Sri J.Kishore Kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE [JUNIOR

DIVISION]’s COURT, MARKAPUR

PRESENT: Sri J. Kishore Kumar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Division)-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Markapur

Friday, the Seventeenth day of April,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

(17.04.2026)

CALENDAR CASE NO. CALENDAR CASE NO. 797/2025 797/2025

B e t w e e n :

State :- Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise, Yerragondapalem.

. . .Complainant

A n d

Lella Srinu, Son of Seshaiah, Aged about 30 years, Caste by Yadava, Resident of Kothanagireddypalli Village, Chintala Cheruvu Mandal, Guntur District.

. . . Accused

This case is coming before me on 10.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Assistant Public Prosecutor, Advocate for prosecution and of Sri N. Ashok Naik, advocate for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused is arraigned before the court for the offence punishable under section 34(a) (i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are :-

On 14.03.2024 at 05 PM the Prohibition and Excise

Inspector, Yerragondapalem, along with his staff conducted raid and 2 proceeded to statue of Anjaneya Swamy located at the right side of the macheral road in Yerragondapalem Village and found the accused in possession of one black colour plastic cover and on seeing them he tried to escape and on suspicion they detained him and on verification they found the said cover in possession of accused is containing 16 bottles i.e., 1) Kingfisher strong beer bottles – 8 each 650ml and 2) Classic Blue

Finest whisky – 8 bottles each 180ml and on interrogation the accused stated his name and identity particulars and to secure mediators but in vain and he arrested the accused and seized the contraband from him and drawn samples for analysis purpose under the cover of occurrence report and returned to the Yerragondapalem, Prohibition and Excise,

Police Station along with accused and the seized property and basing on the occurrence report the Sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise,

Yerragondapalem, registered a case in Crime Number 69/2024 Under

Sections 34(a) (i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and sent the accused for remand and the sample for analysis purpose and after receipt of

Chemical analysis report and destruction of the remaining contraband, after taking proceedings from the Deputy Commissioner and completion of investigation the Prohibition and Excise Inspector filed charge sheet in this case.

3.The case is taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

4.On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of

Code of Criminal Procedure and he was examined under Section 239 of

Code of Criminal Procedure and read over and explained the contents of the charge for the offence under Sections 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise

Act in Telugu to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

5.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W 1 was examined and

Exs.P1 to P 5 and M.Os 1 and 2 are marked. The evidence of L.Ws 3, 4 and 5 P. Venkateswarlu, P. Ranganayakulu and Y. Mohan were given up by A.P.P.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the prosecution evidence as contemplated under Section 313 of

Code of Criminal Procedure and accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defense.

7.Heard both sides. Now the point for determination is :-  Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) (i) of Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T :-

8.To prove its case, prosecution examined P.W 1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.5 and M.Os 1 and 2.

9.P.W 3 is the Investigating officer.

10. Ex.P1 is the Signature of PW1 on mediatornama . Ex.P2. is the Signature of PW2 on mediatornama. Ex.P3 is the Mediatornama.

Ex.P4 is the First information Report. Ex.P5 is the Chemical Analysis

Report. M.Os 1 and 2 are the Sample Bottles drawn from the seized property.

11. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.03.2024 at 05

PM, the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Yerragondapalem, along with 4 his staff conducted raids and proceeded to statue of Anjaneya Swamy located at the right side of the macheral road in Yerragondapalem Village and found the accused in possession of 16 liquor bottles without any valid license and they tried to secure mediators but in vain and the sub- inspector arrested the accused and drawn samples under cover of Ex P3 report and returned back to the police station, along with accused and case property and PW3 registered the case and sent the accused for remand and the remaining contraband after drawing samples was destroyed and after receipt of Ex P5 analysis report and completion if investigating, the Inspector of Prohibition and Excise filed charge sheet in this case.

12. It is the case of defence that accused did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case for statistical purpose.

13. Now to prove the offence under Section 34(a) (i) of Andhra

Pradesh Excise Act the prosecution must prove that P.W 3 and other staff, found the accused in possession of liquor bottles for sale and storage without any valid license, which is prohibited under the act.

14. At the outset, it is the case of prosecution that, P.W 3 and his staff conducted raid statue of Anjaneya Swamy located at the right side of the macheral road in Yerragondapalem Village and found the accused in possession of 16 liquor bottles and they detained him and seized the property and arrested him Under Ex.P.3 report. P.W 3 who is the Prohibition and Excise inspector, deposed that on 14.03.2024 he along with other staff, conducted raids at statue of Anjaneya Swamy located at the right side of the macheral road in Yerragondapalem Village and found the accused in possession of 16 liquor bottles and he arrested him and seized the contraband from him under the cover of Ex.P.3 report and he tried to secure mediators but in vain and P.W3 took samples from the seized property under M.Os 1 and 2 and returned back to

Yerragondapalem Prohibition and Excise police station along with 5 accused and the seized property and P.W3 registered a case against accused basing on Ex P3 and sent him for remand and also sent the sample for analysis purpose and after completion of investigation and receipt of Ex P5 analysis report the Inspector filed charge sheet in this case after obtaining Proceedings for destruction of the seized property

15.Now, to prove the offence Under Section 34(a) (i) of Andhra

Pradesh Excise Act against accused, the evidence of P.W 3 is relevant.

As can be seen from the evidence of P.W 3, admittedly he is Inspector of

Prohibition and Excise Department. So, Ex.P.3 which was recorded by

Prohibition and Excise CIrcle-inspector cannot be believed, to the extent of the confession said to be made by the accused, as a confession before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence. So, when P.W 3 is police officer his evidence has to be scrutinized with caution and see whether the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him was true and made as per the procedure prescribed under law.

16.In his cross examination P.W 3 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and people and vehicles move around near the scene of offence, but they did not call any persons to act as mediators.

So, it shows that P.W 3 did not secure any mediators for the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him though available near the scene of offence and P.Ws 1 and 2 also could not tell the names of the persons whom P.W3 called to act as mediators for the arrest of accused and seizure of the case property from him. Further, no written summons were given to any persons to act as mediators as per P.Ws 1 and 2. So the evidence of P.W3 shows that they did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 100 (4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, where in it mandates that “before making search the officer about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable persons of the locality in which, the place is to be searched to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them” and 100(5) envisages that “the search shall be made in their presence and the list of things 6 seized shall be prepared by the officer and signed by such witnesses” and

Section 100(7) shows that “a copy of the list of things seized shall be given to the persons from whom the property is seized”. But, the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 shows that the procedure prescribed under

Sections 100 (4), (5) and (7) was not followed by P.W1 while arresting the accused and seizing the contraband from him. Admittedly the scene of offence is a busy locality, but P.Ws.1 and 2 did not issue any written summons to any witnesses to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband from accused, they made only a stray statement that they tried to secure mediators, and they also did not give any copy of the list of things seized to accused. So, under the above circumstances the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be believed to be trustworthy as they failed to comply with the mandatory provisions Under sections 100 (4), (5) and (7) of code of Criminal Procedure. So, when P.W 3 did not secure any mediators, though the scene of seizure is a busy locality, it creates a suspicion over the evidence of P.W 3 who is police witnesses. Hence, in the above circumstances, it creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution as to whether really P.W 3, arrested the accused and seized the contraband from him, as they are only police officers and they did not secure any independent mediators, though available near the scene of offence.

17. Hence, it is held that the evidence of P.W 3 cannot be believed and accepted to be true as P.W 3 failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under law for arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him. So, when the evidence of P.W 3 is held to be not trustworthy, and when the alleged seizure of contraband from accused was not made according to the procedure prescribed under law, it creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution and hence, it is held that prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients for the offence punishable Under Sections 34(a) (i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is entitled for 7 benefit of doubt and liable to be acquitted. Accordingly, the point is answered.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the

offence punishable under Sections 34(a) (i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise

Act and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal

Procedure for the said offence. The Mos.1 and 2 shall be destroyed

after appeal time is over.

Typed to dictation by the typist on computer; corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this, the 17th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- J. Kishore Kumar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div)-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Markapur

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

P.W3 – P. Nageswara Rao - - - None - - -

Documents marked :-

For Prosecution :- FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on Mediatornama- - - None - - - Ex.P2: Signature of PW2 on Mediatornama Ex.P3: Mediatornama Ex.P4: First Information Report Ex.P5:Chemical Analysis report.

“ M” Series :-

M.Os1 and 2: are Sample Bottles

For Accused :- - - - Nil - - -

Ild/- J.K.K., P.C.J.[Jr.Div]-Cum-JMFC, MRKP 8

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE [JR.DIV]-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MARKAPUR

JUDGMENT & CALENDAR

C.C.No.797/2025

DATE OF :- Offence:14.03.2024 Complaint:14.03.2024 Apprehension of accused:14.03.2024 Commencement of trial:07.01.2026 Close of trial:09.02.2026 Sentence or order:17.04.2026 Explanation for delay:Due to non-production of witnesses Name of the Complainant: Sate:- Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Yerragondapalem

Name of the accused : Lella Srinu, Son of Seshaiah, Aged about 30 years, Caste by Yadava, Resident of Kothanagireddypalli Village, Chintala Cheruvu Mandal, Guntur District.

Offence:under Section 304 – A of Indian Penal Code.

Finding:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order : Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 – A of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The unmarked non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- J. Kishore Kumar,

P.C.J.[JR.DIV]-CUM-JMFC, MRKP

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl. Senior

Civil Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry for favour of information.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE [JUNIOR DIVISION]-

CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: MARKAPUR

PRESENT: Sri J. KISHORE KUMAR,

Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Markapur

Thursday, the Seventeenth day of April ,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

(17.04.2026)

CALENDAR CASE NO. 276/2024 CALENDAR CASE NO. 276/2024

B e t w e e n :

State :- Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise, Yerragondapalem.

. . .Complainant

A n d

Velchuri Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. Yalamanda, Aged about 40 years, Nayibrhmin by caste, R/o. Boyalapalli Village, Yerragondapalem Mandal, Prakasam District. . . . Accused

This case is coming before me on 23.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Assistant Public Prosecutor, Advocate for prosecution and of Sri D. Chinna Kote Naik, advocate for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused is arraigned before the court for the offence punishable under sections 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are :- 2

On 13.07.2021 at 06.00 PM the Prohibition and Excise sub-

Inspector, Yerragondapalem, along with his staff conducted raid and proceeded to Srinivasa Tiffin Center located at Left side of

Yerragondapalem to Markapur road in Boayalapalli Village of

Yerragondapalem Village and Mandla and found accused in possession of one white sack and on seeing them he tried to run away and on suspicion they detained the accused and on verification they found the said sack is containing 3 liters of ID liquor and on interrogation the accused revealed his name and identity particulars and he arrested the accused and seized the contraband from the accused and drawn samples for analysis purpose and returned to the Police Station along with accused and the seized property and basing on that the Sub-Inspector of

Prohibition and Excise, Yerragondapalem, registered a case in Crime

Number 200/2021 Under Sections 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act and sent the accused for remand and after receipt of

Chemical analysis report and destruction of the remaining contraband, after taking proceedings from the Deputy Commissioner and completion of investigation the Prohibition and Excise Inspector filed charge sheet in this case.

3.The case is taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act.

4.On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of

Code of Criminal Procedure and they were examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure and read over and explained the contents of the charge for the offence under Sections 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act in Telugu to the accused and they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

3

5.On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P 3 and MO.1 were marked. The evidence of L.Ws 1 and 2

K.M. Guru Prasanna and P. Venkateswarlu was given up by A.P.P.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them from the prosecution evidence as contemplated under

Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defense.

7.Heard both sides. Now the point for determination is :-  Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T :-

8.To prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.3 and MO. 1.

9.P.W1 is the Investigating officer. P.W2 is the Prohibition and Excise Head constable

10. Ex.P1 is Chemical Analysis Report. Ex.P2 is First Information

Report. Ex.P3. is the Police Proceedings. M.O 1 is Sample bottle.

11.It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.07.2021 at 06.00

PM, While P.W.1 along with other staff conducted raid at Boyalapalli

Village of Yerragondapalem Mandal and they found the accused in possession of one white sack and on seeing them the accused tried to escape and on suspicion they detained him and on verification they found the sack in possession of accused are containing 3 liters of ID 4 liquor and they tried to secure mediators but in vain and they seized the said contraband from the possession of the accused and drawn samples for analysis purpose and arrested the accused and registered a case and sent the accused for remand and the remaining contraband after drawing samples was destroyed and after receipt of analysis report the Inspector of Prohibition and Excise filed charge sheet in this case.

12.It is the case of defence that accused did not commit any offence and they were falsely implicated in this case for statistical purpose.

13.Now to prove the offence under Sections 7(A) read with 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act the prosecution must prove that P.W. 1 and his other staff found the accused in possession of ID Arrack, which is prohibited under the act.

14.At the outset, it is the case of prosecution that, P.W. 1 and their staff conducted raid at Boyalapalli Village of Yerragondapalem

Mandal and saw the accused in possession of 3 liters of ID liquor in and the accsued tried to escaped and they detained him and they seized the property and arrested the him. P.W.2 who is the Prohibition and Excise constable deposed that on 13.07.2021 at around 06.00 P.M he along with L.W2 went for the ride and we reached near left side of

Yerragondapalem to Markapur Road. We found the accused in possession of one plastic bag on his right hand. On seeing the accused tried to ran away from the place but we caught the accused and search the plastic bag and found 3 liters of I.D arrack. He asked the details of the accused and the accused revealed his identity as V. Lakshmi

Narayana. After that he seized the 3 liters of I.D arrack from the possession of the accused under mediatornama in the presence of L.Ws 1 and 2 at the scene of offence. On the same day he registered a case in Cr.

No. 200/2021 U/Sec 7 A r/w 8E of AP. Prohibition Act and registered 5

FIR and he arrested the accused and send him judicial remand and also send the record to the Hon’ble Court. He draw a sample bottle from the seized property for sending the same to FSL. After receiving the FSL report he filed charge sheet in this case.

15.Now to prove the offence Under Sections 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is relevant. As can seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, admittedly they are Sub-Inspector and constable of Prohibition and Excise

Department. So, Ex.P.3 which was Police Proceedings by Prohibition and

Excise sub-inspector cannot be believed to the extent of the confession said to be made by Accused, as a confession before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence. So, when P.Ws.1 and 2 are police officers their evidence has to be scrutinized with caution and see whether the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him was true and made as per the procedure prescribed under law.

16.In his cross examination P.W. 2 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and they did not secure any local mediators for the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him and P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that they cannot tell the names of the persons whom they called to act as mediators for the arrest of accused and seizure of the case property. Further no written summons were given to any mediators to act as mediators. So the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 shows that they did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 100 (4) Code of

Criminal Procedure, where in it mandates that “before making search the officer about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable persons of the locality in which, the place is to be searched to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them” and 100(5) envisages that “the search shall be made in their presence and the list of things seized shall be prepared by the officer and signed by such witnesses” and Section 100(7) shows that “a copy of the 6 list of things seized shall be given to the persons from whom the property is seized”. So the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 shows that the procedure prescribed under Sections 100 (4), (5) and (7) was not followed by the sub-inspector while arresting the accused and seizing the contraband from him. Admittedly the scene of offence is very near to Valagajji and

Manda villages, but P.W.1 did not issue any written summons to any witnesses to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband from accused, he made only stray statement that he tried to secure mediators, but his evidence shows that he did not issue any written summons to any persons to act as mediators. So under the above circumstances the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 can not be believed to be trustworthy as they failed to comply with the mandatory provisions Under sections 100 (4) (5) and (7) of code of Criminal Procedure. So, when PW1 did not secure any mediators, though the scene of seizure is very near to Valagajji and

Manda villages, it creates a suspicion over the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 who are police witnesses. Hence, in the above circumstances it creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution as to whether really P.W.

2, arrested the accused and seized the contraband from him, as they are only police officers and they did not secure any independent mediators, though available near the scene of offence. So, the said circumstance also creates a doubt over the case of prosecution.

17.Hence it is held that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be believed and accepted to be true as PW1 the Circle-inspector failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under law for arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him. So, when the evidence of

P.Ws. 1 and 2 is held to be not trustworthy, and when the alleged seizure of contraband from accused was not made according to the procedure prescribed under law, it creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution and hence, it is held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence Under Sections 7(A) read with 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, 7 accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and liable to be acquitted.

Accordingly the point is answered.

18. In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the

offence punishable under Sections 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under Section 248(1)

of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The MO.1 shall

be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III on computer; corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this, the 17th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- J. Kishore Kumar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur.

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

P.W1 – 19.01.2026 – N. Venkata Ramana - - - None - - - P.W2 – 02.02.2026 – SK. Akbar Basha

Documents marked :-

For Prosecution :-

Ex.P1:Chemical Analysis report Ex.P2:First Information report Ex.P3: Police Proceedings “ M” Series :-

M.O 1: is Sample bottle.

For Accused :-

- - - Nil - - - Ild/- J.K.K.,

P.C.J.[Jr.Div]-Cum-JMFC,

MARKAPUR.

8

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE [JUNIOR DIVISION]-

CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: MARKAPUR

JUDGMENT & CALENDAR

C.C.No.276/2024

DATE OF :-

Offence:13.07.2021

Complaint:13.07.2021

Apprehension of accused:13.07.2021

Commencement of trial:19.01.2026

Close of trial:12.02.2026

Sentence or order:15.04.2026

Explanation for delay:Due to non-production of witnesses

Name of the Complainant: State:- Enforcement Insepctor, Special Enforcement Bureau, Yerragondapalem

Name of the accused : Velchuri Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. Yalamanda, Aged about 40 years, Nayibrhmin by caste, R/o. Boyalapalli Village, Yerragondapalem Mandal, Prakasam District.

Offence:under Section 304 – A of Indian Penal Code.

Finding:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order : Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 – A of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The unmarked non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- J. Kishore Kumar,

P.C.J.[Jr.Div]-Cum-JMFC,

MARKAPUR.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl. Senior

Civil Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry for favour of information.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE [JUNIOR DIVISION],

MARKAPUR.

PRESENT : J.KISHORE KUMAR Prl. Civil Judge [Junior Division], Markapur.

Thursday, the Sixteenth [16 th ] day of April, 2026

Original Suit No.133 of 2025

Between :

Saadhula Venkateswara Reddy, Son of Venkata Subba Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Hindu, Business, Resident of Door No.9-8, Nadigadda Village, Tripuranthakam Mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintiff

And

1. Bogem Ramanjamma, Wife of Subbarao, Aged about 50 years, Hindu, Resident of Door No.4-87, Brahmamgari Colony, Tripuranthakam Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Maddikunta Venkata Narayana, Son of Pedda Guravaiah, Aged about 43 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Resident of Door No.10-110, Nadigadda Village, Tripuranthakam Mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendants

This suit has come before me on 24-02-2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2 are set Exparte; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments on plaintiff’s side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

01.This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants to cacel the registered sale deed Vide Doc.No.2440/2023 dated 23-05-2023 of S.R.O.,

Yerragondapalem and also for costs of the suit.

02.The averments in the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:

The plaintiff submitted that the plaint schedule property is originally belongs to the 2nd defendant as he acquired the same personally from (Fair) 2

Nellam Samyelu Jan under a valid registered sale deed vide a Doc

No.1677/2014 dated 12.11.2014 with S.R.O., Yerragondapalem, thereafter the 2nd defendant offered to sell the same for his family necessities and the plaintiff accepted and purchased the same for valid consideration on 12.10.2018 under a valid registered sale deed vide a document

No.2164/2018 with S.R.O., Yerragondapalem. The plaintiff further mentioned that the sale in favour of the plaintiff duly affected and he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment in his own right and title to the plaint schedule property and this fact is known to one and all in the village including the defendants and recently he intended to sell away the plaint schedule property to third parties for his necessities and in this regard he approached concerned Sub-Registrar Office for the purpose of execution of registered sale deed in favour of his vendee, surprisingly he came to know that a false, fabricated and nominal sale deed has been noticed standing in the name of the 1st defendant executed by the 2nd defendant against very same property of the plaintiff which is plaint schedule property vide a document No.2440/2023 dated 23.05.2023 with S.R.O., Yerragondapalem which sought to be cancelled in the present suit.

02(a).The plaintiff further submitted that the 1st defendant who is the close associate of the 2nd defendant and knowingly pretty well of that registered sale deed vide its No.2164/2018 dated 12.10.2018 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff and possession and enjoyment with respect of the plaint schedule property fraudulently created the alleged sale (Fair) 3 deed for very same property to have wrongful gain only and the 1st defendant never entered into the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in pursuance of sale deed and she never raised her eye brows for the hostile enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff for all these years, this fact is known to the one and all in the vicinity of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff further mentioned that the executant in both documents is one and the same i.e., 2nd defendant and the impugned sale deed vide its No.2440/2023 dated 23.05.2023 with

S.R.O., Yerragondapalem for value of Rs.1,08,000/- is void, illegal and inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff which operates to create, declare, in present or in future any right, title or interest in the schedule property and the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation and he approached the defendants and demanded to cancel the alleged subsequent registered sale deed mentioned supra in favour of the 1st defendant, in spite of repeated demands personally and registered notice dated 19.12.2024 to the defendants along with scribe and registering authorities which duly served upon the 1st defendant and returned unserved from the 2nd defendant as he successfully managed and both the defendants kept quiet and failed to execute a cancellation deed. Hence, the suit.

03.The defendants 1 and 2 are called absent, no representation. Hence, defendants 1and 2 are set exparte.

04. To establish the case of plaintiff has filed his chief affidavit and gave evidence as P.W.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A8. Ex. A1 is the Certified copy (Fair) 4 of the registered sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant executed by the 2nd defendant vide document No 2440/2023 with SRO, Yerragondapalem dated 23.05.2023, Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff executed by the 2nd defendant vide document No. 2164/2018 with SRO, Yerragondapalem dated 12-10-2018, Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant executed by Nilam

Samuel Jan vide document No. 1677/2014 with SRO, Yerragondapalem.

Dated 12-10-2014, Ex.A4 is the office copy of registered notice to the

defendants and others issued by the plaintiff, dated 19-12-2024, Ex.A5 is the postal receipts 2 in number dated 19-12-2024, Ex.A6 is the

Acknowledgment card from the 1st defendant, Ex.A7 is the Returned unserved postal cover from the 2nd defendant, and Ex.A8 is the encumbrance certificate issued by the SRO, Yerragondapalem dated 12-12-2024.

05. Heard the counsel for Plaintiff.

06. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?”

07. Point :

To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined himself as PW1, he in his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such chief affidavit of PW1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. In addition to that PW1 exhibited Exs.A1 to A8. To prove the same PW1 exhibited Exs.A1 to A8. The evidence of PW1 to that effect has (Fair) 5 been unrebutted by the defendants. The defendants failed to contest the suit.

Though the defendants received summons but they did not come forward to prove their case. If a party is having documentary evidence to establish the fact pleaded by him but they failed to produce best evidence available with him, court can draw an adverse inference. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

10.In the result, this suit is decreed without costs by directing cancellation of Registered sale deed dated 23-05-2023 bearing Document No.

2440/2023 of Sub-Registrar Office, Yerragondapalem executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant and, consequently, it is directed that the

Sub-Registrar Officer, Yerragondapalem to cause necessary entry in the concerned registers.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade - III, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 16th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- J. Kishore Kumar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Juniro Division), Markapur.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendants :

P.W.1 : Saadhula Venkateswara Reddy. - Set Exparte-

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex. A1 : Certified copy of the registered sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant executed by the 2nd defendant vide document No 2440/2023 with SRO, Yerragondapalem dated 23.05.2023;

Ex. A2 :Certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff (Fair) 6 executed by the 2nd defendant vide document No. 2164/2018 with SRO, Yerragondapalem dated 12-10-2018;

Ex. A3 :Certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant executed by Nilam Samuel Jan vide document No.

1677/2014 with SRO, Yerragondapalem. Dated 12-10-2014;

Ex. A4 :Office copy of registered notice to the defendants and others issued by the plaintiff, dated 19-12-2024;

Ex. A5 :Postal receipts 2 in number dated 19-12-2024;

Ex. A6 :Acknowledgment card from the 1st defendant;

Ex. A7 :Returned unserved postal cover from the 2nd defendant; and

Ex. A8 :Encumbrance certificate issued by the SRO, Yerragondapalem

dated 12-12-2024.

For Defendants: - NIL -

Ild/- J.K.K., PCJ (Jr. Div), MRKP.

(Fair) 7

OS.No.65 of 2019 - 1 - PJCJ Court, Markapur.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE [JUNIOR DIVISION],

MARKAPUR.

PRESENT : J.KISHORE KUMAR

Prl. Civil Judge [Junior Division], Markapur.

Friday, this the Seventeenth [17 th ] day of April, 2026

Original Suit No.65 of 2019

Between :-

Thaneeru Venkata Ramana, Son of Satyanarayana, Aged about 49 years, Hindu, Trader, Resident of Near Car-Street, Markapur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

.... Plaintiff.

And :-

1. Gottam Raghu Rami Reddy, Son of Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Hindu, Reporter Andhra Bhoomi Paper, Resident of Peram Bazaar, Markapur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Mogili Subba Rao, Son of Venkata Subbaiah @ Chinna Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about 80 years, Hindu, Trader, Resident of Door No.3-319, Boggarapuvari Street, Markapur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Rupanagudi Venkata Ranga Reddy, Son of Ranga Reddy, Aged about 57 years, Hindu, Retired Army Employee, Resident of Door No.2-143, Yachavaram Village, Ardhaveedu Mandal, Prakasam District.

(Amended as per the orders in I.A.No.1065/2019 dated 21-11-2022) … Defendants ******

This Suit is coming on 11-03-2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri R. Sree Krishnaiah, Smt A. Usha Sri and Smt SK. Karishma, Advocates on behalf of the Plaintiff and Defendants called absent and set exparte; and upon hearing the Counsel for the Plaintiff, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for granting of Permanent Injunction; restraining the Defendants, his men,

OS.No.65 of 2019 - 2 - PJCJ Court, Markapur.

agents, supporters and representatives from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the Plaint Schedule property and for costs of the Suit.

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are that :-

The plaintiff submitted that the plaint schedule property is a vacant-site of an extent of 234 square yards out of Ac land and the land to the east of the plaint schedule land in survey.no:194/2 an extent of

Ac 0-72 ½ Cents in S.No:459 of Markapur town is the absolute property of the 2nd defendant as he purchased Ac 0-72 ½ Cents in the said S.No:459 of

Markapur under register sale-deed dated 24-05-1984 and registered as a

Doc. NO.800/1984 in Sub-Registrar office, Markapur from Vempati Chenna

Reddy, Son of Polaiah of Markapur. The plaintiff further mentioned that the 2nd defendant divided the land of Ac 0-72 1/2 Cents into one Yakkanti Gopal

Reddy, Son of Kasi Reddy of Kondepalli village of Markapur mandal which is the plaint schedule property an extent of 234 square yards under Registrar office, Markapur with following boundaries East: Land of the 2nd defendant,

West: Land of the 2nd defendant. North: Site of Yampati Pitchamma and others and South: 18 feet Raastha. Subsequently on the Eastern side site of the plaint schedule sold by the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant on 18-11- 2004 through a register sale-deed as a document.no:2112/2004 in Sub-

Registrar office. Markapur and in the said sale-deed the executants shows that the Western side site belongs to Yakkanti Gopal Reddy and the said

Yakkanti Gopal Reddy is residing at Jammu & Kashmir in military service

OS.No.65 of 2019 - 3 - PJCJ Court, Markapur.

and due to that he executed General Power of Attorney in favor of one Segu

Seshapahni Son of Subramanyam for selling the plaint schedule property to others for a valuable consideration and the said GPA was registered as document.no:7BK IV/2011 in Sub-Registrar office, Markapur.

2(a).The plaintiff further submitted that the GP Agent of the Yakkanti

Gopal Reddy Segu Seshaphani sold the plaint schedule site to one Palleboina

Venkateswarlu, Son of Mallaiah of Pothampalli village of Peddaraveedu mandal through a register sale-deed dated:05-03-2011 for a consideration of

Rs 3,05,000/- and deliver the same to him and the same was registered as a document.no:1793/2011 in Sub-Registrar Office, Markapur. Subsequently, on 27-01-2014 the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule site from

Palleboina Venkateswarlu for a consideration of Rs 3,51,000/- and obtained a register sale-deed from him and same was registered as a document.no:192/2014 in Sub-Registrar office, Markapur, now the plaint schedule site is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff with absolute rights. The plaintiff further mentioned that the 2nd defendant filed a suit for permanent-injunction against Yakkanti Gopal Reddy before this

Hon'ble court in O.S:11/2011. Subsequently, he came to the knowledge that

the said suit is pending against his vendor's vendor Yakkanti Gopal Reddy and filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C and added as a 2nd defendant in that suit and contested the matter, as the 2nd defendant has no such extent of land shown in the plaint schedule in 0.SA:11/2011, but unfortunately, the said suit was decreed on 13-03-2018. Subsequently, after

OS.No.65 of 2019 - 4 - PJCJ Court, Markapur.

passing the decree the defendants colluded together and giving trouble to the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule site. Hence, the suit.

3.The Defendants are called absent and set-exparte.

4.Now the Point for consideration is :- “Whether the plaintiff has made out a case for granting of Permanent Injunction as prayed for or otherwise?” 5.On behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is examined as the P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A6 got marked.

6.Heard. Perused the material records.

7.This Court has perused the evidence of P.W.1 together with the exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff to establish his case examined as the P.W.1 and marked documents as Exs.A1 to A6. The evidence of the P.W.1 remained unchallenged with the evidence available on record, the Plaintiff has succeeded in establishing the fact that, the plaintiff having right over the Suit schedule properties. Further, through the evidence-in-chief of P.W.1, it has come on record that the Defendants are bent upon to interfere with the right of the plaintiff over the Plaint

Schedule properties and is not commencing to contest the Suit. As such, grant of Permanent Injunction will alone meet the ends of justice. As such, with the evidence available on record through the P.W.1, by oral as well as documentary evidence, the Court is satisfied that, the plaintiff is entitled for Permanent Injunction as prayed for.

OS.No.65 of 2019 - 5 - PJCJ Court, Markapur.

Hence, the Point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

8.In the result, the Suit is decreed without costs, granting

Permanent Injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the Defendants, his men, agents, supporters and representatives and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the Plaint Schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III directly on System, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 17 th Day of April, 2026.

Sd/- J. Kishore Kumar,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE [JR. DIVISION],

MARKAPUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

P.W.1 : Thaneeru Venkata Ramana.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 : Registered sale deed dated 06.10.2024 executed by the Mogili Subba Rao in favour of Yakkali Gopal Reddy, Son of Kasi Reddy; Ex.A2 :Certified copy of the register sale deed dated 18.11.2004 executed by Mogili Subba Rao in favour of Gottam Raghu Rami Reddy; Ex.A3 :General Power of Attorney dated 08.02.2011 executed by Yakkanti Gopal Reddy in favour ofSegu Seshaphani Son of Subramanyam; Ex.A4 :Register sale deed dated 05.03.2011 executed by GPA Holder on behalf of Yakkanti Gopal Reddy in favour of Palleboina Venkateswarlu; Ex.A5 :Register sale deed dated 27.01.2014 executed by Palleboina Venkateswarlu in my favour; and Ex.A6 :Certified copy of the decree and Judgment in OS No.11/2011

dated 13.03.2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Markapur.

OS.No.65 of 2019 - 6 - PJCJ Court, Markapur.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

Exparte.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

NIL.

Ild/- J.K.K., P.C.J.[JR.DIV], MRKP.

O.S.No.65 of 2019

Fair Judgment

Dt. 17-04-2026

OS.No.65 of 2019 - 7 - PJCJ Court, Markapur.

O.S.No.125 of 2025 - 1 - Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div) Court, MRKP.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE [JUNIOR DIVISION],

MARKAPUR.

PRESENT : J.KISHORE KUMAR Prl. Civil Judge [Junior Division], Markapur.

Wednesday, the Fifteenth [15 th ] day of April, 2026

Original Suit No.125 of 2025

Between: Gilaka Narayana @ Pedda Narayana, Son of Late Atchaiah, Aged about 58 years, Cultivation, Resident of Gollavandlapalli Village, Tripuranthakam Mandal, Prakasam District. … PLAINTIFF And : Choppa Madhubabu, Son of Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 41 years, Hindu, Business, Resident of Kesinenipalli Village, Tripuranthakam Mandal, Prakasam District. … DEFENDANT

*****

This Suit is coming on 23-03-2026, for hearing before me in the presence of Smt E. Saradha and Smt E. Bharathi, Advocates for the Plaintiff, and the Defendant having been ex-parte, and upon hearing the Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of the Suit

Promissory Note debt of Rs.4,44,110/- being the Principal and Interest due on the Suit Promissory Note, Dated 16-07-2022 executed by the Defendant for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% P.A., and for subsequent interest, and costs.

02. The averments in the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

On 16-07-2022 the Defendant had borrowed a sum of

Rs.2,50,000/- from the Plaintiff for his land expenditure and executed the

Suit Promissory Note in favour of Plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, on demand, either to the Plaintiff or to his order. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands of the Plaintiff the

Defendant did not pay the same. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed this Suit to

O.S.No.125 of 2025 - 2 - Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div) Court, MRKP.

recover the Suit Pronote debt with interest and costs from the Defendant.

03.The Defendant was called absent and set ex-parte.

04.On behalf of the Plaintiff, the PW1 and Ex.A1 got marked.

05.Heard the Plaintiff.

06.The Point for consideration is whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the Suit claim as prayed for ?

07. Point:- [a]To establish his contentions, the Plaintiff had examined himself as the PW1, and got Ex.A1 marked on his behalf. He deposed in Chief in accordance with his contentions. As the Defendant has remained ex-parte, it can be said that the evidence of the PW1 has remained undiscredited and unchallenged.

[b]It would be relevant to refer the documents relied upon by the

Plaintiff under Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the Suit Promissory Note, dated 16-07-2022 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- executed in favour of the Plaintiff by the

Defendant.

[c]Since the Defendant has remained ex-parte in the Suit, it can be said that an adverse inference can be drawn against the Defendant to the effect that she had admitted the case of the Plaintiff. Hence, it can be said that the Plaintiff is able to establish that Ex.A1 was executed by the

Defendant.

[d]Therefore, by virtue of the undiscredited evidence of the PW1 and coupled with Ex.A1, this Court concludes that the Plaintiff has established the Suit Pronote under Ex.A1, and the failure of the Defendant to

O.S.No.125 of 2025 - 3 - Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div) Court, MRKP.

discharge the same, and as such, the Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the Suit claim, as prayed for, from the Defendant.

Hence, the Point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

08. In the result, the Suit is decreed with Costs, directing the

Defendant to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,44,110/- with subsequent interest at 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the Suit, till the date of Decree, and thereafter, with future interest at 6 percent per annum from the date of Decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.2,50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III directly on System, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- J. Kishore Kumar,

Prl. Civil Judge [Jr. Division],

Markapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

P.W.1 : Gilaka Narayana @ Pedda Narayana.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 : Suit promissory note dated 16-07-2022 for an amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

Exparte.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

NIL.

Ild/- J.K.K.,

Prl. Civil Judge [Jr. Division],

Markapur.

Fair Judgment

O.S.No.125 of 2025

Dt. 15-04-2026

Part – I

O.S.No.125 of 2025 - 4 - Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div) Court, MRKP.

O.S. No.125 of 2025 Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div) Court, MRKP