Ms. Jeriprolu Sowmya Josphine

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDALUR.

Present: Ms.J.Sowmya Josphine, B.Com., B.L.,

Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur.

Friday, this the 28 th day of June, 2019

O.S. No.70 of 2016

Bewteen:

Gadi Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, age 74 years, Hindu, Land lord, Patur village and Post, Nandalur Mandal.

...Plaintiff.

Verses.

Kasireddy Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Late Janardhan Reddy, age 50 years, Hindu, Land lord, Patur village and Post, Nandalur Mandal.

...Defendant.

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Narasimhulu, Advocate for the plaintiff, and of

Sri O.V.Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Plaintiff filed this suit for declaration of right of plaintiff over schedule property and consequently grant a decree for mandatory injunction of the schedule mentioned property directing the defendant to remove wire fencing all along Ax1x2 B highhandedly put up by him and root out the teak plant, 3 mango trees and plantain tree therein, remove W wicket gate as shown in plaint plan within a time fixed and if he fails to have it done to remove them through process of the court at his expenses and for costs of the suit.

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

a)The plaintiff is filed a rough plan, which may be teated as 2 plaint plan hereafter. In the said plan, the site of the plaintiff is shown as A

B C D in S.No.855 and to its south are irrigation lands belonging to the defendant. A B C D belonging to the plaintiff is further noted as plot No.1.

To the north of plot No.1, plot No.2, belongs to Srimathi N.Subhashinamma, plot No.3 belongs to Ex-MLA Kasireddy Madanamohan Reddy, Plot No.4 belongs to Kasireddy Venkata Subba Reddy, Plot No.5 belongs to the defendant Kasireddy Narasimha Reddy, Plot No.6 belongs to the plaintiff

Gadi Venkata Subba Reddy, Plot No.7belongs to A. Jaganmohan Reddy (brother of late A.V.S. Reddy) and on the extreme north Plot No.8 belongs to

N.Venkata Subbaiah. To the aforesaid plots No.1 to 8, there is a joint common backyard passage on the west shown as Ax1x2 x3, which extends to the east upto x4 and take turn towards south upto point X5 as shown in plaint plan. Plaintiff and so much so, the other occupants of plots 2 to 8 have rights to ingress and egress into the joint passage shown as Ax1x2x3.

Plaintiff has abundant documentary proof to claim the ownership of A B C D site and so also the passage shown as Ax1x2 B filled in red colour. This fact is very well known to the entire villagers in general and the adjoining plot owners of 2 to 8 in particular, more particularly the defendant, owner of plot

No.5. This is 100 % true and undeniable. But the only disadvantage or handicap for the plaintiff is his plot No.1 is on the extreme south and next weakness is that the plaintiff is week and politically in-influential. Due to the above two reasons, he had to succumb to the violence acts of the defendant and his highhanded attitude. For all the 8 plots there were outlets to the common passage.

b)While it is so, 28.8.2016, the defendant had literally closed

Ax1x2 B portion on the south western corner and cut the peepal tree and collected the sale price. Further he had put up a barbed wire fencing on all 3 four sides and closed the out let point 7. Deliberately the defendant had put up a wicket gate at point ‘W’ which is obstructing the use of public road on the east.

c)On 29.8.2016 the plaintiff reported the matter to the

Tahsildar, Nandalur. But no action is taken. Advices of the elders were rejected by the defendant.

d)The plaintiff is no match for the defendant in any sphere.

He found it proper and safe to approach the Hon’ble Court for redressal.

Hence, the plaintiff prays the Hon’ble Court for relief of mandatory injunction to remove fencing all along Ax1x2 B shown in red colour in plaint plan to enable him to make use of the site to the west of it, which is, as aforesaid common passage set apart for all the eight owners of plots 1 to 8 shown in plaint plan and also, remove the newly planted trees. Hence, the

SUIT.

3.The defendant filed written statement stating the defendant denies all the allegations made in the plaint except those are expressly admitted here in and the plaintiff is put to very strict proof of each and every one of those allegations made in the plaint. It is true that ther are 8 plots existing at present in S.No.855 and that there are lands of the defendant, on the south of ABCD plot. It is false to state that there is a common back yard passage in the west shown as A X1, X2, X3 in the plaint plan and which extents to the east up to X4 and turned to south up to point

X5. It is false to state that occupants of plots 2 to 8 have rights of ingress and egress into the joint A X1, X2, X3. The averments in para No.3 (b) are all false and the plaintiff has to prove the same.

Facts of the case are:

(a) It is submitted that originally a house was constructed in plot 4

No.5 by the ancestors of the defendant long back. At that time no houses were existing. Defendants ancestors were making use of the backyard passage from plot No.5 to plot No.1 A X1, X2 B as shown in the plaint plan.

They have been in possession and enjoyment of the same since time immemorial without any interruption as there were no houses were existing to cause obstructions and as such they perfected their night by way of easement. Now the defendant is using the backyard passage from plot No.5 to reach their lands. The plaintiff never objected the defendant making use of the passage. There are backyards at present within the plots itsel and to say there is common backyard passage is false.

b)It is further submitted before filing of the suit there was no way at point”Y” as shown in the plaint plan. At the time of filing of the suit the plaintiff made the way at point “Y” for the purpose of his case. The defendant put up a barbed wire from south eastern side to south western side leaving a gap of 1 feet or so to the X1 AD as shown in the plaint plan.

c)The plaintiff has purchased No.1 plot from somebody where in a hut was existing at the time of purchase. Even prior to the purchase of the same the defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the back from plot No.5 to 1 including A X1, X2, B portion. The plaintiff is not only the owner of ABCD portion, but his brothers too have share in it and filing of the suit without plaintiffs brothers is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. No the ABCD portion shown in the plaint plan is completely dilapidated condition. The plaintiff has no manner of right what soever to claim A X1, X2, B portion and as such the suit is not maintainable as the same is devoid of merits.

d)There is no cause of action for the suit and alleged cause of action is not true and correct. It is therefore prayed the Hon’ble Court may 5 be pleased to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were framed.

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunctions as prayed for?

ii) To what relief ?

5.To prove his case the plaintiff got examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 and Ex.A.2. On defendant himself was examined as D.W.1.

6. PW.1 filed his chief-affidavit by re-iterating the entire averments made in the plaint and got marked Exs.A.1 and Ex.A.2. Ex.A.1 is the plaint plan and Ex.A.2 is the office copy of report given to the Thasildar dt.29.08.2016.

P.W.1 in his cross-examination deposed that there were eight plots in the suit schedule property as per Ex.A1 ie., plaint plan. PW.1 admitted that the red marked plot is mine and belong to him ie., first plot. PW.1 admitted that there are no houses were existed and it is dilapidated. PW.1 admitted that there is a compound wall dilapidated house and said dilapidated house was purchased from his father during the year 1970-1971. PW.1 admitted that he did not filed a document to show that dilapidated house was purchased his father during the year 1970-1971. PW.1 admitted that Ragi Tree was existed in the common passage (common passage ABCD is the part of the common passage). PW.1 admitted that Ac 2.00 acres of land is situated in the name of the defendant on the southern side of the dilapidated house.

PW.1 admitted that on the southern side of the Ac.2.00 acres of land of the defendant AC 6.00 acres of land and four electrical motors was situated in his name. PW.1 admitted that to go to his land they have to take the the permission from the defendant. PW.1 admitted that fencing was made by the defendant towards south eastern of the plaintiff house. PW.1 admitted that 6 he referred a report before the Thasildar and they did not submit any report but they visited the property and gone away. He deposed that he have a ambition to construct a house in future in the dilapidated house. PW.1 admitted that apart from his plot first plot there are seven plots towards the northern side. PW.1 admitted that there is a backyard for the seven plots and there is a backyard to my plot also that is first plot. PW.1 admitted that defendant is also having plot that is fifth plot. PW.1 denied the suggestion that at the time of constructing the fifth plot no houses were situated in and around the fifth plot. PW.1 deposed that he do not know whether houses were existed in and around the fifth plot at the time of the constructing it.

He deposed that sixth plot is existed adjacent to the fifth plot and sixth plot belongs to him apart from first plot. PW.1 admitted that defendant were passing through the common passage towards his lands situated on southern side of the plot no.1. PW.1 admitted that he did not raised any objection to the defendant as he was passing through the common passage during the year 1970 to till date. PW.1 admitted that he never resided at any point of time in the dilapidated house. He deposed that previously common passage was existed from first plot to eight plot. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that previously in the common passage there is a thorny and cheeky bushes and number of trees existed so it is difficult to cross/pass through the common passage. PW.1 admitted that he did not planted any trees behind the plot no.1. He deposed that he orally instructed the defendant to remove the trees in the common passage situated behind the plot no.1 but he did not issued any notice to the defendant to remove the same. PW.1 admitted that commissioner visited the common passage. PW.1 admitted that he was aware of the fact that advocate commissioner stated in his report that there is no way from first plot to reach the common 7 passage situated behind plot no.1. PW.1 admitted that no wall was existed in the common passage. PW.1 admitted plot members two to four did not raised any objections as the defendant was passing through the common passage. PW.1 admitted that adjacent to his house fencing was made. PW.1 deposed that there is no drainage (Channel) towards east to west but drip pipes were existed in it. He deposed that he got two brothers totally three along with me. PW.1 admitted that our properties got partitioned. PW.1 deposed that the dilapidated house was not got partitioned our brothers will also may have right over the dilapidated house. PW.1 denied the suggestion that as the over the dilapidated house his brother also having right without adding them in the suit he filed a suit so the present suit is not maintained under law. PW.1 deposed that towards the western side of my plot no.1 joint properties of Surendra Naidus land was existed no document was filed

before the Hon'ble court for the same. PW.1 denied the suggestion that

towards western side of the plot no.1 to over come the fact of the boundaries of the western side the document was not filed before the

Hon'ble court with regard to the plot no.1. PW.1 denied the suggestion that

he was no way concerned relating to the behind position of the plot no.1 if he was concerned with the behind position of the plot no.1 there is a symptoms of plot no.1. PW.1 denied the suggestion that he was not having right so he did not instructed the defendant to remove the trees in the common passage. It is not true to suggest that as there is a backyard in the plot no.1 so he depose false. PW.1 admitted that on the western side to cross the southern side gate is existed. PW.1 denied the suggestion that to just the harass the defendant the suit is filed by him as he depose false.

7. The defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and he re-iterated the entire averments made in the written statement in his chief-examination.

8

D.W.1 in his cross-examination hr studied upto 10th class. D.W.1 deposed that he do not know the contents of his chief-affidavit which was filed by him through his counsel. DW.1 deposed that he do not know the contents of his written statement which was filed by him through his counsel. DW.1 admitted that he was having knowledge about the Ex.A.1 plan and he admitted that to his knowledge the plan Ex.A.1 was filed by the plaintiff was correct. DW.1 admitted that he did not filed plan along with his written statement. DW.1 admitted that in Ex.A.1 Nos.1 to 8 were houses and he admitted that No.5 shown in Ex.A.1 is his house. DW.1 admitted that there is a backyard at the back of any house. DW.1 admitted that A B C D house property belongs to the plaintiff. DW.1 admitted that ABCD house property is situated behind the house of the plaintiff. DW.1 admitted that towards southern side of the ABCD property his land is situated. DW.1 admitted that he also raised a fencing around my property. DW.1 admitted that he also installed a main gate to pass to his land. DW.1 admitted that himself and his vehicles will pass through and going through the main gate to his land or for any other purposes. DW.1 admitted that advocate commissioner also visited the suit schedule property and also drawn a plan. DW.1 admitted that in the commissioner report main gate was also shown. DW.1 admitted that throney and cheeky bushes were existed in common backyard X.1 and X.3. DW.1 admitted that ABCD property is a dilapidated property of the plaintiff. DW.1 admitted that on the back side of the ABCD property wall with stones was constructed and ravi tree was also in existence and he admitted that the said Ravi tree was also existed on the back side of the ABCD property.

DW.1 admitted that on 29.8.2016 plaintiff gave a report Ex.A.2 against him

before the Tahsildar. DW.1 denied the suggestion that for the same

allegation against him, he used the political influence. He deposed that 9 since 100 years he was cutting the branches of the ravi tree and he did not obtained permission from the revenue authorities for cutting the branches of the Ravi tree. DW.1 admitted that he did not filed document to show that

X.1 and X.2 belongs to him. DW.1 denied the suggestion that in the absence of the plaintiff he occupied the disputed property and he managed the same with the influence of the political leaders so at this instance the plaintiff filed the suit against him. DW.1 admitted that public including him were having right to pass through the common backyard. DW.1 admitted that he did not filed any document to show that common backyard is in his possession. DW.1 denied the suggestion that he was having right over the disputed property and he illegally occupied the same and no easement right was there in favour of him. DW.1 denied the suggestion that disputed property was occupied by him by using the political influence so he was entitled to deliver the possession to the plaintiff.

8.The Hon'ble Court appointed Advocate commissioner in

I.A No.190/2016. The Advocate commissioner was examined as C.W.1 and he deposed that he visited the suit scheduled property on 26.02.2017. After giving notices to concerned advocates filed Ex.C1 Commissioner

Report,Ex.C2 Advocate Commissioner Plan, Ex.C3 CD along with the photos and Ex.C4 Work Memo given by the plaintiff. The advocate commissioner/C.W.1 admitted that after visiting the suit scheduled property he filed the above mentioned documents ie., Ex.C1 to Ex.C4. C.W.1 admitted that he have taken photographs in the presence of both parties and the concerned advocates at the time of visiting the suit scheduled property as an advocate commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner/C.W.1 in his cross- examination deposed that he was appointed as a advocate commissioner in this suit on behalf of the plaintiff. The advocate commissioner/C.W.1 10 admitted that the plaint scheduled house is completely dilapidated house.

C.W.1 admitted that as per his report there is no existence of the exit gate at the western side of the dilapidated house. He deposed that on four sides ie., on east, west, north, south four walls are existed in the dilapidated house and on towards eastern side there is a way. There is no way to pass the backyard of the dilapidated house. C.W.1 deposed that he mentioned boundaries of the suit scheduled property in his commissioner report. C.W.1 deposed that he did not asked the plaintiff to submit the document for the dilapidated house. C.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether the eight houses is having backyard separately but there is a common way towards western side of all the houses. C.W.1 admitted that throney bushes was existed in the common backyard and common way also. He deposed that it is very difficult to pass through common backyard throney bushes existed.

C.W.1 admitted that towards southern side of the suit scheduled property defendant land is existed and situated. C.W.1 admitted that towards southern side of the suit scheduled property gate is existed to go to the defendant land. C.W.1 admitted that large trees were existed in the suit scheduled property and he do not know to whom the large trees belongs to.

C.W.1 denied the suggestion that the existence of physical features mentioned in the suit scheduled property was not shown in the commissioner plan.

9. Point for consideration:

Issue No.1:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of

mandatory injunctions as prayed for?

The learned counsel for plaintiff argued that there are eight plots and plaint plan Ex.A.1 clearly reveals the same and plot No.1 belongs to plaintiff. He further argued that as per Ex.A.1 the defendant encroached 11 property and the defendant closed the A X1, X2, B and put up fencing and the

Ex.A.1 plaint plan clearly reveals the same. He also argued that defendant clearly admitted on eastern side main road is existed and the report of the

Advocate Commissioner also clearly reveals the same. He also argued that there is a rasta leading to the land of the defendant.

10.The learned counsel for plaintiff further argued that easement rights arise when a person is in possession about 30 years and in the meantime the defendant did not filed any document to show that the property belongs to defendant and defendant did not filed any document to show that the property belongs to defendant and defendant did not filed any plan also. He also argued that in the absence of plaintiff the defendant encroached in the property and removed the fencing in that property. He also argued that P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that block No.1 belongs to him, counsel did not put any suggestion for the same to PW.1 in his cross-examination. He further argued that Ravi tree is existed and same tree belongs to Government and the defendant also admitted that backyards are existed from block No.1 to block No.8. He also argued that 1st belongs to plaintiff here Advocate Commissioner was examined as C.W. 1 in this suit and the report of the Advocate Commissioner clearly reveals the same and

ABCD Commissioner plan is encroached site. He further argued that gate in – shape was put up for purpose of defendant and the report of Advocate

Commissioner clearly reveals the same.

11.The learned counsel for plaintiff further argued that photos were also filed by Advocate Commissioner in this case, for that the defendant did not filed any objections in reply to report of Advocate Commissioner. He also 12 argued that only the defendant got examined as D.W.1, no single document got marked on behalf of defendant except the oral evidence. He further argued that defendant admitted that plan Ex.A.1 filed by plaintiff is correct and he further admitted that I did not filed any plan along with my written statement.

12.The learned counsel for defendant argued that coming to burden of proof lies on plaintiff to prove that he was perfected his right and title over suit schedule property. He further argued that in this case plaintiff has not filed any single document to show that he got right and title and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. He also argued that if any document filed by the plaintiff then burden of proof lies on defendant to prove that document filed by plaintiff is irrelevant. The learned counsel for defendant further argued that P.W.1 stated that father purchased the suit.

Property in a dilapidated condition in the year, 1971 but he did not filed any document to prove the same. He further argued that P.W.1 deposed that there are backyards for the 7 blocks and similarly to my block also, it means that they are backyards within houses/blocks. So there is a common backyard and the same is invented for the purpose of suit. He also argued that D.W.1 stated that Advocate Commissioner mentioned in his report that there is no way to reach the common passage and there is no exit on western side.

13.P.W.1 deposed that there were eight plots in the suit schedule property as per Ex.A.1/plaint plan and he deposed that it is true that there is a compound wall dilapidated house and said dilapidated house was purchased from my father during the year 1970-1971. P.W.1 also deposed 13 that he preferred a report before the Tahsildar and they did not submit any report but they visited the property and gone away. Even though D.W.1 examined he also supported the version of P.W.1 and by stating that it is true to my knowledge Ex.A.1/ plaint plan which was filed by plaintiff was correct. And he further deposed that it is true that I did not filed plan along with my written statement. D.W.1 clearly admitted that ABCD house property belongs to the plaintiff and he also admitted that it is true that

ABCD property is a dilapidated property of the plaintiff. The Advocate

Commissioner was examined as C.W.1 also supports the version of P.W.1 and

D.W.1 by stating that suit schedule property shown as ABCD in my plan. The present condition ABCD of the portion as mentioned in the commissioner plan is vacant site with mango, banana, sandal wood tree and trunk peapal tree in side ABCD portion. Ex.A.1 and A.2 which was filed by plaintiff also supports the version of the P.w.1 the Advocate Commissioner report also supports the version of P.W.1. No single document was filed by the defendant to prove his case. Plaintiff proved his case by adducing oral and documentary evidence. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

14. Issue No.2: To What relief ?

In view of findings of Issue No.1 the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered.

15.In the result, suit is decreed with costs by declaring right of plaintiff over schedule property and by granting consequently decree for mandatory injunction of the schedule mentioned property directing the defendant to remove wire fencing all along Ax1x2 B highhandedly put up by 14 him and root out the teak plant, 3 mango trees and plantain tree therein, remove W wicket gate as shown in plaint plan within a time fixed and if he fails to have it done to remove them through process of the court at his expenses.

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

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 28th day of June, 2019.

Sd/- J.Sowmya Josphine,

Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff: Defendant:

P.W.1 :G.Venkata SubbareddyD.W.1: K. Narasimha Reddy

Advocate commissioner:

C.W.1: G. Subbaramaiah

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : Plaint Plan

Ex.A.2 : Office copy of report given to the Thasildar dt.29.08.2016

Exhibits marked for defendant:

NIL

Exhibits marked by Advocate Commissioner/C.W.1:

Ex.C1 : Commissioner Report

Ex.C2 : Advocate Commissioner Plan

Ex.C3 : CD along with the photos

Ex.C4 :Work Memo given by the plaintiff

Sd/- J.Sowmya Josphine,

J.C.J.,

Nandalur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDALUR.

Present: Ms.J.Sowmya Josphine, B.Com., B.L.,

Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur.

Friday, this the 28 th day of June, 2019

O.S. No.102 of 2018

Bewteen:

Vangiti Venkata Ratnamma, W/o. V.Tirumala Kondiah, age 45 years, Hindu, House-wife, Mohiddin palli Village & Post, Sidhout Mandal, Y.S.R. District.

...Plaintiff.

Verses.

Obulam Sreenivasulu, S/o. Venkataiah, Pothapi village, Nandalur Mandal having died his legal representatives

Oboulam Adilakshmi, W/o. Late Sreenivasulu, aged 40 years, Hindu, House- wife, Pothapi Village & Post, Nandalur Mandal presently residing at Nagireddy palli H.W., Near Sreeramulu Temple, Nandalur Post and Mandal, Y.S.R. District.

...Defendants.

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Narasimhulu, Advocate for the plaintiff, and of

Sri Shaik Mohammed Ali, A.G.P., for the defendant and upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of Rs.2,06,964/- being the

principal and interest due on suit promissory note dated.10-05-2015

executed by the deceased defendant by name Obulam Sreenivasulu who is the husband of defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,14,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., with future interest and for costs of the suit.

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

The deceased defendant Obulam Sreenivasulu, S/o. Venkataiah 2 borrowed an amount Rs.1,14,000/- (Rupees One lakh fourteen thousands only) from the plaintiff on 10.05.2015 and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., on demand. The plaintiff made several oral demands to the deceased defendant to pay the pronote amount. The deceased paid part payment of

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) on 08.05.2017. The part payment endorsed on back side of the pronote on 08.05.2017. It is submitted that the original defendant Obulam Sreenivasulu was died leaving behind the defendant as legal heir. The plaintiff approached to the defendant to pay the pronote amount to the plaintiff. She is a attester of the said pronote and she know the borrowed pronote amount for his family necessities. It is submitted that the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant on 29.10.2018. The said legal notice served, she did not paid or respond. She is wife of deceased defendant Obulam Sreenivasulu. Hence, the Suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement stating that the plaintiff contending that in para NO.3 (b) ie., the deceased paid part payment of s.2000/- on 8.5.2017 and endorsed on back side of the pronote same on 8.5.2017. It is utterly false.Unfortunately he was already expire on 30.4.2017. IT is very astonished that how is deceased defendant come out from his grave and endorsed on 8.5.2017?. It is unnatural unbelievable and unlawful.

b) The plaintiff and deceased defendant working together for their livelihood purpose in Kuwait Arab country. They are belongs to same village.

In this connection they give and take the money transactions are in between them. In this manner the deceased defendant sum of Rs.1,14,000/- taken from the plaintiff in the Kuwait through DINARS denominations. After passing some days. They both come back to India. After plaintiff executed 3 one suit pronote by the deceased defendant worth of Rs.1,14,000/- and along with his wife’s surety witness, who is not LR defendant in this suit.

c) Later passing some days, the plaintiff demanded to repay her money to the defendant. But some circumstances defendant unable to repay the amount. The deceased defendant says that after he went to Kuwait repay the debt amount to you in Kuwait and she agreed and went away to Kuwait.

d) Further by unfate the deceased defendant affected with “ T.B and Blood Sugar”. Gradullay his health will decreasing, and he laid on the bed ridden in this connection the plaintiff heard the news in Kuwait, about the defendant who is affected with ill health and evil deceases in Kuwait.

After she rushed immediately from Kuwait to India.

e) Further the plaintiff demanded to repay her money which was executed pronote by himself. But defendant unable to repay the debt amount he urged to her give sometime to settle the amount, but the plaintiff never heard his words and kept away aside. And also she put pressure and harassed to him for settle the amount immediately likewise the deceased defendant could not bare her harassments. After while even he wa lying on bed, however he gather and received the amount from other sources and yhe was settled the full fledged debt amount to the plaintiff. After receiving the debt amount the plaintiff said that “ The suit pronote was kept away in my house”. So “I return the suit pronote immediately the next day without fail. But intentionally she went to Kuwait without any informing to the deceased defendant. From that onwards she never return the suit pronote to deceased defendant or his wife. The defendant so many times requested though phone and orally to the plaintiffs relatives also to return the suit pronote. But till yet she never return it.

f) In mean while the family problem and allegations arose 4 between the plaintiff and defendant. Subsequently by the unfate, gradually decreasing the health of deceased defendant and he laid on bed ridden with effect of evil decease, after while unfortunately he passed away to heaven on 30.04.2017. After expired of deceased defendant his wife become a bread winner of her family and she having a two children with blessing of her husband.

g) When the deceased defendant laying a bed ridden suffering from evil deceased for the treatment expenditure purposes she take a

Rs.2,00,000/- from one Madapuri Varalakshmi, W/o. Madapuri Ramanaiah.

After her husband expired, she mortgaged un registered deed to the suit schedule property to same one on 20.11.2017. Hence, the facts of the case of the plaint a) It is submitted that the contention of the plaintiff in para

No.3 (c) (d) (e) are all false. The deceased defendant already paid the suir pronote amount to the plaintiff but she never return and handover the suit pronote to the defendant. b) the defendant send a reply notice to the plaintiffs counsel with all required contents on 6.11.2018. The defendant submits that the plaintiff with Barratrous mindset and wreak revenge against the defendant with vengeance, she filed the suit only to get wrongful gain. The defendant submits that the suit pronote is forged one and defendant fabricted to mortal suit pronote with the help of her henchman by attesting the same to give the immortalize to the suit pronote.the deceased defendant never endorsed on the back of the suit pronote on 8.5.2017 unfortunately the deceased defendant already expired with evil decease on 30.04.2017. Although the suit pronote is already barred over by limitation period as per the “The limitation Act 1963” ie., the period over laps from 190.5.2015 to 10.5.2018. Hence the suit is not maintainable. It is submitted that the schedule property already mortgaged with amount of Rs.2 lakhs by 5 un registered deed. On Madapuri Vara Lakshmi, W/o. Ramaiah ddt.

20.11.2017 . The plaintiff was hidden and suppressed all the facts of the case she done the wrongful way methods and fabricated, cheated the deceive to the Hon’ble Court and obtained the favourable orders from the

Hon’ble Court in I.A.No.337/2018 and it is further submitted that the suit

pronote is immortal document one. It is alleged one and create forgery one.

So that respondent is ready to sent alleged suit pronote for expert opinion to examine the signature of the deceased defendant on pronote and planted signature of the deceased defendant for just decision of this Hon’ble Court.

However seems it may be pursuance it any ways as per law the suit is not maintainable as per law. There is no cause of action and balance of convenience for the suit one alleged in the plaint is utter false hood and it is created by the plaintiff for the purpose of the suit only. The suit is filed by the plaintiff is barred under law to file the suit only for intended to grab the deceased defendants suit schedule property. Hence, there is no cause of action arise in the suit. In the above said circumstances it is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs in the interest of justice, otherwise the defendant will put to gross injustice, irreparable loss and hardship.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were framed.

i) Whether the Suit promissory note is executed by the

deceased defendant in favour of the plaintiff during his life time?

ii) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit

amount from the defendant as prayed for ?

iv) To what relief ?

5.To prove his case the plaintiff got examined as PW.1 and got 6 marked Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.4. On behalf defendant, defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2

6. PW.1 filed her chief-affidavit by re-iterating the entire averments made in the plaint and got marked Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.4.Ex.A1 Suit promissory note date 10.05.2015 of Rs.1,14,000/- executed by the deceased defendant

Obulam Sreenivasulu in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2 Pro-note endorsement

dated 08.05.2017 of Rs.2000/-. Ex.A3 Office copy of legal notice dated

28.10.2018 with postal receipt. Ex.A4 Served postal acknowledgement.

P.W.1 in her cross-examination deposed that I am residing at Nagireddipalli village. Again the witness adds that I am residing at Mohiddin palli village.

I am a house wife. It is true that frequently I am going to Kuwait and returning from Kuwait. I know deceased defendant by name Obulam

Sreenivasulu. And it is true that during his life time the deceased defendant also went to Kuwait and it is true that I got acquaintance with the deceased defendant at Kuwait. No financial transaction taken place between the deceased defendant husband with me. I gave 500 Kuwait Diners to the deceased defendant during his life time at Kuwait. It is true that I know the fact that deceased defendant is suffering with ill-health during his life time.

It is true that due to ill-health the deceased defendant returned from Kuwait later I also returned from Kuwait. It is true that deceased defendant executed a bond I.e Ex.A1 in India for the 500 Kuwait Dinars at the time of executing the bond the 500 Kuwait diners value worth of Rs.1,14,000/- in

India. The bond I.e Ex.A1 was executed on 10.05.2015. Obulam

Adilakshumma who is the deceased defendant wife, Nagabushnam acted as a attester for the said bond I.e Ex.A1. It is true that after the completion of the bond I.e Ex.A1 transaction I left India and went to Kuwait and again 7 after that I came to India. It is true that after I returned to India as the defendant is fallen in ill-health during that stage also I requested the deceased defendant for the payment of the amount but I did not I raised the galata with the deceased defendant. It is not true to suggest that as I raised the galata with the deceased defendant for the payment of the amount so for this reason the deceased defendant discharged the debt to me on the next day of the galata. It is not true to suggest that after receiving the debt I told to the deceased defendant that the bond was with me and I hand over the bond to the deceased defendant. It is not true to suggest that as the bond

I.e Ex.A1 is going to barred by limitation on the date 10.05.2018 keeping in view the same I only forged the signatures of the attester's, deceased defendant husband. On the request of me the deceased defendant made a part payment to me by paying the amount of Rs.2000/- and the endorsement made on the Ex.A2 I.e endorsement. And part payment was made by the deceased defendant to me on 08.05.2017. It is true that after that I came to know about the death of the deceased defendant by some others. I cannot say the date of the death of the deceased defendant. It is not true to suggest that the deceased defendant died on 30.04.2017 and the document

I.e death certificate also clearly reveals that. I know Madapuri Ramanaiah.

I do not know whether Madapuri Ramanaiah gave an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- to the deceased defendant wife by name Obulam Adilakshmi on 20.11.2017 transaction relating to the mortgage of the deceased defendant wife site. It is not true to suggest that the deceased defendant wife already paid the amount to me and the Obulam Adilakshmi already borrowed an amount from the Modapuri Ramanaiah so Obulam Adilakshmi is not having the right over the said site and Modapuri Ramanaiah is his having the right over the said site as the deceased defendant wife failed to 8 discharged the mortgage debt which was due to the Modapuri Ramanaiah.

It is not true to suggest that on the same site by mis representing the

Hon'ble court I obtained attachment orders In IA No.337/2018. It is not

true to suggest that by filing the fake documents I obtained attachment orders by mis representing the Hon'ble court and after the demise of the deceased defendant I fraudulently show in the endorsement on the promissory note I,e Ex.A2 but the deceased defendant expired on 30.04.2017.

7. The defendant herself was examined as D.W.1 and she re-iterated the entire averments made in the written statement in his chief-examination and got marked Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2. Ex.1 is the death certificate issued through mee seva by E.O Nagireddipalli Panchayathi. Ex.B2: 06.11.2018 reply notice to the plaintiff counsel. D.W.1 in his cross-examination I studied up to

Intermediate and I am not working as a employee. I know the plaintiff/PW1 in this suit, since 5 to 10 years. It is true that Ex.A1 was executed by me in favour of the PW1 as myself and my husband borrowed amount from the plaintiff/PW1. It is true that I acted as a attester in respect of transaction of

Ex.A1. It is true that as my self and my husband borrowed amount from the

PW1 so that PW1 demanded myself and my husband for the repayment of the amount for several times. After several demands made by the PW1 I paid the amount to the PW1. During the life time of my husband I paid the amount to the PW1 in the year 2016. I do not know the contents of my written statement. The PW1 several times raised a galata with me and I did not preferred a complaint against the PW1 for the said galata as the same was raised by her. The main reason for raising the galata with me of the repayment of the amount. As I made the repayment to the PW1 I did not received the promissory note from the PW1. The witness adds that 9 unfortunately I paid the amount to the PW1 and without informing us and without hand over the promissory note she left India and went Kuwait. I gave a complaint in the year September, 2017 against the PW1 for return of the promissory note but I did not issued lawyer notice to the PW1 for the same. It is true that I did not mentioned the same in the chief-affidavit and

I did not filed the copy of the complaint before that Hon'ble Court. It is not true to suggest that I did not made any repayment to the PW1 as I am deposing the false. It is true that panchayathi held between me and the

PW1 but I am unable to say the date of panchayathi and who were present in the panchayathi and same was not mentioned in my chief-affidavit. It is true that I executed a mortgage in favour of Madapuri Varalakshmi for an amount of (Rs.2,00,000/-) rupees two lakhs and same was registered. It is true that I am having knowledge about the difference between registered and un-registered. It is true that attached property was in my possession and enjoyment. It is true that as I executed a mortgage in favour of

Modapuri Varalakshmi is a un-registered one. It is not true to suggest that with a view to escape from the attachment and any other transactions this mortgage was created by me. The witness says that since from the date of returning from Kuwait my husband fallen ill-health and he is undergoing treatment at Madhu Diabetic at Rajampet. It is true that Deepathi Diabetic hospital is situated at Aravapalli not in Nagireddipalli village. As my husband got expired he was buried at Pothapi village and he is resident of the same village. It is not true to suggest that as my husband got expired on 30.04.2017 in Madhu Diabetic hospital, Rajampet. My husband died in the Deepathi Diabetic hospital. It is true that it is mentioned in the Ex.B1 that my husband got expired in the house D.No.9/59 at Nagireddipalli village. It is not true to suggest that as my husband got expired in the 10 hospital, Rajampet as Ex.B1 was created. It is not true to suggest that my husband did not expired on 30.04.2017 but got expired on 12.05.2017 at

Madhu Diabetic hospital, Rajampet. It is not true to suggest that generally the death certificate of death person was issued where the death person dies and one month time has been taken to issue the death certificate with in two days I secure the death certificate of my husband so same was created by one vilakari by name Ravi. It is not true to suggest that with a view to evade the amount and my husband made part payment under Ex.A2 and my husband put the signature on it my presence at my instance as I am deposing false.

8. Point for consideration:

For the sake of convenience Issue No.1 to 3 are clubbed together.

The learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the original borrower died so the plaintiff filed suit against the LR’s of the deceased defendant. He further argued that before filing of the suit that Ex.A.1 is executed by the deceased defendant in favour of the plaintiff and the wife of deceased defendant attested the promissory note Ex.A.1. He further argued that promissory note Ex.A.1 is admitted and once it is admitted that the promissory note Ex.A.1 by the defendant these admissions cannot be proved.

9.The learned counsel for plaintiff further argued that the deceased defendant paid Rs.2000/- dt.08.05.2017 and endorsed the same on the back of the promissory note Ex.A.1 and he further argued that defendant admitted that plaintiff P.W.1 approached him for repayment of the amount and she taken the plea that she discharged the amount. He further argued that in the cross-examination of D.W.1 it is clearly stated that original defendant died in the hospital but the death certificate Ex.B.1 clearly 11 reveals that the deceased defendant died in Nagireddy palli village. Further the counsel for plaintiff argued that so Ex.B.2 is a created one. And he also argued that no date and time was mentioned in the death certificate and to obtain death certificate 21 days time will be taken and within one day how the death certificate will be issued and it is impossible to issue death certificate Ex.B.1 without conducting enquiry and after following the procedure. He further argued that as per the evidence of DW.1 the burden lies on defendant to prove that the death certificate of the deceased defendant that Ex.B.1 is genuine or forged one. He also argued that the defendant taken plea that property was sold and mortgaged so this mortgage transaction was not maintainable. He argued that defendants admitted the promissory note amount under Ex.A.1 but did not admitted part payment and he argued that previously the defendant is in Kuwait as per Sec.73 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the Hon’ble Court is having power to compare the signature.

10.The counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant executing the promissory note Ex.A.1 in favour of the PW.1 is correct. He further argued that and the plaintiff promised to return the pronote till date she never return the suit promissory note Ex.A.1. He further argued that the deceased defendant died on 30.04.2017. The plaintiff contention is that the deceased defendant died in the hospital but the deceased defendant died in the Nagireddy palli village and the Ex.B.1 clearly reveals the same. And generally where any person died in any place at that place of the death only death certificate will be issued. He further argued that learned counsel for plaintiff argued that on 08.05.2017 the deceased defendant made a part payment of Rs.2000/- and endorsed the same for the same the learned counsel for the defendant argued that already the deceased defendant died 12 on 30.4.2017 then how the deceased defendant can make part payment on 8.05.2017 it is impossible how the deceased defendant will come out from the grave. And he further argued that she executed mortgaged deed for

Rs.2,00,000/- and the plaintiff hidden and suppressed all these facts. He also argued that as per Death and Birth registration Act death certificate can be issued at any time.

11.P.W.1 clearly deposed in her evidence that he gave 500 Kuwait dinars to the deceased defendant during his life time at Kuwait and he also admitted that the deceased defendant executed a bond ie., Ex.A.1 in India for the 500 Kuwait dinars. And she also deposed that deceased defendant wife acted as a attestor with regard to the transaction of Ex.A.1. D.W.1 also having acquaintance with the P.W.1 and she admitted the same in her evidence. D.W.1 clearly admitted that she acted as a ttesor in respect of transaction of Ex.A.1 and she further admitted that myself and my husband borrowed an amount from P.W.1 so to that effect P.W.1 demand myself and my husband for the repayment of the amount for several times. As the defendants version is that she paid the amount to the P.w.1 in the year 2016.After that D.W.1 deposed that P.W.1 raised galata for several times with her and even though she did not preferred a complaint against P.W.1 for the said galata. As the main crucial point in this suit is whether the deceased defendant borrowed an amount during his life time or not and the same was admitted by the defendant/D.W.1 by stating that myself and my husband borrowed an amount from the P.W.1 so the second point whether the deceased defendant made a part payment on 8.5.2017 is not an important aspect because the DW.1 clearly admitted that we borrowed an amount from the P.W.1. So it is clearly proved and Ex.A.1 clearly reveals the same and no need to prove the same. Primary instances of the suit was proved by the 13 plaintiff accordingly Issues No.1 to 3 were answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

12. Issue No.4:- To what relief ?

In view of findings of Issue No.1 to 3 the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.2,06,964/- from the defendant with future interest and costs as prayed for.

14.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.2,06,964/- from the assets of the deceased defendant Obulam Sreenivasulu, S/o. Venkataiah who is husband of defendant with future interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till realization of the amount on the principal amount of

Rs.1,14,000/-.

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

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 28th day of June, 2019.

Sd/- J.Sowmya Josphine,

Junior Civil Judge,

Nandalur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff: Defendant:

P.W.1 :V. Venkata Ratnamma D.W.1: O. Adi Lakshmi

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : Suit promissory note date 10.05.2015 of Rs.1,14,000/- executed by the deceased defendant Obulam Sreenivasulu in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2: Pro-note endorsement dated 08.05.2017 of Rs.2000/-.

Ex.A3: Office copy of legal notice dated 28.10.2018 with postal receipt.

Ex.A4:Served postal acknowledgement.

14

Exhibits marked for defendant:

Ex.B1:03.05.2017 death certificate issued through mee seva by E.O

Nagireddipalli Panchayathi.

Ex.B2: 06.11.2018 reply notice to the plaintiff counsel

Sd/- J.Sowmya Josphine,

J.C.J.,

Nandalur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

NANDALUR

PRESENT: Ms.J.Sowmya Josphine, B.Com., B.L.,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

NANDALUR

FRIDAY, THIS THE 28 th DAY OF JUNE, 2019.

C.C.No.64/2019

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandalur P.S.,

….. Complainant

Vs

1. Mallaraju Subbarayudu @ Vempati Subbarayudu @ Mallaraju Raji, S/o. Gangulaiah, age 36 years, Occ: Coolie (A.1)

2. Mallaraju Lakshumma, W/o. Gangaulaaih, age 60 years, Occ: House-Wife, Both are residence of Erraballi street, Opposite RTC bus stand, Rajampet town and both are caste by Rajaka.

…..Accused

This calendar case is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 28-06-2019 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State and of Accused/A.1 and A.2 were present in person, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandalur Police Station laid charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.234/2018 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.498-A r/w. 34 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.

2. The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet, in brief, are as follows:-

The complainant/L.W.1/ Mallaraju Tulasi, W/o. Subbarayudu is a 2 resident of Yaraballi, Rajampet town. During the year 2009 L.W.1 got married with

Subbarayudu of Rajampet as per their rites and customs in the presence of both side elders. Her husband is working in Kuwait country. They have three children. On 01.09.2018, Saturday her husband and aunty both were trying to kill her and her children with iron rods while time she escaped from them along with her children, went to RTC bus stand, Rajampet, called to her mother. Then her mother and father both came to Rajampet town, returned to home along with daughter and children.

Her aunty was harassing every day. Her husband was in Kuwait country. So she did not disclose others about harassment. Her aunty tried to kill her more time by pouring kerosene over her, but she escaped from her. Her aunty threatened her as take dowry amount from her father. Her husband returned home from Kuwait country, heard her mother words and harassed her. Recently he came to her father house and took Rs.16,45,838/- and 26 tulas of gold which was earned by himself in Kuwait country in the presence of mediators. Further her husband harassed her.

On 01.09.2018 at 6.30 p.m., her husband and aunty both closed the door and tried to kill her meantime she escaped from them and went to RC bus stand, Rajampet town along with her children. On the same night at 8.30 p.m., her husband went to

Kuwait country. They threatened her as any one come to his home, they will kill them. She requested to take necessary action against the accused and do justice.

Basing on the strength of the report, L.W.11/HC-286 of Nandalur P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.234/2018 U/Sec. 498 (A), 307 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act of

Nandalur PS issued FIR and submitted copies of FIRs to all concerned officers and took up investigation. During the course of investigation L.W.1 recorded the statement of L.Ws.1 to 3 U/Sec. 161 (3) Cr.PC., statements. Later L.W.12/SI of police Nandalur P.S., took up further investigation into this case. During the course of investigation on 13.09.2018, L.W.12 secured the presence of L.Ws.1 to 7/M.Tulasi, K. Venkataiah, K. Vijaya, G.Umamaheswara Reddy @ Babulareddy, P.

Sivasankara Reddy, M. Ramu and P.Sudarshan Reddy and recorded their statements of L.Ws.4 to 7. On 20.9.2018, LW.12 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. At the scene of offence, L.W.12 examined L.Ws.8 to 10/M. Venkateswarulu,C.Ramanaiah and L.Penchalaraju and recorded their 3 stated. At the scene L.W.12 seized money transaction details which sent by the accused A.1 to his wife and uncle under cover of police proceedings. Basing on the details of money transaction the accused A.1 has sent an amount of Rs.38,00,000/- to bank account of L.W.1 who is his wife and his in laws.

b) Basing on the evidence of witnesses, material collected during investigation disclosed that the complainant L.W.1 is a resident of Yarraballi,

Rajampet town. During the year 2009 L.W.1 got married with A1 as per their rites and customs in the presence of both side elders. Accused A.1 who is the husband of

L.W.1 has been working as a driver in Kuwait country. During her marital life with

A.1, L.W.1 blessed with three children. Accused A1 have two brothers and they are living jointly. The L.W.1 is also living with them along with her children. While accused A.1 was in Kuwait country he sent some money to his wife L.W.1 and her family members through Canara bank. L.W.2 who is the father of L.W.1 and uncle of accused A.1 has purchased 26 tulas gold to L.W.1 by using accused A.1 send amount and kept remaining amount Rs.16,45,838/- in his hand. Prior two months ago to the occurrence of offence, accused A.1 came to his native Rajampet from

Kuwait country. Recently the accused A.1 constructing a house in Rajampet town with thee support of his family members. So that accused A.1 asked L.W.2 about money which was sent by him to L.Ws.1 and 2, but formerly the L.W.2 disagree to give money to A.1. Then accused A.1 went to the house of L.Ws.1 and 2 along with

Lws.4 to 7 who are the mediators. During negotiations LW.2 agreed to give money to his son in law (A.1) and given gold and cash to his son in law (A.1) on condition that A.1 shall make open a bank account in the names of A.1 and L.W.1, and deposit the cash and gold in that bank account and L.W.2. Later the accused A.1 handover entire money and gold to A.2 who is the mother of A.1 for constructing house in Rajampet town. Then ill feelings raised in between the accused and L.W.1 and both the accused A.1 and A.2 were harassed LW.1 physically and mentally and also pressurized L.W.1 by ways of physically and mentally to bring additional dowry from her parents house. Further on 1.09.2018 accused A.1 was beat the

L.W1, due to which she removed her gold ornaments and kept them in her husband house and left the house without informing to her husband (A.1). After noticing 4

L.W.1 has gone from the house, accused A.1 searching for L.W.1, he noticed L.W.1 at RTC bus stand along with L.W.2. Then the accused called his wife (L.W.1) to come back to home, but she refused to go to home and went along with LW.2. As per the evidence of witnesses, material evidence collected during the investigation disclosed that the accused A.1 and A.2 did not made any attempts to kill the L.W.1.

Thereby guilty of offence U/Sec. 307 IPC against he accused was not established.

L.W.12 informed to L.W.1 and her family members about this case and deletion of the Sec.307IPC. On that LW.1 accepted and wrote a letter to the L.W.12. During the course of investigation L.W.12 sent proposals to the Sub Divisional Police officer,

Rajampet requesting to accord permission to delete Sec307 IPC into this case.

Accordingly the Sub Divisional Police officer, Rajampet who perused the investigation, issued proceedings vide RC.No.242/SDPO-RJPT/18, dt.31.12.2018 permitting to deleter sec.307 IPC in to this case. Thus the accused A.1 and A.2 were harassed L.W.1 both physically and mentally and also pressurized L.W.1 both physically and mentally to bring additional dowry from her partental house and caused physical and mental agony to L.W.1. There by the accused A.1 and A.2 are liable to punish U/Sec. 498 (A) IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 DP Act. Hence, the

CHARGE.

3. Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offences under Sec. 498-A r/w. 34 IPC and sec.3 & 4 of DP Act against the accused/A.1 and A.2.

4. On appearance of A.1 and A.2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.A1 and A.2 were examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Charges under

Sec.498-A r/w. 34 IPC and sec.3 & 4 of DP Act have been framed against A.1 and

A.2 and the contents of the said charges were read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.4 wer examined and did not supported the case of the prosecution turned hostile and

Exs.P.1 to P.4 were got marked.

5

7.As there is nothing incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against accused, the examination of accused under Sec.313

Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

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

9. The point germane for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution could able to establish guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A r/w.34 IPC and sec.3 & 4 of DP Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:

The prosecution in order to establish its case against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.4. P.W.1/Complaiant turned hostile to the case of the prosecution deposed that her marriage was performed with accused no.1 about 10 years back at Nandalur as per Hindu rites and customs.

Immediately after the marriage she went to Rajampet with accused no.1 to join the conjugal life and accused no.2 who is her mother in law also lived together. P.W.1 deposed that during their wed lock she gave birth to 3 children ie., 2 male children and one female child. P.W.1 deposed that about 9 months back there is trivial disputes arose between her and the accused no.1 on that she went to her parents house at Nandalur. She deposed that elders pacified the matter between her and the accused no.1 and 2. P.W.1 deposed that at present she was living with the accused no.1 who is her husband at Rajampet. P.W.1 deposed that at the time of mediation the elders obtained her signature on a written paper and she do not know the contents of the written paper. Witness identified her signature on the report, dated 11.09.2018. Ex.P1 is the signature of the PW1 on report dated 11.09.2018. P.W.1 deposed that police never examined her and the accused never harassed me and never demanded me for additional dowry. At this stage the Learned Asst., Public

Prosecutor sought permission to declared the witness as hostile has she turned adverse to her statement, Hence permission is accorded. P.W.1 in her cross- examination denied the suggestion that as she stated before the police as in her 161 6

Cr.P.C statement. Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that she depose false evidence to help the accused as she compromised with the accused and living along with them.

11.P.W.2 who turned hostile to the case of the prosecution deposed that his daughter/PW1 marriage was performed with accused no.1 about 10 years back at Nandalur as per Hindu rites and customs. Immediately after the marriage she went to Rajampet with accused no.1 to join the conjugal life and accused no.2 who is the mother of accused also lived together with them. He deposed that during their wed lock PW1 gave birth to 3 children I.e 2 male children and 1 female child. He deposed that about 9 months back there is trivial disputes arose between PW1 and the accused no.1, on that PW1 came to my house at Nandalur. He deposed that elders pacified the matter between PW1 and the accused no.1 and 2. He deposed that at present PW1 is living with the accused no.1. at Rajampet. He deposed that police never examined him. P.W2 deposed that the accused never harassed PW1 and never demanded PW1 for additional dowry. At this stage the Learned Asst.,

Public Prosecutor sought permission to declared the witness as hostile has he turned adverse to his statement, Hence permission is accorded. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that as he stated before the police as in her 161 Cr.P.C statement. Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that he depose false evidence to help the accused as they compromised with the accused, as PW1 living along with accused.

12.P.W.3 who also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution deposed that her daughter/PW1 marriage was performed with accused no.1 about 10 years back at Nandalur as per Hindu rites and customs. Immediately after the marriage she went to Rajampet with accused no.1 to join the conjugal life and accused no.2 who is the mother of accused also lived together with them. P.W.3 deposed that during their wed lock PW1 gave birth to 3 children i.e 2 male children and 1 female child. P.w.3 deposed that about 9 months back there is trivial disputes arose between PW1 and the accused no.1, on that PW1 came to my house at Nandalur.

7

He deposed that elders pacified the matter between PW1 and the accused no.1 and

2. P.W.3 deposed that at present PW1 is living with the accused no.1. at Rajampet.

She deposed that police never examined him. P.W2 deposed that the accused never harassed PW1 and never demanded PW1 for additional dowry. At this stage the

Learned Asst., Public Prosecutor sought permission to declared the witness as hostile has she turned adverse to his statement, Hence permission is accorded.

P.W.2 denied the suggestion that as she stated before the police as in her 161 Cr.P.C statement. Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. P.W.3 denied the suggestion that he depose false evidence to help the accused as they compromised with the accused, as PW1 living along with accused.

13.The evidence of P.W.1/ victim and P.W.2 and PW.3 are parents of

P.W.1 who were examined in this case turned hostile and did not supported the case of the prosecution as they compromised with accused/A.1 and A.2. Hence, the learned A.P.P. given up the evidence of L.Ws.4 to L.W.12 as the P.Ws.1 to 3 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and as they compromised with the accused.

14. In view of the above discussion, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the charge U/Sec498-A r/w. 34IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

15In the result, accused/A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec498-A r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of A.1 and A.2 shall be in force for six months under Sec.437A Cr.P.C. The un-marked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 28th day of June, 2019.

Sd/- J.Sowmya Josphine,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

NANDALUR.

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 M Tulasi -NONE-

P.W.2 K.Venkataiah

P.W.3 K.Vijaya

Exhibits marked for Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on report dt.11.09.2018.

Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1

Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2

Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3

Exhibits marked for Defence: NIL

Material objects marked: NIL

Sd/- J.Sowmya Josphine,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

NANDALUR.

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur

Case No. :PRC/0000002/2019 Inspector of Police Vs Are Venkata Subbaiah

Date : 28-06-2019

Business: Accused called present, sureties produced. Committal order pronounced (Vide separate order) in open court. In the result, this case is committed to the Honble District and Sessions Judge&amp#039s Court, Kadapa as per provision u/Sec.209(a) of Cr.P.C., and accused stated that he have got sufficient means to engage an advocate to defend their case. The office is directed to submit the entire case record. The documents and the material objects if any to the court of Honble District and Sessions Judges Court, Kadapa U/S.209(c) Cr.P.C., and notify the committal of the case to the Public Prosecutor, Kadapa contemplated U/S.209(d) Cr.P.C. Accused is hereby directed to appear after receipt of summons from the Honble District and

Sessions Judges Court, Kadapa.

Nature of Disposal: COMMITTED TO SESSIONS Disposal Date: 28-06-2019 Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur

Case No. :OS/0000056/2021 Katta Ramaiah Vs G.Prasad and 5 others

Date : 14-07-2021

Business: At this stage learned counsel for plaintiff filed not press memo on behaif of the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff and the defendant have settled this case amicably

before the elders in the village and as such the plaintiff

is not pressing this suit as settled out of court and same was recorded in the interest of justice Hence the suit is dismissed as not pressed by the learned counsel for plaintiff on filing the not press memo. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED Disposal Date: 14-07-2021 Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur