K.bhanu

APAN160001732014

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: KALYANDURG.

Present: KATAM BHANU,

Civil Judge(Junior Division), Kalyandurg.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 08th DAY OF MAY, 2026

O.S.38 of 2014

Between:

G.Gopal, S/o Golla Narayanappa, aged about 43 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Ontimiddi Village, Kalyandurg Mandal. … Plaintiff

And

Anandappagari Yerriswamy, S/o Yerriswamy, aged about 46 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Ontimiddi Village, Kalyandurg Mandal. … Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 11-03-2026 in the presence of Sri B.K.Nagaraju, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri V.Krishnamurthy, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for the relief of grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and persons claiming through the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for other reliefs.

2

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

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

a)The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and he got the schedule property among other properties in the family partition took place between himself and his brothers. His father Golla Narayanappa got the schedule property among other properties under the registered gift deed, dt.10.02.1937 executed by one Donamma, W/o Golla Reddy Nagappa. The schedule property pertains to second Item in the gift deed. The donee was minor by then and he was represented by his mother Thimmakka. His father died about 30 years back, leaving behind his wife Thimmakka and four sons viz., 1)Ramakrishna; 2)Thippeswamy; 3)Gopal (plaintiff herein) and 4)Yerriswamy.

After demise of plaintiff’s father, the properties were transferred in the name of his mother G.Thimmakka by the revenue authorities as she was elder member of the family. The plaintiff and his brothers got oral partition of their family properties about eight years back. In the said partition the schedule property among other properties fallen to the share of plaintiff. As the properties stood in the name of his mother, the plaintiff obtained gift deed, dt.07.08.2006 from his mother in respect of the schedule property among other properties. After partition and since the date of execution of gift deed, the plaintiff has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, mutation also took place in the name of plaintiff in revenue records.

b)His father Golla Narayanappa and defendant’s mother Nagamma are own brother and sister. The defendant has no concern with the schedule property.

The defendant with an evil intention to occupy the schedule property has been proclaiming that he would interfere with the plaintiff’s possession over the schedule property and prevent the plaintiff in cultivation over the schedule property without having right to do so. He has purchased manure at nearby village Borampalli. The manure has to be carted into the schedule property and he has to make cultivation in the schedule property. The defendant is strong and influenced person in the village. So, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit against the defendant for the relief of grant of permanent injunction 3

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

restraining him, his men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence the suit.

4

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

3) The brief averments of the written statement is as follows:

3.a) The defendant filed his written statement by denying all the averments of plaint and except the relationship between his mother and plaintiff’s father and contended that the said Sanna Thimmakka having five sons namely 1)Narayanappa (father of plaintiff); 2)Virupakshappa; 3)Eswarappa; 4)Hampaiah and 5)Donappa and four daughters 1)Nagamma (mother of defendant); 2)Lakshmikanthamma; 3)Rathnamma; and 4)Parvathamma. After death of

Narayanappa, the said Sanna Thimmakka and her sons were orally partitioned the suit schedule property and other properties. In the said partition the land

Sy.No.267-1A to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents of Kalyandurg polam was devolved to Sanna Thimmakka. The said property is gifted to the Nagamma towards love and affection under the registered gift deed by Sanna Thimmakka in favour of

Nagamma on 23.07.1986 and delivered the same to her on the same day. The said Nagamma (mother of defendant) has been in possession and enjoyment of the Sy.No.276-1A to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents till her death. After her death, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour. He raised the crops in the said land.

3.b)The plaintiff filed the above suit against him only to create troubles with false allegations. In fact the plaintiff has filed the above suit against him only to harass with intent to grab the land in Sy.No.276-1A to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents, he is not interfering with the suit schedule property. He has no right over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff filed the unjust suit against him over the suit schedule property with an intention to occupy the land. There is no cause of action for the suit and defendant prays the Hon’ble court to dismiss the suit.

4)On hearing both sides and basing upon the pleadings of plaintiff and defendant, and the documents, the Court framed the following issues on 03.01.2020.

I) Whether the defendant is interfering with plaintiff’s lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property..?

5

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property against the defendant, as prayed for..?

III) To what relief..?

5)During the course of trial, plaintiff himself is examined as PW.1 and

Exhibits A1 to A7 are marked on behalf himself. He also examined Third party/G.Thimmarajulu and K.Thippanna as PWs.2 and 3, the evidence of PW.2 eschewed on 26.06.2025 by filing a memo through counsel. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself is examined as DW.1 and Exhibits B1 to B6 are marked on behalf himself and also examined Third parties/E.Ramesh and

Golla Yerramma as DWs2 and 3.

6)Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the written arguments filed by the defence counsel to support defendant version.

7)ThePlaintiff contention on basing of plaint to support his case got examined himself as PW.1 and filed chief affidavit in the line of plaint averments and examined as PW.1 and plaintiff witnesses filed chief affidavits and examined as PWs2 and 3, but the evidence of PW.2 is eschewed by filing a memo, dt.26.06.2025 and got marked Ex.A1 to A.7. Ex.A1-Certified copy of registered gift deed bearing doc.No.110/1937, dt.10.02.1937. It disclose that one Donamma gifted the landed properties in favour of Narayanappa, minor represented by his

Natural Guardian mother Thimmakka. Ex.A2-Original registered gift deed bearing doc.No.2427/2006, dt.07.08.2006 executed by G.Thimmakka in favour of

G.Gopal/plaintiff. It disclose that the said G.Thimmakka is being mother of plaintiff gifted the suit schedule property and other landed properties in favour of plaintiff without consideration. As per recitals of Ex.A2 the donor of plaintiff delivered possession on the same day of execution of document itself. Ex.A3

Original pattadar passbook bearing patta No.1048 stands in the name of plaintiff issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kalyandurg. Ex.A4-Form 1-B namuna (ROR), dt.24.02.2014 stands in the name of plaintiff issued by the

Tahsildar, Kalyandurg Mandal obtained through Mee-seva. Ex.A5-Pattadar 6

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

adangal/pahani for Fasali 1423, dt.24.02.2014 stands in the name of plaintiff issued by the Tahsildar, Kalyandurg Mandal obtained through Mee-seva. Ex.A6-

Certified copy of sale deed bearing doc.No.1143/1992, dt.26.05.1992 executed by Narayanappa in favour of 1)Parvathamma and 2)Papanna. It disclose that the said Narayanappa sold out the landed property in Sy.No.276 to an extent of

Ac.2.00 cents situated at Ontimiddi village polam of Kalyandurg Mandal with specific boundaries. It further disclose that the said Narayanappa has sold out the property to meet his family expenses. Ex.A7-Certified copy of Judgment in

O.S.103/2012 on the file of this Court, dt.29.11.2017. It disclose that the

defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No.103/2012 against Golla Virupakshi and 3 others and the same was dismissed for default. During cross-examination

PW.1 deposed that his father Golla Narayanappa acquired the land to an of

Ac.40.00 and odd under different survey numbers covered under Ex.A1. The name of his paternal grandmother is Thimmakka @ Chinna Thimmakka. He admitted that his mother's name also Thimmakka. His paternal grandmother

Thimmakka @ Chinna Thimmakka had five sons and four daughters. Among them, his father Narayanappa is elder one. His father was minor at the time of execution of Ex.A1. The total extent of survey number 276-1 is about Ac.40.00 and odd. The defendant is son of one Smt. Nagamma, who is none other than sister of his father Narayanappa. He further admitted that the said Thimmakka @

Chinna Thimmakka gifted Ac.4.00 of land to defendant's mother Nagamma in the year, 1986, he does not aware about the said gift executed by Thimmakka @

Chinna Thimmakka. I have been in the possession and enjoyment of the said

Ac.4.00 cents of land which is stated to be gifted by Thimmakka @ Chinna

Thimmakka, the boundaries shown in the suit schedule property are the same that of the boundaries of Ac.4.00 cents of land stated to be gifted by Thimmakka @ Chinna Thimmakka. He does not know whether the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and adangal in respect of Ac.4.00 of land in survey number 276-1A to the defendant. He has been claiming his right over Ac.4.00 cents of land in Sy.No.276-1E and he has also obtained pattadar passbook for the same extent, he is in possession and enjoyment of only to an extent of 7

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

Ac.3.24 cents of land in Sy.No.276-1E and the same is also reflected in Ex.A3 to

A5. He has been claiming right over the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A2 and obtained the revenue records in his name only by virtue of Ex.A2. The boundaries described in the suit schedule belongs to his land situated in

Sy.No.276-1E. He further admitted that about twenty members own their land in

Sy.No.276-1. He demarcated the suit schedule survey number i.e., 276-1 through the private Surveyor, but he has not filed any piece of paper regarding demarcation of his land. He further admitted that the Sy.No., of suit schedule property is 276-1E situated at Kalyandurgam for an extent of Ac.3.24 cents. As per Ex.A6 persons not parties of this suit and pertaining to Sy.No.276-1 and it is not mentioned sub-division letter. He further admitted that the defendant filed suit against his mother i.e., O.S.No.103/2012, he does not know the suit in

O.S.No.103/2012 filed restoration and same is pending in I.A.480/2018. He

denied the suggestions posed by the learned defence counsel as the sons of said Thimmakka @ Chinna Thimmakka have divided all the properties, including the properties covered under Ex.A1 during her lifetime, in order to grab the

Ac.4.00 of land in Sy.No.276-1A of defendant and he has created Ex.A2 in collusion with his mother Thimmakka by wrongly describing the suit schedule survey number and the boundaries described in the suit schedule do not belongs to Sy.No.276-1E but, they belong to the land of the defendants situated in

Sy.No.276-1A and the boundaries appearing in Sy.No.276-1A belongs to the defendant; The evidence of P.W.2 is eschewed; During cross-examination of

PW.3 stated that he knows the plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant in Sy.No. 276 for an extent of Ac.3.00 cents and he received the property from grandfather through partition among brother. He doesn't know total extent of Sy.No.276 extent is Ac. 46.84 cents. He doesn't know whether subdivision taken place in Sy.No.276. He doesn't know whether 15 numbers cultivating in Sy.No.276. He admitted that he doesn't have any land in Sy.No.276 and he is not neighboring land owner of the suit schedule property. He doesn't know grandmother name of plaintiff, but he knows the mother of plaintiff namely

Thimmakka. He doesn't know plaintiff’s mother name and his grandmother name 8

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

is same. The Narayanappa is father of plaintiff. He knows the defendant mother namely Nagamma. He doesn't know Nagamma executed gifted in favour of mother of defendant for extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.276-1A. The boundaries of suit schedule property Eastern side land belongs to Sandakka,

Western side land belongs to Parvathi, Northern side land belongs to Gopal,

Southern side is Road. Previously the suit schedule property in the possession of defendant Yerriswamy one or two years about 30 years back and presently is not in possession. He doesn't know defendant received property after death of his mother. The plaintiff’s present age is 45 years. The defendant present age is 40 years plus. He doesn't know when plaintiff got issued by the Pattadar passbook and adangal. He denied the suggestions posed by learned defence counsel as the suit schedule property is in possession of defendant till today, the Revenue authority sub-divided, allotted sub division number 276-1A to the defendant within the boundaries of suit schedule property and Revenue authority issued pattadar pass books within the boundaries in Sy.No.276-1A.

8)The defendant contention as per written statement averments to support his case the defendant filed chief affidavit in the lines of written statement examined as DW.1 and the defendant witnesses filed chief-affidavits in the line of written statement and examined as DWs.2 and 3 and got marked Ex.B1 to B6 on his behalf. Ex.B1-Certified copy of registered gift deed bearing doc.No.765/1986, dt.23.07.1986 executed by Sanna Thimmakka in favour of

Nagamma. It disclose that one Sanna Thimmakka being mother of Nagamma, who is mother of defendant herein gifted the landed property in Sy.No.276-1 to an extent of Ac.4-00 cents with specific boundaries situated at Kalyandurg village polam under “Pasupukunkuma” without consideration. It further disclose that the possession also delivered on the same day of execution of document itself.

Ex.B2-Original pattadar passbook bearing patta No.1532 stands in the name of defendant. Ex.B3-Certified copy of Form 1-B namuna (ROR), printed on 09.08.2011 stands in the name of defendant. Ex.B4-Form 1-B namuna (ROR), dt.02.04.2014 stands in the name of defendant issued by the Tahsildar, 9

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

Kalyandurg obtained through Mee-seva. Ex.B5-Pattadar adangal/pahanies for

Fasali 1422, 1423, 1424, 1427, 1429, 1433 and 1434, dt.25.06.2013, 27.06.2014, 30.06.2015, 21.06.2018, 14.05.2020, 11.08.202 and 26.06.2025 stands in the name of defendant issued by the Tahsildar, Kalyandurg obtained through Mee-seva. Exs.B2 to B5 disclose that the defendant is the owner of landed property in Sy.No.276-1A to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents and he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same during the Fasalies 1422, 1423, 1424, 1427, 1429, 1433 and 1434. Ex.B6-Certified copy of affidavit petition in I.A.334/2012 in OS 103/2012 and its injunction order, dt.05.07.2012 on the file of this Court. DW.1 in his cross-examination deposed that the Survey number of his land 276-1A situated in the Ontimidda village. The total extent of Survey number 276-1A is Ac.48.00 cents and in Survey number his land extent is

Ac.4.00 cents, his total land is Ac.10.00. The boundaries of his land Eastern side land belongs to Kistappa, Western side land belongs to G.Papanna, Northern side land belongs to Donappa, Southern side there is Rasta, land belongs to

Golla Akkulappa. The land Ac.4.00 cents he received from his mother, his mother received from her mother namely Sanna Thimmakka and she received from her mother Donamma. He did not see the those documents. He admitted that suit schedule property and his land are deferent. He denied the suggestions posed by learned counsel for plaintiff as the said Sanna Thimmakka doesn't have right to alienate property to his mother namely Nagamma, himself his mother Nagamma and her mother Sanna Thimmakka doesn't have any right in suit schedule property. DWs2 and 3 filed chief affidavits in the line DW.1. DW.2 is relative of DW.1 and DW.3 is sister of DW.1. During cross-examination

DW.2 stated that the dispute of this case land situated in Sy.No.276-1A. The plaintiff filed suit as mentioned in schedule in Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.246-1A. He does not know how much extent plaintiff has on his name in Survey number 276.

The schedule of the this suit Eastern side lands belongs to Kistappa, Western side lands belongs to Gangannagari Pappanna, Northern side lands belongs to

Anandagari Donappa, Southern side land belongs to Golla Akkulappa. He admitted that the plaintiff and defendant are his relatives. He knew through his 10

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

mother about oral partition taken place between Sanna Thimmakka and her sons. He knew through his mother about gift in the year of 1986. Defendant received property from her mother. The defendant’s mother received property from her mother namely Sanna Thimmakka. He denied the suggestions posed by learned plaintiff counsel as the plaintiff filed suit for extent of Ac.3.24 cents in

Survey number 276-1E, the father plaintiff got property under gift deed from her grandmother Donamma and the said Sanna Thimmakka doesn't have any right to alienate the property under the gift;During cross-examination of

DW.3 stated that the defendant is her own brother. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant for Ac.3.24 cents. She admitted that the plaintiff is her husband's brother's son. Her husband has Four (4) brothers all are partitioned since they are cultivating she knows the partition taken place about 40 years back. Her husband, his brothers received Ac.30.00 cents each in partition and father's of plaintiff also received Ac.30.00 cents in the said partition. She knows about the gift through her husband. One Sanna Thimmakka (grandmother of plaintiff and defendant) who executed the gift deed the property is belongs to herself and her husband. One Donamma is mother of Sanna Thimmakka and Donamma has interest in the property so gave to the Sanna Thimmakka. Donamma gave a

Ac.150.00 land to her children and also gave a Ac.4.00 to the Nagamma, who is the daughter of Sanna Thimmakka. Sanna Thimmakka is the mother of

Narayanappa. Suit schedule property of the plaintiff situated at Ontimidda

Village, she knows the same extent Ac.3.24 cents. She further admitted that the property of plaintiff and defendant are different. She doesn't know the suit schedule property boundaries.

9) Issue No.1 and 2 answering together:

9.a)The plaintiff contention that the plaintiff received the property through

Ex.A2 registered gift deed in the year of 2006 and which is executed by his mother/G.Thimmakka and same is received by her after death of her husband

Narayanappa and he is father of plaintiff as he/Narayanappa received through 11

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

Ex.A1-Registered gift deed in the year of 1937. Basing on Ex.A1 father of the plaintiff received the property of his death, his wife has a absolute owner transferred her right to the his son i.e., plaintiff by way of gift deed i.e., Ex.A2.

On basing of Ex.A2 revenue authorities Ex.A3 to A5 in favour of plaintiff and the revenue authorities mutated on the name of plaintiff. The Ex.A2 schedule has four properties. The plaintiff filed this suit, suit schedule property for one schedule of Ex.A2 among four properties i.e., Sy.No.276-1E for an extent of

Ac.3.24 cents and Ex.A3 to A5 also discloses same survey number and extent, including other three properties which are appearing in Ex.A2. The plaintiff has been in possession to prove the same Exs.A3 to A5 proves plaintiff’s possession pertaining to the survey number 276-1E for an extent of Ac.3.24 cents of suit schedule property which is seeking permanent injunction by the plaintiff.

9.b) The suit schedule property discloses Sy.No.276-1E and the defendant claiming as per Ex.B1 Sy.No.276-1A. The DW.3 admitted during cross- examination that both properties of plaintiff and defendant are different but she did not remember both properties boundaries. The Ex.A2 schedule’s among four

Sl.No.3 is the suit schedule property discloses Sy.No.276-1E for an extent of

Ac.3.24 cents. The Ex.B1 defendant claim discloses schedule in Sy.No.276-1A for an extent of Ac.4.00 cents. This Court perused the both Ex.A2 serial number 3 schedule along with other three schedule and also Ex.B1 schedule. On perusal the boundaries of Ex.A2 serial number 3 schedule and Ex.B1 schedule boundaries total different not matched each other, this Court came to conclusion the both properties claimed by the plaintiff seeking relief by the defendant are not same and DW.3 clearly admitted during cross-examination same both properties of plaintiff and defendant different.

9.c)The plaintiff is proved with the filed documents of plaintiff with Ex.A2 to A6 and the defendant posed questions in cross-examination of PWs1 and 3 not elicited to deny the filed documents of Exs.A1 to A7. The defendant is proved with the filed documents of defendant with Ex.B1 to B6 and the plaintiff posed questions in cross-examination of DWs1 to 3 not elicited to deny the filed 12

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

documents of Exs.B1 to B6. The defendant’s pleadings not having weight to believe defendant version. On basing of these facts silent concern this Court opined plaintiff is possession holder of suit schedule property under Ex.A2 to A6 is proved succinctly with the oral evidence of PWs1 and 3 and Ex.A3 to A5 are issued by the Government Revenue Authorities of revenue records in favour of plaintiff pertaining to the Sy.No.276-1E for an extent of Ac.3.24 cents.

9.d)The defendant proved title with Ex.B1 by way of gift and possession pertaining to the Sy.No.276-1A for an extent of Ac.4.00 cents and Ex.B2 to B6 proving defendant possession, this Court opined both properties of defendant and plaintiff not same as same is admitted by DW.3, who came to depose evidence on behalf of defendant i.e., DW.3 is clearly admitted during cross- examination both properties of plaintiff and defendant are not same. The posed questions during cross-examination PWs1 and 3 not elicit to deny the version of the plaintiff and to prove defendant’s version to deny the plaintiff’s version is not weight to believe the defendant’s version, this Court perused those documents are not savvy mere marking of documents not to rely those documents is not tenable and as objected by the plaintiff and also no linked documents is filed by the defendant pertaining to the Ex.B1 how the donor of Ex.B1 received the property is silent. The written statement version grandmother/Sanna Thimmakka of the defendant is received is not proved, later from grandmother of defendant devolved to the defendant. Subsequently the revenue authorities got mutated and issued Ex.B2 to B6 pertaining to the Sy.No.276-1A for an extent of Ac.4.00 cents, this Court is opined both properties are not same as admitted by DW.3 and this Court is not believing the defendant version as sufficient evidence is not adduced, DW.1 to 3 deposed evidence is not enough to prove the defendant version.

9.e)The defendant not filed any piece of papers on the name of donor and concerned link documents how donor of Ex.B1 property and moreso, plaintiff seeking relief Sy.No.276-1E, but the defendant filed documents discloses

Sy.No.276-1A to prove how Sy.No.276-1 sub-divided by the concerned revenue 13

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

authorities is silent and defendant not choose to brought the revenue authorities

before Court to prove which survey number either Sy.No.276-1A or Sy.No.276-

1E which one is correct, the defendant posed questions in cross-examination of

PWs1 and 3 and adduced evidence of DWs1 to 3 along with Ex.B1 to B6 is not proving the defendant version pertaining to the Sy.No.276-1E. The defendant counsel posed questions to deny the exhibits in cross-examination of PWs1 and 3 is not elicited any proper evidence to support the defendant version and posed questions pertaining to the possession and cultivation concerned Sy.No.276-1E related questions not elicited any helpful evidence towards the defendant version to rebuttal the plaintiff’s version. This Court is believing the version of the plaintiff and relying documents Ex.A3 to A5 stands in the name of plaintiff, those documents are issued by the Government Revenue Authorities proves that plaintiff’s title and possession pertaining to the Sy.No.276-1E for an extent of

Ac.3.24 cents.

9.f)The contention of plaintiff is that plaintiff received property under Ex.A2 and Ex.A2 is proved with the evidence of PWs1 and 3. The defendant not filed concerned link documents how donor of Ex.B1 received the property and Ex.B1 to B6 is not sufficient to deny the Ex.A1 to A6 same are proved the plaintiff title and possession pertaining to the Sy.No.276-1E for an extent of Ac.3.24 cents as plaintiff received through Ex.A2 revenue registered document among four schedules Sl.No.3 is the suit schedule property i.e., Sy.No.276-1E for an extent of Ac.3.24 cents and Ex.A3 to A5 those documents are issued by the

Government Revenue Authorities proves that plaintiff title and possession. The plaintiff possession is proved with PW1 and PW3 and also Exhibits A1 to A6 is proved with the evidence of PW1 and PW3. The plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property as with out interruption, disturbing of suit schedule property including defendants or any other persons. Accordingly Issue No.1 and 2 Answered.

14

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

10) Specific Relief Act Section 37 (2) A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit, the defendant is thereby perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right or from an act, which would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff. If we analyze the section, a perpetual injunction can be granted only after a full pledged trail, on merits by way of decree either it may be contested or ex parte. By way of such decree, the court permanently prohibit the defendant from claiming a particular right or doing a particular act in violation of the rights of the plaintiff. Generally, the injunctions are right in "personam" and not right in "rem" and does not run with land but the maxim "actio personalis moritur cum persona" is limited to certain class of cases of damages or heritable and partible right, it does not get extinguished with the death of a party actions. If the remedy of injunction granted by a decree is in thereto, but ensures to the benefit of the legal heirs of the decree-holder, as such a decree could be executed against the successor-in- interest of the deceased judgment-debtor as well. Since, injunction runs with person, the person against whom the decree was obtained sold away the property subsequently. The decree holder is not entitled to file execution petition

U/021 R32 of CPC against subsequent purchaser if he violates the decree. But its binding on the LRS by virtue of Section 50 of CPC. if the property was purchased while the proceedings(proceedings includes Appeals or execution or revision) were pending then it binds the vendee by virtue of 5 and 52 of TPAct.

The Hon'ble Apex Court discussed the case law right from Vithal v. Sakharam

(1899) 1 Bem LR 854 till the date of decision is 20-02-2017, observed as

above in a decision reported in 2018 (1) LS. 6 Between S.C.Prabhakara

Adiga And Gowri and Ors.

10.a) The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Burden of proof Section 101 Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence to facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

15

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

10.b) The way the facts are pleaded decides the burden of proving the facts.

The burden of proof is always on the plaintiff to prove his case. Since the relief will be granted to plaintiff only to succeeds in the suit. One other thing in casting the burden on the plaintiff, it is always the duty of the person who alleges existence of certain thing and positive things only can be proved. Perpetual injunctions are equitable reliefs, a person who seeks the equitable relief of injunction have to come to court with clean hands, has to stand on his own strength and should not depend upon the weakness in the case or the defense put forth by opposite party. The first and foremost requirement of the person, who seek the relief should be in possession of the property or enjoying the right, which must be legal one and not illegal.

10.c) In this regard, this court referred this decisions:-

10.(c)(i) The Hon'ble Apex court In the case of Maria Margarida Sequeria

Fernandes and Others v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through L. Rs.

AIR 2012 SC 1727, had laid stress on purity of pleadings in civil cases in paras 61 to 69 enumerated broad guidelines to avoid and not to encourage unwanted litigation, as under.

61. In civil cases, pleadings are extremely important for ascertaining the title and possession of the property in question.

62. Possession is an incidence of ownership and can be transferred by the owner of on immovable property to another such as in a mortgage or lease. A licensee holds possession on behalf of the owner.

63. Possession is important when there are no title documents and other relevant records before the Court, but, once the documents and records of title come before the Court, it is the title which has to be looked at first and due weightage be given to it. Possession cannot be considered in vacuum.

64. There is a presumption that possession of a person, other than the owner, if at all it is to be called possession, is permissive on behalf of 16

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

the title holder. Further, possession of the past is one thing, and the right to remain or continue in future is another thing. It is the latter which is usually more in controversy than the former, and it is the latter which has seen much abuse and misuse before the Courts.

65. A suit can be filed by the title holder for recovery of possession or it can be one for ejectment of an ex-lessee or for mandatory injunction requiring a person to remove himself or it can be a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act to recover possession.

66. A title suit for possession has two parts-first, adjudication of title, and second, adjudication of possession. If the title dispute is removed and the title is established in one or the other, then, in effect, it becomes a suit for ejectment where the defendant must plead and prove why he must not be ejected.

67. In an action for recovery of possession of immovable property, or for protecting possession thereof, upon the legal title to the property being established, the possession or occupation of the property by a person other than the holder of the legal title will be presumed to have been under and in subordination to the legal title, and it will be for the person resisting a claim for recovery of possession or claiming a right to continue in possession, to establish that he has such a right. To put it differently, wherever pleadings and documents establish title to a particular property and possession is in question, it will be for the person in possession to give sufficiently detailed pleadings, particulars and documents to support his claim in order to continue in possession.

68. In order to do justice, it is necessary to direct the parties to give all details of pleadings with particulars. Once the title is prima facie established, it is for the person who is resisting the title holder's claim to possession to plead with sufficient particularity on the basis of his claim to remain in possession and place before the Court all 17

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

such documents as in the ordinary course of human affairs are expected to be there. Only if the pleadings are sufficient, would an issue be struck and the matter sent to trial, where the onus will be on him to prove the averred facts and documents.

69. The person averring a right to continue in possession shall, as far as possible, give a detailed particularized specific pleading along with documents to support his claim and details of subsequent conduct which establish his possession.

10.(c)(ii) The Honourable Apex court In Shanmugam vs Ariya

Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Medalaya Nandhavana Paripolanai

sangam rep By Its President etc AIR 2012 SC 2010 (paras 67 to 71)

In an action for recovery of possession of immovable property, or for protecting possession thereof, upon the legal title to the property being established, the possession or occupation of the property by a person other than the holder of the legal title will be presumed to have been under and in subordination to the legal title, and it will be for the person resisting a claim for recovery of possession or claiming a right to continue in possession, to establish that he has such a right. To put it differently, wherever pleadings and documents establish title to a particular property and possession is in question, it will be for the person in possession to give sufficiently detailed pleadings particulars and documents to support his claim in order to continue in possession.

68. In order to do justice, it is necessary to direct the parties to give all details of pleadings with particulars. Once the title is prima facie established, it is for the person who is resisting the title-holder's claim to possession to plead with sufficient particularity on the basis of his claim to remain in possession and place before the court all such documents as in the ordinary course of human affairs are expected to be there. Only if the pleadings are sufficient, would an issue be struck and the matter sent to 18

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

trial, where the onus will be on him to prove the averred facts and documents.

69. The person averring a right to continue in possession shall, as far as possible, give a detailed particularized specific pleading along with documents to support his claim and details of subsequent conduct which establish his possession.

70. It would be imperative that one who claims possession must give all such details as enumerated hereunder. They are only illustrative and not exhaustive:

(a) who is or are the owner or owners of the property:

(b) title of the property.

(c) who is in possession of the title documents.

(d) identity of the claimant or claimants to possession:

(e) the date of entry into possession:

(f) how he came into possession-whether he purchased the property

or inherited or got the same in gift or by any other method:

(g) in case he purchased the property, what is the consideration, if he has taken it on rent, how much is the rent, licence fee or lease amount:

(h) if taken on rent, licence fee or lease-then insist on rent deed. licence deed or lease deed:

(i) who are the persons in possession/occupation or otherwise living with him, in what capacity, as family members, friends or servants, etc

(ii) subsequent conduct i.e. any event which might have extinguished his entitlement to possession or caused shift therein and

(k) basis of his claim that not to deliver possession but continue in possession.

71. Apart from these pleadings, the court must insist on documentary proof in support of the pleadings. All those documents would be relevant which come into existence after the transfer of title or possession.

19

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

11)Therefore, The contention of plaintiff is believing by this court on the point of execution of Exs.A1 and A2 as same is admitted with PW.1 and PWs1 and 3 and for the aforesaid reason discussed in paragraphs

No.9(a) to 9.(c) and 9(f) issues 1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff against defendants. The contention of defendant is not proved before this court already discussed in paragraph No.9(d) and 9.(e) has not accepted, do not find any merit and rejected by this court. On appreciation of the overall facts and circumstances taking into consideration the findings which had been recorded by the court, the plaintiff established and possession and title and irrespective of the fact that the defendant not established his version Exs. B1 to B6 not proved pertaining to suit schedule property as the version of defendant grandmother of the defendant i.e., Sanna Thimmakka how she received concerned link documents not filed by the defendant and defendant claiming his property in Sy.No.276-1A and the plaintiff claiming in Sy.No.276-1E DW.3 admitted both properties not same, defendant version not proved the possession in the hands of defendant pertaining to the Sy.No.276-1E. The plaintiff became absolute owner of suit schedule property under Ex.A2 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property with absolute rights, to prove his version Exs.A1 to A7 are filed. This court is relaying documents filed by the plaintiff Exs.A1 to Ex.A.6 and coupled with the evidence of PWs1 and

PW.3 recorded by this court. Therefore, the Exs.B.1 to B6 not conferred title and possession of defendant pertaining to the Sy.No.276-1E and not proved the possession of suit schedule property succinctly as such the contrary is not proved preponderance of possibilities not treated as genuine in favour of defendant.

12) ISSUE NO.3:-

In view of the discussion in issues No.1 and 2 the plaintiff is entitled for passing of perpetual injuction of plaint schedule property.

20

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

13) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 08 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-K.BHANU,

Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Kalyandurg.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:-

P.W.1 : G.Gopal. D.W.1 : A.Yerriswamy. P.W.2 : G.Thimmarajulu (eschewed). D.W.2 : E.Ramesh. P.W.3 : K.Thippanna. D.W.3 : G.Yerremma.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1:Certified copy of registered gift deed bearing doc.No.110/1937, dt.10.02.1937. Ex.A2:Original registered gift deed bearing doc.No.2427/2006, dt.07.08.2006 executed by G.Thimmakka in favour of G.Gopal/plaintiff. Ex.A3:Original pattadar passbook bearing patta No.1048 stands in the name of plaintiff issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kalyandurg. Ex.A4:Form 1-B namuna (ROR), dt.24.02.2014 stands in the name of plaintiff issued by the Tahsildar, Kalyandurg Mandal obtained through Mee-seva. Ex.A5:Pattadar adangal/pahani for Fasali 1423, dt.24.02.2014 stands in the name of plaintiff issued by the Tahsildar, Kalyandurg Mandal obtained through Mee-seva. Ex.A6:Certified copy of sale deed bearing doc.No.1143/1992, dt.26.05.1992 executed by Narayanappa in favour of 1)Parvathamma and 2)Papanna. Ex.A7:Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.103/2012 on the file of this Court, dt.29.11.2017.

21

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.38/2014,

KALYANDURG Dated:08-05-2026.

For Defendants :-

Ex.B1: Certified copy of registered gift deed bearing doc.No.765/1986, dt.23.07.1986 executed by Sanna Thimmakka in favour of Nagamma. Ex.B2: Original pattadar passbook bearing patta No.1532 stands in the name of defendant. Ex.B3: Certified copy of Form 1-B namuna (ROR), printed on 09.08.2011 stands in the name of defendant. Ex.B4: Form 1-B namuna (ROR), dt.02.04.2014 stands in the name of defendant issued by the Tahsildar, Kalyandurg obtained through Mee-seva. Ex.B5: Pattadar adangal/pahanies for Fasali 1422, 1423, 1424, 1427, 1429, 1433 and 1434, dt.25.06.2013, 27.06.2014, 30.06.2015, 21.06.2018, 14.05.2020, 11.08.202 and 26.06.2025 stands in the name of defendant issued by the Tahsildar, Kalyandurg obtained through Mee-seva. Ex.B6: Certified copy of affidavit petition in I.A.334/2012 in OS 103/2012 and its injunction order, dt.05.07.2012 on the file of this Court.

Sd/-K.BHANU,

Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Kalyandurg.

APAN160004232017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

KALYANDURG.

PRESENT: KATAM BHANU

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2025

CALENDAR CASE NO : 355/2017

Between:-

The State: Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Bramhasamudram P.S.

…. Complainant.

And

1)Boya Pujari Obanna, aged 52 years, S/o Late P.Govindappa, R/o

Govindaiahdoddi Village, Bramhasamudram Mandal.

2)Boya Veerejinnappagari Lakshmanna, aged 22 years, S/o Late

V.Venkatesulu, R/o Rangachedu Village, Gummagatta Mandal.

3)Boya Pujari Rangaswamy, aged 26 years, S/o P.Kengappa, R/o

Govindaiahdoddi Village, Now R/at Rangachedu Village, Gummagatta

Mandal.

...A1 to A3.

This case is coming on 15-05-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the complainant and

Sri T.Devendra, Advocate for accused No.1 to 3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.355/2017, Kalyandurg,2 Dt:15-05-2026.

J U D G M E N T

1) Accused are charged for the offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(a) of Indian Arms Act and 109 r/w 34 of IPC., in Crime No.62/2012 of

Bramhasamudram police station.

2)The case of prosecution in brief as follows:

a) On 19.06.2012 LW.1/PW.1-Narasimha Naidu, Forest Range Officer,

Kalyandurg instructed LW.2/PW.2-T.Shaik Nousad Basha, Forest

Section Officer, Kalyandurg and LW.3/PW.3-B.Subramanyam, Assistant

Beat Officer to check XIII fin., com., F.A.D. scheme plantations situated at Pillalapalli beat. PWs2 and 3 after attending the above said beat duty while returning nearby the forest of Nagireddypalli village at Pedda

Gundu area they noticed A1 to A3 proceeded with a gun. On seeing

PWs2 and 3, A1 to A3 tried to skulk away, but were caught hold by

PWs2 and 3, who produced A1 to A3 before PW.1, who in turn inquired about A1 to A3 identity particulars and further disclosed that they had no license for the gun. Then, PW.1 produced the accused and gun along with a written complaint before LW.6/PW.5-M.Eswaraiah, the then

HC-1911, Bramhasamudram Police Station. Basing on the complaint of

PW.1, PW.5 registered a case in Cr.No.62/2012 U/s 25 (1-B)(a) of

Indian Arms Act of Bramhasamudram PS., and investigated into the case. He secured the presence of PWs1 to 3, LW.4/H.Mahathma and

LW.5/PW.4-H.Shivalinga and interrogated the accused each separately in their presence. During confession, A1 to A3 revealed their identity

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.355/2017, Kalyandurg,3 Dt:15-05-2026.

and about the gun with intention to protect the crops from pigs. On 18.06.2012 at evening hours A1 along with A2 and A3 proceeding to

Gundlapalli village, by possessing with gun and were caught hold by

PWs2 and 3. Then, he checked the gun and found it is a single barrel muzzle loading gun, measuring 44 inches of length, barrel length is 22 inches. Then, he arrested A1 to A3 and seized the above said SBML gun under the cover of mahazarnama in the presence of LW.4/

Mahathma and PW.4, A1 to A3 produced before this Court and sent to judicial remand. Basing on the versions of the accused

Sec.25(1B)(a) of Indian Arms Act and Sec.109 r/w 34 of IPC also attracts to this case and so, altered the Section of law by filing alteration memo, dt.16.07.2012. During the course of further investigation, the seized case property i.e., gun forwarded to Ballestic Expert, Hyderabad for examination through the Court. The Ballestic Expert examined the seized gun and issued report vide BAL/124/2012, dt.26.02.2013 opined that “it is a company made SBML gun and it fires well”. In this case, prosecution received orders from the Collector & District Magistrate,

Anantapuramu vide No.D.Dis.No.MC2/1016/2017, dt.19.02.2017 to prosecute A1 to A3 under Arms Act. After completion of investigation,

LW.8/PW.6-S.Abdul Rahiman, the then Sub-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against A1 to A3. Hence the charge.

3)The case is taken on file for the offence under section U/Sec. 25(1B)

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.355/2017, Kalyandurg,4 Dt:15-05-2026.

(a) of Indian Arms Act and Sec.109 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A3 and issued summons to them.

4) Accused are present before the court. Copies of case documents were furnished to them under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5) A1 to A3 are examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charges

U/s.25(1B)(a) of Indian Arms Act and Sec.109 r/w 34 of IPC., against A1 to A3 are framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 and got marked EXs.P1 to P6, besides MO.1. The learned APP has filed a memo along with attested copy of Death Certificate of LW.4/H.Mahathma and so, his evidence is closed and given up the evidence of LW.7/K.Janardhan, the then

Sub-Inspector of Police.

7) After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C.,by putting incriminating evidence appearing against them and the plea of accused are total denial. When they were called upon to enter upon defence evidence, they did not adduced evidence and no exhibits got marked on their behalf.

8)Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for accused. Perused the material on record.

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.355/2017, Kalyandurg,5 Dt:15-05-2026.

9) Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish that A1 to A3

acquired and possessed or carried any fire arm or any weapon

specified by notification under section 3 of the Act with an intent to kill

pigs and thereby committed an offence punishable under section

25(1B)(a) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 and Sec.109 r/w 34 of IPC, beyond the

reasonable doubts?

10) POINT:- 10.a)The Prosecution version as per charge sheet filed by the investigating officer that on 19.06.2012 as per the instructions of PW.1, after completion of XIII fin., com., F.A.D., scheme plantations situated at Pillalapalli beat while returning nearby the Forest of Nagireddypalli village at Pedda Gundu

Area, they noticed A1 to A3 proceeding with a gun. On seeing them, A1 to A3 tried to skulk away from the spot, but PWs2 and 3 caught hold A1 to A3. On inquiry they revealed their identity particulars and also confessed that they had no license to hold a gun with intention to threaten the pigs, which are destroyed the crops in their fields and thereby committed the offence. On the other hand, the case of defence is total denial. Hence, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case against A1 to A3 beyond all reasonable doubt.

10.b)The prosecution to establish its case, examined PWs1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5, besides MO.1. Among them, PW.4-H.Sivalinga, stated to be one of the mediator, who accompanied at the time of arrest of A1 to A3 and seizure of MO.1. He did not support the case of prosecution and deposed before

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.355/2017, Kalyandurg,6 Dt:15-05-2026.

the court that he does not know anything about this case. The Bramhasamudram police never arrested the accused in his presence and not seized Country made

Gun. In the year, 2012 the police obtained his signature on written papers, the contents of which were not known to him and he identified his signature, same is marked as Ex.P2 on mahazarnama, dt.19.06.2012, thereby prosecution treated him as hostile and cross examined PW.4, but nothing was elicited to prove A1 to

A3 possessed or carried Country made Gun and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 25(1B)(a) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 except marking of his signature on mahazarnama, dt.19.06.2012 as Ex.P2. Hence, the evidence of

PW.4 is not useful for prosecution to prove the material allegations levelled against the accused.

10.c) The evidence of PW.1-K.Narayanaswamy Naidu, the then Forest Range

Officer, Kalyandurgdeposed in chief-examination that on 18-06-2012 at about 7.30 PM., while PWs2 and 3 return from duties, they saw accused No.1 to 3 at

Nagireddypalli village, while they were in possession of gun. On seeing them, A1 to A3 tried to escape, but PWs2 and 3 caught hold A1 to A3 and brought before him. He inquired A1 to A3, they informed him that they don't have any license to hold gun and so, he gave a report to the Bramhasamudram P.S and same is marked as Ex.P.1, he identified his signature on the same, he knows the contents of the same. The seized Gun produced before this court same is marked as MO.1 and police examined him and recorded his statement. During- cross examination PW.1 stated that he has no knowledge about weapons.

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.355/2017, Kalyandurg,7 Dt:15-05-2026.

Ex.P1 discloses Gun (Tupaki) only and not mentioned Gun particulars. He admitted that generally there are Country made Gun and Company made Gun and those are difference, the Country made and Company made Guns, PWs2 and 3 not seized bullets and magazines. He further admitted that the Gun hold by whom among three accused not mentioned in Ex.P1 and Ex.P1 does not disclosed about he inquired A1 to A3 details. Even he cannot say Lakshmanna among three accused. He denied the suggestion posed by the learned defence counsel that A1 to A3 did not hold the seized MO.1-Gun and PWs2 and 3 created the Gun and shown as accused were in possession.

10.d) The PW.2-T.Shaik Nawashad Basha, the then Forest Section Officer,

Kalyandurgdeposed in chief-examination that 12 years back in the year of 2012 at about 7.30 PM., while himself and PW.3 returning from duties at

Pillalapalli beat, they saw accused No.1 to 3 at Nagireddypalli and were possession of gun on seeing himself and PW.3 A1 to A3 tried to escape and himself and PW.3 caught hold A1 to A3 and brought before PW.1. PW.1 inquired the accused and the accused stated that they don't have any license to hold gun police examined him and recorded his statement. During cross-examination

PW.2 stated that on the date of incident PW.1 instructed them to go to beat at

Pillalapalli beat. He cannot say the boundaries of scene of offence place and distance between place of arrest of A1 to A3 to Nagireddypalli. He admitted that he did not state before PW.1 and police who hold Country made Gun. He cannot say who is who by recognized by name who stand in accused dock. At the time of incident he is aged about 60 years. He saw the accused at a distance of one

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.355/2017, Kalyandurg,8 Dt:15-05-2026.

furlong. He denied the suggestions posed by the learned defence counsel during his cross examination.

10.e) ThePW.3-Balisetti Subramanyam, the then Assistant Beat Officer,

Kalyandurg deposed in chief-examination that on 18-06-2012 at about 7.30

PM., while himself and PW.2 returning from duties of Pillalapalli beat they saw accused No.1 to 3 at Nagireddypalli, while the accused were possession of gun on seeing himself and PW.2, A1 to A3 tried to escape and himself, PW.2 caught hold A1 to A3 and brought before PW.1. PW.1 inquired A1 to A3, on inquiry A1 to

A3 don't have any license to hold gun police examined him and recorded his statement. During cross-examination PW.3 also stated as same lines of

PW.2. He denied the suggestions posed by the learned defence counsel.

10.f) On coming to the evidence of Investigating Officer PW.5-M.Eswaraiah, the then Head Constable, Bramhasamudram PS., who registered the crime and investigated the case deposed in chief-examination that on 19.06.2012 at about 1.00 PM., he was present at Police station and PW.1 came and gave a report and handover the weapon and accused Nos.1 to 3. He registered the Crime

No.62/2012 U/s. 25 (1-b) (a) of Indian Arms Act and issued FIR same is marked as Ex.P3 and same is sent to the Hon'ble court. On the same day, he called elders LW.4/H.Mahathma and PW.4 and in their presence interrogated A1 to A3 and arrested them and seized the crime weapon under the cover mediator report and same is marked as Ex.P.4 and examined the PWs1 to 3 and recorded their

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.355/2017, Kalyandurg,9 Dt:15-05-2026.

statements and A1 to A3 produced before Hon'ble Court for judicial custody and

Hon'ble court sent to A1 to A3 into judicial remand. On the same day, he visited

the scene of offence place situated at Peddagundu area near reserved forest

Nagireddipalli village. Later, he handover the CD to LW.7/K.Janardhan, the then

SI of Police. During cross-examination PW.5 admitted that PW.1 not mentioned in Ex.P1 and also not deposed in 161(3) Cr.P.C statement about who was hold possession of seized gun among A1 to A3. He knows guns details and particulars, there is a difference between Company made gun and Country made

Gun. He further admitted that Ex.P1 does not disclose about seized gun is

Company made or Country made, in 161(3) Cr.P.C statements of PWs1 to 3 they stated before him that the seized gun is Country made gun. He admitted that the

Bramhasamudram Mandal is headquarters having revenue officials. They did not tried to secure mediators of revenue officials. Ex.P4 does not mentioned about seized MO.1 as it is a Company made or Country made. Himself scribed Ex.P4.

He cannot say exact scene of offence place location. He denied the suggestions posed by the learned defence counsel.

10.g)The remaining evidence of another Investigating Officer PW.6-

S.Abdul Rehiman, the then SI of Police, Bramhasamudram PS., who took up further investigation in this case deposed in chief-examination that on 14-10-2016 he took charge of Bramhasamudram Police station as SI.

LW.7/K.Janardhan, the then SI verified the investigation done by PW.5 and found in correct lines and forwarded the seized MO.1 to FSL and subsequently

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.355/2017, Kalyandurg,10 Dt:15-05-2026.

received the opinion of FSL and same is marked as Ex.P5 and also

LW.7/K.Janardhan sent requisition to the Collector for sanction of prosecution orders and he received sanction orders from the Collector order vide proceedings number D.Dis.No. MC2/1016/2017, dated 19-02-2017 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. During cross-examination

PW.6 admitted that Ex.P5 discloses the MO.1 is Company made Gun (SBML)

Expert opined the same. He further admitted that he did not mentioned in charge sheet about MO.1 Company made Gun details as mentioned in Ex.P5. He denied the suggestions posed by defence counsel.

11)The appreciation of the evidence to determination of whether the accused No.1 to 3 on 19.06.2012 at Pedda Gundu Area, Nagireddypalli village were proceeded by holding gun and thereby committed the offence, to prove these aspect PWs1, 2 and 3, among them PWs2 and 3 are stated to be direct eye witnesses deposed the evidence before the Court to support the prosecution version. But, the prosecution witness PW.4 acted as one of the mediator at the time of arrest of A1 to A3 and seizure of MO.1, who did not supports the case version of the prosecution to satisfy ingredients of the offence and the learned

APP given the evidence of LW.7/K.Janardhan, the then SI of Police and the another mediator/H.Mahathma, who is another mediator is no more. The investigating agency PW.6 deposed to support prosecution version as per contents of charge-sheets wheres During cross-examination PW.6 he admitted that he did not mentioned in charge sheet about MO.1 company made gun

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.355/2017, Kalyandurg,11 Dt:15-05-2026.

details as mentioned in Ex.P5. Further, the Investigating Officer in this case did not choose to examine or cited as witness one Mr.Boya Ningappa, who stated to be engaged A1 in order to driving out the pigs from his finger millet fields to prove the prosecution version.

12)According to PW.5, as well as the contents of Ex.P4-mediator report

PW.4 and LW.4/Mahathma, who are cited as mediators for the said confession and recovery of gun, among them LW.4/Mahathma died and the remaining witness i.e., PW.4 also did not supports the prosecution case. Though, he identified his signature i.e., Ex.P2 on mediator report (Ex.P4). He deposed that he does not know the contents of the said mediator report. As PWs1 to PW.3 interested witnesses supports the prosecution case, but the crucial witness i.e., mediator in this case turned into hostile and did not supports the prosecution case. Further, the Investigating Officer not secured any local inhabitants at the scene of offence such as pedestrians, villagers to act as mediator in this case.

So, there is no support of independent witnesses to the version of PW.5- investigating officer.

13)At this stage, it is to be noted that the prosecution case is completely based upon the confession said to be given by A1 to A3 before the police in the presence of mediators, while A1 to A3 were in police custody. The PW.1 admitted he did not who hold the possession of the seized MO.1-SBML gun and he cannot say the seized MO.1 is country made or company made and admitted he did not seized the bullets and magazines. Being a Forest Beat Officer’s they have

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.355/2017, Kalyandurg,12 Dt:15-05-2026.

knowledge about the guns as he unable to identify whether MO.1 is country made or company made is creates doubts on the version of the prosecution. The

PW.2 admitted that he cannot identified the accused who standing in the accused dock and he is also do not know the difference between company made or country made guns and scene of offence place is not remembered by his is fatal to the prosecution. In view of non support of PW.4, his presence as mediator at the time of alleged confession is found to be doubtful.

14)The prosecution not proved from where A1 to A3 acquired the said seized

MO.1-SBML gun and the Ex.P4-mahazarnama executed in the presence of mediator as mediator/PW.4 turned into hostile the Ex.P4 sanctity is lapsed and the confession before police is not valid as per 24 & 27 of Indian Evidence Act and the contents of Ex.P4-mahazarnama grandfather of the A1 has given to the said MO.1-SBML gun to the A1 is not proved as sanctity of Ex.P4 is lapsed through PW.4 turned into hostile and the version of the prosecution A1 to A3 acquired from where is not proved and having possession at the timing of the seizing of said MO.1-SBML gun is not proved as no independent witnesses or mediator supports the prosecution version to prove the Ex.P4 mahazarnama and mere version of the prosecution of PWs1 to 3 those are the Forest Department they related to each other as same Department, they deposed evidence not sufficient to hold guilt against A1 to A3 as confession before police by the accused is not valid at law and mediator PW.4 is not supports prosecution is creates serious doubts and prosecution version is six at seven to prove

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.355/2017, Kalyandurg,13 Dt:15-05-2026.

possession of MO.1-SBML gun in the hands of A1 to A3 and concealment of material fact of MO.1 and its procurement is not proved with the prosecution evidence as no independent witness supports the prosecution is fatal to the prosecution.

15)The contents of Ex.P4 mediator report, on which PW.6 has set the criminal law into motion will be hit by Sections 24 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. So, the contents of the said mediator report cannot be relied upon. Moreover, it is the prosecution allegation that A1 along with A2 and A3 proceeded with MO.1-

Company made gun without holding license. But, PW.4, the investigating officer admitted during cross-examination that Ex.P1 does not disclose about seized gun is whether company made or country made.. He further admitted that PWs1 to 3 stated in their 161(3) Cr.P.C statement and before him as the seized gun is country made gun. Further, the Investigating Officer did not made efforts to secure revenue officials to act as mediators eventhough they are very much available since the Bramhasamudram Mandal headquarters having revenue officials for the reasons best known to him. Furthermore, PW.5 admitted that he cannot say exact scene of offence place location, it creates serious doubt on the version of prosecution. The another Investigating Officer i.e., PW.6 also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not mentioned in charge sheet about MO.1 is company made gun details as mentioned in Ex.P5. Moreover, the Investigating

Officer/PW.5 did not seized any incriminating material such as Cycle balls and నల్ల�మం�దు� (opium) stated to be used by A1 for driving out the pigs from the fields

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.355/2017, Kalyandurg,14 Dt:15-05-2026.

in order to protest the crops. Therefore, the evidence of PWs5 and 6 is also contradictory in material aspect, causing death blow to the prosecution.

16)The version of the Investigating Agency deposed evidence of PW.5 admitted that the Ex.P1 and 161(3) Cr.P.C statements of the PWs1 to 3 not disclosed the MO.1-SBML gun is country made or company made and also admitted Ex.P4-mediatornama also not disclosed country made or company of said MO.1 and PW.5 no revenue officials called or summoned at the timing of seizing of said MO.1 the sanctity of the Investigation Agency at the timing of seizure is not followed procedure of Law 100(4) Cr.P.C not followed by the PW.5 and as independent witness i.e., PW.4 turned into hostile entire prosecution version is not supported by independent witness the sanctity of Ex.P4 is lapsed and the version of the prosecution is fatal on the point of proving of seizure and the possession in the hands of A1 to A3 and concealment of material fact of

MO.1 and procurement from the grandfather of the A1 is not proved as confession statement before the police i.e., PW.5 before deposed confession statement is not valid at law as per Indian Evidence Act and also independent witness/mediator PW.4 not supports the prosecution version, the prosecution is failure to the concealment of MO.1 and procuring the same. The PW.6 admitted that he not mentioned in the charge sheet said MO.1 is the company made gun is creates a serious doubts as per evidence of the PW.6 he perused the record of investigation done by the PW.5 subsequently sent MO.1 to the expert’s opinion after receipts the expert’s opinion report and permission from the Collector and

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.355/2017, Kalyandurg,15 Dt:15-05-2026.

filed a charge sheet, whereas surprisingly the charge sheet contents does not discloses about said seized MO.1 is company made or country made is six at seven pertaining to the investigation seized MO.1. As per admitted evidence of

PWs5 and 6 as the above discussion, the Court finds no convincing and satisfactory evidence to hold that A1 to A3 were in possession of MO.1-Company made gun without license. Moreover, no identity slips containing the signatures of the accused were found on those seized items. In view of these inconsistencies, the entire prosecution case is found to be doubtful. Whenever a doubt creeps into the prosecution version, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. As such the Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused No.1 to 3 for the offences leveled against them beyond the reasonable doubts.

17)Hence, in the view of considering the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6 and other material available on record, the this court opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 25(1B)(a) of Indian Arms Act and Section 109 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

18)In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 25(1B)(a) of Indian Arms Act and Sec.109 r/w 34 IPC., and accordingly accused are acquitted under Section 248(1) of code of Criminal

Procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment under section 437-A of Code of Criminal

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.355/2017, Kalyandurg,16 Dt:15-05-2026.

Procedure.

MO.1 : One S.B.M.L. (single barrel muzzle loading) gun in vide CPR

No.176/2012 ordered to be sent to the nearest Arsenal, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 15 th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- K.BHANU,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence : P.W.1 : K.Narayanaswamy Naidu.None. P.W.2 : T.Shaik Nawashad Basha. P.W.3 : Balisetti Subramanyam. P.W.4 : H.Sivalinga (Hostile). P.W.5 : M.Eswaraiah, the then ASI. P.W.6 : S.Abdul Rahiman, the then SI of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Report given by PW.1, dt.18.06.2012. Ex.P.2 : Section 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.4. Ex.P.3 : FIR. Ex.P.4 : Mediator Report, dt.18.06.2012. Ex.P.5 : FSL Report, dt.26.02.2013.

For Defence:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1 : One S.B.M.L. (single barrel muzzle loading) gun.

Sd/- K.BHANU,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg. //True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

KALYANDURG.

Present: KATAM BHANU,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg.

Friday, this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Calendar in C.C.No. 35 5 of 2017.

(As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Criminal Trial

Guidelines Regarding standardized format for preparation of

Tabulated charts in all criminal judgments , In Manojbhai Jethabhai

Parmar (Rohit). vs. State of Gujarath ’ 1 )

FORM – A & B

ComplainantThe State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bramhasamudram Police Station

Represented byAssistant Public Prosecutor

Accused1) Boya Pujari Obanna, aged 52 years, S/o Late P.Govindappa, R/o GovindaiahdoddiVillage, Bramhasamudram Mandal,

2)BoyaVeerejinnappagari Lakshmanna, aged 22 years, S/o LateV.Venkatesulu,R/o Rangachedu Village, Gummagatta Mandal,

3) Boya Pujari Rangaswamy, aged 26 years, S/o P.Kengappa, R/o Govindaiahdoddi Village, now R/at Rangachedu Village, Gummagatta Mandal.

Represented bySriT.Devendra,Advocate, Kalyandurg.

Nature of offenceSection 25(1B)(a) of Indian Arms Act and Sec.109 r/w 34 of IPC

Date of offence19.06.2012 1Crl.Appeal No.2973 of 2023

Date of F.I.R. 19-06-2012

Date of Charge Sheet 27-03-2017

Date of framing of Charges 09-02-2023

Date of commencement of 15-07-2025 evidence

Date of which Judgment is --- reserved

Date of the sentencing the 15-05-2026 orders if any

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty for the offence under Section 25(1B)(a) of Indian Arms Act and Sec.109 r/w 34 of IPC.

Explanation for delayThis case is taken on file on 27.04.2017; on 23.11.2017 copies furnished to the accused and on 09.02.2023 they were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and they were pleaded not guilty; on 15.07.2025,23.07.2025, 09.10.2025 & 05.11.2025 PWs1 to 6 are is examined, Exs.P.1 to P.5, besides MO.1 are marked and on 15.05.2026 heard arguments from both sides and on the same day, Judgment pronounced (Vide Separate Judgment). Hence the delay.

Sentence or Order :In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guiltyfor the offence punishable under section 25(1B)(a) of Indian Arms Act and Sec.109 r/w 34 IPC., and accordingly accused are acquitted under Section 248(1) of code of Criminal Procedure.

The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment under section 437-A of

Code of Criminal Procedure.

MO.1 : One S.B.M.L. (single barrel muzzle loading) gun in vide

CPR No.176/2012 ordered to be sent to the nearest Arsenal, after expiry of appeal time.

ACCUSED DETAILS

Rank of Name of Date of Date of Offence Whether Sentence Period of AccusedAccusedarrestrelease on charged Acquitted imposeddetention Bailwithor undergon convictede during trial for purpose of Section 428 Cr.P.C. A1BoyaPujari 19.06.2012 23.06.201225(1B)Acquitted-------- Obanna(a) of Indian Arms Act, 109 r/w 34 of IPC A2Boya -do--do--do--do--do--do- Veerejinnappa gari Lakshmanna A3BoyaPujari -do--do--do--do--do--do- Rangaswamy

FORM - C

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

PROSECUTION

P.W.1 : K.Narayanaswamy Naidu. Defacto-complainant

P.W.2 : T.Shaik Nawashad Basha.

P.W.3 : Balisetti Subramanyam.

P.W.4 :H.Sivalinga.

P.W.5 : M.Eswaraiah, the then ASI.

P.W.6 :S.Abdul Rahiman, the then SI of Police.

DEFENCE WITNESSES IF ANY

Nil

COURT WITNESSES IF ANY

Nil

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS

PROSECUTION

Sl.Exhibit DescriptionProved by/ No.Attested by No.

1Ex.P.1Report given by PW.1, dt.18.06.2012.PW.1 2Ex.P.2Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4.PW.4 3Ex.P.3FIR.PW.5 4Ex.P.4Mediator Report, dt.18.06.2012.PW.5 5Ex.P.5FSL Report, dt.26.02.2013.PW.6

DEFENCE EXHIBITS

Sl.Exhibit DescriptionProved by/ No.Attested by No.

Nil

COURT EXHIBITS

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Sl.Material Object Description

No.Number 1MO.1One S.B.M.L. (single barrel muzzle loading) gun.PW.1

Sd/- K.BHANU,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg. Copy Submitted to: The Hon`ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg. DIS.No. 703 , Dt. 16-05-2026.

APAN160002272013

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

KALYANDURG.

PRESENT: KATAM BHANU

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO : 93/201 3

Between:-

The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Food Safety Officer, O/o Food Safety Designated Officer, Anantapur.…. Complainant.

And

1. Gundiga Gopal, aged 38 years, S/o Lakshmanna, Proprietor of M/s.Chowdeswari Cool Drinks, D.No.8/137, Opp. Balaji Lodge, Hindupur Road, Kalyandurg Village and Mandal, Anantapur District (Offender-1).

2. Yengala Ganesh Babu, aged 35 years, S/o Lakshminarayana, Proprietor of Akshay Jal Packaged Drinking Water, M/s.Badri Packaged Drinking Water, Sy.No.121A-1C, H.L.C.Colony, Rajiv Colony Panchayath, Anantapur, Anantapur District (Offender-2).

(Case against Offender-2 is split up and re-numbered as CC

No.94/2026) … Offender/Accused – 1.

This case is coming on 15-05-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the complainant and

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.93/2013, Kalyandurg,2 Dt:15-05-2026.

Sri P.Thimmappa Chowdary, Advocate for A1 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1) The State represented by Food Safety Officer, Anantapur District lodged this complaint to punish the Offender/Accused No.1 and No.2 alleging that on 16.05.2012 at M/s.Chowdeswari Cool Drinks, D.No.8/137, Opp. Balaji Lodge,

Hindupur Road, Kalyandurg village and Mandal, Accused No.1, being Proprietor of said Cool Drink shop sold unsafe & Misbranded Akshay Jal Packaged Drinking

Water 250 ml., pouches and Accused No.2, being Proprietor of Akshay Jal

Packaged Drinking Water, M/s Badri Packaged Drinking Water processed

Akshay Jal Packaged Drinking Water for human consumption and committed offences under Sections 3(1) (zz) 21, 26 (2) (i)(ii) and 27 (1) punishable under section 59(i) of Food Safety and standards Act, 2006 (herein after referred to as

FSS Act and Rules for sake of convenience and brevity).

2)The case is taken on file for the offence 3(1) (zz) 21, 26 (2) (i)(ii) and 27 (1) punishable under section 59(i) of FSS Act and Rules against A1 and A2 and issued summons to them.

3) A1 is present before the Court. Copies of case documents were furnished to him under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.93/2013, Kalyandurg,3 Dt:15-05-2026.

4)At this stage, this Court perused the record A1 continuously appearing before the court and engaged the counsel to represent on his behalf, but A2 is not appearing and declared as a proclaimed offender and this court also issued proclamation against A2 on 01.03.2024 U/s.82 of Cr.P.C. A2 proclamation proceedings needs to adjudicate separately and so, the case against Offender No.2/A2 is split up and re-numbered as CC No.94/2026 and the same is pending for proclamation U/s.82 of Cr.P.C.

5)The A1 is examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C on the contents of complaint. For which A1 denied the complaint contents allegations U/Sec. 3(1) (zz) 21, 26 (2) (i)(ii) and 27 (1) punishable under section 59(i) of FSS Act & Rules pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

6) In order to prove its case, the complainant examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked EXs.P1 to P24.

7) After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused No.1 is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C.,by putting incriminating evidence appearing against him and the plea of accused No.1 is total denial. When he was called upon to enter upon defence evidence, he did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and no documents are marked on behalf of defence.

8)Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.93/2013, Kalyandurg,4 Dt:15-05-2026.

learned counsel appearing for accused No.1. Perused the material on record.

9) Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (zz) 21, 26 (2)

(i)(ii) and 27 (1) punishable under section 59(i) of FSS Act &

Rules beyond all reasonable doubt?

10) POINT:-

The Prosecution version as per complaint filed by the complainant that A1 is running food business, he is the Operator & Proprietor of

M/s.Chowdeswari Cool Drinks, bearing D.No.8/137, Opposite Balaji Lodge,

Hindupur Road, Kalyandurg village & Mandal, Ananthapuramu, used to sold unsafe & mis-branded Akshay Jal packaged drinking water 250 ml., pouches on 16.05.2012 at about 3.00 PM., on receipt of information, LW.1/PW.1-

G.Venkateswara Rao visited M/s.Chowdeswari Cool Drinks for inspection. At that time, A1 present in the unit and transacting the business. PW.1 disclosed his identity and called LW.2/PW.2-M.K.Subramanyam Rao to act as mediator. During inspection, he found 20 bags each 100 pouches of 200 ml., Akshay Jal

Packaged drinking water meant for sale for human consumption, which are unsafe. On inquiry, A1 disclose that the said Akshay Jal packaged drinking water processed and supplied by A2, who is Proprietor of Badri Mineral

Industries/Packaged Drinking Water, HLC Colony, Indira Nagar, Ananthapur.

Then, he collected sample for sending to Accredited Laboratory in the presence

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.93/2013, Kalyandurg,5 Dt:15-05-2026.

of mediator (PW.2) under the cover of panchanama and thereby A1 violated

Section 3(1)(zz), 21, 26(2)(i)(ii) & 27(1) of Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 punishable U/s.59(i) of FSS Act, 2006. On the other hand, the case of defence is total denial. Hence, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case against

A1 beyond all reasonable doubt.

11)The appreciation of the evidence to determination of whether the accused No.1 being Proprietor of M/s.Chowdeswari Cool Drinks sold unsafe & mis-branded Akshay Jal Packaged Drinking Water 200 ml., which was packaged and supplied by A2. To prove these aspect the complainant examined as PW.1 and also got examined PW.2, who acted as mediator in this case. The informant/LW.1/PW.1-G.Venkateswara Rao, the then Food Safety Officer,

Ananthapuramudeposed in chief-examination that he has notified Food Safety

Officer as per G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 25-08-2011 having jurisdiction for State of

A.P. Sri. G.Shankariah was notified as Food Safety Designated Officer of

Ananthapuramu District vide G.O.Ms.No.320, dated 27-10-2011. The commissioner of Food safety notified vide G.O.Rt.No.101 Health Medical and

Family Welfare Department dated 16-01-2013. On 16-05-2012 at about 03.00

PM., he visited MS Chowdewari Cool Drink situated at D.No.8-137 opposite

Balaji lodge Hindupur road Kalyanadurgam, Ananthapuramu District. At the time of his visit accused No.1 was present and doing business, he informed his details and called a mediator i.e., LW.2/PW.2/M.K.Subramanyam Rao and who accepted

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.93/2013, Kalyandurg,6 Dt:15-05-2026.

to act as a mediator at the time of his inspection he found water pouches each 200 ml., and each bag contains 100 pouches. He suspected the quality of water ₹ pouches and purchased 64 water pouches each 200 ml., by paying 32/- and 1 taken the cash receipt and taken the signature of A1 and PW.2 and each sample pouch having the label particulars as “Akshya Jal” packaged drinking water processed packed by Sai Krishna Drinking Water, Cheerala net content 200 ml., ₹ Batch No.-----, packed on MRP 2-00 best before 21 days of date of package.

He issued form- V A notice to A1 and taken his signature on the form V A and

PW.2 signature also and also informed about intentioned of taking of samples of pouches. He divided the purchased 64 pouches into 4 parts each containing 16 pouches and shifted to plastic container for suitable of pouches and put water pouches in the container closed the same with due procedure by affixing label

No.013A/01283/2012 on each sample container and wrapped brown paper each container and folded inside and with gum. Later, he affixed paper slip issued by

Food Safety Designated Officer of Ananthapuramu District bearing No.

013A/01283/2012. Around each sample container pasted and taken the signature of A1 and PW.2 by covering brown paper and paper slips. He inquired the A1 and source of the about water pouches, he stated that “Akshya Jal” packaged drinking water was supplied processed by Yengala Ganesh Babu and

Proprietor of Badri Mineral Industries i.e., A2. He gave intimation latter to the A1 regarding the fourth part of sample to sent laboratory of any accredited lab, but

A1 did not choose the same. He prepared panchanama above proceedings and

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.93/2013, Kalyandurg,7 Dt:15-05-2026.

read over the contents explained to A1 and PW.2 received signature of A1 and

PW.2. On 17-05-2012 he sent one part of sample along with Form VI memorandum and separate copy of Form VI memorandum to the Food Annalist of Hyderabad vide postal receipt concerned, dated 17.05.2012. On 05-06-2012

Food Safety Designated Officer received report along with covering latter dated 01.06.2012 in that report expert opined that “the sample doesn't conform to the standard of Aerobic Microbial Count and doesn't not contain BAS Certification

Batch Number and date of package and manufacture address it is unsafe and misbranded. He further deposed that on 06-06-2012 Food Safety Designated

Officer sent notice to A1 and A2 U/s 46 (4) FSS Act along with Food Annalist report to send another part of sample to referral laboratory within 30 days. But,

A1 and A2 availed the opportunities. On 15-06-2012 FSDO sent a detail report to the Commissioner of Food Safety of AP, Hyderabad for further orders. He further deposed that on 19-11-2012 FSDO, sent another letter to the commissioner of food safety of AP, Hyderabad request to issued necessary orders. On 06-03-2013 the Commissioner of Food Safety Hyderabad gave a permission to prosecute against A1 and A2 and FSDO forwarded the same to him. He filed the complaint before this court accordingly. Ex.P.1: Complaint, dt.18.04.2013.

Ex.P.2: G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 25-08-2011. Ex.P.3: G.O.Ms.No.323, dated 27- 10-2011. Ex.P4: G.O.Rt.No.101, dated 16-01-2013. Ex.P5: Cash receipt Rs.32- 00, dated 16.05.2012. Ex.P6: Form V A notice dated 16.05.2012. Ex.P7: the label on container dated 16.05.2012. Ex.P8: The original mediator report dated

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.93/2013, Kalyandurg,8 Dt:15-05-2026.

16.05.2012. Ex.P9: Intimation to FBO, dated 16.05.2012. Ex.P.10: For VI memorandum, dated 17.05.2012. Ex.P.11: Postal receipt dated 17.05.2012.

Ex.P.12: Postal receipt dated 17.05.2012. Ex.P.13: Acknowledgment of FSDO,

dated 17.05.2012. Ex.P14: Covering latter of FSDO, dated 01.06.2012. Ex.P.15:

Food annalist report, dated 01.06.2012. Ex.P.16: U/s 46 (4) notice, dated 05.06.2012. Ex.P.17: Postal receipt, dated 06.06.2012. Ex.P.18 Postal receipt,

dated 06.06.2012. Ex.P.19: detailed report of FSDO, dated 15.06.2012. Ex.P.20:

Detail report of FSDO, dated 19.11.2012. Ex.P.21: prosecution permission order,

dated 06.03.2013. During cross-examination PW.1 admitted that the scene of

offence place is busy locality area having available of many people. PW.1 is the hotel Proprietor. No photos captured at the scene of offence place while conducting the panchanama. He further admitted that A1 is not a manufacturer.

He did not secure gazetted officers to act as mediators, water pouches deferent types available in open market. He denied the suggestions posed by learned defence counsel as search proceedings and seizure proceedings not followed as per 100(4) Cr.P.C. and lodged complaint for statistical purpose and the accused never committed any offence and the Exs.P1 to P21 are created for filing of this case.

12) The crucial witness of this case as per prosecution is mediator at the time of seizure of unsafe drinking water pouches and examined as

PW.2/M.K.Subramanyam Rao is not supported to the prosecution and turned into hostile and he deposed in his chief-examination that he is a resident of

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.93/2013, Kalyandurg,9 Dt:15-05-2026.

Kalyandurgam village and Mandal. He is a private employee, previously he is a owner of Hotel Sivaji, situated at Old bus stand, Kalyandurgam. He does not know PW.1. He knows A1 as he is adjacent shop owner previously. He does not know Food Safety Officer, Ananthapuramu inspected the shop of A1, five years ago, the Food Safety Officer, Anantapuramu obtained his signatures on four papers i.e., Exs.P5, P6, P8 and signatures are marked as Exs.P22, P23 and P24 respectively and the contents not known to him. When the presence of PW.2 who is cited as mediator, was found doubtful at the time of alleged sampling procedure under mediator report(Ex.P8), the evidence of PW.1 itself is not sufficient to hold that he complied with all the provisions and rules required to be followed under the Act while resorting to sampling procedure not followed 100(4)

Cr.P.C at the timing of seizing of said water packets as contended by prosecution. Hence, the evidence of crucial witness who acted as mediator at the time of inspection of shop of A1 and seizure of unsafe and misbranded Akshay

Jal Drinking water pouches under the cover of panchanama, his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution as PW.2 is hostile and the prosecution version is not proved as per complaint concern.

13)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that as per evidence of PW.1, supported with Exs.P1 to P21 and other material available on record clinchingly establishes that A1 being Proprietor of M/s.Chowdeswari Cool Drinks,

Kalyandurg, who sold unsafe & Misbranded Akshay Jal Packaged Drinking Water

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.93/2013, Kalyandurg,10 Dt:15-05-2026.

250 ml., pouches and the same was processed by A2, who is Proprietor of

M/s.Badri Packaged Drinking Water, Anantapur under the name and style Akshay

Jal Packaged Drinking Water and thereby they committed the offence.

14)The learned counsel for A1 is not of total denial. He contended that there is no support of independent mediator to the alleged sampling procedure not followed the 100(4) Cr.P.C. PW.1 has not followed the correct procedure of sampling of said Akshay Jal Packaged Drinking water and there is no document to establish the connectivity of Accused No.1 and 2 to the said packaged drinking water and thus, the accused No.1 is entitled for acquittal.

15)In view of such rival contentions, the entire evidence was perused to analyze whether it was sufficient to establish the offence levelled against accused No.1. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.

1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21 (As mentioned in Appendix of Evidence).

Among them, PW.1 was the then Food Safety Officer, who inspected the Cool

Drink shop of accused No.1. At the time of his visit he suspected the quality of ₹ water pouches and purchased 64 water pouches each 200 ml., by paying 32/- and taken cash receipt and drawn samples of Akshay Jal Packaged Drinking

Water. He is also the complainant. His evidence goes in accordance to the contents of the complaint. According to him, he had drawn the samples in the presence of an independent mediator i.e., PW.2 and A1 and prepared mediator

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.93/2013, Kalyandurg,11 Dt:15-05-2026.

report/(Ex.P8) and PW.2 is turned into hostile and his deposed evidence is not helpful to the prosecution and mediator report is not valid at law as mediator i.e.,

PW.2 turned into hostile as sanctity of mediator report is lapsed on the point of mediator testimony since hostile not supported the prosecution version.

16)It is the first contention of accused No.1 that no independent mediator was secured by PW.1 at the time of alleged sampling procedure and the non-support of independent mediator creates doubt in the version of the

PW.1 and hence, the deposed evidence of mediator turned into hostile the sanctity of Ex.P8 is lapsed, A1 is entitled for benefit of doubt. As pointed out by the learned defence counsel, PW.2 categorically deposed that PW.1 never inspected the Cool Drink of Accused No.1 and never drawn samples in his presence. Even though, he identified his signatures i.e., Ex.P22, P23 and P24 on cash receipt, Form V A and mediator report, he categorically deposed that he does not know the contents of the same. As PW.2 did not support the prosecution case, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared PW.2 as hostile and cross-examined him with the permission of the Court. But, nothing was elicited to prove his presence at the time of alleged sampling. So, there is no support of independent mediator to the version of PW.1, which creates doubt as to whether, he followed the sampling procedure as required to be followed under section 38 of the Act read with Rule 2.4.1 of Food Safety and Standard

Rules, 2011. As such, the court holds that the deposed evidence of PW.1 not

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.93/2013, Kalyandurg,12 Dt:15-05-2026.

sufficient and failure of PW.1 to secure independent mediators and to comply with the mandatory provisions related to sampling procedure under the Act is fatal to the case of the complainant.

17)In the light of above discussion, the court holds that PW.1 failed to secure mediator even very much availability of respectable revenue official local inhabitants and to follow the sampling procedure laid down in the Act and Rules and thereby violated the mandatory provisions provided under Section 38 of the

Act and Section 2.4.1 of the Food safety and standard Rules, 2011. Further, there is no support of mediator who acted as mediator at the time of seizure of

Akshay Jal Packaged Drinking water 200 ml., as sample. Further more, the complaint did not made efforts to secure the presence of any one of customer or purchaser of said Akshay Jal Packaged Drinking water at the time of visit and to shown them as witness to prove material allegations against A1. Even the complaint did not made efforts to connect A1 and A2 with supportive documentary proofs such as license issued to A2 for processing the Drinking

Water and to sell the same to the general public. Moreover, the complaint failed to secure the presence of A2 even after lapse of 13 years from the date of lodging complaint and so, this Court split up the case against A2 since A1 has appearing before the Court regularly. Furthermore, PW.1 also admitted during cross-examination that A1 is not a manufacturer. Thus, it is clear that A1 not process the seized Akshay Jal Packaged Drinking Water 200 ml., pouches, who

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.93/2013, Kalyandurg,13 Dt:15-05-2026.

alleged to be purchased from A2, but the complainant/PW.1 failed to connect A1 and A2 by filing documentary proofs before this Court as A2 is being license holder processed unsafe and misbranded under the name and style as Akshay

Jal Packaged Drinking Water 200 ml., pouches and that A1 has been selling the same to the general public. Further, the complaint/PW.1 not seized any bills to connect A1 has purchased Akshay Jal Packaged Drinking Water from A2, who processed unsafe and misbranded water pouches under the name Akshay Jal

Packaged Drinking Water. Hence, prosecution version PW.1 is not sufficient as sanctity of Ex.P8-mediator report is lapsed and not valid at law and to consider the PW.1 evidence alone without mediator evidence is not sustainable to believe the prosecution version. The PW.1 not followed 100(4) Cr.P.C succinctly as admitted evidence of PW.1 scene of offence place is busy locality area no independent mediator supported the prosecution and not added as a list of witness and PW.1 i.e., Food Safety Officer not choose to summon to the revenue official to act as mediator and not filed summon issued to the PW.2 the deposed evidence of PW.1 also far from the truth on the point of PW.2 not supporting the prosecution version and mere filing Ex.P1 to P21 is not sufficient proof to believe the version of the prosecution unless supports the independent evidence of mediator as PW.2 turned hostile believing the evidence of PW.1 is six at seven. In such facts and circumstances on perusal of material aspects, this Court feels that A1 is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.93/2013, Kalyandurg,14 Dt:15-05-2026.

18) In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 3(1) (zz) 21, 26 (2) (i)(ii) and 27 (1) punishable under section 59(i) of FSS Act and Rules and accordingly A1 is acquitted under Section 255(1) of

Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of A1, if any executed earlier shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure.

The split up case in CC No.94/2026 against A2 is pending before this

Court. Hence, no directions pertaining to the property in this case.

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

pronounced by me in open court on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.BHANU,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence : P.W.1 : G.Venkateswara Rao, the then Food Safety Officer, None

Ananthapuramu Division.

P.W.2 : M.K.Subramanyam Rao (mediator).

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Complaint, dt.16.05.2012.

Ex.P.2: G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 25-08-2011.

Ex.P.3: G.O.Ms.No.323, dated 27-10-2011.

Ex.P4: G.O.Rt.No.101, dated 16-01-2013.

J.M.F.C Court, CC.No.93/2013, Kalyandurg,15 Dt:15-05-2026.

₹ Ex.P5: Cash receipt 32-00, dated 16.05.2012.

Ex.P6: Form V A notice dated 16.05.2012.

Ex.P7: The label on container dated 16.05.2012.

Ex.P8: The original mediator report dated 16.05.2012.

Ex.P9: Intimation to FBO, dated 16.05.2012.

Ex.P.10: For VI memorandum, dated 17.05.2012.

Ex.P.11: Postal receipt dated 17.05.2012.

Ex.P.12: Postal receipt dated 17.05.2012.

Ex.P.13: Acknowledgment of FSDO, dated 17.05.2012.

Ex.P14: Covering latter of FSDO, dated 01.06.2012.

Ex.P.15: Food annalist report, dated 01.06.2012.

Ex.P.16: U/s 46 (4) notice, dated 05.06.2012.

Ex.P.17: Postal receipt, dated 06.06.2012.

Ex.P.18: Postal receipt, dated 06.06.2012.

Ex.P.19: Detailed report of FSDO, dated 15.06.2012.

Ex.P.20: Detailed report of FSDO, dated 19.11.2012.

Ex.P.21: Prosecution permission order, dated 06.03.2013.

Ex.P.22: Signature of PW.2 on Cash receipt, dt.16.05.2012.

Ex.P.23: Signature of PW.2 on Form V A, dt.16.05.2012.

Ex.P.24: Signature of PW.2 on mediator report, dt.16.05.2012.

For Defence:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

Sd/- K.BHANU,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg. //True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

KALYANDURG.

Present: KATAM BHANU,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg.

Friday, this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Calendar in C.C.No.93 of 201 3 .

(As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Criminal Trial

Guidelines Regarding standardized format for preparation of

Tabulated charts in all criminal judgments , In Manojbhai Jethabhai

Parmar (Rohit). vs. State of Gujarath ’ 1 )

FORM – A & B

ComplainantThe State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Food Safety Officer, O/o Food Safety Designated Officer, Anantapur.

Represented byAssistant Public Prosecutor

Accused1. Gundiga Gopal, aged 38 years,S/oLakshmanna, Proprietor of M/s.Chowdeswari Cool Drinks, D.No.8/137, Opp. Balaji Lodge, Hindupur Road, KalyandurgVillageand Mandal, Anantapur District (Offender-1/A1).

2. Yengala Ganesh Babu, aged 35years,S/o Lakshminarayana, Proprietor of Akshay Jal Packaged Drinking Water, M/s.Badri Packaged DrinkingWater, Sy.No.121A-1C, H.L.C.Colony, Rajiv Colony Panchayath, Anantapur, Anantapur District (Offender-2).(Case against Offender-2 is split up and re-numbered as CC No.94/2026)

Represented bySri P.Thimmappa Chowdary, Advocate, Kalyandurg.

1Crl.Appeal No.2973 of 2023

Nature of offenceSection 3(1) (zz) 21, 26 (2) (i)

(ii) and 27 (1) punishable under section 59(i) of FSS Act and Rules

Date of offence Prior to 16-05-2012

Date of F.I.R./Complaint 16-05-2012

Date of Charge Sheet/Final 18-04-2013

Report

Date of framing of Charges 17-02-2026

Date of commencement of 17-02-2026 evidence

Date of which Judgment is ---- reserved

Date of the sentencing the 15-05-2026 orders if any

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty for the offence under Section 3(1) (zz) 21, 26 (2)

(i)(ii) and 27 (1) punishable under section 59(i) of FSS Act and Rules

Explanation for delayThis case is taken on file on 18.04.2013; on 17.02.2026 copies furnished to A1; on 17.02.2026 he was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusation in the contents of complaint and he pleaded not guilty; on 17.02.2026 & 24.02.2026 PWs1 and 2 are examined, Exs.P.1 to P.21 are marked and on 15.05.2026 heard arguments from both sides and on the same day Judgment pronounced (Vide Separate Judgment). Hence the delay.

Sentence or Order :In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 3(1) (zz) 21, 26 (2) (i)

(ii) and 27 (1) punishable under section 59(i) of FSS Act and Rules and accordingly A1 is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Code of

Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of A1, if any executed earlier shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment under section 437-A of

Code of Criminal Procedure.

The split up case in CC

No.94/2026 against A2 is pending

before this Court. Hence, no

directions pertaining to the property in this case.

ACCUSED DETAILS

Rank of Name of Date of Date of Offence Whether Sentence Period of AccusedAccusedarrestrelease on charged withAcquitted imposeddetention Bailor undergon convictede during trial for purpose of Section 428 Cr.P.C. A1Gundiga ------3(1) (zz) 21, 26 Acquitted-------- Gopal(2) (i)(ii) and 27 (1) of FSS Act and Rules

FORM - C

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

PROSECUTION

PW.1G.Venkateswara RaoDefacto-complainant

PW.2M.K.Subramanyam (Hostile)Mediator

DEFENCE WITNESSES IF ANY

Nil

COURT WITNESSES IF ANY

Nil

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS

PROSECUTION

Sl.Exhibit DescriptionProved by/ No.No.Attested by 1Ex.P.1Complaint, dt.16.05.2012.PW.1 2Ex.P.2G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 25-08-2011.PW.1 3Ex.P.3G.O.Ms.No.323, dated 27-10-2011.PW.1 4Ex.P.4G.O.Rt.No.101, dated 16-01-2013.PW.1 ₹ 5Ex.P.5Cash receipt 32-00, dated 16.05.2012.PW.1 6Ex.P.6Form V A notice dated 16.05.2012.PW.1 7Ex.P.7The label on container dated 16.05.2012.PW.1 8Ex.P.8The original mediator report dated 16.05.2012.PW.1 9Ex.P.9Intimation to FBO, dated 16.05.2012.PW.1 10Ex.P.10For VI memorandum, dated 17.05.2012.PW.1 11Ex.P.11Postal receipt dated 17.05.2012.PW.1 12Ex.P.12Postal receipt dated 17.05.2012.PW.1 13Ex.P.13Acknowledgment of FSDO, dated 17.05.2012.PW.1 14Ex.P.14Covering latter of FSDO, dated 01.06.2012.PW.1 15Ex.P.15Food annalist report, dated 01.06.2012.PW.1 16Ex.P.16U/s 46 (4) notice, dated 05.06.2012.PW.1 17Ex.P.17Postal receipt, dated 06.06.2012.PW.1 18Ex.P.18Postal receipt, dated 06.06.2012.PW.1 19Ex.P.19Detailed report of FSDO, dated 15.06.2012.PW.1 20Ex.P.20Detailed report of FSDO, dated 19.11.2012.PW.1 21Ex.P21Prosecution permission order, dated 06.03.2013.PW.1 22Ex.P22Signature of PW.2 on cash receipt, dt.16.05.2012.PW.2 23Ex.P23Signature of PW.2 on Form V A, dt.16.05.2012.PW.2 24Ex.P24Signature of PW.2 on mediator report, PW.2 dt.16.05.2012.

DEFENCE EXHIBITS

Sl.Exhibit DescriptionProved by/ No.No.Attested by

Nil

COURT EXHIBITS

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Sl.Material Object Description No.Number

Nil.

Sd/- K.BHANU,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg. Copy Submitted to: The Hon`ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu. //True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg. DIS.No. 703 , Dt. 16-05-2026.

1 APAN160006922022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

KALYANDURG.

PRESENT: KATAM BHANU

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg.

MONDAY, THIS THE 11 TH DAY OF MAY, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No. 404 of 2022 .

The State represented by Enforcement Sub-Inspector,

Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Kalyandurg.… Complainant.

-Vs-

1. Ediga Anjineyulu, aged 42 years, S/o E.Kristappa,

2. Ediga Chennarayudu, aged 36 years, S/o E.Venkatesh, Both are R/o Thimmasamudram Village, Kalyandurg Mandal. ... A1 & A2.

* * * * *

This case coming on 07-05-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri G.Balagopala Reddy, Advocate for A1 & A2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

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

1. Accused are charged for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 in Crime No.104/2019 of SEB

Station, Kalyandurg.

J.M.F.C.Court, CC.No.404/2022, Kalyandurg. Dt.11.05.2026. 2

2. The case of prosecution in brief as follows:

a) On 15.08.2019 at about 11.45 AM., during raids conducted by

LW.4/PW.4/K.Krishna Murthy, the then Proh. & Excise Sub-

Inspector, SEB Station, Kalyandurg along with his staff and mediators raided at Airtel Tower in Thimmasamudram village and there they found A1 and A2 while they were in possession of two plastic cans. On seeing the police, A1 and A2 tried to ran away from the spot by leaving the said cans. Immediately, PW.4 with the assistance of his staff caught hold A1 and A2. On inquiry, A1 and

A2 revealed their names and address particulars and also confessed that they used to sell the ID liquor for their livelihood.

Then, he verified the property i.e., two plastic cans each plastic can 10 liters capacity containing with 05 liters of ID liquor total 10 liters of ID liquor. Then, hedrawn 180 ml., as sample for chemical analysis purpose duly sealed and labelled and seized remaining contraband property from the possession of A1 & A2 at scene of offence in the presence of mediators and arrested them under the cover of panchanama drafted on the spot. He brought the arrested

A1 and A2, seized contraband and sample to the police station.

Basing on the strength of panchanama, he registered a case in

Cr.No.104/2019 under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and released A1 and A2 on station bail.

b) During the course of investigation, PW.4 forwarded the seized

I.D.liquor sample for chemical analysis. Later, he received the report vide CE No.726/2019, dt.07.11.2019 from the Government

Chemical Examiner for Prohibition & Excise, Chittoor opined that “The sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health”. As per the orders of Deputy Commissioner Proh. & Excise,

Ananthapuramu in vide RC No.301/2019/B2, dt.31.12.2019 the property destroyed on 29.02.2020. After completion of

J.M.F.C.Court, CC.No.404/2022, Kalyandurg. Dt.11.05.2026. 3 investigation, LW.5/P.Dathatreya, the then SEB Sub-Inspector filed charge-sheet. Hence, the charge.

3. This case was taken on cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P. Act against A1 & A2 and issued summons to them.

4. On appearance of accused before this court, the copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused are examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for which he denied the offence, the charge punishable under Section 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P.P. Act, 1995 was framed, read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which, they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of accused the prosecution in all examined four listed witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 4 and got exhibited

Exs.P1 to P5. The learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses viz., LW.5/P.Dathatreya, the then SEB

Sub-Inspector, SEB Station, Kalyandurg.

7. Having closed the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, for which they denied the incriminating evidence leveled against them. When they call upon to enter upon defence evidence, they reported no defence witnesses to be examined on their behalf and got marked no documents on their behalf.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of A1 & A2 for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P. Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt?

J.M.F.C.Court, CC.No.404/2022, Kalyandurg. Dt.11.05.2026. 4

10. POINT :-

Accused are charged for the offence punishable under section 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P. Act, 1995 for illegal preparation and selling and were in possession of I.D. liquor without any license or permit.

11.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 and 2-E.Prabhaka and E.Ramesh, who are acted as mediators wherein they stated that they do not know anything about this case.

The Kalyanadurgam Excise police never arrested any persons in their presence and seized contraband. In the year, 2019 the Kalyandurgam

Excise police obtained their respective signatures on written papers, the contents of which were not known to them on which the police have obtained their signatures, thereby prosecution treated them as hostile and cross examined PW.1 and 2, but nothing was elicited to prove the seizure proceedings, except marking of their respective signature as Exs.P1 and P2 on panchayatheenama, dated 15.08.2019. Hence, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is not useful for prosecution to prove the seizure proceedings.

12. On coming to the evidence of Investigating Officer PW.4-

V.Harikrishna, the then Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station,

Kalyandurgdeposed in chief-examination that on 15-08-2019 at about 11.00 AM., while he was at present in Excise Station, he received credible information and secured himself and PWs1 to 3 and proceeded to airtel tower situate Thimmasamudram village found A1 and A2 while proceeded with white cans. On seeing police party A1 and A2 tried to escape, they caught hold A1 and A2 and that accused reported their details as mentioned in the charge sheet. On search of the said cans he found ID arrack 5 liters each in two cans. He lifted one sample from seized contraband for chemical analysis under cover of Mahazarnama report and same already marked as Ex.P3 and same is scribed by PW.3. He along with seized contraband and accused

J.M.F.C.Court, CC.No.404/2022, Kalyandurg. Dt.11.05.2026. 5 brought to the Excise station. Himself registered the crime

No.104/2019 U/sec.7 A r/w 8 (e) APP act and same is marked as

Ex.P4 and they issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice due to Carona pandemic.

He obtained analysis report on CE No.726/2019 dated 07-01-2019 same is marked as Ex.P.5 the expert opined that I.D arrack unfit for human consumption. No property produced before court. The seized contraband was destroyed by following due procedure. Later, he handed over the CD to the LW.5/P.Dattathreya, the then ESI after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet. During cross- examination PW.4 stated that the scene of offence place is Mandal headquarters and is big village as well as busy locality area and having availability of revenue officials. He cannot say exact location of scene of offence place along with boundaries and he cannot say the size of seized cans. No summons issued to the mediators and not filed before the Court. He admitted that there is no rough sketch in this case and Ex.P3 does not disclosed when started and completed. He denied the suggestions posed by learned defence counsel as they foisted a false case against A1 and A2 for statistical purpose and accused no way connected with this case.

13.The evidence of PW.3/P.Kavindra, the then Excise Constable, SEB

Station, Kalyandurg supports the version of PW.4 in all material aspects. During cross-examination PW.3 stated that he cannot say exact location of scene of offence place along with boundaries. There is no rough sketch in this case. From the admissions of PWs3 and 4 it is clear that the scene of offence place is Mandal Headquarters having availability of revenue officials, but they did not secure the same to act as mediators. Even though PW.4 secured two respectable mediators, but they too turned hostile did not supports the version of prosecution.

Hence, the evidence of PWs3 and 4 also not helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the allegations levelled against A1 & A2.

J.M.F.C.Court, CC.No.404/2022, Kalyandurg. Dt.11.05.2026. 6

14.The learned APP for prosecution argued that the prosecution bring home the guilt of A1 & A2 by examining P.Ws.1 to 4, got exhibited

Ex.P1 to P5 and requested the court to convict the accused according to law.

15.The learned counsel for accused argued that accused are the sole bread earners of their respective families, they are innocents and do not commit the alleged offence and the case is foisted only for a statistical purpose. The learned defence counsel for the accused further argued that Ex.P3 was brought into existence as if the P.Ws.3 and 4 found A1 & A2 while they were in possession of two plastic cans containing 05 liters each of I.D.liquor while transporting the same in order to selling to the general public in their village and on sight of raid party, but the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of A1 & A2 beyond all reasonable doubt by placing cogent and consistence evidence and even PWs1 and 2, who acted as mediators in this case turned hostile and did not supports the case of prosecution and failed to examine any one of villagers or one of the customer of A1 & A2 or neighbours at the scene of offence to inspire the confidence of the court.

16.The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the independent mediators did not supports the prosecution case and they turned hostile, in the absence of independent eye witnesses, the accused No.1 and 2 can’t be convict basing on the sole evidence of

P.Ws.3 and 4 who are no other than the police officials and hence prays the court to acquit A1 and A2 in the interest of justice.

17. The learned counsel for accused relied upon the decision reported in 1006 Part-I ALD (Crl.) page No.254 Andhra Pradesh Excise and Prohibition. “Wherein their Lordship that Search and seizure- Failure to follow proper procedure – Effect – Accused found in possession of ID liquor – Conviction under Section 8(b) of Act– Confirmed in appeal

J.M.F.C.Court, CC.No.404/2022, Kalyandurg. Dt.11.05.2026. 7 - Revision - Excise Officials picked up panch witnesses at police station and took them along with them to scene of offence situate at distance of three kilometers – As disclosed by Panchanama no attempt made to secure independent respectable witnesses of locality which is at a distance of 25 yards from scene of offence – Failure to follow the procedure for search as contemplated under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. While seizing plastic bag containing ID liquor - Seizure made is illegal – PW.2, mediator in whose presence plastic bag containing ID liquor was seized, turned hostile – Both Courts below relied upon self serving testimony of Excise Officials and found accused guilty – In absence independent evidence, evidence of Excise Officials cannot be relied upon – Revision allowed. Conviction and – sentence set aside 100(4)”.

18. In view of the above arguments advanced by the defence counsel this court is of opinion that the court has to see that whether the possession of total 10 Liters of I.D.liquor and on sight of raid party from A1 and A2 at the scene of offence alleged to be prepared by the accused in order to sell to the general public for their wrongful gain is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt, as can be seen from the charge sheet averments and the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 it is clear that the scene of offence place is situated at Airtel tower situated at

Thimmasamudram Village and accused were found while they were in possession of two plastic cans having 10 liters capacity containing 05 liters ID liquor in each can while transporting the same in order to sell for their wrongful gain and on sight of raid party caught hold the accused and the time of alleged offence at about 11.45 AM on 15.08.2019, while PW.4 during the course of routine raids conducted by PW.4 is also not at all impossible to secure Government Official as independent local inhabitant mediators from the scene of offence place situated at Thimmasamudram village, to strengthen the seizure of ID liquor in that regard as the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses or villagers or neighbours of accused No.1 and 2 or any one of customer at the scene of offence. Even the

J.M.F.C.Court, CC.No.404/2022, Kalyandurg. Dt.11.05.2026. 8

Investigating Officer/PW.4 did not secure the presence of any pedestrian on the road at the scene of offence as on the date of offence either cite them as witnesses or accused.

19. P.W.3 stated that himself drafted Ex.P.3 on the dictation of PW.4 on the spot and PW.4 seized contraband from the scene of offence on 15.08.2019 and arrested A1 and A2 in the presence of mediators, but the mediators, who acted as panchayathdars in this case turned hostile not supports the case of prosecution and they admitted that

Ex.P3 does not mentioned about exact location of scene of offence, and when it started and completed, which creates serious doubt about their presence at the time of seizure of contraband from the possession of A1 and A2 at the scene of offence. In their cross examination of P.Ws.3 and 4 denied the suggestion that they conducted table investigation and filed false case against the accused

No.1 and 2 for statistical purpose and not arrested the accused and no property seized in this case from the possession of the accused No.1 and 2.

20.In view of the above evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, it clearly shows that

PW.4 secured mediators, but the same is fatal to the case of prosecution as the mediators turned into hostile and did not support the case and seizure of ID liquor, more over the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses such as neighbours of accused as well as village elders, who are present at the timing of arrest and seizure of contraband to support their version and the evidence of

P.Ws.3 and 4 appears to be doubtful whether they found accused while selling and are in possession of said plastic cans containing total 10 liters of ID liquor at the alleged place of offence.

21. Basing on the oral evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 who are no other than the police officials and interested witnesses, it not possible to come to

J.M.F.C.Court, CC.No.404/2022, Kalyandurg. Dt.11.05.2026. 9 conclusion that the seizure of the said possession of 10 Liters of I.D.

liquor through possession of accused No.1 and 2 is not established.

The oral evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, the prosecution mainly relied upon the Ex.P3 occurrence report/panchayathinama, as can be seen from the contents of Ex.P3, it is clear that A1 and A2 confessed their guilt

before the police which is not admissible in the eye of law as per

Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. Hence, this court is of considered view that Ex.P3 can’t be taken into consideration to meet the accused liable for an alleged offence.

22. The evidence of P.W.4 revealed he seized the entire 10 Liters of I.D.

liquor and lifted one sample 180 ml., I.D. liquor and he forwarded the sample to the Chemical Examiner Regional Prohibition & Excise

Laboratory, Chittoor for analysis and report submitted to the

Deputy Commissioner Proh. & Excise-cum-Confiscating Authority,

Ananthapuramu for confiscation and destruction of contraband property. He categorically stated that he did not obtain any receipt to show that they handed over the same to the Deputy Commissioner of

Proh. & Excise-cum-Confiscating Authority, Ananthapuramu. P.W.4 also not produced the sample before this court to mark the same as material object to prove his case.

23. In view of the evidence of P.W.s3 and 4 with regard to connect the accused No.1 and 2 with the alleged offence and the arguments submitted by the defence counsel admittedly the said possession of 10

Liters of I.D. liquor and on sight of raid party, after taking the sample was not produced before this court. Further, PWs1 and 2 who acted as mediators in this case turned hostile and did not supports the case of prosecution. At this stage, basing on oral evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4- police officials, it is not possible to come to just conclusion that the prosecution has established the case against the accused No.1 and 2.

In the absence of independent evidence and this court has considered

J.M.F.C.Court, CC.No.404/2022, Kalyandurg. Dt.11.05.2026. 10 view that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 who are no other than the police personal and interested witnesses is not established beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case the evidence of P.Ws 3 and 4 shows sample was seized properly labelled and sealed with identification slips under the cover of Ex.P3-panchayathinama from the scene of offence, to strengthen the seizure of the said contraband is certainly fatal to the prosecution case.

24. For the fore going reasons this court hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 & A2 beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused are entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

25. In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition

Act, 2019 and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any obtained earlier shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. Seized contraband is destructed by the Concerned Authorities. No property produced

before this Court. Hence, no directions pertaining to the property in

this case.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.BHANU,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence : P.W.1: E.Prabhakar (mediator). None P.W.2: E.Ramesh (mediator). P.W.3: P.Kavindra, the then Enforcement Constable. P.W.4: V.Harikrishna, the then Enforcement Inspector.

J.M.F.C.Court, CC.No.404/2022, Kalyandurg. Dt.11.05.2026. 11

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Signature of PW.1 panchayathinama, dt.15.08.2019. Ex.P.2 : Signature of PW.2 panchayathinama, dt.15.08.2019. Ex.P.3 : Panchayathinama, dt.15.08.2019. Ex.P.4 : F.I.R. Ex.P.5 : Chemical analysis report vide CE No.726/2019, dt.07.11.2019.

For Defence: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL.

Sd/- K.BHANU,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg. //True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

KALYANDURG.

Present: KATAM BHANU,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg.

Monday, this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Calendar in C.C.No. 404 of 2022.

(As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Criminal Trial

Guidelines Regarding standardized format for preparation of

Tabulated charts in all criminal judgments , In Manojbhai Jethabhai

Parmar (Rohit). vs. State of Gujarath ’ 1 )

FORM – A & B

ComplainantThe State Represented by Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SpecialEnforcement BureauStation, Kalyandurg.

Represented byAssistant Public Prosecutor

AccusedA1-Ediga Anjineyulu, aged 42 years, S/o E.Kristappa, A2-Ediga Chennarayudu, aged 36 years, S/o E.Venkatesh, Both are R/o Thimmasamudram Village, Kalyandurg Mandal.

Represented bySri G.Balagopala Reddy, Advocate, Kalyandurg.

Nature of offenceSection 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 2019

Date of offence 15-08-2019

Date of F.I.R. 15-08-2019

Date of Charge Sheet 02-02-2021

Date of framing of Charges 23-06-2025

Date of commencement of 19-11-2025 evidence

Date of which Judgment is 07-05-2026 1Crl.Appeal No.2973 of 2023 reserved

Date of the sentencing the 11-05-2026 orders if any

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 2019.

Explanation for delayThis case is taken on file on 16.07.2022; on 20.10.2022 copies furnished to A1 and A2; on 23.06.2025 they were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and pleaded not guilty; on 19.11.2025 and 11.12.2025 PWs1 to 4 are examined, Exs.P.1 to P.5 are marked and on 07.05.2026 heard arguments from both sides and on 11.05.2026 Judgment pronounced (Vide Separate Judgment). Hence the delay.

Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition

Act, 2019 and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any obtained earlier shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Seized contraband is destructed by the Concerned Authorities. No property produced before this

Court. Hence, no directions pertaining to the property in this case.

ACCUSED DETAILS

Rank of Name of Date of Date of Offence Whether Sentence Period of AccusedAccusedarrestrelease on charged Acquitted imposeddetention Bailwithor undergone convictedduring trial for purpose of Section 428 Cr.P.C. A1Ediga 15.08.201915.08.20197(A) r/w Acquitted-------- (Station 8(e) of Anineyulu Bail)APP Act A2Ediga -do--do--do--do------- Chennarayudu

FORM - C

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

PROSECUTION

PW.1E.Prabhakar (Hostile).Mediator

PW.2E.Ramesh (Hostile).Mediator

PW.3P.Kavindra, the then Excise Police witness Constable.

PW.4V.Harikrishna, the then Inspector of Investigating Officer Police.

DEFENCE WITNESSES IF ANY

Nil

COURT WITNESSES IF ANY

Nil

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS

PROSECUTION

Sl.Exhibit DescriptionProved by/ No.No.Attested by 1Ex.P.1Signature of PW.1 on panchayathinama, PW.1 dt.15.08.2019.

2Ex.P.2Signature of PW.2 on panchayathinama, PW.2 dt.15.08.2019.

3Ex.P.3Panchayathinama, dt.15.08.2019.PW.3 4Ex.P.4FIR.PW.4 5Ex.P.5Chemical analysis report vide CE No.726/2019, PW.4 dt.07.11.2019.

DEFENCE EXHIBITS

Sl.Exhibit DescriptionProved by/ No.No.Attested by

Nil

COURT EXHIBITS

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Sl.Material Object Description No.Number

Nil

Sd/- K.BHANU,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg. Copy Submitted to: The Hon`ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu. //True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg. DIS.No. , Dt. -05-2026.

APAN150001262017

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: RAYADURG

Present: KATAM BHANU,

Civil Judge(Junior Division), Kalyandurg.

FAC Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rayadurg

FRIDAY, THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

O.S.30 of 2017

Between:

K.Onkaramma, W/o.Chandrasekhar @ Sekhar, Hindu, Aged about 40 years, Cultivation, r/at Thimmalapuram Village, Nagalapuram Post, D.Hirehal Mandal. … Plaintiff

And:

1)T.Hanumanthappa, S/o. Late Talari Chinna Thippaiayh, Hindu, Aged about 80 years,Cultivation, r/at Thimmalapuram Village,Nagalapuram Post, D.Hirehal Mandal (died by his LRs)

2)Boya Hanumakka, W/o.Late T. Hanumanthappa, Aged about 69 years, Agriculturist, r/at Thimmalapuram Village, Nagalapuram Post, D.Hirehal Mandal.

3)Ramulamma, W/o.Maliyappa, D/o. Late T.Hanumanthappa, Aged about 52 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, Hanumangudda Village, Molakalmuru Taluk, Chitradurga District.

4)Vamiki Rathnamma, W/o.V.Hanumanthappa, D/o. Late T. Hanumanthappa, Aged about 43 years,Hindu, Agriculturist, Sridharagadda Village, Bellary Taluk and District.

(D2 to D4 are added as per order in I.A.No.984 of 2024

dt.26.09.2025) … Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 16-02-2026 in the presence of Sri Y.H.Babu Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendants set 2

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.30/2017

RAYADURG Dated: 13-3-2026.

ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of specific performance of suit agreement of sale, dt.27.01.2014 executed by the deceased 1st defendant by directing the defendants 2 to 4 being legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property, within time fixed by the Court, if they fails to do so, execute the same through process of law and for other reliefs.

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

The deceased 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he has sold the same to the plaintiff on 27.01.2014, after taking the agreed consideration of Rs.65,000/- in cash from the plaintiff and he was put into possession and enjoyment of the same on the same day. The deceased 1st defendant promising to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff at any time on her request. The time is not the essence of the Contract under the agreement of sale mentioned above. On the basis of the agreement of sale, the Revenue authorities have also issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the plaintiff and incorporated the name of the plaintiff in 1-B and

Village Adangals from the Faslie 1424 till this date, with regard to the property mentioned in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is raising crops regularly in the plaint schedule property since the time of taking possession of the lands from the date of agreement of sale. The plaintiff has raised crop loan in Andhra

Bank, Rayadurg with regard to the property mentioned in the plaint schedule property. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff to execute regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the deceased 1st defendant during his lifetime has been postponing the execution of registered sale deed on some pretext or the other without any justification. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to 3

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.30/2017

RAYADURG Dated: 13-3-2026.

perform her part of contract. On 19.10.2016 the plaintiff issued legal notice to the deceased 1st defendant and he gave a reply notice through his advocate with false allegations on 12.11.2016. During pendency of the above suit, the deceased 1st defendant reported as died in the year 2023, leaving behind him, the defendants 2 to 4 who are his legal representatives, in the capacity of his wife and daughters respectively. Except the defendants 2 to 4, there are no other legal representatives to the deceased 1st defendant and they have succeeded to the estate of the deceased 1st defendant after his death. Being the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant, the defendants 2 to 4 are added as parties to the suit, as they are the proper and necessary parties to the suit.

Hence, the suit for specific performance of the sale agreement dt.27.01.2014, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants 2 to 4 who are the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant. The plaintiff paid stamp duty of

Rs.3,250/- and penalty of Rs.9,750/- total Rs.13,000/- which was remitted through the CFMS Challan ID No.60189246652022 Dt.25.02.2023 as per orders in I.A.No.548 of 2018 in O.S.No.30 of 2017.

3. The deceased 1 st defendant filed written statement by denying most of

the allegations made in the plaint and further took the following

contentions:

The deceased 1st defendant stated that he never sold the suit schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff at any time particularly on 27.01.2014 by taking consideration of Rs.65,000/- from her and he did not execute the so called sale agreement on 27.01.2014 and put her possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. So called sale agreement dt.27.01.2014 is a got up and fabricated one and got fabricated by the plaintiff and her husband in order to get wrongful gain and to file the false and unjust suit by taking the defendant’s illiteracy as an undue advantage. The defendant never put the plaintiff possession of the plaint schedule property. The Pattadar pass book and title deed are a got up and fabricated one in collusion with the revenue authorities.

4

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.30/2017

RAYADURG Dated: 13-3-2026.

So that, the defendant has filed an appeal before the R.D.O. Kalyanadurg for its cancellation and the same is pending. Even to day the defendant has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule mentioned property by regularly raising crops. The plaintiff never approached the defendant and requested him to execute regular registered sale deed. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 19.10.2016 and the defendant got issued reply notice with true facts. The alleged cause of action is a got up one and suit is also bared by time. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs, otherwise the innocent defendant shall be put to suffer and hardship.

4.On considering the submissions of both sides and basing upon the pleadings, written statement, documents and entire records, the then Presiding

Officer the following issues were settled on 09.08.2018:

i. Whether the agreement of sale dt.27.01.2014 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform her

part of contract?

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of

agreement of sale as prayed for?

iv. To what relief?

5.Having pendency of above suit, the 1st defendant died. The defendants 2 to 4 are added as the necessary parties being legal representatives of the deceased sole defendant as per the orders in I.A.No.984 of 2024 dt.26.09.2025. On the other hand, the defendants 2 to 4 having received summons, failed to appear before this

Court and D-2 to D-4 remained ex-parte to the suit proceedings. Hence, the matter is posted for plaintiff’s evidence.

5

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.30/2017

RAYADURG Dated: 13-3-2026.

6.The plaintiff in support of her contentions, examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7.

7.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material available on record.

8. POINT:- Issues I to iii are interrelated answering together.

8a)The plaintiff to establish her case, got examined herself as PW.1 by filing chief affidavit reiterating the facts of the plaint. The plaintiff submits that the deceased 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he has sold the same to the plaintiff and executed an agreement of sale on 27.01.2014 in her favour. Inspite of her several demands the deceased 1st defendant postponing the execution of registered sale deed on some pretext or the other. Therefore, she got issued legal notice on 19.10.2016 through her counsel demanding the deceased 1st defendant to execute regular registered sale deed in her favour and the deceased 1st defendant gave a reply notice through his advocate with false allegations. During the pendency of case, the deceased 1st defendant died and so, the defendants 2 to 4 are added parties as his legal representatives as per the orders in I.A.No.984 dt.26.09.2025. Hence, prayed to decree the suit as prayed for. To prove her contentions, the plaintiff got marked the original agreement of sale, dt.27.01.2014 entered into by the plaintiff and deceased 1st defendant as Ex.A1. It discloses that the deceased 1st defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration of Rs.65,000/- with specific boundaries and received the sale consideration of

Rs.65,000/- from the plaintiff on the same day. The said agreement was executed by the deceased 1st defendant. Ex.A2-Original Pattadar pass book bearing Patta No.1391 stands in the name of the plaintiff issued by the then

Mandal Revenue Officer, D.Hirehal. It discloses that the plaintiff is the original owner of the suit schedule property and other properties i.e. 1)Sy.No.8-B to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents 2) Sy.No.34D to an extent of Ac.1.91 cents 3) Sy.No.38- 6

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.30/2017

RAYADURG Dated: 13-3-2026.

A to an extent of Ac.0.42 cents and 4) Sy.No.38-B to an extent of Ac.0.10 cents situated at Nagalapuram Village Polam, D.Hirehal Mandal. It is further discloses that the properties pertaining to the pattadar pass book are not tallied with the agreement of sale property except Sy.No.38-B to an extent of Ac.0.10 cents and

Sy.No.39 to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents . Ex.A.3-Office copy of legal notice issued to the deceased 1st defendant dt.19.10.2016. It discloses that the plaintiff called 1st defendant to attend the Sub-Registrar Office, Rayadurg on 02.11.2016 to execute a regular registered sale deed in her favour in respect of suit schedule property, failing which she will be compelled to file a suit for Specific

Performance of the contract. Ex.A4- Reply notice received from the Advocate of the deceased 1st defendant dt.12.11.2016. It discloses that the deceased 1st defendant denied the execution of Ex.A1 and the same was fabricated with the collusion of revenue authorities. It further disclose that the deceased 1st defendant also filed an appeal before R.D.O., Kalyandurg seeking cancellation of revenue records issued in the name of plaintiff and the same is pending before the concern. Ex.A5- Mee-Seva copy of 1B Register dt.18.01.2017 stands in the name of the plaintiff issued by the Tahsildar, D.Hirehal. Ex.A6-Mee-seva copy of

Adangals dt.18.01.2017 (3 in number) stands in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.A7-

Mee-seva copy of Adangals dt.18.01.2017 (3 in number) stands in the name of the plaintiff.

8b) The deceased 1st defendant filed written statement and denied the execution of Ex.A.1 and not come forward to adduced evidence from defendant’s side.

The 1st defendant is died and Legal Representatives of deceased 1st defendant came into record as a defendants 2 to 4 not chose to adduce evidence to rebut the Ex.A1 and to deny the plaintiff version and mere filing of written statement of deceased 1st defendant is not sufficient unless until adducing evidence, more so, defendants 2 to 4 as adding a defendants after receipt of summons not appeared

before Court and defendants 2 to 4 were ex-parte.

7

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.30/2017

RAYADURG Dated: 13-3-2026.

9.The oral evidence of P.W.1, it goes to show that the deceased 1st defendant sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs.65,000/- with specific boundaries. The deceased 1st defendant promising to execute regular registered sale deed i.e. Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff at any time on her request. The time is not the essence of the Contract under the agreement of sale. On the basis of the agreement of sale, the Revenue authorities have also issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the plaintiff and incorporated the name of the plaintiff in 1-B and Village

Adangals from the Faslie 1424 till this date, with regard to the property mentioned in the plaint schedule property.The plaintiff is raising crops regularly in the plaint schedule property since the time of taking possession of the lands from the date of agreement of sale. The plaintiff has raised crop loan in Andhra

Bank, Rayadurg with regard to the property mentioned in the plaint schedule property. This Court came to conclusion that on perusal of the Ex.A2, Ex.A5 to

A8 same are issued by Revenue authorities on basing on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, A5 to A8 are discloses plaintiff name, plaintiff is possession holder, the Government revenue authorities believed Ex.A1 and issued Ex.A2, A5 to A8 by mutating the plaintiff name into revenue records and proved the possession of plaintiff.

10. The demands made by the plaintiff to execute regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the deceased 1st defendant during his lifetime has been postponing the execution of registered sale deed on some pretext or the other without any justification. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform her part of contract. On 19.10.2016 the plaintiff issued legal notice i.e. Ex.A3 to the deceased 1st defendant and he gave a reply notice i.e. Ex.A4 through his advocate with false allegations on 12.11.2016. Hence, the suit for specific performance of the sale agreement dt.27.01.2014, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants 2 to 4 who are the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant. The Ex.A3-legal notice of the plaintiff issued to the deceased defendant No.1 proved readiness and willingness of the plaintiff whereas Ex.A4 8

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.30/2017

RAYADURG Dated: 13-3-2026.

reply legal notice denied by the deceased 1st defendant but not come forward to adduce evidence either by deceased 1st defendant and legal representatives of 1st defendant i.e. defendants 2 to 4 having added not chose to adduce their evidence to rebut the presumption against Ex.A1. The evidence of P.W.1 as well as documentary evidence i.e. Ex.A1 to A8 remained unchallenged unrebutted by the defendants, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the same and to defend the contentions of the plaintiff. Such silence of the defendants inclined the Court to draw the adverse inference against the defendants that they have been intentionally evade to perform their part of the contract.

11.In such facts and circumstances, the Court holds that the plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform her part of contract under the suit agreement of sale(Saswatha Vikraya Patram). But, during the lifetime of deceased 1st defendant refused to perform his part of contract under the suit agreement of sale (Saswatha Vikraya Patram)in respect of the suit schedule property.

Subsequently, the deceased 1st defendant died leaving behind him, the defendants 2 to 4 herein as his legal heirs and they were added as defendants to the above suit as per orders. This Court served summons upon the defendants 2 to 4, they failed to appear before this Court and remained exparte to the suit proceedings. Therefore, the court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance “suit agreement of sale (Saswatha Vikraya Patram)” i.e.

Ex.A1 by the defendants 2 to 4 as they being wife and daughters of deceased 1st defendant as per the terms and conditions of the suit agreement of sale (Saswatha Vikraya Patram) i.e. Ex.A.1.The Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 shows different survey numbers, this Court opined that Ex.A2 issued by the revenue authorities and mentioned survey numbers in Ex.A2 proves the plaintiff’s possession whereas same survey numbers of Ex.A2 not appearing in Ex.A1 is tenable and at the juncture of same survey numbers not tallied in Ex.A1 and A2 no impediment to pass decree as execution of Ex.A1 is proved by the plaintiff and plaintiff proved readiness and willingness and defendants 2 to 4 not come 9

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.30/2017

RAYADURG Dated: 13-3-2026.

forwarded to the rebut the evidence of the plaintiff, so plaintiff adduced evidence is sufficient to believe the plaintiff’s version of execution of Ex.A1 by the deceased 1 st defendant. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

12.The agreement of sale dt.27.01.2014 is true, valid and believed by this

Court as not rebutted by adducing evidence by the defendants 2 to 4 Hence, the agreement of sale dt.27.01.2014 is binding on the defendants. The plaintiff is proved her ready and willing to perform her part of contract and the same is not denied by the deceased 1st defendant mere issuing of reply notice Ex.A4 is not enough to accept the defendants version and defendants failed to deny the plaintiff's version by adducing their evidence since they are ex-parte and the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale. Accordingly,

Issue No.i to iii are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

13. ISSUE No. iv: On basing of above discussion of answering to Issue

No.i to iv suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff.

14.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by directing the defendants 2 to 4 to execute regular register sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property in pursuance of the suit “Saswatha Vikraya

Pathram” dt.27.01.2014 executed by deceased 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff

WITHIN TWO (2) MONTHS of this decree and Judgment, at the expenses of plaintiff, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get the same under the due process of law.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-K.BHANU ,

Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Kalyandurg. FAC Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rayadurg.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

10

CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DIVISION) O.S.30/2017

RAYADURG Dated: 13-3-2026.

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendants:-

P.W.1 : K.Onkaramma, None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1:Original agreement of sale, dt.27.01.2014 executed by the deceased 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2:Original Pattdar pass book bearing Patta No.1391 stands in the name of the plaintiff issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, D.Hirehal. Ex.A3:Office copy of legal notice issued to the deceased 1st defendant dt.19.10.2016. Ex.A4:Reply notice received from the Advocate of the deceased 1st defendant dt.12.11.2016. Ex.A5:Mee-Seva copy of 1B Register dt.18.01.2017 stands in the name of the plaintiff issued by the Tahsildar, D.Hirehal. Ex.A6:Mee-seva copy of Adangals dt.18.01.2017 (3 in number) stands in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.A7:Mee-seva copy of Adangals dt.18.01.2017 (3 in number) stands in the name of the plaintiff.

For Defendants :- NIL-

Sd/-K.BHANU,

Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Kalyandurg. FAC Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rayadurg.