiff in all aspects like nature of property purchased by plaintiff, its extent and total extent possessed by Patcha Rajamma. Though PW 1 herself admitted that the defendants are residing in the schedule property, he deposed in chief that plaintiff is in possession of schedule property. In his cross-examination it is ellicited that he do not know anything about the extent of schedule property and total extent possessed by Patcha Rajamma. Like PW1, he also admitted that at present defendants are in possession of the schedule property.

Therefore from the evidence of Pws 1 and 2, if it is assumed for a while that plaintiff was in possession of schedule property on the date of filing of the suit, she has lost it by the time when she gave her evidence. In such case, when the plaintiff is very clear that she is not in possession of schedule property, it is her duty to change the nature of suit from injunction simplicitor to a suit for recovery of possession and injunction. But the plaintiff did not do so, instead examined PWs 3 to 5 introducing news facts.

12. PW3 is Dokka Mariamma, one of the sister of plaintiff’s vendor, deposed inn chief that there was a partition between herself, her sister and brothers in respect of 218 sq. yards of property of her mother

Patcha Rajamma mentioning specified date of partition i.e.,on 10-05- 2010. she says that she also resided in the house of vendor of plaintiff

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016) and Patcha Rajamma and vacated the house after the death of

Patcha Venkateshwara Rao. But PW1 no where stated that the sister of her vendor also resided in the house purchased by her. According to

PW1 her vendor Patcha Venkateshwara Rao and his mother Patcha

Rajamma resided in that house. Now as per the evidence of PW3. It is understood that the plaintiff did not possession of property on thhe date of Ex A1, because PW3 is saying that she resided in the schedule property till the death of Plaintiff’s vendor which happened after execution of Ex A1. PW 3 brought into picture new facts saying that her brother Patcha Venkateshwara Rao has wrote a letter under

Ex A4 to one Pagidi Subramanyam, Murali and Balamala Srinivasa

Rao @ Atlu Srinu during his ill health about the partition of his mother’s property, sale of schedule property to plaintiff and about his funeral ceremony after his death. According to PW 1 the said letter is in custody of Balamala Srinivasa Rao and he gave it to the plaintiff.

She further testified in chief that one Sapparapu Uma Maheswara Rao and Balamala Srinivasa Rao are the elders who plaintiff approached and they have adviced the defendants. PW3 did not state anything about partition suit filed by her and her sister. Infact, she has clearly stated that they got partitioned their mother’s property, however admitted about the earlier suit in cross- examination. If really the property of Patcha Rajamma was already partitioned, then there is no need for partition suit, which the defendants has averred and proved by way of filing Ex B2 – certified copy of Decree and Judgement in the said partition suit. Moreover if really there was partition, in case of

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016) anyy dispute PW3 would have filed a suit for some other suitable relief. On one hand PW3 did not speak in chief about the partition suit filed by her and on the other hand she deposed in chief many facts which must be indeed, within the personal knowledge of plaintiff, if such thing was really happened.PW3 is also burdened speak as to how she came to know about those facts. . It is further elicited from her cross-examination that she do not whether there was any mediation before elders. But her chief examination contains names of two elders. Hence it can be assumed that PW3 has no knowledge about all the contents of her affidavit in chief and she might have deposing in favor of plaintiff as aggrieved by result of partition suit

According to PW3 herself, her elder sister and vendor of plaintiff resided in the schedule property. She also admitted about granting of patta to Patcha Rajamma.

13. PW4 is said to be one of the three persons to whom the vendor plaintiff has wrote Ex A4. He deposed in chief about partitionbetween children of Patcha Rajamma and execution of Ex A1 in favor of plaintiff. He further testifies in chief that he has handed over Ex A4 to plaintiff after filing of this suit. In such case, the plaintiff should have brought the fact about the said letter to the court by way of amending her plaint immediately after receiving Ex A4. But the plaintiff did not do so at any time . She did not state those facts in her chief-examination and surprisingly made the witness depose about it. From his cross- examination it is ellicited that, the vendor of the plaintiff has called

PW4 to home and gave Ex A4 to him which was already written. At

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016) that time the other two persons namely Subramanyam and Murali.

Patcha Venkateswara Rao was hale and healthy, able to speak and in good mental condition at that time. If the said Late Patcha

Venkateswara Rao’s health condition is good what made him write in

Ex A4 that his health condition is not good and has sold the schedule property to meet his medical expenses. At this juncture it is necessary to discuss about the objection raised by learned defense counsel at the time of marking Ex A4, that the letter under Ex A4 was said to have sent to other two persons along with PW4 but the mode of delivery to three persons not mentioned. Ex A4 was marked subject this objection. There is force in the said objection. It is because PW 4 deposed that at the time when Patcha Venkateswara Rao gave Ex A4 to PW4, the other two persons were also there, then PW4 has to clarify whether each on of them were given one separate letteras he did not testify that Patcha Venkateswara Rao wrote a letter to him along with 2 others jointly. In such case he should also clarify whether the other two also gave their letters to plaintiff. The other crucial aspect is the difference in the signature of Late Patcha Venkateswara

Rao in Ex A1 and Ex A4. If really Ex A4 was written by Late Patcha

Venkateswara Rao, then obviously one would to suspect the genuinity of Ex A1 as the signature of Late Patcha Venkateswara Rao differs and vice versa. Hence by way of filing Ex A4 the plaintiff herself has increased her own burden and raised a cloud on the title to the schedule property. The plaintiff should also establish the genuinity of

Ex A1 and when a cloud has been raised against her tittle the plaintiff

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016) has to file a suit for declaration of tittle, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. Without proving the alleged partition and without establishing that her vendor has got schedule property towards his share and needless to mention that she should also prove the geniunity of Ex A1, she cannot seek for relief of bare injunction.

Though PW5 – one of the attestor to Ex A1 was examined, his evidence is silent about signature of the executant. Further he being worker at the office of Pagidi Subramanyam who is brother of plaintiff is a interested witness and much evidentiary value cannot be imparted to his evidence. As the defendants has raised a specific plea that the entire 218 sq.yards of property of Patcha Rajamma being assigned cannot be alienable, plaintiff secured Sub Registrar of Mangalagiri as

PW6 and got marked Ex A6 net copy of prohibited properties list in

S.No 278/1 of Mangalagiri Town. He testified in chief that S.No 278/1 is not in prohibited list. In his cross-examination it is ellicited that Ex A6 is notified in the year 2011 and he do not know anything about earlier list. It is further ellicited that as per Ex A6 the list belongs to Manglagiri

Rural. The defendants has filed Ex B2 certified copy of Decree and

Judgement in OS No. 122 of 2011 where in the Honourable Senior

Civil Judge’s court has given a finding that the property of Patcha

Rajamma being assigned one not alienable. As the present suit is only a suit for bare injunction for which issue of title is only incidental, this court is not going into further discussion about alienability or non alienability of the property and also about bindingness of Judgement in the above suit against plaintiff.

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016)

14. While evidence of Plaintiff evidence is as above, the first defendant as DW1 has filed Ex B1 – certified copy of Will executed by

Patcha Rajamma on 27.09.2010. However the same was not proved by examining at least one of the attesting witnesses as provided under section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Her affidavit in chief- examination is replica of written statement contentions. According to

DW1 Patcha Rajamma has executed Ex B1 in favour of defendants for the entire 218 sq. yards of property and defendants became absolute owners after the death of Patcha Rajamma. She also referred about partition suit filed by PW3 and her sister in which she along with other defendants contested but vendor of plaintiff was set exparte and dismissal of the suit. In her cross-examination it is elicited that DW1 know about Ex A1 in favour of Plaintiff. Indeed, it is the contention of the defendants that Ex A1 executed during the pendency of partition suit is subject to the result of the suit. The learned counsel for plaintiff has shown Ex A3 to DW1 and questioned her that the pension book under Ex A3 belongs to Patcha Rajamma, DW1 stated that she is an illiterate and cannot say. If Ex A3 is perused as per the content the pension book belongs to one Patcha Rajamma W/o

Chennaiah and admittedly the mother of plaintiff’s vendor is Patcha

Rajamma W/o Patcha Prakasham. Hence it can be safe to conclude that Ex A3 belongs to Patcha Rajamma. DW1 was suggested that she interferred with her sister in law’s share of vacant site by raising constructions, as such they filed partition suit. DW1 denied the suggestion. If the said fact is true PW3 did not depose anything about

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016) the same. She also denied the suggestion that in the partition suit, there was a finding that the property of her mother in law cannot be divided as it is assigned land. Though Dw1 denied the documentary proof under Ex B1 is very clear about the finding. Though the plaintiff cross examined DW1 with regard to the manner in which the said partition suit was contested by the defendants, all those facts were not relevant to the instant suit. The plaintiff questioned DW1 that whether she has sent Ex B1 to obtain expert opinion, DW1 testified that she did not took such step. In fact it is the burden of the plaintiff as she contended that Ex B1 is fabricated.

15. By virtue of oral and documentary evidence placed by both the parties, if it is observed that whether the plaintiff has discharged her initial burden of showing her possession over the schedule property, Firstly, at the time of her cross-examination she made categorical admission that the schedule property is in possession of defendants and the same is supported by PW2. Though plaintiff claims that she was in possession of the property since the date of purchase, the evidence of PW3 that she resided along with her brother in the schedule property till his death says that the property was not delivered to plaintiff at the time of execution of Ex A1. The plaintiff did not aver or testify as to when she came into possession of the property and when she was dispossessed. Secondly, Ex A2 and

A5 are not showing her possession to the schedule property as the electricity bills are levied in the name of one P. Rajimma not Rajamma and does not disclose any details of the schedule property as the

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016) plaintiff did not state anywhere about the number of electricity service connection. Like wise, the property tax reciept under Ex A5 is dated 13.05.2019 which also does not infer anything that plaintiff was in possession of the schedule property on the date of filing of the suit.

Therefore this court has no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property since the date of Ex A1 in her favor.

Thirdly, the plaintiff has brought into existence Ex A4 through the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 as an after thought and the evidence of Pws 3 and 4 indicates the malafide intention of the plaintiff to grab the schedule property by hook and crook and hence the plaintiff has not come to court with clean hand seeking the equitable relief of permanent injunction. Lastly, though the signature of the vendor of plaintiff in Ex A4 is self inflicting to the case of plaintiff the defendant admitted about its execution by Patcha Venkateswara Rao. Even though plaintiff and PW3 say that there was partition, filing of suit for partition by PW3 and her sister and its result that the property of

Patcha Rajamma in not alienable and the fact that no appeal was preferred against the decree implies that as rightly contended by defendants the plaintiff without enquiring about disposing capacity of her vendor has purchased the property and she is not a bona fide purchaser. The Judgment relied by the learned counsel for plaintiff dealing with the rights of a co – sharer in making constructions in joint property is no way applicable to the present set of facts. When coming to the strength of defendants, they did not prove the Will under Ex B1.

However the onus shifts to defendants only after the plaintiff

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016) discharges the initial burden rests upon her. Accordingly this issue is answered against plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.2:

“ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent

injunction as prayed for ?

16. In view of discussion and finding to issue No.1 this issue is also answered against plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.3:

“To what relief?”

17. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of September, 2019.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :- P.W.1: Pagidi Rani P.W.2: Nukathoti Radha Krishna. P.W.3: Dokka Marimma P.W.4: Balamala Srinivasa Rao P.W.5: Ajmeera Balaji Naik P.W.6: K.V. Radha Krishna (Sub-Registrar)

For Defendant No.2 :- D.W.1: Patcha Anuradha.

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :- Ex.A1 : Certified copy of Registered sale deed dated 13-11-2014 bearing Doc. No. 12500/2014 executed by Patcha Venkateswara Rao Ex.A2 : Bunch of Electricity bills (4 in number)

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016)

Ex.A3 : Original Pension book of Late Patcha Rajamma Ex.A4 : Letter Written by Patcha Venkateswara Rao to Pagidi Subrahmanya Murali and to witness Balamala Srinivasa Rao. Ex.A5 : Property tax receipt dated 13-05-2019. Ex.A6 : Prohibited Properties list in Survey No. 278/1 of Mangalagiri Town.

For Defendants :- Ex.B1 : Certified copy of will executed by Patcha Rajamma dated 27-09-2010. Ex.B.2 : Certified copy of Decree and Judgment in O.S. 122/2011 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Mangalagiri.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

OS/387/2016

Pagidi Rani vs Patcha Anuradha and three others

13 Sep 2019

(O.S.387/2016)

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

Present: Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

Friday, the 13 th day of SEPTEMBER, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 387/2016.

Between: Pagidi Rani … Plaintiff. - And -

1. Patcha Anuradha

2. Patcha Vinay Kumar

3. Patcha Nirmal Kumar

4. Patcha Suneetha … Defendants.

J U D G M E N T

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016)

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

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016) electricity bill in the name of Patcha Rajamma. While thing are so, the plaintiff decided to construct a RCC building in the schedule property.

On 20.11.2016 at about 9 a.m the plaintiff and her son went to schedule property and talking to workers for removing the dilapidated house, the defendants who are wife and children of Late Patcha

Permanent injunction.

3.Written statement contentions:

The defendants filed their written statement specifically denying the plaint averments and contended that originally Patcha

Rajamma was assigned with 218 sq. yards of house site. She has raised two thatched house for accommodating her family. The suit schedule property is part and parcel of said 218 sq. yards. The said

Rajamma used to reside with defendants 1 to 4. While so, on 27-09- 2010 the said Patcha Rajamma in a sound and disposing state of

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

yards of property. The daughters of Patcha Rajamma namely Thokala

Mariya Rojanamma and Dakka Mariyamma filed a suit in

O.S.No.122/2011 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Mangalagiri against the vendor of the plaintiff and defendants herein for partition of entire 218 sq. yards of property alleging that Patcha

5.Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties, the following issues were settled by this Court for trial:

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

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?

3) To what relief?

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016)

6.On behalf of the plaintiff got herself examined as P.W.1, examined P.Ws. 2 to 5 and Sub-Registrar of Mangalagiri as

P.W.6. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked.

Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of Registered Sale deed dated 13- 11-2014 bearing Document No. 12500/2014 executed by Patcha

Venkateswara Rao. Ex.A2 is the bunch of Electricity bills ( 4 in number). Ex.A3 is the Original Pension Book of Late Patcha

Rajamma. Ex.A4 is the Letter written by Pacha Venkateswara

Rao to Pagidi Subrahmanya Murali and to witness Balamala

Srinivasa Rao. Ex.A5 is the Property tax receipt dated 13-05- 2019. Ex.A.6 is the Prohibited Properties list in Survey No.

278/1 of Mangalagiri Town.

7.On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1. Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. Ex.B.1 is the certified copy of will executed by Patcha Rajamma dated 27-09-2010.

Ex.B.2 is the certified copy of Decree and Judgment in O.S. No.

122/2011 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

8.Heard both sides and perused the record.

9.Upon perusing the entire material available in hand, each issue is taken up for determination as under –

ISSUE NO.1:

“ Whether the plaintiff is having right and title to the

suit schedule property ?”

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016)

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

Patcha Rajamma mentioning specified date of partition i.e.,on 10-05- 2010. she says that she also resided in the house of vendor of plaintiff

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016) and Patcha Rajamma and vacated the house after the death of

Patcha Venkateshwara Rao. But PW1 no where stated that the sister of her vendor also resided in the house purchased by her. According to

PW1 her vendor Patcha Venkateshwara Rao and his mother Patcha

Ex A4 to one Pagidi Subramanyam, Murali and Balamala Srinivasa

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

According to PW3 herself, her elder sister and vendor of plaintiff resided in the schedule property. She also admitted about granting of patta to Patcha Rajamma.

PW4 to home and gave Ex A4 to him which was already written. At

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016) that time the other two persons namely Subramanyam and Murali.

Patcha Venkateswara Rao was hale and healthy, able to speak and in good mental condition at that time. If the said Late Patcha

Venkateswara Rao’s health condition is good what made him write in

Rao in Ex A1 and Ex A4. If really Ex A4 was written by Late Patcha

Ex A1 and when a cloud has been raised against her tittle the plaintiff

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

PW6 and got marked Ex A6 net copy of prohibited properties list in

Rural. The defendants has filed Ex B2 certified copy of Decree and

Judgement in OS No. 122 of 2011 where in the Honourable Senior

Civil Judge’s court has given a finding that the property of Patcha

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016)

14. While evidence of Plaintiff evidence is as above, the first defendant as DW1 has filed Ex B1 – certified copy of Will executed by

Chennaiah and admittedly the mother of plaintiff’s vendor is Patcha

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

Therefore this court has no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property since the date of Ex A1 in her favor.

However the onus shifts to defendants only after the plaintiff

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016) discharges the initial burden rests upon her. Accordingly this issue is answered against plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.2:

“ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent

injunction as prayed for ?

16. In view of discussion and finding to issue No.1 this issue is also answered against plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.3:

“To what relief?”

17. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of September, 2019.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :- P.W.1: Pagidi Rani P.W.2: Nukathoti Radha Krishna. P.W.3: Dokka Marimma P.W.4: Balamala Srinivasa Rao P.W.5: Ajmeera Balaji Naik P.W.6: K.V. Radha Krishna (Sub-Registrar)

For Defendant No.2 :- D.W.1: Patcha Anuradha.

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :- Ex.A1 : Certified copy of Registered sale deed dated 13-11-2014 bearing Doc. No. 12500/2014 executed by Patcha Venkateswara Rao Ex.A2 : Bunch of Electricity bills (4 in number)

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

(O.S.387/2016)

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

Dt. 13-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

OS/386/2015

Pathakamuri Venkateswara Rao vs Katragadda Siva Prasad and two others

16 Sep 2019

1 of 16 Fair (O.S.386/2015)

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

Present: Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

Monday, the 16 th day of SEPTEMBER, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 386/2015.

Between: Pathakamuri Venkateswara Rao… Plaintiff. - And -

1. Katragadda Siva Prasad.

2. Katragadda Mohan Rao.

3. Katragadda Suresh.… Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 22.08.2019 in the presence of Sri Dodda Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri L.Sivaram Prasad, Advocate for defendants and upon perusing the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner to the suit schedule property with consequential relief of recovery of possession of the schedule property from the defendants with costs.

2.The facts of the plaintiffs' case, in brief, is that :-

The plaint schedule property is situated at Pamulapadu

Village of Tadikonda Mandal. Earlier the plaintiff worked as RMP Doctor at Pamulapadu and now due to his old age and health problems he is residing at Tenali. Originally the father of the defendants by name is the owner of plaint schedule property. On 19.01.1988 the father of the

Dt. 16-09-2019P.J.C.J.C.,MGL.

2 of 16 Fair (O.S.386/2015) defendants sold away the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for valid consideration of Rs. 3,600/- under a Regd. Sale deed vide document No. 36/1988 of SRO Amaravathi. Since then the plaintiff being absolute owner was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property without any interruption from anybody. About one year back when the plaintiff tried to construct a compound wall, the defendants tried to obstruct the construction. At the intervention of elders the matter was temporarily pacified. But as the defendants tried to grab the plaint schedule property at any cost, the plaintiff issued registered legal notice on 12.07.2014. The defendants gave reply on 18.07.2014 with false averments. Then the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No 174 of 2014

before this court against the defendants for grant of permanent

injunction, the suit was dismissed on 04.08.2015 as the defendants contested with false averments that after the death of their father in the year 1999, being legal heirs they came into possession of the property and defendants 1 and 2 has executed a Regd. Gift deed in favor of 3rd defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property. Recently due to formation of separate state of Andhra Pradesh and increase in land values near the schedule property, the defendants developed evil idea to take advantage of dismissal of the above suit. In that process on 05.09.2015 when the plaintiff went to the plaint schedule property, they did not allow him to enter by dispossessing him from plaint schedule property. They openly proclaimed that the plaintiff is not real owner of the property. The plaintiff reliably learnt that the defendants in collusion with

Dt. 16-09-2019P.J.C.J.C.,MGL.

3 of 16 Fair (O.S.386/2015) each other are going to sell away the schedule property to third parties.

Since 05.09.2015 the defendants have illegally occupied the plaint schedule property and are in possession and enjoyment of the same without any right over it. The alleged Gift deed executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favor of 3rd defendant is not valid and illegal document. All the mediations arranged by the plaintiff to settle the matter amicably turned futile. In the above said circumstances, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.

3.Written statement contentions:

The 3rd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 1 and 2 . The defendants submit that prior to the year 1999 the plaintiff used to practice as R.M.P.Doctor at

Pamulapadu village. The father of the defendants died in the year 1999.

While he was suffering with heart problem, the plaintiff used to accompanied him to hospital at Amaravathi and Guntur for treatment.

After the death of the father of defendants, due to some disputes in the village, the plaintiff left the village by selling his house property. The father of defendants had an extent of Ac.0.06 ½ cents or 314 ½ sq.

yards of written statement schedule house site. During his life time, he enjoyed the property with absolute rights and died intestate. Ask such, the written statement schedule property devolved upon the defendants.

Since then, the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. According to the defendants, the plaint schedule

Dt. 16-09-2019P.J.C.J.C.,MGL.

4 of 16 Fair (O.S.386/2015) property is part and parcel of written statement schedule property. While so, on 17-07-2008, the plaintiff issued legal notice to first defendant claiming the plaint schedule property contending that his father has sold it under a registered sale deed dt. 19-01-1988 to him. At the time of issuing notice, the plaintiff is living at Guntur. The 1st defendant received notice and issued reply notice dt. 20-08-2008 denying the right and title of the plaintiff to plaint schedule property. After receiving reply notice, the plaintiff has lodged a caveat petition on the file of this court as well as on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s court, Mangalagiri against 1st defendant. Later on he did not agitate anything about the plaint schedule property against 1st defendant. The father of the defendants during his life time and then the defendants continued to be in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. While things were so, out of love and affection towards 3rd defendant, the defendants 1 and 2 executed a gift deed and delivered possession of written statement schedule property on 31-03-2011vide registered Gift Deed

No.645/2011 of SRO, Amaravathi. Since then the 3rd defendant was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property. But due to hike in land values, the plaintiff filed suit in

O.S.174/2014 on the file of this court with false claim seeking injunction

with the help of some forged and fabricated documents alleged to be executed by father of defendants. In fact, the 1st defendant was major at that time, but he is shown as minor. The plaintiff was not in possession and enjoy of the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the

Dt. 16-09-2019P.J.C.J.C.,MGL.

5 of 16 Fair (O.S.386/2015) above said suit. The defendants submit that as per the contents of reply notice issued on 20-08-2008, they have denied the right and title of plaintiff, but the plaintiff has filed a suit for simple injunction without seeking relief of declaration of title. The defendants had also issued a reply notice dt. 18-07-2014 to the notice dt. 17-07-2014 issued by the plaintiff. After the above said suit was dismissed on merits, the plaintiff did not prefer any appeal, but created a new litigation with false allegations alleged to have happened on 05-09-2015. The defendants strongly contend that the plaintiff was never in possession of plaint schedule property and he did not visit the property on 05-09-2015. As the plaintiff was come to the court with unclean hands, the defendants pray to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties, the following issues were framed for trial:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

5.On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and

Exs.A1 to A9 were marked.

 Ex.A1 :Registered sale deed No. 36/1986 dated 19-01-1998 of SRO, Tadikonda in favour of plaintiff.

 Ex.A2 :Certified copy of Office copy of legal notice dated 12-07-2014 along with posts receipts.

 Ex.A3 :Certified copy of Postal acknowledgment.

Dt. 16-09-2019P.J.C.J.C.,MGL.

6 of 16 Fair (O.S.386/2015)  Ex.A4 :Certified copy of reply notice dated 18-07-2014.

 Ex.A5 :Registered Gift deed dated 31-03-2011 executed by the D1 and D2 in favour of the D3.

 Ex.A6 :Certified copy of Judgment and decree in O.S. 174/2014 before

Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Mangalagiri dated 04-08-2015.

 Ex.A7 :Certified copy of Postal acknowlegment.

 Ex.A8 :Certified copy of FIR No. 215/2014 of Tadikonda Police Station.

 Ex.A9 :Certified copy of Charge sheet in C.C. No. 154/2016 before

Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Mangalagiri filed against D.1 to

D.3 and others.

6.On behalf of defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and no documents were marked.

7.Heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record.

8.After thorough perusal of the entire material available in hand, it is found that the suit is filed for declaration and recovery of possession and the parties has adduced oral and documentary evidence to that effect, but the issue with regard recovery of possession was not framed. Hence, the following additional issue is framed:

ADDITIONAL ISSUE:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief

of recovery of possession of plaint schedule property?”

9.As the discussion to issue No.1 and additional issue are inter related, both are discussed together as under:

Dt. 16-09-2019P.J.C.J.C.,MGL.

7 of 16 Fair (O.S.386/2015)

10. Issue No.1 and Additional issue:

In support of the claim of plaintiff, the plaintiff filed his affidavit for chief-examination as P.W.1, reiterating the plaint averments that he has purchased the plaint schedule property from the father of defendants under Ex.A1. According to P.W.1, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property since the date of purchasing the same.

When the defendants tried to grab the plaint schedule property, P.W.1 issued legal notice under Ex.A2 acknowledged vide Ex.A3, the defendants gave reply under Ex.A4 with false averments. P.W.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.174/2014 on the file of this court for permanent injunction against the defendants herein, but the same was dismissed as defendants averred that the defendants 1 and 2 has executed Ex.A5 –

Gift Deed in favour of 3rd defendant. The agony of P.W.1 is that taking advantage of dismissal of above suit, the defendants with evil intention to grab the schedule property has dispossessed him illegally on 05-09- 2015. When he was cross-examined, he admitted that he did not prefer any appeal against the above suit. He deposed that he was residing at

Tenali since two years when he was questioned that he deposed in

O.S.174/2014 that “he was an RMP Doctor. Since three years he was

not practicing. He was an RMP Doctor at Pamulapadu village for some time. Since five years he is residing at Guntur. He got issued a legal notice in the year 2008 to the first defendant claiming right over plaint schedule property and the first defendant issued reply claiming right to

Dt. 16-09-2019P.J.C.J.C.,MGL.

8 of 16 Fair (O.S.386/2015) the property and he has filed a caveat petition against first defendant.”

P.W.1 admitted that he has deposed as above in the earlier suit. So, it is clear that P.W.1 is not residing at the schedule property prior to five years from the date of giving evidence in the above suit. He further admitted that he has mentioned in the legal notice dt.17-07-2008 issued by him that he is residing at Guntur. So P.W.1 has admitted that he was residing at Guntur in the year 2008, when he issued first legal notice to the defendants and he was not at Pamulapadu by that time. When he was questioned that for what purpose he has filed the present suit, he testified that he has filed the suit only for declaration of his right over the property. He admitted about accompanying to hospital and treating the father of defendants. He says that as he is not hale and healthy he did not prefer any appeal against the decree in O.S.No.174/2014. When he was suggested that he was never in possession of schedule property, he volunteered that his son is residing in the schedule property and denied the defendants possession. When he was further cross-examined after filing additional chief examination, he again testified that till today (the date of further cross-examination of P.W.1) the schedule property is in his possession. He has filed Exs.A8 and A9 – certified copies of FIR in

Cr.No.215/2014 and charge sheet in C.C.No.154/2016 on the file of

Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Curt, Mangalagiri, but he did not say that whether he has given the particular date of cause of action in Exs.A8 and A8.

Dt. 16-09-2019P.J.C.J.C.,MGL.

9 of 16 Fair (O.S.386/2015)

11. While the evidence of P.W.1 is that the plaint schedule property is in his possession, P.W.2 who is the third party filed his chief- examination affidavit supporting the claim of plaintiff. He also testified in chief that the defendants were never in possession of the schedule property and they illegally occupied the property. This evidence of P.W.2 is quite contrary to the evidence of P.W.1, who deposed that he is in possession of the plaint schedule property till today. When P.W.2 was cross-examined, it is elicited that he has also deposed in favour of plaintiff in O.S.No.174/2014. P.W.2 do not know the result of the above said suit and the details of the schedule property. He has no properties surrounding the schedule property. According to him, after filing the above said suit, there was no altercation between plaintiff and defendants in the schedule property. So, as per the evidence of P.W.2, there is no dispute with regard to schedule property after filing of

O.S.No.174/2014. Then, the plaintiff has to explain about how the cause

of action for the suit has arose on 05-09-2015. According to P.W.2, there was dispute between plaintiff and defendants with regard to title of the schedule property since ten years. P.W.4 and P.W.5 claim themselves to be present at the time of purchase of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. However, during the cross-examination of

P.W.4, it is elicited that he has no personal knowledge about the sale of plaint schedule property by the father of the defendants to the plaintiff and came to know about the same through plaintiff. Therefore, it can be understood that the evidence of P.W.4, about the fact of the case is only

Dt. 16-09-2019P.J.C.J.C.,MGL.

10 of 16 Fair (O.S.386/2015) hearsay. Further, according to P.W.4, the present suit is filed by the defendants. He clearly testified that he was not present at the time of registration of Ex.A1. Therefore, P.W.4 is only a planted witness.

Whereas, P.W.5 in his cross-examination testified in the manner to cover the latch that has arose from the evidence of P.W.4 saying that he was present at the time of registration of Ex.A1. He also deposed about earlier cases pending between the parties. But, he do not know about legal notice issued in the year 2008. According to him, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

12. By virtue of evidence of P.Ws. more particularly, the evidence of P.W.1, who has firmly testified once that his son was still in possession of the schedule property and again on another occasion saying that the plaint schedule property is in his possession till the date of his evidence before court clarifies that though the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property as per his version. From the evidence of P.W.2, it is ascertained that the dispute between the parties with regard to plaint schedule property is in existence since ten years and also the dispute is with regard to title to the plaint schedule property.

13. On the other hand, when the 3rd defendant is examined as

D.W.1, he reiterated the written statement contentions saying that when the plaintiff has issued legal notice in the year 2008, they have claimed title to the schedule property, knowing well about their claim the plaintiff has filed the earlier suit for bare injunction. In his cross-examination, as

Dt. 16-09-2019P.J.C.J.C.,MGL.

11 of 16 Fair (O.S.386/2015) he was questioned that whether he has obtained encumbrance certificate at the time of registering Ex.A5, D.W.1 testified that he has obtained the encumbrance certificate which contains nil transaction from the past 25 years till Ex.A5. The plaintiff has suggested him that when the plaintiff has issued legal notice to the first defendant on 17-10-2008, at that time, he also accompanied with first defendant to issue reply notice and he has got read over the contents of legal notice issued by the plaintiff. He further testified that at the time of Ex.A5, exchange of legal notices and filing of caveat O.P. by the plaintiff were all in his knowledge. The intention of the plaintiff is to show that though the defendants are having knowledge caveat O.P. they got Ex.A5 registered.

D.W.1 admitted that the schedule property is the ancestral property of their father and it has fallen to the share of his father under partition among his brothers. Again the intention of the plaintiff is to show that as the property was partitioned the father of the defendants became absolute owner to his share of property and hence he is entitled to execute Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff. D.W.1 was suggested that the plaintiff went to the house of his son at Guntur about ten years back and the defendants tried to grab the schedule property taking advantage of absence of the plaintiff at the schedule property. D.W.1 denied the suggestion. It is elicited from D.W.1 that when the plaintiff issued legal notice under Ex.A2 in the year 2014, D.W.1 has received the same, but did not file any suit for cancellation of Ex.A1. He also denied the alleged forcible dispossession of plaintiff from the schedule property form 05-09-

Dt. 16-09-2019P.J.C.J.C.,MGL.

12 of 16 Fair (O.S.386/2015) 2015 by picking up galata. On one hand, the plaintiff has himself admitted in his cross-examination for twice that he was in possession of the schedule property even on the date of giving evidence before the court, but he again suggested to D.W.1 that on 05-09-2015 he was dispossessed by the defendants, which goes to show that the plaintiff is blowing hot and cold at the same time. So, the crucial aspect in this case is whether the plaintiff was in possession of plaint schedule property till 05-09-2015 and later on was dispossessed by the defendants illegally and he is entitled for recovery of possession by virtue of Ex.A1. For this purpose, when D.W.2 who is a third party to the suit was cross-examined, the plaintiff suggested him that the plaint schedule property was in possession of plaint schedule property since execution of Ex.A1 as an absolute owner. D.W.2 denied the suggestion.

In fact, the plaintiff did not suggest D.W.2 anything about whether who is in possession of the property on 05-09-2015, which is alleged to be the date when cause of action for the suit arose. However, he deposed that he did not see Ex.A5 and did not attest the same. Like D.W.2, D.W.3 is also a third party to the suit. In his cross-examination, he testified that he did not see the documents relating to the father of the defendants with regard to the plaint schedule property and he has no personal knowledge about the earlier suits between the parties and how the plaintiff acquired the plaint schedule property. According to him, the plaintiff has left the village about 17 or 18 years, ago. He denied purchase of plaint schedule property under Ex.A1 by the plaintiff and the

Dt. 16-09-2019P.J.C.J.C.,MGL.

13 of 16 Fair (O.S.386/2015) possession of the plaintiff since the date of purchase. At this stage, it is pertinent to discuss about the latch on the part of the plaintiff in eliciting from D.Ws. about who is in possession of the property on the date of alleged cause of action. All the time, the plaintiff is continuously suggesting the defence witnesses that since the date of purchase of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A1 he was in possession of the property. But, he did not make any effort to elicit from any of the witnesses or at least through his own witnesses about till what time he was in possession of the schedule property and when he was dispossessed. There is no suggestions to that effect.

14. On thorough perusal and understanding of oral and documentary evidence, firstly, this court finds that the plaintiff who averred in the plaint that he was dispossessed by the defendants on 05- 09-2015, did not testify before the court that he was dispossessed and pellucidly testified that he was in possession of the schedule property even on the date of giving evidence before the court. Though he has adduced the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 saying that they were present at the time of execution of Ex.A1 and tried to establish the genuinety of

Ex.A1, while deposing before this court, P.W. 4 admitted that he was not present at the time of execution of Ex.A1 and P.W.5 though deposed that he was present at the time of execution of Ex.A1 is unable to testify about whether the property under Ex.A1 was being sold on behalf of minor children of father of defendants, which goes to show that he also

Dt. 16-09-2019P.J.C.J.C.,MGL.

14 of 16 Fair (O.S.386/2015) has no personal knowledge about the execution of Ex.A1. Secondly, the plaintiff who is having the burden to establish his title to the schedule property tried to shift the burden to the defendants questioning them about their failure to file a suit for cancellation of Ex.A1 without discharging his initial burden. At this juncture, the learned counsel for defendants strenuously argued that the suit is barred by limitation as the dispute with regard to title was in existence by the year 2008 and limitation for declaration of title is only three years as per Article 58 of

Limitation Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is claiming title to the schedule property basing on his possession and hence he is having limitation of 12 years by filing suit as provided under Article 65 of the said Act. If both the Articles were perused, Article 58 envisages that the limitation for a suit for declaration is three years. Whereas as per Article 65 when a declaration is based on prior possession the limitation is 12 years. In this regard, though the plaintiff averred in this plaint that he was in possession of the schedule property till 05-09-2015 and on that date he was dispossessed by the defendant illegally, in his cross-examination, his evidence is very clear that he was in possession of the schedule property on the date of his evidence before the court. If the testimony of P.W.1 on oath before court is considered as admitted by P.W.1 the title dispute was in existence since the year 2008 and when as testified by him regarding the possession of the schedule property, there is no need for him to file a suit for recovery of possession and suit for bare declaration with

Dt. 16-09-2019P.J.C.J.C.,MGL.

15 of 16 Fair (O.S.386/2015) injunction in case of need is sufficient. In such a case the law of limitation under Article 58 applies to the plaintiff, but not Article 65 as contended by him. If the facts and circumstances of the case placed by the plaintiff constrains application of Article 58 then as rightly contended by the defendants the suit is barred by limitation. Further, the plaintiff witnesses did not testify that there as dispute between the parties on 05-09-2015. Instead they were very clear that after filing of a suit in

O.S.174/2014 there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the

schedule property and hence it is understood that there is no cause of action. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff has utterly failed in discharging his initial burden. Accordingly, these issues were answered against the plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.2:

“To what relief ?”

15.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the typists and corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court, this the day of 16th day of September, 2019.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs :- P.W.1 : Pathakamuri Venkateswara Rao P.W.2 : Jonnakuti Balaiah. P.W.3 : Dharla Kristhu Raju.(Eschewed) P.W.4 : Veerepalli Sivanarayana. P.W.5 : Katragadda Satya Vara Prasad.

Dt. 16-09-2019P.J.C.J.C.,MGL.

16 of 16 Fair (O.S.386/2015)

For Defendants :- D.W.1 : Katragadda Suresh. D.W.2 : Yanamadala Surya Prakasa Rao. D.W.3 : Vadde Durga Rao.

Documents marked

For Plaintiffs :- Ex.A1 :Registered sale deed No. 36/1986 dated 19-01-1998 of SRO, Tadikonda in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A2 :Certified copy of Office copy of legal notice dated 12-07-2014 along with posts receipts.

Ex.A3 :Certified copy of Postal acknowledgment.

Ex.A4 :Certified copy of reply notice dated 18-07-2014.

Ex.A5 :Registered Gift deed dated 31-03-2011 executed by the D1 and D2 in favour of the D3.

Ex.A6 :Certified copy of Judgment and decree in O.S. 174/2014 before

Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Mangalagiri dated 04-08-

2015.

Ex.A7 :Certified copy of Postal acknowledgment.

Ex.A8 :Certified copy of FIR No. 215/2014 of Tadikonda Police Station.

Ex.A9 :Certified copy of Charge sheet in C.C. No. 154/2016 before

Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Mangalagiri filed against

D.1 to D.3 and others.

For Defendants :- -NIL-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

Dt. 16-09-2019P.J.C.J.C.,MGL.

CC/297/2010 Acquitted

SHO,Mangalagiri Town vs Vemulakona Venkayamma

26 Sep 2017

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :

MANGALAGIRI

PRESENT: Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri,

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

Tuesday, this the 26 th day of September, 2017.

C.C.No. 297 of 2010

Between :

State :Station House Officer,

Mangalagiri Town P.S. ...Complainant.

And

1. Vemulakonda Venkayamma, W/o Venkateswara Rao, Age 70 years, D.No.18-7-3, Arupampula Road, Kedarswaripet, Vijayawada.

2. Vemulakonda Veera Raghavamma, W/o Venkateswara Rao, Age 65 years, D.No.18-7-3, Arupampula Road, Kedarswaripet, Vijayawada.

3. Vemulakonda Vanisri W/o Venkateswara Rao, Age 42 years, D.No.11-149, Yerrabalem Village, Mangalagiri Mandal.

...Accused.

*****

This case coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri. K. Siva Reddy and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

01.The Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Town police station has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 in Cr. No. 24 of 2010 for the offences punishable under sections 417, 420, 468, 506 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code,1860 (herein after referred to as 'IPC' for sake of brevity).

02. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:

Accused No.1 and 2 namely Vemulakonda Venkayamma and

Vemulakonda Veera Raghavamma are the residents of Yerrabalem village,

Mangalagiri Mandal, accused No.3 Vemulakonda Vanisri is their daughter- in-law. Accused No.1 and 2 are the absolute owners of land in Survey

No.734/1 of Navuluru village, Mangalagiri Mandal. They got their land divided into plots and sold those plots to various persons. In the year 2 1984, accused No.1 and 2 has sold plot No.5 in Survey No. 734/1 of

Navuluru village to one Gutti Venkata Ramana under registered sale deed

dt. 15.11.1984. The said Gutti Venkata Ramana has sold the said plot to

the defacto-complainant (Veerasthu Sambaiah) in the year 1988 under registered sale deed dt. 18.02.1988. While so, accused No.1 and 2 who has no knowledge about the transaction between Gutti Venkata Ramana and the defacto-complainant has executed a gift deed with regard to the above said plot to accused No.3. Further, accused No.3 has mortgaged the same property to one Lavunuri Bali Reddy of Navuluru village under registered mortgage deed of Sub-Registrar office, Mangalagiri dt. 17.03.2005 and got released the property from mortgage on 07.03.2009. The contention of the prosecution is that accused No.1 and 2 by executing gift deed to accused

No.3 with regard to the property already sold to Gutti Venkata Ramana has prepared forged documents and has cheated the first purchaser Gutti

Venkata Ramana who is no more. On 04.01.2010, the defacto-complainant who came to know about the fraud committed by the accused on visiting the site for erecting the fencing around his site, he was threatened with dire consequences by the accused persons. Hence, the defacto-complainant has filed a private complaint before this court which was referred to the concerned police station. On 21.02.2010 L.W6-Ch. Koteswara Rao, the investigating officer in this case has registered a case in Cr. No. 24/10

U/secs. 417, 420, 468, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec 156 (3) Cr.P.C of

Mangalagiri Town P.S. In the course of his investigation, he has examined

L.Ws.1 to 5, recorded their statements, prepared rough sketch. On surrender of the accused persons before him on 31.3.2010, he has sent them to the court for judicial custody. Hence the charge.

03. After perusing the charge sheet and other material on record, this court has taken cognizance of the case for the offences punishable

U/secs. 417, 420, 468, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

04. On appearance of the accused, copies of the case record was furnished to them under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred as to Cr.P.C for the sake of brevity).

05.The accused No.1 to 3 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., explaining them the contents of the charge sheet and accusation made against them, they denied the same. The charges under sections 417, 420, 468, 506 r/w 34 IPC against the accused were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. The prosecution filed a memo stating that L.W1 died and hence the evidence of L.W1 was closed. On behalf of the accused,

V. Venkateswara Rao who is the husband of A3 is examined as D.W1 and got marked Ex.D1. The learned APP for State has given up the remaining witness i.e., L.W4.

07. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material found against them for which they denied.

08.Heard both sides.

09.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor advanced his arguments that

Ex.P5 was created by the accused persons to cheat the defacto- complainant. He further argued that as per the evidence of P.W1, Exs.P1 to P11, it shows that the accused No.1 and 2 after selling the disputed plot to the defacto-complainant has again gifted the same to accused No.3 with plan and conspiracy to gain the property wrongfully. He has also impressed on Ex.P9 which is certified copy of decree in O.S No. 10/2010 filed by the defacto-complainant against the accused and decreed in his favour which shows that there is no title to the accused as such he contends that accused are guilty for the alleged offences.

10. Per contra, the defence counsel argued that P.W3-Sub-Registrar has verified the property as per extent but not boundaries and referred to the settled preposition of law 'what boundaries prevail over extent'. He has further argued that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not reflecting through the evidence of P.W1.

11. Basing on the oral and documentary submissions on both sides, the following points were arise for determination:

1. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the offences U/secs. 417, 420 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused persons for the offence U/sec. 468

r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

3. Whether the prosecution has also proved the offence

U/s. 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

12. The factual matrix of the case as unvieled by the prosecution is that:

(a) Accused No.1 and 2 has sold an extent of 240 square yards of plot No.5 in Survey No. 734/1 of Navuluru village to one Gutti Venkata

Ramana which was acquired by them in the year 1957 through their maternal uncle. The said Gutti Venkata Ramana has sold the said plot to the defacto-complainant-V. Sambaiah in the year 1988. Later on, the defacto-complainant came to know that accused No.1 and 2 has executed forged gift deed in favour of accused No.3 on 11.11.2004 and the same was registered as document No. 8806/2004 on the file of Sub Registry

Mangalagiri, Guntur District. Subsequently, the accused No.3 has mortgaged the said property on 17.03.2005 as document No. 2620/2005 on the file of Sub Registry, Mangalagiri and got released the said mortgage 5 on 07.03.2009. The defacto-complainant has came to know about the said forgery by accused No.1 and 2 on 04.01.2010 when he went to the disputed plot No.5 for starting work to construct a RCC building in the said plot at that time accused No.1 to 3 came to the scene of offence and threatened the defacto-complainant with dire consequences.

(b) As the defacto-complainant is expired, P.W1-B. Ramesh Babu deposed before this court to substantiate the prosecution case. He is the son-in-law of the defacto-complainant. As per his version, on 04.01.2010 while he was in the site along with the defacto-complainant and 4 other coolies, accused No.1 to 3 brought some persons and picked up quarrel with the defacto-complainant saying that he has no right over the said site and sent him away. Hence, the defacto-complainant approached the

Mangalagiri Town Police station but the police refused to register his case as it is civil in nature. As such, he has filed a private complaint before this court. Besides this P.W1 has reiterated the prosecution case in his chief examination.

In his cross-examination, P.W1 has categorically stated that the disputed property is not alienated and still stands in the name of the defacto-complainant-V. Sambaiah. To disprove the same, the defence has filed Ex.D1 document which reflects that the disputed site was sold out by the legal heirs of the defacto-complainant herein to one

Balaguru Venkataravamma on 19.11.2014. Through the evidence of P.W1, the defence has elicited that the said B. Venkataravamma is no other than the mother of P.W1. That means the legal heirs of defacto-complainant has executed a document of sale in favour of mother of P.W1. Hence, P.W1 is an interested witness having personal gain. The entire evidence of P.W1 is silent about the date of death of the defacto-complainant. He has admitted that he got married with the daughter of the defacto-complainant in the year 2008 as such it can be inferred that P.W1 has no personal knowledge 6 about the defacto-complainant purchasing the property from Gutti Venkata

Ramana. He has also admitted that the accused persons were having properties around the disputed land.

Upon perusing the oral and documentary material available in hand, each point is taken up for discussion now.

13. POINT No.1:-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

accused persons for the offences U/secs. 417, 420 r/w 34 of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

(a) The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 and 2 has cheated the defacto-complainant by executing a gift deed in favour of accused No.3 which was already sold out by them to the vendor of defacto- complainant. On perusal of the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, though the independent witness P.W2 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W3 Sub-Registrar has supported the case of the prosecution by testifying that as per the concerned documents that the defacto- complainant has purchased plot No.5 in Survey No. 734/1 of Navuluru village, Mangalagiri Mandal and accused No.1 and 2 has registered a gift deed in favour of accused No.3 in respect of the same plot under Ex.P4.

Again, the same plot was mortgaged by accused No.3 to one L. Bali Reddy under Ex.P5. He has also deposed that as per document No. 4770/1984 dt.

13.11.1984 under Ex.P4 the same plot was sold by accused No.1 and 2 to one Gutti Venkata Ramana. Subsequently, accused No.1 and 2 has executed a gift deed under Ex.P4. Hence, the evidence of P.W3 sailed in consistence with the prosecution. However, P.W3 categorically deposed throughout his evidence that his evidence is as per the document i.e., exhibit marked but not as per the records of his office.

(b) At this stage, it is pertinent to refer the essential ingredients of offence U/sec. 417 IPC as follows:

7 (1) Accused voluntarily or dishonestly induced the complaint; (2) He did so for delivery of some property either to the accused or some other person; (3) He intentionally induced the complainant to do a thing which he would not do or omit to do a thing which he would have done if not induced; (4) Such act caused was likely to cause some damage or harm to his body, mind, reputation or property.

(c) The ingredients of offence U/sec. 420 IPC attracts only if the following requirements are present.

(1) Cheating; (2) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security; and (3) mens rea of the accused at the time of making inducement.

It is held that in Indian Oil Corporation Vs NEPC (2006) 6

SCC 736 and in Devendra Vs Baldev (2005) 9 SCC 15, the apex court has laid down the requirements of Sec. 415 pointwise as under:

(i) deception of any person;

(ii) whereby fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or

(iii) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he was not so deceived;

(iv) which act or omission is caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

In Harmanpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab (2009) 7 SCC 712, the apex court has laid down that an offence of cheating cannot be said to have been made out unless the following ingredients are satisfied:

(1) Deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or omission; (2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or (3) To consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit.

Held in Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Vs Rajvir Industries (2208) 13

SCC 678 that a bare perusal of Sec. 415 read with Sec 420 would clearly lead to the conclusion that fraudulent or dishonest inducement on the part of the accused must be at the inception and not at a subsequent stage.

In view of the above decisions of the Apex court, inorder to hold a person guilty of offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the promise or agreement. Such a dishonset intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that he has retracted from the said promise subsequently as also held in AIR 1973

Supreme Court 326 in State of Kerala Vs A.P. Pillai and another.

(d) The present case, at the time of execution of sale deed to Gutti

Venkata Ramana, it is clear that the accused No.1 and 2 has no dishonest intention to cheat or defraud their vendee. Even if they have really executed a sale deed to Gutti Venkata Ramana for the disputed plot and again gifted the same to accused No.3 in the year 2010, it amounts to breach of contract. Mere breach of contract cannot give raise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent, dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of transaction. The defacto-complainant has to show that the 9 accused No.1 and 2 had fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of sale of the property to Gutti Venkata Ramana i.e., in the year 1984. The prosecution has also not elicited any fact of dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of accused No.1 and 2 at the time of execution of sale deed in favour of Gutti Venkata Ramana. Hence, the ingredients of

Sections 417 and 420 IPC are not present in this case, there is force in the argument of defence counsel that ingredients of Sec 417 and 420 IPC does not attracts. Accordingly, the accused were found not guilty for the offence

U/secs. 417 and 420 IPC.

14. POINT No.2:-

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused persons for the offence U/sec. 468

r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

The version of the prosecution is that accused No.1 and 2 has created Ex.P4 gift deed and used the same for the purpose of obtaining the mortgage loan from one L. Bali Reddy under Ex.P5. As such, they have committed the offence U/sec. 468 of IPC.

In order to prove that accused No.1 and 2 has committed the offence U/sec. 468 of IPC at the first instance it must be proved that the defacto-complainant is having a valid title over the disputed plot. It is alleged by the defacto-complainant that he has acquired the property under registered sale deed from one Gutti Venkata Ramana in the year 1988. It is onus on the prosecution to prove that the said Gutti Venkata

Ramana is having the right to dispossess the disputed plot to the defacto- complainant. Exs.P2 and P3 were filed by the prosecution to prove that the defacto-complainant has purchased the disputed plot from Gutti Venkata

Ramana, Ex.P2 shows that he has purchased the same from accused No.1 and 2 in the year 1984. But Ex.P7 is the crucial document which assists the court to arrive at a just conclusion that whether the accused has committed 10 the offence of forgery. Ex.P7 is the certified copy of encumbrance certificate of the disputed property. On careful scrutiny of the contents of

Ex.P7 it reveals that in the year 1988 Gutti Venkata Ramana has executed a sale deed with regard to disputed plot No.5 in S.No. 734/1 in an extent of 242 square yards of Navuluru village in favour of the defacto-complainant.

But Ex.P7 does not contain any entry as to mode of acquisition by the said

Gutti Venkata Ramana. If the version of the prosecution that Gutti Venkata

Ramana has purchased the property in the year 1984 from accused No.1 and 2 is true, Ex.P7 which contain the details of encumbrance affecting the disputed plot from 01.01.1983 to 05.02.2010 should reflect the same but there is no such entry in Ex.P7 which creates a suspicion whether the Gutti

Venkata Ramana has purchased the property from accused No.1 and 2.

when the title of Gutti Venkata Ramana itself is not proved the defacto- complainant's title to disputed plot is also in dilema.

Though, D.W1 has deposed that in the year 1984, accused No.1 and 2 sold 240 square yards to one Gutti Venkata Ramana under Ex.P3, the recitals of Ex.P7 is silent about the same. As the documentary evidence prevails over oral evidence the admission of D.W1 does not receive any weightage. Moreover, D.W1 has filed Ex.D1 registered sale deed executed by the legal heirs of the defacto-complainant in favour of mother of D.W1 which also creates a suspicion that the deceased- defacto-complainant's legal heirs were making endevours to create some evidence in their favour.

The prosecution did not made any venture to prove the execution of Ex.P3 which is fatal to the case of the prosecution when Ex.P3 is not proved,

Ex.P2 will not have any stand.

In this circumstances, the court cannot hold that accused No.1 to 3 has forged Ex.P4. Accordingly, the accused were found not guilty for the offence U/s. 468 IPC.

15. POINT No.3:-

Whether the prosecution has also proved the offence

U/s. 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

In order to assess whether accused No.1 to 3 has committed criminal intimidation against the defacto-complainant it is pertinent to note Under Section 503 IPC which defines criminal intimidation:

Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation.

16.The prosecution has filed charge sheet alleging that accused

No.1 to 3 has threatened the defacto-complainant with dire consequences at the scene of offence whereas P.W1 has categorically deposed in his chief-examination itself that accused No.1 to 3 picked up quarrel with the defacto-complainant stating that he has no right over the said site and sent him away. There is no whisper about any act by the accused persons at the scene of offence which threatens the defacto-complainant. Moreover, he deposed that he along with the defacto-complainant went to the scene of offence on the alleged date of incident accompanied by four other coolies to remove the trees in the scene of offence but the evidence of P.W4 is quite contradictory to the evidence of P.W1 as he deposed that the defacto-complainant went to the scene of offence for the purpose of surveying his land. The defacto-complainant has stated in his complaint 12

before this court that the accused beat him and insulted him by abusing in

filthy language. As such, he has filed a complaint against the accused

U/sec.506 IPC. But the evidence of P.W1 does not disclose anything that the accused has beat and insulted P.W1. Moreover, he has admitted that the accused alleged that the defacto-complainant has no right over the said site due to which it can be understood that the quarrel between them arose because of title dispute between them which is absolutely a civil issue and to be resolved on initiation of civil proceedings which is affirmed by virtue of Ex.P9 certified copy of Judgment in O.S No. 10/2010. In such circumstances, it cannot be hold that the accused has committed criminal intimidation against the defacto-complainant who has went to the disputed site without any proper title. As the prosecution did not prove execution of

Ex.P2, it can be said that the defacto-complainant has tried to enter into the property of accused No.1 and 2 inturn accused No.1 and 2 made efforts to protect their property but did not commit the offence U/sec. 506 IPC.

Therefore, accused No.1 to 3 are not guilty of offence U/s. 506 IPC.

17. In the light of the supra discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences U/secs. 417, 420, 468, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are entitled for benefit of doubt.

18. In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 were found not guilty for the offences U/secs 417, 420, 468, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused No.1 to 3 shall stand canceled after six months from the date of this judgment.

Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26 th day of

September, 2017.

Sd/- Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

FAC ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :For Accused : P.W.1 : B. Ramesh Babu. D.W1: V. Venkateswara Rao. P.W.2 : Kolagani Sankara Rao.

P.W.3 : Bikumalla Ashok. P.W.4 : Ch. Koteswara Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution : Ex.P1 : Signature of L.W1 on the complaint. Ex.P2 : Certified copy of Registered sale deed. Ex.P3 : Certified copy of link document.. Ex.P4 : Certified copy of Gift deed. Ex.P5 : Certified copy of mortgage deed. Ex.P6 : Certified copy of released mortgage deed. Ex.P7 : Certified copy of Encumbrance on property. Ex.P8 : Office copy of complaint. Ex.P9 : Certified copy of judgment in O.S No.10/10. Ex.P10: Certified copy of sale deed. Ex.P11: Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W2. Ex.P12: FIR. Ex.P13: Rough sketch.

For Accused:MATERIAL OBJECTS

Ex.D1 : Copy of registered sale deed. Nil

Sd/- Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

FAC ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

//True copy//

AJCJ, Mangalagiri.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

MANGALAGIRI

CALENDAR IN C.C.297/2010

Date of Offence : Prior 21-02-2010.

Date of filing : 23-02-2010.

Date of apprehension of Accused :16-08-2010.

Date of commencement of Trial :19-10-2015.

Date of close of Trial :27-06-2017.

Date of sentence or order :26-09-2017

Name of the Complainant : The Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Town P.S.

Description of Accused:

1. Vemulakonda Venkayamma, W/o Venkateswara Rao, Age 70 years, D.No.18-7-3, Arupampula Road, Kedarswaripet, Vijayawada.

2. Vemulakonda Veera Raghavamma, W/o Venkateswara Rao, Age 65 years, D.No.18-7-3, Arupampula Road, Kedarswaripet, Vijayawada.

3. Vemulakonda Vanisri W/o Venkateswara Rao, Age 42 years, D.No.11-149, Yerrabalem Village, Mangalagiri Mandal.

Section of Law : U/Sections 417, 420, 468, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of Court : Found guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 were found not guilty for the offences

U/secs 417, 420, 468, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

Bail bonds of accused No.1 to 3 shall stand canceled after six months from the date of this judgment.

Explanation for delay :

After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C on 16-08-10. On 17-02-2014, accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C for the offences U/sec. 417, 420, 468, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. On 18-06-2015, P.W1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked.

On 31-01-2017, P.W2 was examined and Ex.P11 was marked. On 18-04-2017,

P.W3 was examined. On 03-05-2017, P.W4 was examined and Exs.P12 and P13 were marked and the prosecution evidence is closed. On 09-05-2017, the accused

No.1 to 3 were examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. On 14-06-2017, D.W1 was examined and Ex.D1 was marked and on 27-06-2017 the defence evidence is closed. On 07-09-2017 heard arguments on both sides. Judgment pronounced 26-09-2017.

Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

FAC ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI .

Copy submitted to:- The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

15 //True copy//

AJCJ, Mangalagiri.

OS/126/2015

Shaik Mohiddin and another vs Shaik Galeeb alias Gali Sha and 2 others

12 Sep 2019

1 of 15 Fair (O.S.126/2015)

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

Present: Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

Thursday, the 12 th day of SEPTEMBER, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 126/2015.

Between:

1) Shaik Mohiddin.

2) Shaik Nagulu Meera.… Plaintiffs.

- And -

1) Shaik Galieeb @ Gali Sha.

2) Shaik John Bee.

3) Shaik Mastanvali.… Defendant.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 27.08.2019 in the presence of Sri D. Srinivasa Rao and Sri P. Mohan Ram

Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri T. Madhusudana Rao and

Sri M. Govardhana Rao, Advocates for the defendants 2 and 3. The 1st defendant is remained exparte and upon hearing both sides 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 by the plaintiffs for cancellation of sale deed dt. 18-04-2015 vide document No. 2913/2015 registered at SRO

Tadikonda of Guntur District, executed by second defendant in favour of third defendant with costs.

2.The facts of the plaintiffs’ case, in brief, is that :

The plaintiffs and one Sk. John Bee are the sons and daughter of first defendant and his deceased first wife by name

Dt. 12-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

2 of 15 Fair (O.S.126/2015)

Jayatun Bee, who died about three decades ago. The second defendant is second wife of first defendant. The third defendant and one Sk. Baji are the sons of defendants 1 and 2. The suit schedule property is a vacant site admeasuring sq.145.2 yards and situated in

Thulluru village of Guntur District. Originally, the schedule property belongs to the fore fathers of first defendant and hence it is the ancestral property of plaintiffs and 1st defendant. About two and half decades ago, the first defendant and his three brothers has settled their ancestral property among themselves and got separated their respective share. Since then the first defendant and his brothers are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective shares without any interruption. In the said settlement the first defendant got suit schedule property towards his share. Subsequently after five years, he has settled the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and hence the plaintiffs are in joint and constructive possession of the schedule property. The plaintiffs has arranged fencing around the schedule property and they were cleaning the debris periodically.

About one week back from the date of filing of the suit they thought of entering into registered partition. On 09-06-2015, at about 9-00 a.m., as usual the first plaintiff went to the schedule property, dumped tractor load of mud and sand to level the same. At that time the third defendant came there at 11-00 a.m. and tried to obstruct the work.

When the 1st plaintiff questioned him, the third defendant stated that he has purchased the schedule property from second defendant. At that time, the elders of the locality asked the third defendant to bring copy of sale deed. The third defendant threatened the plaintiff with

Dt. 12-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

3 of 15 Fair (O.S.126/2015) dire consequences and left the place. When the first plaintiff enquired in the office of Sub-registrar, Tadikonda, he came to know that second defendant has executed a sale deed in favour of third defendant in respect of the suit schedule property for a consideration of

Rs.1,17,000/-. After seeing the document, the first plaintiff was surprised as second defendant mentioned in the document that schedule property is her ancestral property. In fact, she has nothing to do with the schedule property and she has no right to execute the said sale deed. The first plaintiff understood that the defendants has colluded with each other and brought into existence the said sale deed in favour of third defendant for wrongful gain. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for cancellation of the sale deed.

3. The first defendant was set exparte.

4. Written statement contentions of contesting defendants:

The third defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by second defendant. The contesting defendants denied all the plaint averments specifically and submitted that originally the schedule property belongs to one Sk. Bude Saheb, who is the younger brother of first defendant. The second defendant has purchased the schedule property from the said Bude Saheb on 12-07-1991 for a valid consideration of Rs.6,000/- under a possessory sale agreement.

Since then, the second defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property till 18-04-2014 when she sold the same to the third defendant for valid consideration of Rs.1,17,000/- under a registered sale deed vide document No. 2913/2015 registered at

Dt. 12-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

4 of 15 Fair (O.S.126/2015)

SRO Tadikonda. At that time, the second defendant has handed over the original possessory agreement of sale to third defendant. As the third defendant has purchased the schedule property, he has raised iron fencing and is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The contesting defendants further submit that the above sale deed, it is wrongly mentioned that the schedule property is ancestral property of second defendant, though it is her self acquired property.

The defendants 1 and 2 are having residential house in Thulluru village which is their joint family ancestral property. The plaintiffs and defendants along with Sk. Baji are all residing in that house. After the second defendant has convey the schedule property to third defendant, the plaintiffs demanded the defendants 1 and 2 to register the above said house property in their favour. As the defendants 1 and 2 refused to register the house property, the plaintiffs has filed the suit. Further after filing of the suit the plaintiffs again pressurized the defendants 1 and 2 to register the house property and assured that they will withdraw the present suit. Believing their words, defendants 1 and 2 has registered the above said residential house belonging to joint family in favour of plaintiffs on 08-10-2015 vide document No.

7102/2015 registered at SRO Tadikonda. However, the plaintiffs did not withdraw the suit. According to the contesting defendants, the plaintiffs has approached the court with unclean hands by suppressing real facts and hence pray to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial:

Dt. 12-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

5 of 15 Fair (O.S.126/2015)

1) Whether the plaintiffs are having any right or title to the suit schedule property?

2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of

registered sale deed dt. 18-04-2015 vide document

No. 2913/2015 registered at SRO Tadikonda

executed by second defendant in favour of third

defendant?

3) To what relief?

Evidence adduced by both the parties :

6.In order to establish the suit claim, the plaintiffs has adduced the evidence of P.W.1 – Sk. Mohiddin (1st plaintiff ) and one third party to the suit as P.W.2 – Sk. Abdul Shukur. Ex.A1 – certified copy of registered sale deed executed by second defendant in favour of third defendant vide document No. 2913/2015 registered at SRO

Tadikonda.

7.In support of their contention, the contesting defendants examined D.Ws.1 to 3. D.W.1 – Sk. Mastan Vali (3rd defendant),

D.W.2 – Sk. John Bee ( 2nd defendant), D.W.3 – Sk. Bude Saheb (witness summoned by contesting defendants). Exs. B1 to B3 were marked.

Ex.B1 – Photograph marked through P.W.1 Ex.B2 – Photograph of Jayanthi Vydyashala complex marked through P.W.1.

Ex.B3 – Certified copy of registered sale deed dt. 08- 10-2015 executed by first defendant in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 marked through P.W.1.

Dt. 12-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

6 of 15 Fair (O.S.126/2015)

8.Heard both sides and perused the record.

9.Upon considering the oral and documentary submissions of both the parties, the issues settled were taken up for discussion as under –

ISSUE NO.1:

“Whether the plaintiffs are having any right or title

to the suit schedule property?”

10.P.W.1 is 1st plaintiff in the suit who filed his chief- examination affidavit reiterating the plaint averments saying that the schedule property is ancestral property of their family, his father i.e., the 1st defendant herein got the same under family settlement between himself and his brothers. According to P.W.1, the first defendant has orally settled the schedule property to P.W.1 and second plaintiff.

P.W.1 and second plaintiff thought of dividing the property among themselves. While so, on 09-06-2015 when P.W.1 as usual went to the schedule property and dumped mud and sand to level the property, the third defendant has obstructed him saying that he has purchased the schedule property from the second defendant. P.W.1 has filed Ex.A1- certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of third defendant. P.W.1 testified in chief that the second defendant has no manner of right to execute Ex.A1 and further he came to know that the second defendant has executed Ex.A1 as if the schedule property is her ancestral property. When he was cross-examined, at the

Dt. 12-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

7 of 15 Fair (O.S.126/2015) beginning of his cross-examination, the learned counsel for contesting defendants has elicited about the profession possessed by P.W.1.

P.W.1 originally was a medical practitioner and later on pursued LL.M.

and also enrolled as an advocate in Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh.

The endeavor of defendants is to show that though P.W.1 has taken oath at the time of his enrolment in Bar Council that he will not practice any other profession, he still practicing as a medical practitioner and thereby to show the conduct and character of P.W.1 as not genuine. However, as per Sec.52 of Indian Evidence Act,

1872 in civil cases the character and conduct imputed to any

person concerned is irrelevant. Hence, there is no need to discuss further about the above facts elicited from the cross-examination of

P.W.1 and no importance can be imparted to the photographs under

Exs.B1 and B2. When coming to the evidence elicited from P.W.1 with regard to the facts of the instant case, P.W.1 admitted that third defendant has assisted him in his hospital for some time. He testified that he do not know that the children of second wife will also have all rights like children of first wife as per Muslim Law. Undisputedly, there is no controversy between the parties with regard to their relationship.

Though P.W.1 in plaint averments has clearly averred that his father and his brothers has settled their joint family ancestral property, while deposing before court P.W.1 testified that he do not know whether the properties of his paternal grand-father were shared by his sons.

Likewise, he do not know anything about relinquishment deed executed by first defendant and his two other brothers in favour of their younger brother Bude Saheb in respect of 0-03 cents of property in

Dt. 12-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

8 of 15 Fair (O.S.126/2015) which the present suit schedule property is situated. In fact, the defendants did not aver anything about relinquishment deed in their written statement. P.W.1 also do not know about second defendant purchasing the said 0-03 cents of property from Bude Saheb on 12- 07-1997 under a possessory sale agreement. It is elicited from P.W.1 that P.W.1 has got sale deed vide Ex.B3 from the first defendant in respect of house property and Ex.B3 was subsequent document to

Ex.A1 and also executed prior to filing of the present suit. At this juncture, the defendants suggested P.W.1, that P.W.1has promised to withdraw the present suit if first defendant execute Ex.B3 in his favour and resiled from his promise. P.W.1 denied the suggestion. He also denied the suggestion that as third defendant and his brother Sk. Baji who earlier worked for P.W.1 is now having their private job as such

P.W.1 felt jealous over them and filed the suit with false averments.

P.W.2 claims himself to be third party to the suit, but admitted in his cross-examination that P.W.1 is his maternal uncle and he also has worked in the hospital of P.W.1 for some time. According to him,

P.W.1 alone has filed the suit against third defendant alone. This itself speak volumes that P.W.2 has no knowledge about any facts of the suit and came to depose in favour of P.W.1 about the facts taught to him by P.W.1. Hence, P.W.2 testified that on 09-06-2015 he was at the schedule property and at that time third defendant came there and interfered with first plaintiff’s possession to the schedule property saying that he has purchased the schedule property from his mother.

Except this, nothing worthy is elicited from P.W.2 to ascertain whether

P.W.1 has any manner of right to the schedule property. Further the

Dt. 12-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

9 of 15 Fair (O.S.126/2015) evidence of P.W.2 that he do not know how P.W.1 has got the schedule property again says his ignorance about the particulars of the schedule property. As P.W.2 has no personal knowledge about the schedule property he can be termed as an interested witness and his evidence with regard the above said incident alleged to have happened on 09-06-2015 can be thrown out. By virtue of the above oral and documentary evidence adduced by first plaintiff, the first plaintiff except reiterating the plaint averments on oath. But the material placed by him before the court is no way establishing his right or title to the schedule property in any manner. Though the suit is filed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 together, the second plaintiff did not come forward to give any evidence on his behalf supporting the plaint averments along with the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 alone has taken the entire burden to prove the plaint averments. However, P.W.1 did not place any worthy material to believe that the first defendant has settled the schedule property in favour of P.W.1 and second plaintiff. In this regard, the first plaintiff is unsuccessful in getting the support of second plaintiff at least. Except that the settlement made by the first defendant is oral one, he could not file any piece of paper to show his possession to the schedule property.

11. In the above circumstances, the plaintiffs has cross- examined D.Ws. to elicit from them that second defendant is no way entitled to execute Ex.A1 in favour of third defendant. D.W.1 is third defendant and he filed his chief examination affidavit reiterating the written statement contentions. According to him, the second defendant has executed Ex.A1 in his favour. When he was cross-

Dt. 12-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

10 of 15 Fair (O.S.126/2015) examined as the learned counsel for defendant tried to impeach the credibility of P.W.1 by triggering against the character of P.W.1, the learned counsel for plaintiff also suggested to D.W.1 that at the time when he was working in the hospital of first plaintiff he has misused an amount of Rs.25,000/-. D.W.1 denied the suggestion. As discussed supra, there is no need to discuss about the evidence available in the cross-examination of D.W.1 regarding his conduct as it is irrelevant.

When D.W.1 is asked whether he has enquired the first defendant about the manner of right if any in favour of second defendant to execute Ex.A1, D.W.1 testified that he has enquired first defendant and came to know that the schedule property is self acquired property of the second defendant and he has purchased the same from the younger paternal uncle of D.W.1. D.W.1 has no documentary proof to show that the schedule property originally belongs to Sk. Bude Saheb.

D.w.1 denied the suggestion that Sk. Bude Saheb has not executed any possessory sale agreement in favour of second defendant. At this juncture, it is pertinent refer that D.W.1 by way of filing his additional chief examination affidavit has attempted to exhibit the said possessory sale agreement but the same was not marked as not duly stamped. The plaintiff questioned D.W.1 that whether he can examine defendants 1 and 2. D.W.1 testified that he can examine them.

D.W.2 is second defendant herein. She also filed her chief examination affidavit reiterating written statement contentions. She was also questioned that whether first defendant can give evidence in this case. She testified that first defendant may give his evidence.

She further testified that she has got a receipt for purchasing schedule

Dt. 12-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

11 of 15 Fair (O.S.126/2015) property for a consideration of Rs.6,000/- and she is in possession of the said agreement. She do not know anything about assurance given by first plaintiff to withdraw the present suit after execution of Ex.B3 in his favour. The first plaintiff at the time of cross-examining P.Ws. 1 ;and 2 has laid stress on them about their ability to adduce the evidence of first defendant. In deed, it is the burden of first plaintiff to adduce the evidence of first defendant who according to first plaintiff has settled the schedule property in favour of plaintiffs. As the plaintiffs are claiming right and interest in the schedule property by virtue of oral settlement made by first defendant, it is obligatory on the part of the plaintiffs to prove the said settlement which in turn establishes their right or interest over the schedule property. But no such efforts were made by the plaintiffs. Instead they proceeded to insist D.Ws. 1 and 2 for adducing the evidence of first defendant, which is the initial burden of the plaintiffs. Until and unless the plaintiffs discharge their initial burden that they have got the schedule property from the first defendant and they were in possession of the schedule property, they could not show any injury or apprehension of the injury likely to happen under the guise of Ex.A1. In fact, there is no evidence to show that the schedule property originally belongs to first defendant.

When the defendants were clearly and categorically stating that one

Bude Saheb is the original owner of the schedule property, the plaintiffs are burdened to show that the schedule property originally belongs to the first defendant. In the instant case, the plaintiffs neither proved the ownership of their father nor settlement in their favour.

Though D.Ws. 1 and 2 are not able to bring on record the possessory

Dt. 12-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

12 of 15 Fair (O.S.126/2015) agreement of sale alleged to be executed by second defendant and also ownership of Sk. Bude Saheb, this will not help the plaintiffs in establishing the suit claim. It is because the plaintiffs has to take the strength of his own case and cannot stand on the weakness of the defendants.

12. The defendants has endeavored to summon the said Sk.

Bude Saheb, who after receiving summons twice did not appear

before the court and court is able to secure him after issuance of

bailable warrant. The said Bude Saheb is examined as D.W.3. In his chief-examination by defendants, he denied the suggestion that he has sold the schedule property to the second defendant in the presence of one Sk. Mahaboob Saheb for consideration of Rs.6,000/-.

Though he denied the sale, he added that once he has borrowed loan of Rs.6,000/- from first defendant and at that time he has signed a paper. Hence, it is clear that D.W.3 has executed some paper in favour of first defendant or second defendant. This infers that there is some agreement between defendants 1 and 2 and D.W.3. Therefore, the evidence of D.W.3 is favourable to the defendants to some extent.

As discussed supra, the plaintiffs has not shown any manner of right or title to the schedule property. Accordingly, this issue is answered against plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO.2:

“Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for

cancellation of registered sale deed dt. 18-04-

2015 vide document No. 2913/2015

Dt. 12-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

13 of 15 Fair (O.S.126/2015)

registered at SRO Tadikonda executed by

second defendant in favour of third

defendant?”

13.The plaintiffs who has claimed that the first defendant has settled the schedule property to them did not placed any positive material to that effect. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs at the time of arguing the matter has argued that that plaintiffs has asserted their status to the schedule property as provided under Sec. 34 of Specific

Relief Act, as the schedule property is ancestral property of first defendant and second defendant is no way entitled to execute Ex.A1.

Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for seeking cancellation of Ex.A1.

However, it is not the case of the plaintiffs that they are entitled to the schedule property along with defendants 1 and 3 and one Sk. Baji being ancestral property. It is their clear case that they have got settlement of the property in their favour. Then the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs in this regard will not support the plaintiffs’ claim. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, he testified that he do not know whether the ancestral properties were shared between his father and brothers. It seems that the defendant is blowing hot and cold at one time. If it is taken otherwise and for the time being it is assumed that the ancestral properties were still joints, then the 1st defendant alone is not entitled to execute Ex B3 in favour of 1st plaintiff. Again it is the burden of 1st plaintiff to explain how he got Ex

B3 from 1st defendant which is also ancestral property. Hence the

Dt. 12-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

14 of 15 Fair (O.S.126/2015) plaintiff failed to prove that the schedule property is either their own property or still in ancestral nucleus. Without discharging the burden that has rest on them, plaintiffs are disputing the recitals in Ex A1 that 2nd defendant has mentioned in the document that she has got the from ancestors and contrary to the same averred as if purchased from

Bude Saheb. Unless the plaintiffs discharge their own burden the onus does not shift to defendants. If the plaintiffs has averred and established that the schedule property is ancestral property, then as a member of joint family they are entitled for cancellation of the document treating that one of the co- sharer has sold the property without consent of others. The learned cousel for plaintiffs has relied upon some decisions relating to maintainability of suit for cancellation filed by third parties, however they do not speak that plaintiff need not have any interest in the property. Hence the said decisions does not apply to present case. Accordingly this issue is also answered against plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO.3:

“To what relief?”

14.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Typist and corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court, this the 12th day of September, 2019.

Sd/- Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

Dt. 12-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

15 of 15 Fair (O.S.126/2015)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs :- P.W.1: Shaik Mohiddin P.W.2: Shaik Abdul Shukur

For Defendant :- D.W.1: Shaik Mastan Vali D.W.2: Shaik Jan Bee D.W.3: Shaik Bude Saheb

Documents marked

For Plaintiffs :- Ex.A1 : Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by second defendant in favour of third defendant vide document No. 2913/2015 registered at SRO Tadikonda

For Defendant :- Ex.B1 : Photograph marked through P.W.1 Ex.B2 : Photograph of Jayanthi Vydyashala complex marked through P.W.1. Ex.B3 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt. 08-10-2015 executed by first defendant in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 marked through P.W.1.

Sd/- Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

//True Copy attested//

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

Dt. 12-09-2019 P.J.C.J.C., MGL.

Order Record 967 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/2/2019	Lanka Jyothi vs Lanka Uma Maheswara Rao	19 Sep 2019	Others	—
OS/124/2019	Naramsetty Venkateswara Raol vs Kattepogu Sarala	17 Sep 2019	Judgment	—
OS/38/2018	Karri Mahalakshmi vs Karri Seetamma	16 Sep 2019	Others	—
OS/198/2018	Kattepogu Nageswara Rao and three others vs Kattepogu Asirvadam and another	16 Sep 2019	Others	—
OS/386/2015	Pathakamuri Venkateswara Rao vs Katragadda Siva Prasad and two others	16 Sep 2019	Judgment	—
CC/44/2018	SHO., Tadepalli P.S., vs Menadraguthi Suresh	14 Sep 2019	Order	—
CC/53/2018	SHO., Tadepalli P.S., vs Annam Srinu	14 Sep 2019	Order	—
CC/83/2018	Station House Officer, Tadepalli vs Sk.Hasam Ali	14 Sep 2019	Order	—
CC/134/2018	Sub-inspector of police, Tadepalli P.S. vs Dasari Krishna	14 Sep 2019	Order	—
CC/182/2018	SHO., Tadepalli P.S., vs Yarlagadda Nagaraju	14 Sep 2019	Order	—
OS/387/2016	Pagidi Rani vs Patcha Anuradha and three others	13 Sep 2019	Judgment	—
OS/126/2015	Shaik Mohiddin and another vs Shaik Galeeb alias Gali Sha and 2 others	12 Sep 2019	Judgment	—
OS/152/2019	Birudugadda Raja Kumari vs Teki Gangabhavani alias Swarupa	11 Sep 2019	Others	—
CC/5/2018	SHO., Tadepalli P.S., vs Birudhugadda Jailpal	09 Sep 2019	Judgment	—
EP/1/2018	Kallam Sambrajyam vs Arumalla Seshi Reddy	06 Sep 2019	Others	—
EP/42/2016	Marella Sambaiah vs Uppu Venkata Rathaiah	06 Sep 2019	Others	—
OS/39/2019	Vellanki Chandramouleswara Rao vs Surisetti Pravin Kumar	05 Sep 2019	Judgment	—
OS/158/2018	Koneti Sujatha @ Kondamma and four others vs Sriramulu Sivaiah	05 Sep 2019	Judgment	—
OS/335/2017	Ambati Akhil vs Ambati Venkata Rao	05 Sep 2019	Others	—
OS/218/2006	Kurapati Siva Prasad Raju vs Kurapati Kotam Raju	04 Sep 2019	Others	—
EP/74/2015	Indusind Bank Ltd., rep. by authorised signatory vs K. Subbarao and another	30 Aug 2019	Others	—
OS/104/2017	Godavarthi Ganesh vs Unnam Seshaiah alias Nani	30 Aug 2019	Others	—
OS/135/2018	Vuppu Venkata Rao vs Birudugadda Samsone	30 Aug 2019	Judgment	—
OS/245/2018	Peddiboina Srinivasa Rao vs Koppu Sivaiah	30 Aug 2019	Others	—
CC/51/2018	SHO., Tadepalli P.S., vs Pokala Rambabu	30 Aug 2019	Judgment	—
CC/90/2018	SHO., Tadepalli P.S., vs Bathula Gopinadh and 7 others	30 Aug 2019	Judgment	—
CC/107/2018	Sub-Inspector of police, Tadepalli P.S vs Pokala Bapeswara Rao and other	30 Aug 2019	Judgment	—
CC/238/2018	SHO., Tadepalli vs Pasalapudi Venkata Surya Narayana	30 Aug 2019	Order	—
OS/278/2018	Nuthakki Nagamalleswari vs Dasari Subba Rao	29 Aug 2019	Judgment	—
OS/104/2019	Aravapelli Ram Babu vs Sangi Surender and another	28 Aug 2019	Judgment	—
OS/106/2019	Aravapelli Ram Babu vs Janga Ramesh	28 Aug 2019	Judgment	—
OS/234/2015	Karumanchi Drakshavani vs Doppalapudi Anil	28 Aug 2019	Others	—
OS/2/2016	Gouse Beig vs Jani Beig	27 Aug 2019	Others	—
OS/31/2019	Andhra bank, Mandadam branch vs Pulibandla Priyanka and two others	27 Aug 2019	Others	—
OS/32/2019	Andhra Bank, vs Kovvuri Ramesh and two others	27 Aug 2019	Others	—
OS/33/2019	Andhra Bank vs Tarigoppula Sambasiva Rao	27 Aug 2019	Others	—
EP/22/2019	M/s. Ayyappa Agencies vs The Surpanch, Gramapanchayat, Malkapuram and antoher	26 Aug 2019	Others	—
EP/54/2015	Ms. Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt., Ltd. vs A. Rajendra Prasad	26 Aug 2019	Others	—
CC/181/2018	SHO., Tadepalli P.S., vs Kukkala Kiran Kumar	26 Aug 2019	Order	—
CC/212/2018	SHO., Tadepalli vs Alla Rama Krishna Reddy and 10 others	22 Aug 2019	Others	—
EP/44/2019	Vuyyuru Dharma Reddy vs Syed Safeevulla	19 Aug 2019	Others	—
OS/92/2018	M/s. Savani Trasnports Private limited vs M/s. Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited	14 Aug 2019	Others	—
OS/283/2015	Thoka Venkateswarlu @ Venkataswamy vs Yelanati Nageswara Rao and 2 others	14 Aug 2019	Judgment	—
OS/102/2019	Aluri Parandhamaiah vs Garapati Saramma and another	08 Aug 2019	Others	—
OS/157/2016	Kollikonda Nageswara Rao and another vs Kasukurthi Hanumantha Rao	07 Aug 2019	Judgment	—
OS/165/2019	Indian Overseas bank, Thullur vs Kommineni Satyanarayana and another	07 Aug 2019	Others	—
CC/873/2017	SHO., Mangalagiri Town P.S., vs Bulla Sunni @ Suttibelu	07 Aug 2019	Judgment	Acquitted
OS/178/2018	Maddineni Sambasiva Rao vs Telagatoti Venkateswarlu	06 Aug 2019	Others	—
OS/178/2015	Julapalli Sridevi vs Gummadapu Uma Maheswara Rao and 3 others	05 Aug 2019	Others	—
OS/225/2015	Thondepu Srinivasarao vs Thondepu Venkateswara Rao and 6 others	05 Aug 2019	Others	—
OS/370/2015	Munnangi Seshaiah and two others vs Munnangi Nazareth Babu alias Babu Rao	05 Aug 2019	Judgment	—
CC/120/2015	SHO., Thulluru P.S., vs Vspenumaka Ravi	05 Aug 2019	Judgment	Acquitted
OS/100/2018	Gairuboyina Anjaneyullu vs Mandepudi Naga Raju	02 Aug 2019	Judgment	—
OS/290/2018	Vuyyuru Dharma Reddy vs Syed Safeevulla	01 Aug 2019	Judgment	—
CC/979/2018	SHO, Tadepalli PS vs Ammisetty Rajesh	01 Aug 2019	Judgment	Acquitted
OS/74/2019	Shaik Masthan Bi vs Konda Gayatri	31 Jul 2019	Others	—
OS/171/2014	Gade Veera Swamy vs Gade Sreenu alias Srinivasa Rao	31 Jul 2019	Others	—
OS/248/2018	Andhra bank, Mandadam branch. vs Rayapudi Venkata Siva Nageswara Rao	31 Jul 2019	Others	—
OS/249/2018	Andhra bank, vs Kolla Seshagiri Rao and two others	31 Jul 2019	Others	—
OS/280/2018	Goli Venkata Mohan Rao vs Karasani Venkata Reddy	31 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
OS/320/2016	Vunnam Mary vs Vemula Srinivasa Rao alias Srinivas	31 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
CC/191/2018	SHO., Tadepalli P.S., vs Boppana Sambasiva Rao	31 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
EP/27/2017	Patan Imam Bi, vs Mandapati Venkateswara Rao	30 Jul 2019	Others	—
CC/82/2018	Station House Officer, Tadepalli vs Katupalli Durga Malleswara Rao	26 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
A.T.C./3/2017	Mallampati Jayasheela vs Komanduri Giridhara Kannan	25 Jul 2019	Others	—
OS/70/2019	Marella Seethamma vs Marella Jayamma	24 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
OS/8/2019	Mamidi Kamaraju vs Senathi Venkata Ramanamma	23 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
OS/161/2019	Alla Lakshmi Thirapathamma vs Alla Sivaram Prasad	23 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
OS/55/2019	Gairuboina Anjaneyulu vs Aleti Ramachandra	19 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
CC/56/2017	SHo., PROh. and Excise, vs Barma Raghava Rao alias Ramesh	18 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
EP/28/2017	Yella Siva Samrajyam vs Sadineni Venkateswara Rao	17 Jul 2019	Others	—
OS/19/2016	Moddu Venu and another vs Neelam Kruparao and 6 others	17 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
CC/46/2018	SHO., Tadepalli P.S., vs Mekala Durga Rao	13 Jul 2019	Order	—
CC/149/2018	SHO., Tadepalli vs Chillara Ramesh Babu	13 Jul 2019	Order	—
CC/220/2018	SHO, Tadepalli vs PUlagam Sairam Reddy	13 Jul 2019	Order	—
EP/4/2019	Doddaka Brahmaiah vs Jonnadula veeranjaneyulu and thre others	12 Jul 2019	Others	—
CC/210/2018	SHO., Tadepalli vs Mondithoka Joseph @ Joshi Babu	12 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
EP/26/2017	Bhimireddy Siva Rami Reddy vs Mandapati Venkateswara Rao	10 Jul 2019	Others	—
OS/112/2016	Peram Mallikharjuna Rao vs Nelapati Siva Babu and another	09 Jul 2019	Others	—
OS/330/2017	Gandikota Sambaiah vs Mudraboyina Gopi	09 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
OS/408/2016	Ganjikunta Surya Narayana vs Ganjikunta Sivaiah	09 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
EP/8/2019	State Bank of India, vs Shaik Bashirunnisa and two others	08 Jul 2019	Others	—
OS/203/2019	Yarramreddy Nagendra Reddy vs Ponnaganti Prasad	08 Jul 2019	Others	—
EP/30/2019	Sarigala Neelambram vs Sarigala Daniel	05 Jul 2019	Others	—
CC/183/2018	SHO., Tadepalli P.S., vs Jetti Kalyan Kumar	05 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
CC/235/2018	SHO., Tadepalli vs Kurapati Prabhakar	05 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
CC/249/2018	SHO., Tadepalli vs Manepalli Ravindra Babu and another	05 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
CC/130/2018	SHO., Tadepalli P.S., vs Kurapati Rajamohan Rao	04 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
CC/146/2018	SHO., Tadepalli vs Royyuru Siva Sankar,	04 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
CC/185/2018	SHO., Tadepalli P.S., vs Birudugadda Samsonu	04 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
CC/216/2018	SHO., Tadepalli. vs Rama Pavan Kumar	04 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
OS/134/2018	Tiyyagura Karuna vs Marreddy Sambi reddy	01 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
OS/137/2018	Tiyyagura Ramamohan Reddy vs Marreddy Sambi reddy	01 Jul 2019	Judgment	—
OS/332/2016	Chintha Teja alias Ravi Teja vs Tadiboyina Venkaiah and another	01 Jul 2019	Others	—
EP/27/2019	Makkapati Subba Rao vs Akaramsetty Naga Ravindra Babu	28 Jun 2019	Others	—
EP/29/2017	Mikkili Danamma vs Mikkili Adam	28 Jun 2019	Others	—
OS/319/2015	Vanimireddy Venkatadri Naidu vs Bitra Ravi Kumar	28 Jun 2019	Judgment	—
OS/162/2019	Shaik Basha vs Shaik Nagul Meera	27 Jun 2019	Judgment	—
OS/274/2018	Thota Anil Babu vs Jonna Kanaka Durga and two others	27 Jun 2019	Judgment	—
CC/16/2018	SHO., Tadepalli P.S., vs Veeradasu Sudhakar	27 Jun 2019	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 967 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Sep 2019		23
Aug 2019		36
Jul 2019		39
Jun 2019		49
May 2019		24
Apr 2019		36
Mar 2019		60
Feb 2019		48
Jan 2019		22
Dec 2018		5
Nov 2018		13
Oct 2018		34

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SMT. HEMA SRAVANTHI JANAKIRAM handled?

SMT. HEMA SRAVANTHI JANAKIRAM has handled 1002 court orders since 2016 at Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 29 orders per month.

What types of cases does SMT. HEMA SRAVANTHI JANAKIRAM hear?

Based on available records, SMT. HEMA SRAVANTHI JANAKIRAM primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri (Taluka).

Where is SMT. HEMA SRAVANTHI JANAKIRAM currently posted?

SMT. HEMA SRAVANTHI JANAKIRAM is posted as Addl. Junior Civil Judge at Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri (Taluka), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by SMT. HEMA SRAVANTHI JANAKIRAM available online?

Yes. 20 judgments by SMT. HEMA SRAVANTHI JANAKIRAM are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SMT. HEMA SRAVANTHI JANAKIRAM dispose cases?

SMT. HEMA SRAVANTHI JANAKIRAM disposes approximately 29 cases per month, based on 1002 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri (Taluka).

Since when is SMT. HEMA SRAVANTHI JANAKIRAM serving?

SMT. HEMA SRAVANTHI JANAKIRAM has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri (Taluka) since 2016.

Case Types

OS 69%

CC 18%

EP 11%

A 1%

RCC 1%

Posting History

Jul 2019 — Aug 2019

Addl. Junior Civil Judge · 3 orders
Aug 2018 — Oct 2018

Addl. Junior Civil Judge · 6 orders
Jul 2017 — Oct 2017

Addl. Junior Civil Judge · 12 orders
Oct 2016 — Sep 2019

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 981 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 13

Other Judges at this Court

Smt M V seshamma

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALAGIRI

0 orders

M.Anjani Priya Darshini

Addl. Senior Civil Judge Mangalagiri

1 orders

Sri Suresh Babu Kalive

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

619 orders

M prasanna Lakshmi

Addl. Junior Civil Judge

222 orders

← View all judges at Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri (Taluka)