Sri.Jeevan Suraj Singh

1 O.S.No.60 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS:CHEVELLA:RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Sri Jeevan Suraj Singh Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella

Dated this 29th day of June, 2022

O.S. 60 of 2011

Between Jambula Krishna S/o late Jangaiah, Aged about 52 years Occ: Retd. Employee, , R/o H.No. 2-94, Kethireddypally village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District. Presently Residing at H.No.13-6-815/A/8/2/B, Bapunagar, Langer House, Hyderabad.

.....Plaintiff

AND

1) Goturi Mohan Reddy S/o late Pocham Reddy, aged about 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kethireddipally village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District.

2) Goturi Thirupathi Reddy, S/o Kishta Reddy, aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kethireddipally village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District.

3) Goturi Venkat Reddy S/o Kishta Reddy, aged about 25 years, Occ: Service, R/o Kethireddipally village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District.

.......Defendants

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned counsel for the plaintiffs Sri. B. Guruva Reddy, Advocate and Sri C. Ravi Shankar Goud,, advocate for Defendant No.1 and Sri K. Sanjeeva Reddy, advocate for Defendant No.2 and 3 and upon perusal of the material papers on record and after having stood over this matter till date this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The present suit is filed seeking an equitable relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants herein from interfearing with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule plot admeasuring 120 Sq.Yards forming part of the

Gramakantam land of Kethireddipally Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R. District.

2.The breif fact of the case in nutshell are that the plaintiff herein is the absolute owner and possessor of an open plot admeasuring 120 Sq.Yards forming part of the Gramakantam land of Kethireddipally Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R. District (hereinafter refered as the suit schedule property for the brevity). The plaintiff contended that the suit schedule property is into their exclusive possession and enjoyment since 50 years which was inherited by him towards his share in the joint family settlement. Originally the suit schedule property was under the exclusive possession and enjoyment of his deceased father which was later 2 O.S.No.60 of 2011 succeded by him along with his brothers namely Sri. Ramachandraiah and Sri. Subbaiah. The suit schedule property was used by his deceased father for the purpose of manure pit and other agricultural activities and subsequent to his death, the suit schedule property devolved upon the surviving legal heirs. The plaintiff contended that while during the family settlement, the suit schedule property has fallen to his exclusive share and since then he into continuous possession of the same without any hinderance as such. The plaintiff contended that he has developed the suit land by investing huge amount and even obtained necessary permission from the Grampanchayat for constructing a house. The Grampanchayat in appreciation of his right, interest and possession over the suit schedule property has passed a Resolution vide proceedings bearing No. 542 dt: 15-10-2010 and accorded necessary permission to raise the structure. The dispute arose when the defendants without any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property have cause interference by obstructing the constructing work, threatening the labour and damaging the basement. However, the plaintiff could with great difficulty resist the illegal act of the defendants herein and thereafter being left with no other alternative inapprehension of danger and damage to the suit schedule property was compelled to file the present suit seeking equitable relief of perpetual injunction. Hence the cause of action.

3.Per contra, the defendants have denied the contents of plaint and put the plaintiff to the strict proof of the allegations made against them. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff have approached this Hon’ble Court by suppressing the material facts with unclean hands on the strength of some forged and fabricated documents as such the suit of the plaintiff is illegal, untenable and liable to be dismissed in limini. Apart from denying the contents of plaint, the defendants have asserted the true facts that the defendant No. 1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the land situated in Sy.No. 2 to an extent of Ac.2-10gts. The said land was inherited by Def.No.1 which is adjoining the Gramakantam land. The said land was divided into plots and most of them were alieanated to third parties. Whileso the plaintiff herein has approached the defendant No.1 to alianate the suit schedule property for a meager price and when the same was denied, the plaintiff in collusion with the Ex-Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat have forged and fabricated certain documents to knock away the suit schedule property and to make a wrongful gain as such the suit of the plaintiff on the strength of such bogus and sham documents is illegal, untenable, devoid of merits and liable for dismissal. Similarly the defendant No. 2 & 3 have also filed their statement of defense by admitting the ownership of Def.No.1 and by counter asserting that the suit schedule property to an extent of 90 Sq.Yards was used by their ancestors since time immorial for manure pits as the said land in Sy.No.2 is located adjacent to Gramakantam and they have perfected their title by prescription by adverse possession. The def no. 2 & 3 have asserted that their father namely Sri. C. Venkatram Reddy was in possession of the suit schedule property to their respective extent and the def. No.1 while the plots were being demarcated have assured and 3 O.S.No.60 of 2011 written a document waiving his right, title and interest over the suit schedule property to an extent of 90 Sq.Yards. The def no. 2 & 3 have further asserted that they have obtained the permission of the Grampanchat way back in 2006 itself but couldn’t raise the structures due paucity of funds. The def no.2 & 3 have denied the claim of the plaintiff and granting of permission by the Grampanchayat in favour of the plaintiff herein by counter asserting that the father of the plaintiff died at an young age and thereafter he along with his brothers were brought up by his maternal uncle and after returning back to their village they have constructed their house and he is residing with his elder brother as such the claim of the plaintiff as against the suit schedule property is illegal and untenable. The def no. 2 & 3 have asserted that they have enquired with the Panchayat Secretary in the office of

Grampanchayat vide letter dated 07-09-2011 and it was being informed to them that no such resolution was ever passed thereby permitting the plaintiff herein to raise the structures over the suit schedule property as such the plaintiff herein has approached the court with unclean hands by suppressed the material facts thereby seeking an equitable relief of perpetual injunction as such the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, illegal and liable to be dismissed in limini.

4.The plaintiffs in order to prove his case has filed and got marked Exhibts A1 to A3 and subjected himself to the test of cross-examination by the learned counsel for the defendants.

Whereas on behalf of Defendant No.1, EB1 to EB9 were marked and he was examined as

Dw1. So far as Defendant .No. 2 & 3 are concerned, though the Defendant No.2 have taken precautions to file his affidavit for examination-in-chief but failed to either mark a document on their behalf and with stand the test of cross-examination by the learned counsel for plaintiff and Defendant No.1. So an adverse inference has to be drawn against them.

5.Basing on the allegations, denial, contention of the pleadings, documents filed by either of the disputing parties herein, the following issues were framed –

1. Whether the plaintiff herein is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?

2. Whether the plaintiff herein is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

6. ISSUE No. 1 & 2:

The issue No. 1 & 2 are commonly answered as both the issues are being incidential to one and another. On analysis of the pleadings, documents filed and relief claimed by the plaintiff herein. It would be appropriate to state that this is a suit for simplictor injunction and what matters is the possession of the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit. The basic 4 O.S.No.60 of 2011 principle is that an injunction is a preventive and an equitable relief granted at the discretion of the court. The condition precedent is that a person seeking an equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands and an injunction can never be granted to a person whoes conduct is such that which disentitle him for such a relief.

7.The case of the plaintiff is that his deceased father was in possession of the suit schedule property which was subsequently inherited by him towards his share in their joint family properties. Admittedly it is quite apparent from the record that no single document is filed to show and establish their possession over the suit schedule property though he claimed that the suit schedule property to be in their possession for a period more than 50 years. Neither the patta certificate relating to the suit schedule property granted in the name of his deceased father is filed nor the tax receips of the Grampanchayat which were time to time paid by them is filed. The plaintiff has admitted in his cross-examination that no patta certificate was ever granted to him by the Collector or the MRO. So, it is safe to conclude that in the name of suit schedule property the plaintiff has only EA1 to EA3 and the legality involved in those documents have to be tested in view of the present facts and circumstances of the case. Of all the documents filed by the plaintiff herein, EA1 and EA2 are the most crucial documents. EA1 is the Board Ressolution issued by the Grampanchayat vide

Proceedings bearing No. 542 dt: 15-10-2010 and EA2 is the construction permission dt: 05- 11-2010 issued in favour of the plaintiff herein. It is quite pertinent to mention here that the

Board Ressolution issued by the Grampanchayat i.e EA1 is only signed by the Sarpanch and it is not being signed by the other members of the Board. The coloum No. 3 & 4 of the Board

Ressolution manifest the details of the members and their designation but the column No.5 which signifies their attendance and presence at the time of the ressolution is kept blank. This would enable the court to presume as that of a common man that the board members were not present at the time when such ressolution was passed sanctioning the construction permission in favour of the plaintiff herein and it raises a serious question as to what were the circumstances which made the Board Members to be present at the time when the ressolution was passed and not to affix their signatures signifying their pressence and approval for passing such ressolution in favour of the plaintiff herein. Even other wise also there is a discrepancy in the boundaries mentioned in EA1 when compared with EA2, the pleading and the deposition of the plaintiff herein. The western side boundary mentioned in

EA1 is not talling with EA2 which is the constrution permission issued in favour of the plaintiff in persuance of the Board Ressolution vide EA1. EA1 is the basic document on the strength of which EA2 was issued which lead to the filing of the suit and the discrepancy in those documents would raises a serious question as to the property claimed by the plaintiff herein.

At an outset there is no santity attached to EA1 since it doesn’t contain the signitures of the other board members who were supposed to be present and approve the allotment of the

Gramkantam land provided if they are so empowered. When there is an irregularity in EA1 5 O.S.No.60 of 2011 then the question of issuing the construction permission in favour of plaintiff herein vide EA2 itself is illegal. The plaintiff on the strength of EA1 & EA2 cannot seek an allotment of a plot and subsequently claim some other property. In view of the irregularity mentioned in EA1 and the discrepancy mentioned in EA2 there is no santity attached to those document and it is safe conclude that those are the fabricated and sham documents made for the purpose of the suit and the claim of the plaintiff is illegal and untenable. The plaintiff herein has approached this court with unclean hand which would certainly disentitle him from claiming an equitable relief of perpetual injunction. At one point the advocate commissioner sought to be appointed by the plaintiff herein has also resulted into a futile exercise as the same couldn’t be executed for some technical reasons and the same wouldn’t have helped the plaintiff as well for the simple reason that the commissioner is required to execute the warrant with the help of the documents on which the parties relies. The plaintiff can never be expected to fishout the evidence on the strength of EA1 & EA2 as no santity is attached to those documents. So far as the issue relating to the defendants is concerned, the defendant No.1 could establish his right, title and interst over his individual extent of land situated in Sy.No. 2. whereas the defendant No. 2 & 3 who made a counter assertion to have acquired title through adverse possession have failed to prove nothing. It is quite surprising that the defendant No. 2 & 3 at one occasion claim to have acquired title through prescription by adverse possession and subsequently claim an execution of a document whereby the defendant No.1 have waived his right over the suit schedule property to an extent of 90 Sq.Yards. The defendant No. 2 & 3 cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath as at one occasion they claim to have acquired title by adverse possession and subsequently claim to have a document in their favour. The assertion of defendant No. 2 & 3 has no legs to stand before the court as they cannot sought to rectify their claim in a suit filed by the plaintiff herein. Nothing prevented the defendant No.

2 & 3 herein from adducing sufficent document evidence and to lead evidence as against their assertions. As such the claim of defendant No. 2 & 3 herein is equally untenable and an adverse inference has to be drawn against them. Inview of the above discussion the issue no.

1 & 2 are accordingly answered.

8.From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case coupled up with the oral and documentary evidence placed before this court, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29 th day of June, 2022.

Junior Civil Judge-Cum- JMFC, Chevella, R.R.Dist 6 O.S.No.60 of 2011

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs For Defendant PW1: Jambula Krishna DW1: Gotui Mohan Reddy DW2: Goturi Thirupathi Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs Ex.A1 is the original resolution dt.15-10-2010 Ex.A2 is the original permission with sketch dt.5-11-2010 Ex.A3 is the original receipt dt.5-11-2010 issued by Gramapanchayat, Kethireddypally.

For Defendant Ex.B1 is the certified copy of the pahani for the year 2007-08 standing in the name of D1 Ex.B2 is the certified copy of the pahani for the year 2008-09 standing in the name of D1. Ex.B3 is the computerized pahani for the Fasli 1420 (2010) obtained under Meeseva dt.20-6- 2017 Ex.B4 is the computerized pahani for the Fasli 1421 (2011) obtained under Meeseva dt.20-6- 2017 Ex.B5 is the computerized pahani for the Fasli 1422 (2012) obtained under Meeseva dt.20-6- 2017 Ex.B6 is the computerized pahani for the Fasli 1423 (2013) obtained under Meeseva dt.20-6- 2017 Ex.B7 is the computerized pahani for the Fasli 1424 (2014) obtained under Meeseva dt.20-6- 2017 Ex.B8s the computerized pahani for the Fasli 1425 (2015) obtained under Meeseva dt.20-6- 2017 Ex.B9 is the computerized pahani for the Fasli 1426 (2016) obtained under Meeseva dt.20-6- 2017

Junior Civil Judge-Cum- JMFC, Chevella, R.R.Dist

1

O.S. No.44 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHEVELLA, R.R.DISTRICT.

Present: Sri Jeevan Suraj Singh Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.

Dated this the 31st day of December, 2021

O.S. No. 44 of 2013

Between: Arka Janardhan Reddy, Adopted son of Arka Venkat Reddy Aged about 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Manmarri village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

AND

1. Arka Narsimha Reddy S/o late Arka Kishta Reddy Aged about 42 years, Occ:Agriculture,

2. Arka Yadava Reddy, S/o late Arka Kishta Reddy Aged about 39 years, Occ: Agriculture

3. Arka Srinivas Reddy, S/o late Arka Kishta Reddy Aged about 36 years, Occ: Agriculture

4. Goverdhan Reddy, S/o late Chandra Reddy Aged about 35 years, Occ:Agriculture,

5. Buchi Reddy, S/o late Chandra Reddy Aged about 30 years, Occ:Agriculture,

6. Ram Reddy, S/o late Arka Anthi Reddy Aged about 65 years, Occ: Agriculture,

7. Arka Narayan Reddy, S/o late Hanmanth Reddy Aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,

All are R/o Manmarri village, Shabad Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

.....Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Guruva Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri C. Ravi Shankar Goud, Advocate for defendants and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

:: JUDGMENT::

1. The present suit is filed seeking an equitable relief for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property situated in Sy.Nos. 83/4 to an extent of Ac.0-16gts within the limits of Manmarri Village of Shabad Mandal, R.R. District.

2

O.S. No.44 of 2013

2. The brief fact of the case in nutshell are that the plaintiff herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the land situated in Sy.Nos. 83/4 to an extent of Ac.0-16gts within the limits of Manmarri Village of Shabad Mandal, R.R. District (hereinafter referred as the suit schedule property for the brevity). The plaintiff contended that originally one

Arka Malla Reddy was the absolute owner of the entire extent of land situated in Sy.No.

83 admeasuring Ac.0-34gts. Subsequently after the death of their common ancestor, the suit schedule property was inherited by Arka Venkat Reddy and Arka Narayan Reddy as legal heirs. Thereafter the inherited entire extent of land was partitioned among the surviving legal heirs whereby the suit schedule property was fallen to the share of Arka

Venkat Reddy and the remaining portion of land to an extent of Ac.0-18 gts was inherited by the other surviving heir namely Arka Narayan Reddy. Ever since the date of partition, they were in exclusive possession and peaceful enjoyment of their individual extent of land without any hindrance as such. Since the ancestor of the plaintiff was having only daughter namely Smt. Parvathamma therefore the plaintiff herein was taken in adoption, who subsequently inherited the suit schedule property. Whereas on the other hand after the death of Sri. Arka Narayan Reddy, one Arka Bal Reddy, Arka Raji Reddy and Arka

Malla Reddy inherited the immovable properties of their deceased coparcener. The plaintiff contended that after the death of his deceased father, the suit schedule property was inherited by him and accordingly his name was mutated into the Revenue Records acknowledging his right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff asserted that during the lifetime of his deceased father and subsequent to his death, he is in possession of the suit schedule property which is abating to village abadi (population) and enjoyment the benefits of the land by raising and constructing cattle shed and manure pits etc. The plaintiff contended that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property in the capacity of an adopted son and no other person has any right whatsoever. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant No. 1 to 3 have highhandedly occupied nearly about 220 Sq.Yards and constructed a house in the land belonging to their ancestor namely Sri. Arka Narayan Reddy. Thereafter the defendant No. 1 to 3 together with other defendants are attempting to encroach into the suit schedule 3

O.S. No.44 of 2013

property. While so on 15-04-2013 as against their ulterior motive, the defendants herein have damaged the boundary stones and iron fencing on the western side of the suit schedule property to encroach into the suit schedule property. However, the plaintiff could with great difficulty resist the illegal act of the defendants herein and thereafter being left with no other alternative inapprehension of danger and damaged to the suit schedule property was compelled to file the present suit seeking equitable relief of perpetual injunction. Hence the cause of action.

2. The defendants were served with the summons. The defendant no. 1 to 3, 6 and 7 filed their written statement jointly and defendant no.4 and 5 filed adoption memo to adopt the written statement of defendant no.1 to 3, 6 and 7.

3. Per contra, the defendants apart from denying the contents of the plaint have specifically stated that one Sri. Venkat Reddy was the common ancestor of the plaintiff and defendants herein. The said Venkat Reddy was having two sons namely Sri.

Chandra Reddy and Malla Reddy. Sri. Chandra Reddy was having one son namely Sri.

Anthi Reddy. The defendants herein are the lineal descendants of Sri. Anthi Reddy.

Whereas Sri. Malla Reddy was having two sons namely Sri. Venkat Reddy and Sri.

Narayana Reddy. Sri. Venkat Reddy is the common ancestor of the plaintiff herein. The common ancestors of the plaintiff and defendants herein were having vast extent of lands which were orally partitioned between Anthi Reddy, Venkat Reddy and Narayana

Reddy. In the said partition nearly about Ac.80-00gts of land was fallen to the share of

Anthi Reddy and an another extent of land nearly about Ac.87-00gts was fallen to the share of Sri. Venkat Reddy and Sri. Narayana Reddy. So far as the disputed survey number is concerned, the defendants herein have admitted its extent as Ac.0-34gts. The defendants asserted that apart from other properties the land under the disputed survey number was also partitioned whereby the southern portion of land was allotted to Venkat

Reddy and Narayana Reddy and the northern portion of land was allotted to Anthi

Reddy. The defendants contended that since the land under the disputed survey number was abetting to the village, the ancestors of the plaintiff and defendants herein were 4

O.S. No.44 of 2013

using it for Dodlu, Kallams, Cattle Sheds etc. Thereafter the ancestors of the plaintiff herein have alienated their extent of land to third parties and structures were raised on it.

So far as the land inherited by the defendants is concerned, the defendant No. 1 to 3 and 6 have constructed two houses and the remaining land is being used for cattle shed and dairy purpose. The defendants contended that there is no land left to be under occupation or possession of the plaintiff and the plaintiff herein has suppressed the material facts seeking an equitable relief of injunction as such the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, illegal and liable to be dismissed in limini.

4. Basing on the allegations and denial, contention of the pleadings, documents filed by either of the disputing parties the following issues were framed –

1. Whether the plaintiff is in legal possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff,PW1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 to A11 were marked.

Plaintiff is examined as PW1 and in support of his evidence PW2 and PW3 were examined. In their Chief-Affidavits PW1 to PW3 have reiterated the contents of plaint and to support their case they relied on the following documents. Ex.A1: CC of pahani for the year 1980-81, Ex.A2: CC of pahani for the year 1994-95, Ex.A3: CC of pahani for the year 1999-2000 (2 sheets), Ex.A4: CC of pahani for the year 2004-05, Ex.A5: CC of pahani for the year 2007-08 issued by VRO, Ex.A6: CC of pahani for the year 2009-10 issued by VRO, Ex.A7: CC of pahani for the year 2010-11 issued by VRO, Ex.A8:

Certified copy of pahani for the fasly 1424 (2014), Ex.A9: Certified copy of pahani for the fasly 1425 (2015), Ex.A10: Certified copy of pahani for the fasly 1426 (2016) and Ex.A11:

Pattadar pass book of plaintiff.

5

O.S. No.44 of 2013

6. ISSUE No. 1 & 2:

The issue No. 1 & 2 are commonly answered as both the issues being incidental to one and another. The plaintiffs in order to prove his case has filed and got marked

Exhibts A1 to A11. Whereas on behalf of the defendants neither any document was marked nor any evidence was adduced. Though the defendants have taken all precautions to file their statement of defense but failed to adduce sufficient evidence in support of their assertions. Ample opportunites were given to the defendants even by imposing conditional orders still there was no improvement and finally the defendants side evidence was closed vide docket order dt: 08-08-2018. Nothing prevented the defendants herein from adducing sufficient oral and documentary evidence which would have enabled this court to arrive at a proper conclusion.

7. The plaintiff side evidence was closed on 11-06-2018 and since then the matter was posted for defendant side evidence still there was no improvement. The matter was adjourned from time to time even by imposing conditional orders and costs still there was no progress. Finally the defendant side evidence was closed on 08-08-2018 and thereafter the matter was posted and adjourned for advancing arguments on behalf of either of the parties. Finally the matter was heard and reserved. Though sufficient time and opportunities were given to the defendants even then the defendants herein have failed to adduce any evidence before this court nor contested the suit as such an adverse inference has to be drawn against them.

8. On analysis of the pleadings, documents filed and relief claimed by the plaintiff herein. It would be appropriate to state that this is a suit for injunction simplicitor and what matters is the possession of the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff in support of his case have filed and got marked Exhibits-A1 to A11. Of all the documents filed by the plaintiff herein EA2 to EA4, EA8 to EA11 are the most crucial documents as those documents would clearly establish his right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. So far as the adoption of the 6

O.S. No.44 of 2013

plaintiff is concerned, it was never challenged and the same has been admitted by the defendants in para no. 3 of their written statement. The defendants have failed to prove the existence or non-existence of the plaintiffs land under the disputed survey number as contended. Whereas on the other hand the plaintiff has filed a bunch of documents and in particular the possessory coloum under EA3, EA4, EA8 to EA10 would clearly manifest that the plaintiff herein is in possession of the suit schedule property much

before and at the time of the filing of the suit. Though the defendants in their written

statement have stated many things but it is quite apparent from the record that no piece of paper is filed before this court for its appreciation. The defendants neither contested the suit nor exercised their right to with stand the test of cross-examination by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The defendants by keeping silence have acted in ignorance of their right. Had the defendants contested the suit better facts would have been placed before this court for its appreciation. Be the things be as it may be, from the unchallenged evidence of Pw1 to Pw3 coupled up with the documents placed before this court, the plaintiff has established his right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property as such these issues are accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants herein.

9. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case coupled up with the oral and documentary evidence placed before this court, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of December, 2021.

Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.

7

O.S. No.44 of 2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

PW1 : Arka Janardhan Reddy Nil PW2: Goundla Eshwaraiah PW3: A. Venkataiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A1: CC of pahani for the year 1980-81 Ex.A2: CC of pahani for the year 1994-95. Ex.A3: CC of pahani for the year 1999-2000 (2 sheets) Ex.A4: CC of pahani for the year 2004-05 Ex.A5: CC of pahani for the year 2007-08 issued by VRO Ex.A6: CC of pahani for the year 2009-10 issued by VRO Ex.A7: CC of pahani for the year 2010-11 issued by VRO Ex.A8: Certified copy of pahani for the fasly 1424 (2014) Ex.A9: Certified copy of pahani for the fasly 1425 (2015) Ex.A10: Certified copy of pahani for the fasly 1426 (2016) Ex.A11: Pattadar pass book of plaintiff.

FOR DEFENDANTS: Nil

Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.

1 O.S.No.58 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS:CHEVELLA:RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Sri Jeevan Suraj Singh Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella

Dated this 17th day of June, 2022

O.S. 58 of 2014

Between

1. C.Pulla Reddy, S/o C. Nagi Reddy, Aged about 56 years Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 50/1-7-6, Journalist Colony, B-Camp, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

2. Dr. Gaddam Gidda Reddy, S/o G. Linga Reddy, Aged about 70 years Occ: Doctor, R/o H.No. 43/265/E, Narsingaraopet, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

3. Sri Budutha Thimmaiah, S/o Sri Thimmaiah, Aged about 75 years Occ: Retired Principal, R/o Maruthi Nagar, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

4. Shaik Abdul Saleem, S/o Shaik Abdul Haqa, Aged about 50 years Occ: Business, R/o MIG-12, Housing Board Colony, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

5. Smt. Kalukunta Saraswathi, W/o K. Rama Suba Reddy, Aged about 53 years Occ: House wife,, R/o Raghunath Complex, Near Raghunath Theater, Kurnool, Kurnool -2.

6. B. Raghunatha Reddy, S/o B.V.Reddy, Aged about 49 years Occ: Business, R/oPlot No.186, Krishna Nagar, Sri Krishna Nagar, Kurnool District.

.....Plaintiffs

AND

1. Darga Kumar, S/o Darga Lingaiah, Aged about:65 years, Occ: Business,

2. Darga Ashok, S/o Darga Lingaiah, Aged about:45 years, Occ: Business,

3. Darga Yeshu, S/o Darga Lingaiah, Aged about:42 years, Occ: Business,

All Resident of Aziz Nagar, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

.......Defendants

2 O.S.No.58 of 2014

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned counsel for the plaintiffs Sri. Suresh Shiv Sagar, Advocate and Sri P. Sudhakar Rao, advocate for Defendants and upon perusal of the material papers on record and after having stood over this matter till date this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The present suit is filed seeking an equitable relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants herein from interfearing with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule A to G properties situated in Sy.Nos. 177/14 & 177/17 respectively within the limits of Aziznagar Village of Moinabad Mandal, R.R. District.

2.The breif fact of the case in nutshell are that one Late Sri. Darga Laxmaiah was the absolute owner and possessor of the land situated in Sy.Nos. 177/14 & 177/17 to an extent of

Ac.04-21gts respectively within the limits of Aziznagar Village of Moinabad Mandal, R.R.

District. The plaintiffs contended that the name of the actual owner and title holder was accordingly mutuated into the Revenue Records by acknowledging his right, title and interest over the land under his peaceful possession and enjoyment as such. Whileso subsequent to the death of Late Sri. Darga Laxmaiah, the entire extent of land had devolved upon the surviving legal heirs of the deceased and thereupon the said extent of land was alienated by the legal heirs of deceased Late Sri. Darga Laxmaiah infavour of the predecessed vendor of the plaintiffs vendor herein. Initially the said land to an extent of Ac.1-10gts and Ac.3-11gts respectively was alienated in favour of Smt. Rukmini Bai vide Registered Documents bearing

Nos. 941/1967 & 942/1967 and thereafter the said land to an extent of Ac. 1-10gts and Ac.2- 30gts respectively was purchased by the plaintiffs vendor herein vide Registered Documents bearing Nos. 8613/1998 and 8614/1998. The plaintiffs contended that the purchased land to a total extent of Ac.4-00gts was accordingly divided into plots by approved layout sanction permission and alienated infavour of third parties under the name and style of Residency

Resorts. Whereby the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 have purchased the aforesaid open plots bearing

Nos. 10A, 18, 8/A, 9 & 10 admeasuring 500, 1000, 500, 1000 and 250 Sq.Yards respectively through Sri. B. V. Reddy vide Registered Sale Deeds bearing Document Nos. 6813/1999, 4014/1999, 3822/2000, 6814/1999 and 890/2000 which are hereinafter referred as A-E schedule of properties. Whereas the plaintiff No.6 have acquired the suit plots bearing Nos. 6 & 7 admeasuring about 1242 & 964 Sq.Yards respectively through Gift Settlement Deeds bearing Registered Document Nos. 8704/2007 & 8706/2007 executed by his father namely

Sri. B. V. Reddy and the same are hereby referred as F & G schedule of properties. The plaintiffs contended that they have developed the suit schedule A to G properties through their hard earned money and ever since the date of transfer they are in exclusive possession and peaceful enjoyment of their individual extent of land without any hinderance as such. The dispute arose when the defendants who are the legal heirs of their erstwhile owner have 3 O.S.No.58 of 2014 caused interfearance and the plaintiffs herein being left with no other alternative inapprehension of dispossession, danger and damaged to the suit schedule property was compelled to file the present suit seeking equitable relief of perpetual injunction. Hence the cause of action.

3.Per contra, the defendants apart from denying the contents of the plaint have specifically stated that the suit schedule A to G properties together with some other extent of land was assigned by the Governement and ever since the date of assignment they are in continuous possession of the same and enjoying the benefit of the land through cultivation as such the contention of the plaintiffs herein is neither maintainable in law nor on facts as such the suit of the plaintiffs herein is illegal, untenable and liable to be dismissed in limini. The defendants further asserted that the schedule A to G properties are part of their ancestral property and alienation of the same is illegal. The defendants admitted that their deceased father was the actual owner of the suit properties and no property was ever alienated by him as such the claim of the plaintiff herein is not maintainable and the plaintiffs have approached this Hon’ble Court with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts thereby seeking an equitable relief of perpetual injunction as such the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, illegal and liable to be dismissed in limini.

4.Basing on the allegations and denial, contention of the pleadings, documents filed by either of the disputing parties herein, the following issues were framed –

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit within described boundaries?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for equitable relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants over the suit schedule property?

3. To what relief?

5. ISSUE No. 1 & 2:

The issue No. 1 & 2 are commonly answered as both the issues being incidential to one and another. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case has filed and got marked Exhibts

A1 to A7. Where as on behalf of the defendants neither any document was marked nor any evidence was adduced. Though the defendants have taken all precautions to file their statement of defense but failed to adduce sufficient evidence in support of their assertions.

Ample opportunites were given to the defendants even by imposing conditional orders still 4 O.S.No.58 of 2014 there was no improvement and finally the defendants side evidence was closed vide docket order dt: 01-04-2019. Nothing prevented the defendants herein from adducing sufficient oral and documentary evidence which would have enabled this court to arrive at a proper conclusion.

6.The plaintiff side evidence was closed on 25-09-2018 and since then the matter was posted for defendant side evidence still there was no improvement. The matter was adjourned from time to time even by imposing conditional orders and costs still there was no progress.

Finally the defendant side evidence was closed on 01-04-2019 and thereafter the matter was posted and adjourned for advancing arguments on behalf of either of the parties. Finally the matter was heard and reserved. Though sufficient time and opportunites were given to the defendants even then the defendants herein have failed to adduce any evidence before this court nor contested the suit as such an adverse inference has to be drawn against them.

7.On analysis of the pleadings, documents filed and relief claimed by the plaintiff herein.

It would be appropriate to state that this is a suit for injunction simplictor and what matters is the possession of the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiffs in support of their case have filed and got marked Exhibits-A1 to A7. EA1 to EA7 are the certified copies of sale deeds by which the plaintiffs herein claims to have acquired right, title and interst over the suit schedule A to G properties. So far as the limited aspect of possession is concerned, it is to be noted that the rights and liabilities of the buyer and seller under Sec-55 of Transfer of

Property Act would clearly manifest the delivery of possession as an essential ingrident of a valid sale. It is an antecedent attached to an immovable property and sale is a transaction which acknowledges the same and it cannot be said that there was no delivery of possession unless the contrary is proved much less when the recitals of EA1 to EA7 would clearly explicits the same. It is pertinent to mention here that in case of open land, the flow of title is given much importance to ascertain the significance of possession. It is being contended by the plaintiffs herein that the suit schedule A to G properties were divided into plots in accordance with the permission granted by the concerned authority. But admittedly it is quite clear from the record that no such layout sanction permission is filed as such and it is the regime of the concerned Grampanchayat or Municipal authority and this court cannot be expected to come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs herein have no title or possession in the absence of the necessary land conversion permission or layout sanction plan etc by which the suit land was divided into open plots as such. The registration of the said plots in favour of the plaintiffs herein would explain that there is no such restriction in the alienation of the land and had it been so then the same would have been placed under the prohibited list and the registration of the said plots would not have been permitted. Though the defendants 5 O.S.No.58 of 2014 contended that the suit schedule A to G properties are part of their ancestral properties and it is an assign land but no such defense is being established. Nothing had prevented the defendants herein to protest that the suit is bad for nonjoinder of the Governement as necessary party to the suit if the said land was an assign land and if the patta of the said land was granted to the deceased father of the defendants herein.

8. Though the defendants in their written statement have stated many things but it is quite apparent from the record that no piece of paper is filed before this court for its appreciation. The defendants neither contested the suit nor exercised their right to cross- examine the plaintiffs nor have come forward to with stand the test of cross-examination by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. The defendants by keeping silence have acted in ignorance of their right. Better facts would have been placed before the court for its appreciation provided the defendants would have contested the suit. Be that as it may be, from the unchallenged evidence of Pw1 coupled up with the documents placed before this court, the plaintiffs have established their right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule A to G properties as such these issues are accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants herein.

9.From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case coupled up with the oral and documentary evidence placed before this court, the suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with costs.

10.In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with costs.

th Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 day of June, 2022.

Junior Civil Judge-Cum- JMFC, Chevella, R.R.Dist

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs For Defendants PW1: Dr. G. Gidda ReddyNil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.1 bearing document No.6813/1999 dt. 11-10-1999.

6 O.S.No.58 of 2014

Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed executed in favour of PW1 bearing document No.4014/1999 dt. 11-06-1999.

Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.3 bearing document No.3822/2000 dt. 09-06-2000.

Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.4 bearing document No.6814/1999 dt. 11-06-1999.

Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.5 bearing document No.890/2000 dt. 08-02-2000.

Ex.A6 is the certified copy of the Gift settlement deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.6 bearing document No.8704/2007 dt. 30-06-2007.

Ex.A7 is the certified copy of the Gift settlement deed executed in favour of plaintiff No.6 bearing document No.8706/2007 dt. 30-06-2007.

For Defendants Nil

Junior Civil Judge-Cum- JMFC, Chevella, R.R.Dist

C.C.No.80/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT SHADNAGAR,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Present: Sri. Jeevan Suraj Singh, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar.

Dated this the 1 st day of OCTOBER, 2024.

C.C. NO.80 of 2020

Between The State of T.S., through Sub-Inspector of Police P.S. Nandigama

....... Complainant

AND Teegapuram Narsimha @ Narsimulu, S/o.Pentaiah, aged about 35 years, Occ: Driver, R/o.Veerlapally Village, Nandigama Mandal, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

....... Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 30-09-2024 in the presence of APP for the prosecution and Sri. P. Krishna Reddy, Advocate for accused and being stood over for consideration till this day, this court deliver the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case of mischief by fire and illegal burning of two wheeler (Hero Honda Passion Plus Bike) belonging to the defacto complainant’s brother/LW5/K.Saisailam, committed by accused, for which the Police, Nandigama had registered a case in Crime

No.01/2020 against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.435 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 01-01-2020 at about 1800 hours, the Lw1 has lodged a report by stating that Lw5 is his brother and they are residing side by side as neighbours. While so on 29.12.2019, the Lw5 parked his vehicle i.e (Hero Honda Passion Plus) bearing Registration No.AP22K 0698 in front of his house and went to

Shabrimala Temple. Meanwhile the accused have requested for the

Page 1 of 7

C.C.No.80/2020 vehcile to attain his personal work and accordingly took the keys of the vehicle from Lw4 and illegally burnt the vehicle for no reason. Based on the above report, the Lw10 have registered a case in Cr.No. 01 of 2020

U/s. 435 of IPC and investigated upon. During the course of investigation, LW10 examined and recorded the statements of Lws.1 to 4, visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and also drawn rough sketch of the scene in the presence of mediators i.e., LWs.6 & 7. Further LW7 served notice u/sec.41-A of

Cr.P.C. to the accused and he voluntarily confessed this offence and after completion of the investigation, final report is filed against the accused person u/sec.435. Hence, the case.

3.After filing of the charge sheet, the cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/s.435 IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were furnished to him as required u/s.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C and the substance of the accusation for the offence punishable under Sec.435 of IPC is read over and explained to the accused in vernacular, for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution in support of its case has examined Pws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. Whereas on behalf of the accused neither any document was marked nor any evidence was produced.

The witnesses were arrayed as hereunder - PW.1 is the complainant,

Pws.2, 3 & 9 are the witnesses, Pws.5 and 6 are the panch witnesses to the scene of offence, Pws. 7 & 8 are the panch witnesses to the confession panchnama of the accused and PW10 is the investigating officer, who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet against the accused.

Page 2 of 7

C.C.No.80/2020

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides and perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused for the offenses punishable U/s.435 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.On Marshaling of the evidence and considering the material placed before this court. It would be appropriate to refer the evidence adduced by the parties/prosecution for just conclusion of the case.

10.The prosecution in support of its case have examined the defacto complainant/Pw1 and his evidence categorically reveals that on 31.12.2019, the accused came to their house and requested to give the vehicle for his personal requirement and took the vehicle keys from his sister-in-law. Thereafter the accused didn’t return the vehicle and whenever he was asked to return the vehicle, he had been postposing the same by asserting that his elder brother/Srisailam is indebted to him and he would not return the vehicle untill the debt is being repayed to him. Later his elder brother/Srisailam also requested him to bring back the vehicle and he would speak with him after returning from the shrine even then the accused didn’t return the vehicle.

Meanwhile on 01.01.2020 at about 4.30PM, the accused/Narsimha took the vehicle to the chowrasta of the village and lit fire to it. After knowing about the incident, Pw1 went to the scene of offence and thereafter lodged a report. EP1 is the report lodged by him. But when cross-examined, he specifically admitted that he didn’t mention in his

Page 3 of 7

C.C.No.80/2020 report about the keys which were handed over by his sister-in-law and that he didn’t witness the incident about the vehicle alleged to have burnt by the accused.

11.The prosecution in order to strengthen its case has examined

Pw2, who was then the eye-witness and his evidence categorically reveals that about 4 years back in between 4.00 to 4.30 PM, he had seen the accused buring the vehicle of Pw1. The accused brought the vehicle and placed it in the center of the village and sprinkled the patrol all over the vehicle and lit it with a match stick and burnt the vehicle beloging to Pw1 however he doesn’t know the number of the vehicle, but it was a Black Colour Passion Pro vehicle. But when cross- examination he specifically admitted that at the time of the incident there was a gathering of about 10 people, he is running a shop under the name and style as Laxmaiah Kirana Shop. He has not filed any document to show that he is running a kirana shop at the scene of offense, he has not filed any permission issued by Grampanchayat or license or munipal tax receipt that he is running a kirana shop. He further admitted that there are videos of the accused burning the vehicle and he cannot say whether the same is filed before the court or not.

12. The prosecution in order to establish the offense alleged to have committed by the accused have examined Pw3 to Pw9, but to dismay of the prosecution, the Pw3 to Pw9, who were then the eye-witnesses, panch witness to the scene of offence and confession panchnama have turned hostile and didn’t support the prosecution case. The suggestion posed by; the learned App with the permission of the court was also denied. Whereas the Pw7 & Pw8 have categorically admitted that they do not know the exact date on which the confession panchnama was conducted.

Page 4 of 7

C.C.No.80/2020

13.The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused have examined Pw10, who was then the investigating officer. The Pw10 during his examination-in-chief have testified about the process and procedure followed by him while investigating the case but cross- examined, he specifically admitted that the date on which the statement of Lw1 was recorded is not mentioned in the charge sheet.

14.As seen from the evidence there are contradictions and inconsistency in the testimony of the witnesses when compared with their earlier statements recorded under Sec-161 of Cr.P.C apart from their being laches on the part of the investigation agency. At an outset no document is filed to show that the destroyed vehicle was belonging to the Lw5. There is no direct testimony to establish that the offence alleged to have committed by the accused herein though it was testified that the commission of the offence was widely circulated in the electronic media and even then no such electronic evidence is filed

before the court. In the name of direct testimony, the Pw2 was

examined, who claimed himself to be a shop vendor and witnessed the commission of the offense by the accused herein. Interestingly no document is filed to establish that Pw2 is a shop vendor and he is running a kirana shop at or near the scene of offence. The prosecution in order to prove the alleged commission of the offense have heavily relied on the confession panchnama of the accused and the same also raises a serious question before the court as to its genuinity in the absence of their being no direct testimony much less when all the witnesses have turned hostile. Neither any document is filed to establish that the damaged vehicle was belonging to Pw5 nor any expert opinion was obtained by tracing out the engine number and chasi number to prove that it was the vehicle which has been damaged

Page 5 of 7

C.C.No.80/2020 by the accused and even other wise also there is no evidence on record to establish that the offence has been committed by the accused.

There is a cloud casting on the scene of offense and the confession panchnama conduted by the Pw10 and it would be proper to convict the accused on the basis of the confession panchnama in the absence of there being an independent testimony to corroborate and arrive at a conclusion. The accused cannot be penalised in the absence of there being a sufficient independent testimony to corroborate and arrive at a conclusion. The prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingridents of the offense alleged to have committed by the accused and thereby the accused is hereby entitle for the benefit and accordingly he is acquited.

15.From the foregoing discussion, this court is of the opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove all the ingredients so as to make out the offence punishable under sec.435

IPC. The prosecution thus failed to prove the culpability of the accused for the offence punishable under sec.435 IPC. The accused therefore is entitled for acquittal.

Page 6 of 7

C.C.No.80/2020

16.In the result the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/s 435 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. No case property is deposited

before this court.

Typed to my dictation on computer by copyist, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the, 1st day of October, 2024.

Sd/-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SHADNAGAR.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution:For Defence: PW1: Shiva Lingam --None-- PW2: Rama Krishna PW3: Latha PW4: K. Srisailam PW5: Balaiah PW6: Narsimulu PW7: C. Pandu PW8: Ramesh PW9: Ramulu PW10 : K. Srinivasulu (I.O.),

Exhibits marked

For the Prosecution: For defence: Ex.P.1: Complaint --Nil-- Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw3 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw4 Ex.P.4: Signagure of Pw5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.5: Signagure of Pw6 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.6: Signagure of Pw7 on confession panchanama Ex.P.7: Signagure of Pw8 on confession panchanama Ex.P.8: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw9 Ex.P.9: FIR Ex.P.10: Crime Details Form Ex.P.11: Confession Statement. Material objects Marked:-Nil-

Sd/-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SHADNAGAR.

Page 7 of 7

1 of 8

CC. No.670 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT SHADNAGAR,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Present: Sri. JEEVAN SURAJ SINGH, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar.

Dated this the 4 th day of October, 2024.

C.C. NO.670 of 2019

(Cr. No.129 of 2019 of P.S. Kothur)

Between: The State - Rep., through the Sub-Inspector of police,

P.S. Kothur. .... Complainant

And

Aleemuddin, S/o. Late. Nabajul, aged about 62 years, Occ: Labour, R/o.Teegapur Village, Kothur Mandal, Native of Dhanapura, Pathrabari, Jokihal PS, Araria Dist, Bidar State.

.... Accused

This case is coming on this the 04.10.2024 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of A.P.P for the State and in the presence of counsel for the accused Sri. M.A. Razak Hussain; after having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following:-

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS. Kothur, filed charge sheet in

Crime No.129/2019 of P.S. Kothur against the accused for the offense punishable under sections 224 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.07.2019 at 03:00 hours, while the defacto complainant/Sri.N.Balkishan Naik/HC 7356 was on watch-in-charge duty, the accused who was alleged to have involved in Crime No.128/2019, u/s.20(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 of PS. Kothur, was kept in Lock-up and his custody was handed over to Lw1. While so at about 11:47 Pm, the accused 2 of 8

CC. No.670 of 2019

insisted that he may be permitted to attain the natures call and therefore he escorted and was sent to the bathroom. Meanwhile he was found absconding and he was seen to have escaped from the lawful custody of Lw1. Based on the above report, the

LW.9/S. Krishna, SI of Police, have registered a case in Crime

No.129/2019, u/secs.224 of IPC and forwarded the case file to

LW.7/S. Krishna, S.I. of Police for further investigation. While during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offense at Kothur Police Station, he examined and recorded the statements of Lws.1 to 4 and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Lws.5 and 6 and also drawn rough sketch. Meanwhile on 01.08.2019, he arrested the accused and while during his interrogation, the accused confessed the commission of offence i.e., that he was frightened and therefore he requested to that he may be permitted to visit the bathroom and later escaped from their custody. After recording and completion of Panchanama, he was brought to the PS and later he was sent to judicial remand. On requisition of LW.9/S. Krishna, SI

Police, the Hon’ble court issued PT warrant against the accused, after that he was produced before the court. After completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.224 of IPC.

3. After filing the charge sheet by the police, the cognizance was taken for the offense punishable U/Secs.224 of IPC against the accused.

3 of 8

CC. No.670 of 2019

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were furnished to the accused in compliance and as required U/Sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C in brevity).

5. The accused was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C. and the substance of the accusation for the offence U/Secs.224 of IPC is read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular, for which he denied the allegation and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution have examined Pws.1 to 9 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. Whereas on behalf of the accused neither any document was filed nor any evidence was adduced. The prosecution side evidence is arrayed as hereunder i.e Pws.1 & 5 are the eye witnesses, Pws 4 & 6 are arrayed as the witnesses, Pws 2 and 3 are the panch witnesses to the scene of offence, Pws 7 & 8 are the panch witnesses to the confession panchnama of the accused and PW.9 is the investigating officer.

7. After completion of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 9, for which he denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

4 of 8

CC. No.670 of 2019

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of

accused for an offences punishable U/Secs.224 of IPC,

beyond reasonable doubt?”

Point:

10. To prove the offense alleged to have committed by the accused herein, the prosecution have examined Pws 1 & 4 to 6, who are the officials of the Police Department, wherein they deposed that on 29.07.2019 at about 11.45 Pm, while they were on patrolling duty and PW1 was placed on In-charge duty. One

Nayeemuddin i.e the accused herein was handed over to their custody by SOT Team. They were at the station and meanwhile the accused reported an urgency to attend the natures call. Pw1 had opened the lock-up and allowed him to visit the bath room.

Meanwhile they received a message from Dial 100 and they became busy in noting the same. While things stood thus the accused have taken the advantage and had jumped the compound wall and fled away. The accused didn’t return therefore they started searching for him and he was found absconding. Immediately they informed about the incident to

Lw6. They have search for the accused and intimated the others for searching the accused. PW1 lodged a report about the incident. But when cross-examined, they individually and categorically stated that PW5 lodged a report about the incident on the instruction of Lw9 and they stated that their statements were recorded on the next day of the incident at about 10:00 Am.

They further admitted that what they have testified in their chief- 5 of 8

CC. No.670 of 2019

examination is the same which they have stated while during their statements wer recorded by the police u/S-161 of Cr.P.C.

11.The prosecution in order to strengthen its case have examined Pws 2, 3, 7 and 8, but to the dismay of the prosecution the Pws 2, 3, 7 and 8 who were then the panch witnesses to the scene of offence as well as the confession panchnama of the accused have turned hostile and didn’t support the prosecution case. The suggestion posed by the learned APP with the permission of the Court was also denied and nothing could be elicited to support the case of the prosecution.

12. When it comes to the testimony of Pw.9, who was the then

Investigating Officer categorically reveals that on 30.07.2019 at about 0300 hours, the Pw5 lodged a report and accordingly a case was registered in Crime No.129/2019, U/Sec.224 IPC and took up the investigation. he issued the FIR and submitted the original FIR to the Hon’ble Court and all other copies to the concerned officers. On the same day, he recorded the statement of Lw1 to Lw4 at PS. Thereafter he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Pw2 & Pw3 at PS. On 01.08.2019 he apprehended the accused in Crime No.128/2019 u/s 20 (b) of

NDPS Act and on 03.09.2019 he execute the PT warrant against the accused. Later on completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused. But when cross- examination, he specifically stated that the accused was in custody with reference to Crime No.128/2019 and subsequently he went absconding and that he do not know when the FIR was registered in Crime No. 128/2019 and when it was sent to the 6 of 8

CC. No.670 of 2019

court. He further admitted that no document is filed to show that

Pw1, Pw4, Pw5 and Pw6 were on duty on the date of incident and that he had not filed any document to show that the custody of the accused was handed over by the SOT team and that the accused or alleged Nayeemuddin was in custody on the date of incident and that the accused does not know the Telugu language.

13. To prove the offence U/Sec.224 of IPC, the prosecution did not file or produce any documentary evidence to show that the accused was in custody and that he escaped while he was in lawful custody of Pw1. The essential ingridents of the offence alleged to have committed by the accused are not proved.

Neither any document is filed nor the extract of the C.C Tv footage installed in the PS is filed to establish the custody of the accused.

14. As already noted above, the prosecution has to prove the essential ingredients of the offence U/Sec.224 of IPC. Firstly the

Pws.1, 4 to 6 are performing their legitimate duties as on the date of incident and secondly that the accused was in their lawful custody while the alleged offense took place. The prosecution did not file any documents to show that they are on duty on the date of the incident and that the accused was in their lawful custody and that he managed to escaped from their lawful custody when the alleged offense was committed by him. There is a cloud casting on the panchnama conducted by the Pw9, as the panch witnesses themselves have turned hostile and there is no such evidence to corroborate the testimony of Pws.1, 4 to 6. There is 7 of 8

CC. No.670 of 2019

no iota of evidence against the Accused to connect him with the alleged commission of the offence and bring home the guilt of the accused and therefore the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby the accused is entitled for the benefit and according he is acquitted.

15. In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.224 of IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 3 months under sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The un- marked case property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal period is over.

Typed to my dictation on Computer by Copyist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SHADNAGAR.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution:For Defence: PW1: R. Mahesh--None-- PW2: M. Shankar PW3: M. Ganesh PW4: Venkataiah PW5: Bala Kishan PW6: G. Srinivas PW7: Syed Rasheed PW8: Mohd Fayaz PW9: S. Krishna (I.O.), 8 of 8

CC. No.670 of 2019

Exhibits marked

For the Prosecution:For defence: Ex.P.1: Signature of Pw2 on scene of offence panchanama, --Nil-- Ex.P.2: Signature of Pw3 on scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P.3: Report, Ex.P.4: Signature of Pw7 on seizure panchanama, Ex.P.5: Signature of Pw8 on seizure panchanama, Ex.P.6: First Information Report, Ex.P.7: Crime Details Form. Ex.P.8: Confession Panchanama

Material objects Marked -Nil-

Sd/-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SHADNAGAR.