Smt K Dhana Lakshmi

Junior Civil Judge Court Jinnaram

Jinnaram, JCJ Complex · Sangareddy · Telangana

Smt K DHANA LAKSHMI, Junior Civil Judge Court Jinnaram, is posted at Jinnaram, JCJ Complex, Sangareddy, Telangana, India. 5,748 court orders on record since 2022. 31 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles STC, CC, OS cases.

5,748

Total Orders

Judgments

117

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/19/2015

Sangaram Shivalatha vs Vs1. Ambilige Chinna Annamma

17 Oct 2024

1 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

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

FIRST CLASS : ANDOLE AT JOGIPET

PRESENT : SMT. K.DHANA LAKSHMI

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ANDOLE AT JOGIPET

Thursday, the 17 th day of October, 2024

Original Suit No. 19 of 2015

Between: Sangram Shivalatha, W/o. Uday Bhaskar, age about 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No. 3-5-559, Vittalwadi, Narayanguda,

Hyderabad, Telangana....Plaintiff

A N D

1. Ambilige Chinna Annamma, W/o. Late Eshwarappa, Age about 70 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No. 21-29, Near Dayanand Road 2 .Ambilige Rajender, S/o. Late Eshwarappa, Age about 57 years, Occ: Employee R/o H.No. 21-29, Near Dayanand Road

3. Ambilige Ramesh, S/o. Late Eshwarappa, Age about 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 14-67, Satyasai Colony

4. Ambilige Ravishankar, S/o. Late Eshwarappa, Age about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No. 14-67, Satyasai Colony

5. Ambilige Srikar, S/o. Rajender, Age about 20 years, Occ: Student, R/o H.No. 21-29, Near Dayanand Road

All are R/o. Jogipet Town, Andole Mandal...Defendants

This Original suit coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Narayan Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri P.J.Vittal Reddy, Advocate for the Defendants, and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff, seeking the court to pass judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for grant of perpetual 2 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit schedule property.

2. T he plaint averments in nutshell are as follows:

That the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 175/RU extent Act.0.05 gts. situated at Jogipet Town, Andole Mandal (hereinafter referred as suit schedule land) having purchased the same from Chavidi

Adivaiah, S/o.Lachaiah under the registered sale deed No. 1182/2013 dated 14.05.2014 for a valid sale consideration of Rs. 25,000/-. On the date of execution of sale deed the vendor received the sale consideration amount and put the plaintiff in vacant possession of suit schedule land. Since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land as owner till date. After purchase of the suit land, the plaintiff applied before the

Tahsildar, Andole at Jogipet for transfer of her name as owner and pattadar of the suit land which is pending.

3.The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant has no right, interest, possession over the suit land. After the purchase of the suit land, the plaintiff engaged labour to cut off the thorny bushes grown in the suit land and the defendants being the unsocial elements in the village went to the suit land on 15.06.2015 and tried to obstruct the plaintiff and her workmen and tried to dispossess them from the suit land. The plaintiff and others who timely present and resisted the illegal acts of the defendants.

The defendants went away from the suit land by threatening the plaintiff to dispossess her from the suit land at any time. That the plaintiff being lady and alone may not resist every illegal acts of the defendants unless and until the court grants equitable relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff from the suit land. Hence the present suit.

3 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

4.The defendants filed their written statement denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and submitted that the plaintiff is not the owner and possessor of the suit agricultural land as the vendor of the Plaintiff has no valid title as such sale and purchase is all false, concocted and baseless. That the sale deed is brought into existence to knock away the land of the Defendants and the cause of action shown as 15.06.2015, 05.06.2015 is only created for the purpose for the suit. When the plaintiff or her alleged vendor were never in possession of the suit land, question of trying to dispossess her will not arise. That the father of the plaintiff was Ex-Sarpanch of Jogipet town and under his influence, plaintiff has concocted the documents to suit her needs.

That the defendant No.1 is the step mother, defendant Nos.3, 4 are the brothers and defendant No.5 is the son of defendant No.2. Mother of this defendant is

Pedda Annamma. Total extent of Sy.No. 175 of Jogipet village of Andole Mandal is 0.38 guntas and it is converted into Non-agricultural land. Out of the total extent father of this defendant has purchased 0.06 guntas of land in the year 1959 with the boundaries East:

Land of Byragonikunta, West: PWD road leading from Hyderabad to Nanded, North:

Land of Chavidi Sailu and 5 others and South: Sy.No. 177 of Jogipet belonging to the defendants. Since then, the father of the defendant was in possession and thereafter, these defendants alongwith his family members are in possession. After the purchase on the application of the father of defendant No.1, the sale was validated through the proceedings No.DA6/381/70 dated 06.09.1975. PWD road leading from Hyderabad to

Nanded runs through Sy.No. 176. After the purchase of 0.06 guntas of land by the father of this defendant there remained only 0.12 guntas of land. The remaining land of 0.12 guntas was sold under two different sale deeds bearing document Nos. 2570/1980 and 2379/80 to an extent of 0.06 guntas each. As there is no land left over for the alleged vendor of the plaintiff to sell the same in favour of Plaintiff. The present suit is 4 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

filed by the plaintiff to knock away 0-06 gts. of land belonging to the defendants. That prior to the sale deed, the vendor of the plaintiff concocted the title deed. For the said title deed number of one Dayyala Narsamma, W/o. Lakshmaiah was given. Number of the title deed of said Narsamma is Y57584 Patta No. 540 and book No. 1726220450. In the title deed concocted by Chavidi Adivaiah Patta number is changed from 450 to 14 and pass book number is mentioned as 172622045 and the said title deed was not issued by Tahsildar, Andole. As such the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by my predecessor-in-office on 02.09.2016.

1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property and enjoyment of the suit land, as on the date of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, Pws.1 and 2 are examined and got marked

Exhibits A1 to A7. On behalf of the defendants, Dws.1 and 2 are examined and got marked Exhibits B1 to B17.

7.Heard the arguments of the learned counsels of both the parties. Perused the material on record and also the citation filed by the counsel for the defendant.

8. Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit land, as on the date of the suit?

The case of the plaintiff is that she is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having been purchased from Chavidi Adivaiah S/o.Lachaiah under the registered sale deed No. 1182/2013 dated 14.05.2014 by paying Rs.25,000/- as valid consideration on the same date. Since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment 5 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

of the suit land as owner till date. The plaintiff having purchased the suit schedule property applied for mutation before the Tahsildar, Andole at Jogipet for transfer on her name and the same is pending. It is the further case of the plaintiff that when plaintiff engaged labourers to clear off the thorny bushes in the suit land, the defendants on 15.06.2015 interfered and obstructed the plaintiff and her workmen and tried to dispossess them from the suit land, which the plaintiff resisted. The defendants while leaving the suit schedule property threatened to dispossess her from the same. Having no other option, the plaintiff filed the present suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from the suit schedule property.

9.In nutshell, the case of the defendants is that the total extent of Sy.No. 175 of Jogipet village of Andole Mandal is 0.38 guntas and it is converted into Non- agricultural land. Out of the total extent, father of defendant No.2 had purchased 0.06 guntas of land in the year 1959 with the boundaries East: Land of Byragonikunta, West:

PWD road leading from Hyderabad to Nanded, North: Land of Chavidi Sailu and 5 others and South: Sy.No. 177 of Jogipet belonging to the defendants. Since then his father was in possession and thereafter, the defendants alongwith his family members are in possession. After the purchase, on the application of the father of defendant No.1, the sale was validated through the proceedings No.DA6/381/70 dated 06.09.1975. PWD road leading from Hyderabad to Nanded runs through Sy.No.176. After the purchase of 0.06 guntas of land by the father of this defendant there remained only 0.12 guntas of land. The remaining land of 0.12 guntas was sold under two different sale deeds bearing document Nos. 2570/1980 and 2379/80 to an extent of 0.06 guntas each. As there is no land left over for the alleged vendor of the plaintiff to sell the same in favour of Plaintiff. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff to knock away 0-06 gts. of land 6 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

belonging to the defendants. That prior to the sale deed, the vendor of the plaintiff concocted the title deed. For the said title deed number of one Dayyala Narsamma,

W/o. Lakshmaiah was given. Number of the title deed of said Narsamma is Y57584

Patta No. 540 and book No. 1726220450. In the title deed concocted by Chavidi

Adivaiah Patta number is changed from 450 to 14 and pass book number is mentioned

as 172622045 and the said title deed was not issued by Tahsildar, Andole. As such the

defendants prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

10.Coming to the oral evidence, plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and reiterated the averments of the plaint and got marked Exhibit A1-Mee-Seva copy of 1-B

Namuna (ROR), dated 15.04.2015, Exhibit A2-Mee-seva adangal pahani fasli, 1420,

dated 15.04.2015, Exhibit A3-Mee-Seva adangal pahani fasli, 1421, dated 15.04.2015,

Exhibit A4-Mee-Seva adangal pahani fasli, 1422, dated 15.04.2015, Exhibit A5-Mee-

Seva adangal pahani fasli, 1423, dated 15.04.2015, Exhibit A6-Mee-Seva adangal pahani fasli, 1424, dated 15.04.2015 and Exhibit A7-certified copy of sale deed bearing

No.1182 of 2014, dated 14.05.2014. During cross-examination, she deposed that the suit schedule land is non-agricultural land. She does not know the total extent of the suit land. Though, she made an application for mutation, it did not take place and due to present case it did not take place till now. She further deposed that one Chavadi

Adivaiah sold the suit schedule property to her and it is the ancestral property of his vendor as per the documents verified. In her chief examination affidavit, it is mentioned that the land in Sy.No.175/RU is Ac.0.05 guntas. She deposed that she purchased

Ac.0.05 guntas out of Ac.0.38 guntas in Sy.No.175/RU. She do not know who is in possession of remaining land of Ac.0.33 guntas. She do not know whether Kotte

Adivappa has constructed the house in Sy.No.175 and remaining land sold to Avusali

Prabhakar, Hussain,Muslapuram Srinu and Gaffer. She do not know that Eshwarappa 7 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

purchased Ac.0.06 guntas in Sy.No.175 in the year 1959 under unregistered sale deed.

She further deposed that she was not present on 15.06.2015 when she has sent labour to cut the bushes. She purchased the suit schedule property in the year 2014 and filed the suit in the year 2015.

11.She denied the contra suggestions put to PW1 and she also further denied that with the influence of his father, Chavidi Adivaiah created the documents and executed the same, that Chavidi Adivaiah do not have land in Sy.No.175, that as

Adivaiah was not in possession, he did not deliver the possession of suit schedule land to her. She further denied the suggestion that the suit land belongs to defendants, that she filed the suit to knock away the property of the defendants, that under document

Nos.2570 of 1980 and 2379 of 1980 two different persons have purchased and got registered Ac.0.06 guntas each.

12.Further, plaintiff to prove her case has examined one Savidi Bala Kistaiah, who is attestor of Exhibit A7, who deposed that he knows both the parties to the suit and the suit schedule property. Plaintiff is the owner and possessor of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.175/RU in extent of Ac.0.05 guntas situated at Jogipet Town, Andole

Mandal, Sangareddy District and PW1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land as purchaser and PW1 purchased the suit land from Chavidi Adivaiah under a registered sale deed dated 14.05.2014 for a valid consideration of Rs.25,000/-. On the day of execution of registered sale deed, PW1 was put into possession of the suit land and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same till now. At the time of purchase of the suit land by PW1, she requested and called him and Chavidi Balraj to the Sub-

Registrar Office Jogipet to act as witnesses to the sale deed. Accordingly, both went to

Sub-Registrar Office and there Chavidi Adivaiah, the vendor of the suit land was present.

8 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

Thereafter, the vendor and vendee signed on the sale deed document and himself and

Balraj signed on the sale deed as attestors by affixing the photographs of vendor, vendee and attestors. PW1 paid the sale consideration and after execution of the document, the suit land was delivered in favour of PW1 in their presence and since then

PW1 is in possession and enjoyment of the same till now. He described the boundaries of the suit land as East: Bairagoni Kunta, West:PWD Road, North:Land of Kotha

Srisailam and others and South:Land of A.Eshwarappa.

13.During cross-examination the PW2 deposed that he do not know whether late Eshwarappa father of defendant Nos.2 to 4, husband of defendant No.1 and grandfather of defendant No.5 purchased Ac.0.06 guntas of land. He cannot say who is in possession of remaining land in Sy.No.175. On the day of execution of Exhibit A7, at about 11.00 a.m., the defendants and their supporters were present in the suit schedule property and discussing the land belonging to them, which he informed to PW1. He further deposed that the land claimed by the defendants was registered under Exhibit

A7. PW1 purchased the suit land from one Chavidi Adivaiah and his name was in revenue records since 50 to 60 years back. He do not know whether after purchasing the land of Ac.0.06 guntas by the defendants, the extent of road passing through

Sy.No.175, the remaining Ac.0.12 guntas of land out of Ac.0.38 guntas was sold under two registered sale deed bearing Nos.2570 of 1980 and 2379 of 1980. He denied the contra suggestions put to him and he further denied that the defendants are in possession of Ac.0.06 guntas of land in Sy.No.175 that the defendants have purchased

Ac.0.06 guntas of land in Sy.No.175. He further denied the suggestions that Chavidi

Adivaiah concocted the documents i.e., Exhibits A1 to A6 and basing on them he has executed Exhibit A7.

9 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

14.As against the evidence of plaintiff, the defendant No.2 has filed his chief examination affidavit and examined himself as DW.1 narrating the written statement in verbatim. In support of his case, he relied upon Exhibit B1-Proceedings issued by

Tahasildar Andole Medak District in No.D.Dis.A6/381/1970 Form No.4, dated 06.09.1975, Exhibit B2-Certified copy of caveat application No.3 of 2014 along with the petition, Exhibit B3-Certified copy of caveat application No.4 of 2014 along with the petition, Exhibit B4-Certified copy of caveat application No.2 of 2015 along with the petition, Exhibit B5-Representation dated 07.08.2014 given to the Tahasildar under acknowledgment, Exhibit B6-Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document

No.2378 of 1980, Exhibit B7-Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document

No.2379 of 1980, dated 05.12.1980, Exhibit B8-Certified copy of pahani for the year 1996-1997, Exhibit B9-Certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-2005, Exhibit B10-

Certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-2001, Exhibit B11-Certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-2011, Exhibit B12-Certified copy of faisal patti for the year 1976 of Jogipet (2 sheets), Exhibit B13-Meeseva copy of pahani for the fasli year 1422 (2 in number),

Exhibit B14-Meeseva copy of pahani for the fasli year 1425, Exhibit B15-Meeseva copy of 1-B Namuna ROR dated 09.07.2015, Exhibit B16-Meeseva copy of 1-B Namuna ROR

dated 02.04.2013 and Exhibit B17-Receipt dated 13.03.1959.

15.During the cross examination of DW.1, he deposed that his father possessed Ac.2.33 guntas of land in Jogipet village. Sy.No.177 consists of land admeasuring Ac.02.27 guntas and Sy.No.175 admeasuring Ac.0.06 guntas situated at

Jogipet and the above said land was purchased by his father during his life time. His father purchased Ac.0.06 guntas in Sy.No.175 from Chavidi family under an unregistered sale deed. He do not remember the name of the vendor. Later on the same was regularised. He further deposed that the Government issued letter in the name of his 10 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

father with regard to converting Sy.No.175 as non-agricultural land. The original letter is in possession of his counsel. He did not file such document in the court. He do not know Chavidi Adivaiah and he do not know the sub-division numbers in Sy.No.175. He do not know whether the Government allotted sub division number 175 as RU of Chavidi

Adivaiah. He do not know Chavidi Adivaiah sold the land to the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 14.05.2014. He do not know whether the plaintiff made an application to the Tahasildar for transfer of ownership. He deposed that he has not filed any document to show that the title and pass book is granted in the name of Dayyala

Narsamma. DW1 denied the suggestion that Chavidi Adivaiah had Ac.0.05 guntas of land in Sy.No.175 and denied that the boundaries of Ac.0.05 guntas of land in Sy.No.175 is East:Birogoni Kunta, West PWD road, North:Land of Kotha Srisailam and others

South:Land of his father. He denied that on the date of registration of sale deed the vendor Adivaiah delivered the purchased suit land in favour of PW1. He further denied that PW1 is in possession since the date of purchase. Further denied that the suit land belongs to Chavidi Adivaiah and that he was owner and possessor of the suit land and that he sold the same to the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 14.05.2014.

16.The defendants to prove their case examined Sulugani Satya Vrath, who is a resident of Jogipet village as DW2, he deposed that he knows the parties. The plaintiff filed the suit in respect of the land measuring A.0.05 guntas out of Sy.No.175/RU situated at Jogipet for perpetual injunction on the ground that she purchased the above land from Chavidi Adivaiah. Chavidi Jogaiah alleged vendor of the plaintiff do not possess any land in the above said survey number. Neither the plaintiff nor the vendor of the plaintiff were never in possession of the suit schedule land as claimed by them.

Total extent of Sy.No.175 of Jogipet Village of Andole Mandal is Ac.0.38 gunats and it is converted into non-agricultural land. Out of said extent, late Eshwarappa, father of the 11 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

defendant No.2 has purchased Ac.0.06 guntas land in the year 1959 with the boundaries

East: Land of Biragonigunta, West: PWD road leading from Hyderabad to Nanded,

North: land of Chavidi Sailu and 5 others and South: Sy.No.177 of Jogipet belongs to

Rajender and his family. After purchase of Ac.0.06 guntas by the father of defendant

No.2, remaining 0.12 guntas was sold to different persons under two documents Ac.0.06 gts. each and the suit land was never in possession of the plaintiff.

17.During cross-examination, he deposed that himself and defendants are the members of Veera Shaiva Community. The suit is pending for Sy.No.175 and the total extent of said survey number is Ac.0.38 guntas situated at Jogipet. He do not know how many people are residing in the said survey number. The boundaries of survey No.175 are East: Bairagoni Gunta, West:PWD Road, North:Land of Chavidi Sailu, South:Land of defendant. He came to know about the land when he talked to the defendants, but he did not go to the said land. He do not know whether the plaintiff is having Ac.0.05 gunats of land in Sy.No.175/RU. He never seen the pahanies pertaining to Sy.No.175 and he do not know that land in Sy.No.175 is still mentioned as agricultural land as per the revenue records and it is not transferred as non-agricultural land. He denied the suggestion that the defendants are not in possession of the suit land and he denied that the plaintiff purchased the suit land from Chavidi Adivaiah under registered sale deed in the year 2013.

18.As seen from the above contentions and rival contentions, it has to be seen that whether the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule land under Exhibit A7 in

Sy.No.175/RU to an extent of Ac.0.05 guntas with boundaries as East:Bairgonikunta,

West:PWD Road, North:Land of Kotha Srisailam and Others South:Land of late

A.Eshwarappa, situated at Jogipet Town, Andole Mandal, Sangareddy District and is an absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property or whether it has to be seen 12 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

that the total extent of Sy.No. 175 of Jogipet village of Andole Mandal is 0.38 guntas and it is converted into Non-agricultural land and out of the total extent, father of defendant

No.2 had purchased 0.06 guntas of land in the year 1959 with the boundaries East: Land of Byragonikunta, West: PWD road leading from Hyderabad to Nanded, North: Land of

Chavidi Sailu and 5 others and South: Sy.No. 177 of Jogipet belonging to the defendants. In support of the case of the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule land in Sy.No.175/RU to an extent of Ac.0.05 guntas with boundaries as East:Bairgonikunta, West:PWD Road, North:Land of Kotha Srisailam and

Others South:Land of late A.Eshwarappa, situated at Jogipet Town, Andole Mandal,

Sangareddy District, she relied upon Exhibits A1 to A6, which are Mee-Seva copy of 1-B

Namuna (ROR), dated 15.04.2015 and Adangal Pahanies falsi for the years 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423 and 1424, dated 15.04.2015, which shows that the vendor of the plaintiff, i.e., Savidi Adivaiah, S/o. Lachaiah is the owner of the land to an extent of Ac.0.05 guntas in Sy.No.175/RU and he has been shown as Pattedar for the said land as per

Exhibits A1 to A6. The said documents are issued by Tahsildar of Jogipet Mandal,

Medak District, which documents are denied by the defendants, but to disprove the same, they have not produced any document to show that they are created and not belonging to the vendor of the plaintiff Savidi Adivaiah.

19.Further coming to the important document which is relied upon by the plaintiff is Exhibit A7, which is the certified copy of sale deed bearing No.1182 of 2014,

dated 14.05.2014, under which the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property for a

valid consideration amount of Rs.25,000/- from Savidi Adivaiah, S/o.Lachaiah, which is registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jogipet and the boundaries mentioned are the same boundaries which are mentioned in plaint schedule property with boundaries 13 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

as East:Bairgonikunta, West:PWD Road, North:Land of Kotha Srisailam and Others

South: Land of late A.Eshwarappa.

20.To prove that the said land is purchased by the plaintiff from her vendor

Savidi Adivaiah on 14.05.2014, plaintiff relied upon the attestor, i.e., Savidi Bala Kistaiah, who is examined as PW2, who in his chief examination has deposed that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule land and plaintiff requested him and

Chavidi Balraj to come to Sub-Registrar Office Jogipet to stand as attestors to Exhibit

A7. Accordingly, they were present at the Sub-Registrar Office and stood as attestors in execution of the document under Exhibit A7. It is pertinent to mention that under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, one of the attestors of the document has to be examined in evidence to prove the case of the parties. For better appreciation, Section 68 of

Indian Evidence Act is extracted:

68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.

If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence :

As can be seen from the above provision, the plaintiff has proved Exhibit A7 that it was executed in the presence of the witnesses/attestors i.e, PW2 and another witness at the

Sub-Registrar Office, Jogipet. The plaintiff in the plaint pleaded that she filed an application for mutation, it did not take place and due to present case it did not take place till now. As rightly contended the plaintiff for mutating her land she applied to the concerned authority for mutation, but the defendants under Exhibit B5 gave a representation on 07.08.2014 to Tahsildar that there was a wrong registration to the 14 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

plaintiff as such, requested the revenue authorities to decide as to who is in possession of the suit schedule property, but they have not initiated any steps.

21.To disprove the contentions and version of the plaintiff, the defendants relied upon Exhibits B1 to B 17. Exhibit B1 is the proceedings issued by Tahsildar

Andole, Medak District dated 06.09.1975, which document shows that the father of the 2nd defendant is the land holder of Sy.No.175/a to an extent of Ac.0.06 guntas of Jogipet

Village, but the suit schedule property is in respect of Sy.No.175/RU to an extent of

Ac.0.05 guntas. The said document shows different survey numbers to that of the present suit schedule survey number. Exhibits B2 to B4 are the caveat applications.

Exhibit B5 is the representation dated 07.08.2014 to Tahsildar of Jogipet that there was a wrong registration to the plaintiff as such, requested the revenue authorities to decide as to who is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is pertinent to mention that the defendants after submitting the representation to the said Tahsildar has not agitated so far from the year 2014 to till date as to who is in possession of the suit schedule property. Exhibits B6 and B7 are the registered sale deeds dated 05.12.1980, with different Sy.No.175/a with different boundaries to that of the suit schedule property.

These documents do not help the defendants to prove that their land is connected to

Sy.No.175/RU. Further the Exhibits B8 to B16 pahanies of different years, Faisal patti and 1-B Namuna ROR shows that their land is situated in Sy.No.175 of column No.2 of the said documents and the same do not show that they are situated in the suit schedule property i.e., Sy.No.175/RU and Exhibit B17 is the receipt, wherein the extent is bolded inked than the other letters. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff is relying on the

Sy.No.175/RU and her documents are all related to the said survey number. Whereas, the defendants are relying upon the documents relating to survey No.175/a. Further, the defendants under Exhibit B5 made a representation on 07.08.2014 to Tahsildar of 15 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

Jogipet that there was a wrong registration to the plaintiff as such, requested the revenue authorities to decide as to who is in possession of the suit schedule property, but so far has not taken any steps on the ground of filing of the present suit. Really if the defendants are having right and interest, they would have summoned the MRO of

Jogipet to prove that the subject suit schedule land is either in Sy.No.175/RU or in

Sy.No.175/a as claimed by the defendant. The said effort of the defendants are not made to prove their agitated rights.

22.At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that under valid documents vide Exhibits A1 to A7, she purchased the suit schedule property

before the SRO, Jogipet and to prove the same, she has produced PW2 to support her

case that Exhibit A7 was executed in his presence, and PW2 supported the version of the plaintiff in execution of Exhibit A7, as such, the plaintiff proved her ownership and possession. Per contra, the counsel for the defendants argued that on an application filed before the concerned authority for mutation is still pending, as such, she is not the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and in support of the same, they have gave representation under Exhibit B5 to the concerned authorities and due to the father of the plaintiff was Sarpanch, she created the documents and Exhibit A7 cannot be relied upon. Further, the learned counsel for the defendant relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Anathula Sudhakar vs.P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.6191 of 2001, Dt. 25.03.2008 and contended that the present suit is injunction simplicitor and the court has to look into the possession of the party but not the title. In the present case, as seen from the evidence of PW2, who is an attestor of Ex.A7 in his evidence deposed that the plaintiff is the owner and she is in possession by way of registered sale deed under Ex.A7. Hence, the plaintiff 16 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

has proved her possession by way of oral evidence of PW2 which itself shows that the plaintiff proved her possession which is a pre-requisite for granting perpetual injunction.

23.It is pertinent to mention that the defendants even though took a plea that they submitted a representation on 07.08.2014 to Tahsildar that there was a wrong registration to the plaintiff as such requested the revenue authorities to decide as to who is in possession of the suit schedule property. As already stated, the defendants have not taken any steps of his representation under Exhibit B5 since 2014, except stating that the suit is pending. Further, if the defendants would have summon the said concerned authority, ie., MRO of Jogipet to know whether Sy.No.175/RU or Sy.No.175/a are existing, but he failed to do so. Hence, the plaintiff under Exhibit A7 sale deed bearing No.1182 of 2014 dated 14.05.2014 has purchased the suit schedule property from her vendor and she has testified the same through the attestor PW2 in purchasing the same and execution of the same under Exhibit A7. At present, the plaintiff has proved that her vendor Savidi Adivaiah is the owner of the suit schedule property under

Exhibits A1 to A6 and he conveyed the same to the plaintiff under Exhibit A7 sale deed bearing document No.1182 of 2014 dated 14.05.2014. Further as per the evidence of

PW2, who deposed that plaintiff was put in possession of the same after delivering the possession of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and the defendants failed to prove that the suit schedule land belonging to them. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered.

24. Issue No.2:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?

17 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

In view of the discussion under Issue No.1, the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, as such, she is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for.

25. Issue No.3: To what relief?

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit schedule property

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 17 th day of October, 2024.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

ANDOLE AT JOGIPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the Plaintiff: For the Defendants:

PW.1: Sangram ShivalathaDW.1: Ambilige Rajender

PW.2: Savidi Bala Kistaiah DW.2: Sulugani Satyavrath

Documents Exhibited

For the Plaintiff:

1. Exhibit A1: Mee-Seva copy of 1-B Namuna (ROR), dated 15.04.2015

2. Exhibit A2: Mee-seva adangal pahani fasli, 1420, dated 15.04.2015

3. Exhibit A3: Mee-Seva adangal pahani fasli, 1421, dated 15.04.2015

4. Exhibit A4: Mee-Seva adangal pahani fasli, 1422, dated 15.04.2015

5. Exhibit A5: Mee-Seva adangal pahani fasli, 1423, dated 15.04.2015

6. Exhibit A6: Mee-seva adangal pahani fasli, 1424, dated 15.04.2015

7. Exhibit A7: Certified copy of sale deed bearing No.1182 of 2014, dated 14.05.2014.

18 of 18 OS.No.19 of 2015

Dt: 17-10-2024

For the Defendants:

1. Exhibit B1: Proceedings issued by Tahasildar Andole Medak District in No.D.Dis.A6/381/1970 Form No.4, dated 06.09.1975

2. Exhibit B2: Certified copy of caveat application No.3 of 2014 along with the petition

3. Exhibit B3: Certified copy of caveat application No.4 of 2014 along with the petition

4. Exhibit B4: Certified copy of caveat application No.2 of 2015 along with the petition

5. Exhibit B5: Representation dated 07.08.2014 given to the Tahasildar under acknowledgment

6. Exhibit B6: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.2378 of 1980.

7. Exhibit B7: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.2379 of 1980

dated 05.12.1980

8. Exhibit B8: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1996-1997

9. Exhibit B9: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-2005

10. Exhibit B10: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-2001

11. Exhibit B11: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-2011

12. Exhibit B12: Certified copy of faisal patti for the year 1976 of Jogipet (2 sheets)

13. Exhibit B13: Meeseva copy of pahani for the fasli year 1422 (2 in number)

14. Exhibit B14: Meeseva copy of pahani for the fasli year 1425

15. Exhibit B15: Meeseva copy of 1-B Namuna ROR dated 09.07.2015

16. Exhibit B16: Meeseva copy of 1-B Namuna ROR dated 02.04.2013 and

17. Exhibit B17: Receipt dated 13.03.1959.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

ANDOLE AT JOGIPET

CC/76/2013 Acquitted

R. Vijaya laxmi vs Talari kumar

28 Apr 2025

1 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

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

FIRST CLASS :: ANDOLE AT JOGIPET.

PRESENT: K.DHANA LAKSHMI

I ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, SANGAREDDY

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

ANDOLE AT JOGIPET

Monday, the 28th day of April, 2025

Calendar Case No. 76 of 2013

Between:- The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Alladurg.…Complainant

AND

Talari Kumar, S/o.Gangaram, Age:36 years, Occ: Mee Seva Operater R/o. Gorekal of Alladurg (Mandal) … Accused Section of law:Under sections 420, 409 of IPC.

Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court :Found not guilty.

Sentence of order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under sectionU/Sec.248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stands canceled subject to 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri.P.J Vittal Reddy, the learned counsel for the Accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, the Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Alladurg has filed a charge sheet against the accused in crime No. 76 of 2012 for the offences under section 420, 409 of

Indian Penal Code.

2 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-

On 15.12.2012 at 20.00 hours, the PW1 lodged a complaint before the police stating that the operator namely Talari Kumar of MEE SEVA Center Vatpally village of the Alladurg mandal was issuing duplicate certificates of Caste and Income and Nativity to the people since last six months, As such the Tahsildar asked to take the necessary action against the above said person.

3.Basing on the contents of the above complaint, PW9 registered a case in

Cr.No.76/2012 for the offences under sections 420, 409 of IPC and took up the investigation.

4.During the course of investigation, the PW9 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and visited the Vatpally village and examined and recorded the statment of witnesses, conducted Scene of offence-cum-Seizure panchanama and seized 1)Moniter, 2) CPU, 3) Xerox Machine, 4) Printor, 5) Key Board, 6) Mouse, 7)

Huawei Net Seter, 8) Talari Kumar Stamp in the presence of PW7 and LW9/Sd.Abdul

Khader. While investigation was in progress on 20.12.2012 at 15.00 hours, the PW9 apprehended the accused and recorded confession Statement in the presence of panchas i.e., LW10/Munge Vijender and PW8 and effected his arrest and sent him to

Judicial remand. Further PW9 deposited the case property in the court. After completion of entire investigation he filed the charge sheet.

5.This court took cognizance of the offence punishable under section 420, 409 of Indian Penal Code against the accused and on appearance of the accused person, copies of the documents as contemplated u/sec.207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to him. The accused was examined u/s. 239 Cr.P.C., Charges u/s.240 Cr.P.C was framed 3 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

against the accused person for the offences under section 420, 409 of IPC, for which he pleaded not guilty and clamied for trial.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 on its behalf and got marked Ex. P1 to P27 and M.Os.1 to 7.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., examination enabling him to explain personally the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

8.Heard the arguments of the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel

for the accused person.

9. Now, the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable u/Sec. 420 and 409 of

Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?”

10. POINT:

To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was authorised to work as operator at MEE SEVA Center Vatpally village of the Alladurg mandal at the relevant time and he issued duplicate certificates of

Caste, Income and Nativity for the people.

11.Before embarking into the merits of the case, this court is inclined to look into the ingredients of the offences charged against the accused person.

4 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

i)Section 420 IPC:Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:- “Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine” ii.Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) outlines the crime of criminal breach of trust by a public servant, banker, or agent. To establish guilt under this section, the prosecution must prove: 1) the accused was entrusted with property in a capacity as a public servant, banker, or agent; and 2) the accused committed a criminal breach of trust regarding that property

12.Having considered the legal position coupled with the facts of the case of the prosecution, now let us see whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt for the charged offences.

13.PW1 testified in her evidence that while she worked as Tahasildar

Alladurg, some of the students came to her office and stated that the certificates received from Mee-Seva, Vatpally, are alleged to be bogus and such certificates are not accepted by colleges. Then they inquired the certificates at NIC in Sangareddy, with the bar codes and noticed that some of the certificates are belonging to Kadapa, and some other appeared no such bar code. After verification they seized Mee-Seva center at Vatpally and sent the action taken report to the collector. In turn collector instructed her to register a case. Susbsequently, she gave a report to the police under under Ex.P1 and submitted original certificates to the police.

5 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

14.During her cross examination, she stated that she cannot say as to how many certificates she had seized. She stated that she did not record the statements of the students who reported about the bogus certificates. She received a complaint on 01-11-2012 and she lodged complaint on 15.12.2012. She also stated that she addressed a letter to the collector along with the bogus certificates and that she cannot say the date of said letter. She further stated that she sent the said certificates to the SI of police and handed over the said certificates on 15.12.2012. She admitted that the

SI of police addressed a letter to her on 27.12.2012 to produce original documents for further investigation of the case. She further admitted that she did not mentioned that the xerox copies of documents are enclosed to Ex.P1. On the instructions of the

District Collector, she have seized the Mee-Seva center after lodging Ex.P1. She admitted that she did not found any bogus documents at the time of seizure of Mee-

Seva center. She further admitted that there is a delay of one week in lodging Ex.P1 after receiving the directions from the collector.

15.PW2 to PW6 are the witnesses who deposed on the same lines stating that in the year 2012 they obtained the caste certificate, income certificate, Community nativity and Date of birth Certificate from Mee seva at Vatpally village and they returned the same to the MRO seeing the article in the news paper with regard to issuance of fake certificates and identified the accused present in the court hall as the employee of Mee seva centre and got marked Exhibit P2 to P10.

16.During their cross examinations, PW2 stated that he do not know who is running Mee seva centre and that he do not remember whether the police collected the fake certificates., PW4 stated that he do not know about registering of the case, PW5 stated that he do not know the contents of his statement and admitted that he did not 6 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

mentioned in his statement that his brother informed him that the certificates are fake certificates, PW6 stated that he do not remember whether he stated before the police that the MRO gave an article in the news paper with regard to fake certificates. He stated that he did not mentioned the name of the accused in his statement i.e.,Ex.D1 is marked.

17.PW7 who is the mediator for place of offence-cum-seizure panchanama and rough sketch deposed that police requested him to be as a panch witness along with LW9/Abdul Khadar. Police conducted panchanama at Vatpally Meeseva center and the said centre was seized by the MRO and the police seized the computers and other machines in his presence and got marked Exhibits P11 and P12 as place of offence-cum-seizure panchanama and Rough sketch. In his cross examination he stated that he do not know who scribed the panchanama, but police scribed it in his presence. He do not know the contents of Ex.P11 and the reason for conducting the panchanama.

18.PW8 who is the mediator forconfession panchanama had turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

19.The left over evidence is of Investigating Officer/PW9 which relates to the registration of the case on the basis of the complaint and issuance of Ex.P14 First

Information Report. His evidence shows that he recorded the statement of PW1 in

P.S, he visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence cum setzure panchanama and seized the following items: MOI is Monitor, MO2 is CPU, MO3 is

Xerox machine cum printer, MO4 is Keyboard. MOS is Mouse. MOG is Huawei Net set. MO7 is Stamp in the presence of PW7 and LW9/SD Abdul Khader. Then he served 7 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

91 Cr.P.C. to PWI to produce original documents. PW1 handed over the original documents. Then he recorded the statements of witnesses. On 20-12-2012 he apprehended the accused and recorded his confession statement in the presence of

LW10/M. Vijender Reddy and PW8. Ex.P15 Confession panchanama and deposited the case property vide CRP.No.88/15/2013, dated 28-01-2013 Ex.P16 is income certificate of Battu Laxmajah. Ex.P17 is residence certificate of Battu Prem Kumar.

ExP18 is Residence certificate of M. Ravinder, Ex.P19 is income certificate of M.

Ravinder, Ex.P20 is Community, Nativity and Date of Birth certificate of T. Prasanth, Ex

P21 is Community, Nativity and Date of Birth certificate of R. Nagesh. Ex.P22 is

Community, Nativity and Das of Birth certificate of M. Ravinder. R/o. Vatpally. Ex.P23 is

Residence of Vidya Sagar. Ex.P24 is Community, Nativity and Date of Birth certificate of Vidya Sagar. Ex.P25 is income certificate of Eshwaraiah. Ex.P26 is Community.

Nativity and Date of Birth certificate of S. Mallaiah, Ex. P27 is income certificate of

Dattu Rao and after completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet.

20.During his cross examination, he made the following admissions that the number of certificates seized from PW1 is not mentioned in Ex.P1, that the PW1 did not state the number of persons whose statements were recorded by her, that PW1 did not mentioned as to how many certificates were seized from each person, that the reasons for delay is not mentioned in Ex.P14 for lodging complaint, that the identity particulars of the accused with regard to Mee Seva name and service number is not mentioned in Ex.P1, that the paper on which the certificates are issued are supplied from the concerned authorities. He further admitted that he did not examine the concerned authorities and that he did not examine the District Collector who is the authority to issue the empty Mee Seva bonds. Each bond contains separate serial 8 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

number and bar code. That he do not know what is ESD service and he admitted that he did not examined any person related to ESD service. He also admitted that he did not receive any complaint from any individual stating that the documents are fake documents. He admitted that he did not sent the material objects for FSL examination to know that the certificates were printed using the material objects. Further denied the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused.

21.As seen from the evidence of PW1 who is the defacto complainant, the prosecution failed to elicit the entrustment of property in a capacity as a public servant, banker or agent; and the he committed criminal breach of trust regarding that property, as PW1 failed to show that the accused was entrusted to run Meeseva centre at

Vatpally village and committed criminal breach of trust by issuing fake certificate. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed that the accused was entrusted to run Meeseva

Centre at Vatpally village and no documents are filed in support of entrustment to run

Meeseva Centre at Vatpally village. PW9 who is the investigating Officer admitted that the identity particulars of the accused with regard to Mee Seva name and service number is not mentioned in Ex.P1. He also admitted that he did not examine the concerned authorities. The above admissions of the PW1 and PW9 clearly shows that the prosecution failed to prove the entrustment of property to the agent. Moreover, the

PW1 admitted that basing on the information given by some students of

Pothulaboguda, Nagulapally and Vatpally village, she lodged Ex.P1, but she did not record the statements of students who reported about bogus certificates. PW1 further admitted that she cannot say how many certificates were seized by her and even PW9 who is the Investigating Officer admitted that the number of certificates seized by PW1 was not mentioned in Ex.P1. PW2 to PW6 are the witnesses who identified the 9 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

accused as the employee of Mee-seva who issued certificates and they returned the same to the MRO on seeing the article in News paper with regard to issuance of fake certificates. Even though the above witnesses identified the accused present in the court hall as the person who works at Mee seva Centre, the complainant/PW1 and the

Investigating Officer failed to produce any document to show that the accused is entrused with work at Mee seva centre at Vatpally. However, the certificates were surrendered by the witnesses basing on the news paper article. To prove that the documents are fake documents, the Investigating Officer has not taken any steps to send those certificates alongwith the Material objects to the forensic, which was admitted by the Investigating Officer in his cross examination. Moreover, the confession cum seizure of the accused was also not proved as the mediator PW8 had turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

22.As seen from the evidence of PW.9, it is apparent that the Investigating officer has not collected any documentary evidence to prove that the accused was entrusted with the work at Mee-seva centre, Vatpally and he misappropriated the same by issuing fake certificates. Even though Material objects 1 to 7 were seized under the cover of panchanama i.e., Exhibit P11, PW9 admitted in his cross examination that he did not send the certificates alongwith Material objects to the forensic for verification whether the Exhibits P2 to P10 and Exhibits P16 to P27 are fake documents as alleged by PW1. Further PW1 herself admitted that she did not find any bogus documents at the time of seizure of Mee-seva centre at Vatpally. PW9 has also not collected any documentary evidence to prove that the accused dishonestly induced witnesses PWs. 2 to PW6 to deliver the property to them for wrongful gain, as they admitted that they have returned the certificates to the MRO, Vatpally seeing the news 10 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

paper article that the said certificates are fake certificates. Whereas, the Investigation

Officer himself admitted that he did not send any certificates to the forensic to confirm whether the above said exhibits are fake or genuine. As seen from the record, there are several discrepancies in the investigation done by Pw9. As such his evidence is not much helpful to the case of prosecution.

23.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence on record, it is the case of the prosecution that, accused who was working as computer operator in the Mee seva centre at Vatpally issued fake certificates of caste, community nativity, date of birth, income, residence certificates etc., to the general public. Whereas none of the prosecution witnesses brought the evidence with regard to working of the accused in the said Mee seva centre at the time of incident and he issued fake certificates. Even though the witnesses PWs.2 to 6 identified the accused present in the court hall as the employee of Mee-seva centre, the PW1 who is the complainant and the PW9 who is the Investigating Officer failed to produce any evidence showing that he is employed at Mee-seva centre Vatpally and failed to produce the evidence with regard to the authenticity of the certificates. The sum and substance of the discussion made as above is that the evidence on record is ridden with infirmities. Thus the evidence on record is relatively weak, vague, inconclusive and generated a reasonable doubt.

Eventually, it is to be held that the prosecution failed to estabish the allegations levelled against accused for the offences punishable under section 420, 409 of IPC.

24.On further careful scrutiny and analysis of entire evidence of Pws.1 to 9 coupled with Exs. P1 to P27 and M.Os. 1 to 7, there is no adequate material evidence elicited against the accused. As such on the basis of evidences of Pws.1 to 9 which 11 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

suffers from infirmities, the accused cannot be convicted, therefore, the benefit of doubt that arises should go to the accused. Further, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences in which he stood charged beyond all reasonable doubt. For the foregoing reasons, there is no material against the accused in proving the ingredients of Section 420, 409 of IPC. Hence, the prosecution evidence does not bring home the guilt of accused in the present case. In these circumstances, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable u/Sec. 420, 409 of Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the point is answered.

25. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Sec.420, 409 of Indian Penal Code and he is accordingly acquitted U/Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stands canceled subject to Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of April, 2025.

FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Andole at Jogipet.

12 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1 : Rathod Vijaya Laxmi NIL PW.2 : Battu Prem Kumar PW.3 : M.Laxman PW.4: M.Gopisingh PW.5: M.Ravinder PW.6: Usirikapally Ashok PW.7: Veershetty Adivappa PW.8: Amruth Rao PW.9: G.Narender, Zonal Inspector, Sangareddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: Residence Certificate of PW3 Ex.P3: Community, nativity and date of birth certificate of PW3 Ex.P4: Comunity nativity and date of birth certificate of PW4 Ex.P5: Residence certificate of PW5 Ex.P6: Community, nativity and date of birth certificate of PW5 Ex.P7: Residence certificate of PW5 Ex.P8: Residence certificate of PW6 Ex.P9: Community, Nativity and date of birth certificate of PW6 Ex.P10: Income certificate of PW6 Ex.P11: Place of offence-cum-seizure panchanama of PW7 Ex.P12: Rough Sketch Ex.P13: Signature on Confession panchanama of PW8 Ex.P14: FIR Ex.P15: Confession panchanama Ex.P16: Income Certificate of Battu Laxmaiah Ex.P17: Residence Certificate of Battu Prem Kumar Ex.P18: Residence certificate of M.Ravinder Ex.P19: Income certificate of M.Ravinder Ex.P20: Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate of T.Prasanth Ex.P21: Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate of R.Nagesh Ex.P22: Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate of M.Ravinder,R/o.Vatpally Ex.P23: Residence certificate of Vidya Sagar Ex.P24: Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate of Vidya Sagar Ex.P25: Income certificate of Eshwaraiah Ex.P26: Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate of S.Mallaiah Ex.P27: Income certificate of Dattu Rao 13 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

For Defence :

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

1. MO1 -Monitor

2. MO2 -CPU

3.MO3 -Xerox machine-cum-printer

4.MO4 -Keyboard

5.MO5 -Mouse

6.MO6 -Huawei Net set

7.MO7 -Stamp

FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Andole at Jogipet.

CC/76/2013 Acquitted

R. Vijaya laxmi vs Talari kumar

28 Apr 2025

1 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

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

FIRST CLASS :: ANDOLE AT JOGIPET.

PRESENT: K.DHANA LAKSHMI

I ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, SANGAREDDY

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

ANDOLE AT JOGIPET

Monday, the 28th day of April, 2025

Calendar Case No. 76 of 2013

Between:- The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Alladurg.…Complainant

AND

Talari Kumar, S/o.Gangaram, Age:36 years, Occ: Mee Seva Operater R/o. Gorekal of Alladurg (Mandal) … Accused Section of law:Under sections 420, 409 of IPC.

Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court :Found not guilty.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Alladurg has filed a charge sheet against the accused in crime No. 76 of 2012 for the offences under section 420, 409 of

Indian Penal Code.

2 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-

3.Basing on the contents of the above complaint, PW9 registered a case in

Cr.No.76/2012 for the offences under sections 420, 409 of IPC and took up the investigation.

Huawei Net Seter, 8) Talari Kumar Stamp in the presence of PW7 and LW9/Sd.Abdul

Judicial remand. Further PW9 deposited the case property in the court. After completion of entire investigation he filed the charge sheet.

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

against the accused person for the offences under section 420, 409 of IPC, for which he pleaded not guilty and clamied for trial.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 on its behalf and got marked Ex. P1 to P27 and M.Os.1 to 7.

8.Heard the arguments of the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel

for the accused person.

9. Now, the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable u/Sec. 420 and 409 of

Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?”

10. POINT:

Caste, Income and Nativity for the people.

11.Before embarking into the merits of the case, this court is inclined to look into the ingredients of the offences charged against the accused person.

4 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

13.PW1 testified in her evidence that while she worked as Tahasildar

5 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

District Collector, she have seized the Mee-Seva center after lodging Ex.P1. She admitted that she did not found any bogus documents at the time of seizure of Mee-

Seva center. She further admitted that there is a delay of one week in lodging Ex.P1 after receiving the directions from the collector.

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

18.PW8 who is the mediator forconfession panchanama had turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

19.The left over evidence is of Investigating Officer/PW9 which relates to the registration of the case on the basis of the complaint and issuance of Ex.P14 First

Information Report. His evidence shows that he recorded the statement of PW1 in

P.S, he visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence cum setzure panchanama and seized the following items: MOI is Monitor, MO2 is CPU, MO3 is

Xerox machine cum printer, MO4 is Keyboard. MOS is Mouse. MOG is Huawei Net set. MO7 is Stamp in the presence of PW7 and LW9/SD Abdul Khader. Then he served 7 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

ExP18 is Residence certificate of M. Ravinder, Ex.P19 is income certificate of M.

Ravinder, Ex.P20 is Community, Nativity and Date of Birth certificate of T. Prasanth, Ex

P21 is Community, Nativity and Date of Birth certificate of R. Nagesh. Ex.P22 is

Community, Nativity and Das of Birth certificate of M. Ravinder. R/o. Vatpally. Ex.P23 is

Residence of Vidya Sagar. Ex.P24 is Community, Nativity and Date of Birth certificate of Vidya Sagar. Ex.P25 is income certificate of Eshwaraiah. Ex.P26 is Community.

Nativity and Date of Birth certificate of S. Mallaiah, Ex. P27 is income certificate of

Dattu Rao and after completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet.

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

Vatpally village and committed criminal breach of trust by issuing fake certificate. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed that the accused was entrusted to run Meeseva

Centre at Vatpally village and no documents are filed in support of entrustment to run

PW1 admitted that basing on the information given by some students of

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

paper article that the said certificates are fake certificates. Whereas, the Investigation

Eventually, it is to be held that the prosecution failed to estabish the allegations levelled against accused for the offences punishable under section 420, 409 of IPC.

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

25. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Sec.420, 409 of Indian Penal Code and he is accordingly acquitted U/Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stands canceled subject to Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of April, 2025.

FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Andole at Jogipet.

12 of 13

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

CC.NO.76 of 2013

Dt: 28-04-2025

For Defence :

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

1. MO1 -Monitor

2. MO2 -CPU

3.MO3 -Xerox machine-cum-printer

4.MO4 -Keyboard

5.MO5 -Mouse

6.MO6 -Huawei Net set

7.MO7 -Stamp

FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Andole at Jogipet.

CC/129/2014 Acquitted

Sri. Baswapuram Veeresham vs Parvegari Yadaiah

23 Mar 2023

CC.No. 129 of 2014

Dt.23-03-2023

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

OF FIRST CLASS, ANDOLE AT JOGIPET

Thursday, the 23 rd day of March, 2023

PRESENT: K.DHANA LAKSHMI

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

ANDOLE AT JOGIPET

Calendar Case No. 129 of 2014

Between : The State of Telangana, Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Pulkal…Complainant.

A N D

A1. Parvegari Yadaiah, S/o. Lingamaiah, aged about 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, A2. Parvegari Mallesham, S/o.Lingamaiah, aged about 26 years, Occ: Agriculture A3. Parvegari Laxman, S/o. Lingamaiah (Died) A4. Parvegari Raju, @Krishna, S/o.Manaiah, (Died) All are R/o. Singoor Village, Pulkal Mandal, Sangareddy District … Accused.

This calendar case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri S.Krishna Reddy,

Advocate for the accused No.1 to 4 , and having stood over for determination, this day, the Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Pulkal, filed a charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 in crime No.114/2013 before this court for the offence punishable u/s.324 r/w. 34 IPC.

CC.No. 129 of 2014

Dt.23-03-2023

2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows :-

On 22-12-2013 at about 12.00 hrs when the complainant/LW1 was working in his cotton crop field, the accused No.1 intentionally proceeded his two bulls from middle of the cotton crop, as a result, his cotton crop was damaged and when LW1 questioned him, the accused No.1 started abusing and attacked LW1 due to which he fell down and that one of his neighbour farmer namely Sangam Vittal rescued him. That a panchayat was held on 23-12-2013 and in the said panchayat, family members of accused No.1 i.e., accused No.2 to 4 again attacked PW1 and beat him and his party with sticks and stones causing injuries. Therefore, the complainant filed a report before the police for taking action against the accused.

3.Basing on the complaint, LW9 registered a case in Cr.No.114/2013 u/s.324 r/w.34 IPC and took up the Investigation.

4. During Investigation, LW9 recorded the statement of LW1 and injured persons of this quarrel i.e., LW2 and LW3, and then sent the injured persons to the

Government Hospital Sangareddy. On 24-12-2013, LW9 visited Scene of Offence and recorded the statements of eye witnesses i.e., LW4 and LW5 conducted scene of offence panchanama duly drawing rough sketch in the presence of LW6 and LW7 and also recovered one lathy from the scene of offence which was used by A4 and caused injuries to LW1 and LW3, and also recovered one small block stone from the scene of offence which was used by the Accused No.3 and caused injuries to LW3.

The accused No.1 to 4 were remanded to Judicial custody on 24-12-2013.

After collecting the medical report, LW9 filed a charge sheet.

CC.No. 129 of 2014

Dt.23-03-2023

5.This court took cognizance of the offence punishable u/s.324 r/w.34

IPC against the accused and on appearance of the accused persons, the copies of the case documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 to 4 were examined under section 239 Cr.PC. and a charge under section 240 Cr.P.C. was framed for the offence punishable u/s. 324 r/w.34 IPC against the accused persons and read over explained to them in telugu for which they denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

6.In order to prove its case, the Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 8 on its behalf and got marked Exhibits P1 to P9. The prosecution has given up the evidence of LW8. The Prosecution evidence was closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating evidence available against the accused persons for which they denied the same. None were examined on behalf of the accused. Hence the Defense evidence was closed.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused.

9. The Point for determination in this case :- “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused person for the offence punishable u/s. 324, r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?” 4

CC.No. 129 of 2014

Dt.23-03-2023

10.To prove the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution has to establish that on 22-12-2013 at about 12.00 hrs, the accused No.1 intentionally abused and attacked PW1 and during panchayat which was held on 23-12-2013, the family members of accused No.1 i.e., Accused No.2 to 4 again attacked PW1 and also beat PW2 and PW3 with sticks and stones causing injuries.

11.PW1/ Baswapuram, Veeresham, during the course of his chief examination deposed that the incident occurred 4 or 5 years ago at his field for the first time. That one Yadaiah/A1 was moving his bullocks across his cotton crop, and upon questioning, A1 beat him under guise that PW1 came across him. Next day, when PW1 called Accused No.1 before the village elders and when elders were talking then A2 to A4 attacked PW1, PW2 and PW3 with sticks, upon which he informed the same to the police under Ex.P1. In the cross examination, the PW1 stated that he was alone at the place of incident at his field and there was no complaint about the first incident. That they were talking at bus stand near PW4’s house and that the span of incident was for about an hour and about 20 to 30 members gathered at the place of incident.

That PW2 who is the brother of PW1 came at the place of incident after 30 minutes and PW3 did not reach PW4’s house, but he was beaten before reaching when he was furlong away. That PW1 was beaten first and by the time

PW2 reached the place of incident, PW1 had bleeding injuries. And denied the 5

CC.No. 129 of 2014

Dt.23-03-2023 suggestions made by the learned counsel that the accused did not beat him and his brother and that he filed a case due to land dispute between the PW1 and the accused.

12.Further the prosecution has examined PW.2 who deposed that the incident took place 4 or 5 years ago at bus stand at about 10.00 a.m. Prior to this incident, a quarrel took place at his cotton crop where his brother/PW1 asked not to move bullocks through cotton crop. Next day elders called them to talk at bus stand and when talks were going on A1 to A4 beat PW2 and PW1 with sticks and hands and elders rescued. That PW2 in his cross examination admitted that he did not see the previous incident and the second incident took place at Bus Stand. That PW4 called to hold panchayat and about 15 to 20 members were present by the time he reached the PW4’s house. That PW3 is his paternal uncle and he did not reach PW4s house. The span of incident took place more than 30 minutes. That himself, PW1 and PW3 went to police station and on the same day and later went to hospital at Sangareddy.

13.The prosecution has examined PW3 who deposed that he do not know anything about this case and that he was called to have a talk. Accused

No.1 to 4 beat him only as he was present and that police had recorded his statement. In his cross examination, he deposed that he do not know about the previous incident and that he was not present at Shareef/PW4’s house at the time of alleged incident. That no one witnessed when he was beaten and the 6

CC.No. 129 of 2014

Dt.23-03-2023 scene where he was beaten is visible from PW4’s house. That he did not state under Ex.D1. And admitted that PW1 and 2 are the sons of his brother.

14.The prosecution has examined the eye witnesses, PW4 and PW5 who deposed on the same lines stating that they knows PW1 to 3 and all the accused. At about 7 years ago all the accused persons and PW1 and 2 approached at house of PW4 and informed about their land disputes and about quarrel that took place at fields, for which they convinced them and advised them not to quarrel with each other and sent them away. They turned hostile stating that police never examined them nor recorded their statements. As such their statements were marked as Exhibit P2 and P3.

15.The prosecution has examined the Panch witnesses for the scene-cum-seizure panchanama i.e., PW6 and PW8 , they turned hostile as such their evidences are also not useful to the prosecution case.

16.The left over evidence is of Investigating Officer who was examined as PW7 who deposed about the investigation done by him and upon receipt of the complaint from PW1, he registered a case in Crime No. 114/13 for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w.34 IPC against the accused

Nos 1 to 4 and marked the F.I.R. as Exhibit P5. Then he visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence-cum- seizure panchanama marked under

Exhibit P6 and drawn rough sketch marked under Exhibit P7 and seized one 7

CC.No. 129 of 2014

Dt.23-03-2023 stick. Then he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to 5 and effected arrest of accused No.1 to 4 on 24-12-2013 and produced for Judicial remand.

After receipt of medical certificate from LW8 and after completion of the entire investigation, he filed charge sheet. In the cross examination, he admitted that he has not received any complaint with regard to the incident which took place on 22-12-2013. Further admitted that one Sangam Vittal, s/o.Mallaiah who is mentioned in Ex.P1 as an eye witness is not cited as witness and nor examined.

And also admitted that he has not examined the Edige Ramulu whose house is situated beside the place of offence and also admitted that there is a previous dispute existed between PW1 and accused persons with regard to the land issues and denied the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused.

17.For better appreciation of evidence, this court is inclined to look into the ingredients of Sec.324 IPC “Section 324 lays down punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapons or means. The said provision reads as follows: “Whoever except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by meas of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be 8

CC.No. 129 of 2014

Dt.23-03-2023 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both” Therefore, from the above, the following ingredients can be deduced: (1) the accused caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the injured persons (2) the accused intentionally did such an act, (3) it was caused by an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting.

18. POINT:-

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence on record, it is the case of the prosecution that on 22-12-2013 at about 12.00 hrs, the accused No.1 intentionally abused and attacked PW1 in his cotton crop and during panchayat for the said incident, which was held on 23-12-2013, the family members of accused No.1 i.e., Accused No.2 to A4 again attacked PW1 and also beat PW2 and PW3 with sticks and stones causing injuries. As seen from the evidences of prosecution witnesses, PW1 deposed that A1 to A4 attacked him and when

PW2 came to his rescue, they also beat him and PW3. Further, the PW4 was the elder of the panchayat and the incident took place in front of him. As seen from the evidence of PW4 who is the elder of the panchayat testified that he know PWs1 to 3 and all the accused and that about 7 years ago, they all came to his house and informed about their land disputes and the quarrel among each other at the fields, upon which he advised them not to quarrel and sent them away and he turned hostile. The prosecution evidence PW5, who was also the witness to the incident had deposed on the same lines as of PW4 and turned 9

CC.No. 129 of 2014

Dt.23-03-2023 hostile about the incident. Moreover, the learned counsel for the accused elicited in the cross examinations of PWs 1 to 3 that they three are relatives i.e.,

PW1 and PW2 are the brothers and PW3 is their uncle (fathers brother).

Further, as seen from the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW7, who has seized the stick under cover of panchanama was also not proved from the evidences of panch witnesses, as they also had turned hostile. The

Investigating Officer/PW7 had admitted in his cross examination that he has not examined one Sangam Vittal whose name was mentioned in Ex.P1 as eye witness and also admitted that he has not examined Edige Ramulu, whose house is situated beside the place of offence and also admitted that there were disputes existed between PW1 and the accused persons with regard to the land issues.

19.It is the contention of the PW1 that the accused No.1 to 4 had beaten him, PW2 and 3 with stick and stone and PW7 has also adduced in his evidence that he has seized the stick from the scene of offence under cover of panchanama, but the said seizure was not proved by the panch witnesses i.e.,

PW6 and PW8 as they turned hostile. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, after hearing both sides and on careful scrutiny of the entire material available on record, the crucial question is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences charged.

CC.No. 129 of 2014

Dt.23-03-2023

20.As per the case of the prosecution, PWs1 to 3 are injured persons, and PW 4 ad PW5 are the independent eye witnesses. On the day of the incident, the accused beat PWs 1 to 3 with sticks and stones which was alleged witnessed by the PWs 4 and 5. Admittedly, PWs 1 to 3 are relatives to each other. Surprisingly, PW3 testified in his evidence that he do not know anything about the case and also clearly admitted in his cross examination that he do not know about the previous incident and was not present at PW4’s house at the time of alleged incident and that no one witnessed when he was beaten and the scene where he was beaten was visible from PW4’s house. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 is not very much helpful to the prosecution case. The injury certificate issued by the LW8 i.e.,the doctor who alleged to have been treated the PW1 to 3 has not seen the day of the light before the court and as well as the doctor was not chosen to be examined by the prosecution. Except the evidence of the interested witnesses ie. PWs,1 to 3 alongwith uncorroborated testimonies of PWs 4 and 5 and they are culminating serious doubt about the alleged commission of the offence which are remained unanswered during the course of the arguments. Further, the alleged weapons sticks and stones were not chosen to be marked by the prosecution and the alleged confession and recovery panchanama by the panch witnesses was also not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Non-examination of the doctor i.e., L.W8 who alleged to have been treated the PWs1 to 3, non marking of the medical reports, and non marking of the material objects involved in the commission of the offence are the serious infirmity in the 11

CC.No. 129 of 2014

Dt.23-03-2023 case of the prosecution. Therefore, except the solitary testimonies of the interested witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 3, there is no other supporting evidence.

Before going to the appreciation of evidence on records, it is just and

necessary to have a look at the defense put forth by the accused. The first and foremost attack of the learned counsel for the accused is that oral evidence of the PWs1 to 3 is not corroborative and they have given a different versions which is contrary to their earlier version and the independent witnesses were turned hostile. The prosecution has failed to prove the seizure and confession of the accused. Referring to the contradictions and omissions, the learned counsel further argued that there is no material on record as the very case of prosecution is out of the concocted story in view disputes and panchayats. The learned prosecutor argued that in view of the oral evidences of PWs1 to 3, the prosecution has established the charges against the accused and hence the accused are liable to be convicted thereunder by minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses due to lapse of time. Hence considering the disputes existing in between the accused and PWs1 to 3, this court is of the opinion that in the absence of any corroborative evidence from any independent witnesses, this court feels that it is unsafe to base upon conviction on the accused persons in the absence of any independent witnesses.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

CC.No. 129 of 2014

Dt.23-03-2023

21.In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be safely held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly entitled to acquittal.

22. IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and they are accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stands canceled subject to 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Typed by me in the Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23 rd day of March, 2023.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

ANDOLE AT JOGIPET

CC.No. 129 of 2014

Dt.23-03-2023

Appendix of evidence:

Witnesses examined

For prosecution:For defence:

1. P.W.1: Baswapuram Veeresham-Nil-

2. P.W.2: Baswapuram Sudarshan

3. P.W.3: Atmakur Vittal

4. P.W.4: Md. Shareef

5. P.W.5: M.Madhusudhan

6. P.W.6: V.Dhatathri

7. P.W.7: B.Ramesh

8. P.W.8: Yadaiah

Exhibits Marked:

For prosecution:For defence:

Ex P1: Complaint by PW1 -Nil- Ex P2: 161 statement of PW4 Ex P3: 161 statement of PW5 Ex.P4: Signature of PW6 on scene of offence Panchanama Ex P5: F.I.R. Ex P6: Scene of offence-cum-seizure Panchanama Ex P7: Rough sketch Ex P8: Signature of PW8 on scene of offence -cum- seizure Panchanama Ex P9: Signature of PW8 on rough sketch.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

ANDOLE AT JOGIPET

OS/82/2021

Patlolla Basanth rao vs Patlolla Baslingamma

08 Sep 2022

1 of 11 I.A.No.163 of 2021 in

O.S.No. 82 of 2021 Dt: 08.09.2022

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : ANDOLE AT JOGIPET

Thursday, the 8 th day of September, 2022

PRESENT : SMT. K.DHANA LAKSHMI

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ANDOLE AT JOGIPET

I.A.No.163 of 2021

in

O.S.No.82 of 2021

Between: Patlolla Basanth Rao, S/o. Late Adivappa, aged about 53 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 2-50, Peddareddypet village Pulkal Mandal, Sangareddy District

... Petitioner/Plaintiff.

And

1. Patlolla Baslingamma, W/o. Subash Chander, aged about 58 years

2. Patlolla Murali, S/o. Subhash Chander, aged about 48 years, Both are agriculturist and R/o. H.No. 3-7, Peddareddypet village, Pulkal Mandal, Sangareddy District.

…..Respondents/Defendants.

This petition coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S. Narayan Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri B. Ram Reddy, Advocate for Respondent and this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under

Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying the Court to grant urgent temporary injunction order in favour of petitioner restraining the respondents their heirs, men and servants etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the petition schedule 2 of 11 I.A.No.163 of 2021 in

O.S.No. 82 of 2021 Dt: 08.09.2022

properties.

2.Briefly stated the petition averments are as follows:

That the petitioner/plaintiff is the absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of the agricultural land in Sy.No.249/A adm. Ac.0.06 gts wet land and Sy.No.259/A adm. Ac.0.23 gts wet land situated at

Peddareddypet village, Pulkal mandal, Sangareddy District (hereinafter referred as ‘petition schedule properties’). The said properties are the ancestral properties of the petitioner. After the death of the petitioner’s ancestor, the patta of the suit lands was transferred on his name in the Revenue Records and the Revenue authorities issued Patta and title pass book in the name of the petitioner and since then the petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule properties till date. In rabi season, the petitioner raised paddy crop over the petition schedule properties and harvested the same and the raised paddy crop is standing in the petition schedule properties.

3.The petitioner pleaded that the respondent No.1 is the elder sister of the petitioner and respondent No.2 is her son. The respondent No.1 already taken her share during the oral partition in the properties owned and possessed by the father of the petitioner about 38 years back. Since then, the respondent No.1 along with her son respondent No.2 are enjoying the fruits of the properties 3 of 11 I.A.No.163 of 2021 in

O.S.No. 82 of 2021 Dt: 08.09.2022

which are exclusively fell to the share of respondent No.1. The petition schedule properties along with other properties are exclusively fell to the share of the petitioner in the partition and he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The respondents with an evil intention and in order to grab the petition schedule properties of the petitioner’s share, are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the petition schedule properties. On 19-03-2021, the respondents went to the petition schedule properties in order to spoil the standing paddy crop and to dispossess the petitioner. The petitioner with the help of neighbours, resisted the respondents/defendants but they left threatening the petitioner to dispossess him at any point of time and to spoil standing paddy crop and therefore, the petitioner prayed the Court to grant temporary injunction, otherwise he would be put to irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

4.This Court ordered urgent notice to the respondents through court and R.P. Upon which the respondent No.1 and 2 filed counter affidavit denying the contents of the petition which are not specifically admitted.

5.The respondents/defendants filed counter admitting that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land bearing Sy.No.

4 of 11 I.A.No.163 of 2021 in

O.S.No. 82 of 2021 Dt: 08.09.2022

249/A extent Ac. 0.06 gts and Sy.No. 259/A extent 0-23 gts. situated at Peddareddypet village, Pulkal Mandal, Sangareddy district (petition schedule properties), but the land is fallow land. The respondents denied that the petitioner raised paddy crop over the petition schedule properties and harvested the same during rabi season as the total extent is fallow land since long time and there is no source of water and that the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same.

6.The respondents/defendants denied that they interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition over the petition schedule lands in order to grab the same. The respondents contended that the petitioner taking advantage of interim injunction order trying to enter into their land bearing No.316 to an extent of

Ac.0.21 gts which is adjacent to the petition schedule properties and trying to damage borewell and standing paddy crop illegally and therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.

7.Inspite of conditional order and giving several opportunities to argue the matter after filing the counter i.e., from 23-07-2021, the respondents counsel did not turn up with his arguments. Therefore, heard the arguments of the learned counsel

for the petitioner/plaintiff and treated the arguments of the

respondents as heard.

5 of 11 I.A.No.163 of 2021 in

O.S.No. 82 of 2021 Dt: 08.09.2022

8.Now the points for consideration are:-

1)Whether the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled for temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants their heirs, men and servants etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the petition schedule properties?

2) To what relief?

9. POINT No.1:

I have carefully gone through the petition averments and counter allegations as mentioned supra.

10.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner/plaintiff is an absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of the petition schedule properties and the same are ancestral properties and the Revenue authorities issued Patta and title pass book in the name of the petitioner and since then he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule properties till date. In rabi season, the petitioner raised paddy crop over the petition schedule properties and harvested the same and the raised paddy crop is standing in the petition schedule properties.

11.The petitioner pleaded that the respondent No.1 is the elder sister of the petitioner and respondent No.2 is her son. The respondent No.1 already taken her share during the oral partition in the properties owned and possessed by the father of the petitioner 6 of 11 I.A.No.163 of 2021 in

O.S.No. 82 of 2021 Dt: 08.09.2022

about 38 years back. Since then, the respondent No.1 along with her son respondent No.2 are enjoying the fruits of the properties which are exclusively fell into the share of respondent No.1. The petition schedule properties along with other properties are exclusively fell into the share of the petitioner in the partition and he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The respondents with an evil intention and in order to grab the petition schedule properties of the petitioner’s share are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the petition schedule properties. On 19-03-2021, the respondents went to the petition schedule properties in order to spoil the standing paddy crop and to dispossess the petitioners. However, with the help of neighbours the petitioners resisted the respondents/defendants but they left threatening the petitioner to dispossess him at any point of time and to spoil standing paddy crop and therefore, the petitioners prayed the court to grant temporary Injunction, otherwise he would be put to irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

12.Per contra, the respondents opposed the contentions of the petitioner and denied the averments made in the petition and admitted that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the petition schedule properties, but the land is fallow land. The 7 of 11 I.A.No.163 of 2021 in

O.S.No. 82 of 2021 Dt: 08.09.2022

respondents denied that the petitioners raised paddy crop over the petition schedule properties and harvested the same during rabi season as the total extent is fallow land since long time and there is no source of water and that the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same.

13.The respondents/defendants further denied that they interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the petition schedule lands in order to grab the same. The respondents contended that the petitioner taking advantage of interim injunction order trying to enter into their land bearing No.316 to an extent of Ac.0.21 gts which is adjacent to the petition schedule properties and trying to damage borewell and standing paddy crop illegally and therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.

14.While arguing the matter, the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff stated that the suit is filed seeking perpetual injunction along with documents and the present petition, as the respondents having no right over the petition schedule properties are interfering into peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over petition schedule properties. However, after filing counter, the respondent counsel did not turn up with the arguments inspite of several adjournments and therefore prayed to grant temporary 8 of 11 I.A.No.163 of 2021 in

O.S.No. 82 of 2021 Dt: 08.09.2022

injunction against the respondents/defendants restraining from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the petition schedule properties.

15. As can be seen from the record, the petitioner at the time of filing the present Interlocutory application has also filed the following original documents along with the suit seeking temporary injunction, they are as follows:-

1. Pattedar pass book, 2. Mee seva 1-B Namuna (ROR), dt 11-09- 2018, 3. Mee seva 1-B Namuna (ROR) dt 05-08-2019, 4.Xerox copy of new patta passbook, 5.Certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000, 6. Certified copy of pahani for the year 2015-16, 7.Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016-17 and 8. Certified copy of pahanies for the year 2019-2020.

16.Prima facie on verification of the above documents clearly shows that the petitioner/plaintiff is the pattadar and possessor of the petition schedule properties and the said lands are inherited from his ancestors and also that the petition schedule lands are cultivable lands.

17.Coming to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents/defendants who admits in their counter that the petitioner/plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the petition schedule properties and denied with regard to the interference over 9 of 11 I.A.No.163 of 2021 in

O.S.No. 82 of 2021 Dt: 08.09.2022

the standing paddy crop as the petition schedule properties are fallow land and there is no source of water for raising paddy over the petition schedule properties. The respondents further stated that the petitioner by taking advantage of interim injunction order are trying to enter into their land bearing No. 316 extent Ac.0.21 gts which is adjacent to the petition schedule lands and trying to damage borewell and standing paddy crop illegally.

18.Coming to the above dispute, the documents furnished by the petitioner/plaintiff prima facie shows that he is the pattedar and possessor of the petition schedule properties which is not denied by the respondents/defendants in their counter. However, the denial of the interference by the respondents/defendants over the growing of paddy in the petition schedule properties can be discussed in detail while disposing the main suit after making a full fledged trial. Therefore, this court is of well considered view that the petitioner/plaintiff has made out the prima facie material to grant temporary injunction in his favour and against the respondents/defendants.. As prima facie the petitioner established his possession, the balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner. If the injunction is not granted, and if the respondent continues to interfere with the possession over the petition schedule property, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and injury, 10 of 11 I.A.No.163 of 2021 in

O.S.No. 82 of 2021 Dt: 08.09.2022

which cannot be compensated by way monetary. Hence, the petitioner has satisfied the three cardinal principles which is a sine qua non for granting the temporary injunction.

19.The plea taken by the respondents/defendants with regard to denial of interference over the growing paddy in the petition schedule property has to be taken into consideration at the time of full-fledged trial by adducing the evidence. Prima-facie, as discussed supra, the petitioner/plaintiff has made out the three cardinal principles for granting temporary injunction. As such, the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to temporary injunction. Hence the point is accordingly answered.

20. POINT No.2:

To what relief?

In the result, the petition is allowed granting temporary injunction restraining the respondents their heirs, men and servants etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the petition schedule properties. No costs.

Typed by me in the laptop and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 8th day of September, 2022.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

ANDOLE AT JOGIPET

11 of 11 I.A.No.163 of 2021 in

O.S.No. 82 of 2021 Dt: 08.09.2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner/Plaintiff: For Respondent/

Defendants:

None None

Documents Exhibited

For Petitioner/Plaintiff: For Respondent/

Defendants:

Nil Nil

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

ANDOLE AT JOGIPET

Order Record 5,703 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/457/2025	Allahabad Bank vs POTLACHERU PRABHU	01 May 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
CC/404/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vangala Sathyam Contractor	01 May 2026	abated	—
OS/109/2026	Shaheen Sultana vs The Tahsildar	24 Apr 2026	decreed with costs	—
OS/111/2025	GANGARAM PADMAVATHI vs KAMMARI LAXMI NARSAMMA AND OTHERS	24 Apr 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/237/2025	Motati Swroopa rani vs Rajannagari Surrendar Reddy	24 Apr 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/241/2025	KUMDUGARI LAXMI vs MADDULA PANDURANGA REDDY	24 Apr 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/255/2025	NARSIMHA REDDY vs R Kumar	24 Apr 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/323/2025	Vuskebai Prathap reddy,REP.by his mother, V.vijay laxmi vs D1. B.Rajgopal	24 Apr 2026	decreed with costs	—
CC/269/2025	Kushi Narayana vs Gandam Satish	24 Apr 2026	dismissed for warnt prosecution	—
CC/1207/2025	PS JInnaram vs DAKURI SUDARSHAN	24 Apr 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/45/2025	PS. Gummadidala. Cr.No. 8/2025 vs Durgesh Yadav Jakkula	23 Apr 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/731/2025	PS Hathnoora vs Valligari Laxminarayana	23 Apr 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/173/2025	PS Hathnoora vs Neerudi Nagesh	22 Apr 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/402/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA, P.S.GUMMADIDALA vs Narsing Rao Kanjarla	22 Apr 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/745/2025	Hathnoora Police Station vs Mohammed Nazeeruddin	21 Apr 2026	Acquitted	—
OS/32/2025	Meesala Arjun vs D1 Bakkolla Laxmi	17 Apr 2026	dismissed as not pressed	—
OS/340/2025	Mangali Savithri vs D1. Mangali Sumamma	17 Apr 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/459/2025	Machnoori Yellaiah vs Machkuri RaJU	17 Apr 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/641/2025	Rajba Vidya vathi vs The Mandal Revenue officer Tahsildar JInnaram	17 Apr 2026	decreed with costs	—
CC/150/2025	PS Gummadidala Neenavath Lalitha vs Mudavath Anand	17 Apr 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/794/2025	PS Jinnaram MD.MAHAMOOD HUSSAIN vs VANGETI PRAVEEN REDDY	17 Apr 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/855/2025	PS Jinnaram vs WADEPALLY YADAGIRI	17 Apr 2026	abated	—
OS/206/2025	Lokaraju Venkateshwar Rao vs D1 Boddu Narsaiah/Narsimhulu	10 Apr 2026	decreed with costs	—
OS/285/2025	Kamini Arun Kumar vs The Tahasildar Hathnoora Mandal	10 Apr 2026	decreed with costs	—
OS/640/2025	katukojwala Hari krishna vs The tahsildar	10 Apr 2026	decreed with costs	—
CC/255/2025	PS Hathnoora vs Gudem Pochaiah	10 Apr 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
OS/170/2026	The Suguna Foods Drivers and Employees Union Rep by its General Secretary D Sailu vs D1. The Suguna Poultry Farm Drivers and Employees Union	06 Apr 2026	dismissed as not pressed	—
CC/557/2025	PS Jinnaram vs Ramesh Domadugu	02 Apr 2026	abated	—
OS/593/2025	Gandagalla Sailaja and others vs Amrutha Rao and others	28 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/109/2026	State Government Department TS vs Salim Ahmed	28 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/112/2025	Hathnoora Police Station vs Medi Krishna	28 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/121/2026	State Government Department TS vs Prabhakar Gondi	28 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/149/2026	PS Gummadidala vs Shiavaratri Narsimha	28 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/163/2026	Chakali Vittal Goud vs Masaipet vittal goud	28 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/167/2026	PS Jinnaram vs A1 Narsing Rao Bowrampet	28 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/168/2026	PS Jinnaram vs Prabhakar Pallapu	28 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/169/2026	PS Gummadidla vs Kethavath Yadagiri	28 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/208/2025	Gummadidala Police Station, vs Boini Vinod Kumar	28 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/439/2025	P.S. Hathnoora vs Banoth Narendar	28 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/649/2025	PS Hathnoora vs Yellammagudem Durgam goud	28 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/735/2025	Hathnoora Police Station vs Kishan Banoth	28 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/768/2025	PS Hathnoora, Manne Ravinder vs Varala Mahesh	28 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/798/2025	PS. Hathnoora, vs Ashok Mangali	28 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/876/2025	PS. Gummadidala. vs Venkat Reddy Burri	28 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/1518/2025	Jinnaram Police Station vs NENAVATH DURGA PARASD	28 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/71/2026	State Government Department TS vs Bheema Nayudu Yerrola	26 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/85/2026	State Government Department TS vs Chandraiah Pendali	26 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/106/2026	State Government Department TS vs Shaik Faqroddin .	26 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/141/2026	PS Gummdadidala vs Jaga Shivudu	26 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/142/2026	PS Gummadidala vs Rupani Vamshi	26 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/152/2026	PS Jinnaram vs Laxmi Atinnara	26 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/154/2026	PS Gummadidala vs Shekar Goud Gokar	26 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/156/2026	PS Jinnaram vs Venkateh Goud Gopagoni	26 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/157/2026	State Government Department TS vs Bharath Goud Gokari	26 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/158/2026	State Government Department TS vs Bhasker Goud Makthala	26 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/159/2026	PS Hathnoora vs R.Suresh	26 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/160/2026	PS Hathnoora vs Hanumanthu Dattu Telange	26 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/161/2026	PS Hathnoora vs Modugulla Shankar	26 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/162/2026	PS Hathnoora vs Lakavath Lakshman	26 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/232/2025	Kumari Padma vs Kummari Chandra Shekar	26 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/458/2025	Hathnoora Police Station vs Meesala Ravindar	26 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/883/2025	Gummadidala Police Station, vs Het ram	26 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/896/2025	Gummadidala Police Station, vs Vsmohammed mahaboob	26 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/994/2025	PS Gummadidala Begari Yadaiah vs Maloth Venkatesh	26 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/1199/2025	State Government Department TS vs A1. Kothakunta Raju	26 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/1443/2025	PS IDA Bollaram Veersingh Ram vs Mamidala Ashok goud	26 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/1492/2025	PS Jinnaram vs Yakamolla Shakar	26 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/1542/2025	Jinnaram Police Station vs VADLA SRINIVAS	26 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/1569/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA PS. Jinnaram vs Laxman Yadav Varala	26 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/79/2026	State Government Department TS vs Praveen Kumar Megavath	25 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/144/2026	PSGummadidala vs Nagulapally Krishna Swamy Krishna Swamy	25 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/145/2026	PS Gummdadidala vs Nalla Manga Goud	25 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/148/2026	PS Gummadidala vs M. Anil Maloth	25 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/339/2025	P.S. Hathnoora vs Vislavath Pandu	25 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/698/2025	PS. Hathnoora. vs Rajashekar Kolani	25 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/105/2026	State Government Department TS vs Das goud kalali	24 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/143/2026	PS Gummadidala vs Gopalapuram Vishnu Chary	24 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/146/2026	PS Gummadidala vs Talari Srinu	24 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/150/2026	PS Gummadidala vs Vislavath Ramulu	24 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/151/2026	PS Jinnaram vs Srinivas Kummari	24 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/153/2026	PS Jinnaram vs Gagilapur Anitha alias Athinnaram Lavanya Gagilapur	24 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/807/2025	PS Hathnoor vs Dhanampally Naveen	24 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/882/2025	P.S. Gummadidala vs Vsmunni Nagaraju	24 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/928/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Nallamokkala Suresh	24 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/1552/2025	Jinnaram Police Station vs Kallepally Kumar	24 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/36/2025	P.S. Hathnoora, Smt.Sangannagari Shamantha vs Katroth Ganesh	23 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/36/2026	P.S. Jinnaram vs Katta Naveen	23 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/101/2026	State Government Department TS vs Sanjeev Kothapally	23 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/102/2026	State Government Department TS vs Sudhakar Atugalla	23 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/103/2026	State Government Department TS vs Kumar Chinthaguddi	23 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/135/2026	State Government Department TS vs Lavudya Pavan	23 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/136/2026	State Government Department TS vs Nenavath Kiran	23 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/139/2026	State Government Department TS vs Anjaneyulu Bowrampet	23 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/140/2026	State Government Department TS vs Srikanth Goud Lakshmagouni	23 Mar 2026	admission of claim	—
CC/217/2025	PS. IDA Bollaram. vs Kalimuthu Santhula	23 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/326/2025	PS. Jinnaram vs Yelimela Srikanth Reddy @ Kondal Reddy	23 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/434/2025	P.S. IDA Bollaram vs Amith Kumar	23 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/584/2025	PS. Jinnaram vs Athinaram Pentesh Goud	23 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—
CC/775/2025	Venkatesh vs ANTHIREDDIGARI ANIL REDDY	23 Mar 2026	dismissed as not pressed	—
CC/1384/2025	PS Hathnoora vs Salaiah Kummari	23 Mar 2026	settled before lokadalat	—

Showing 100 of 5,703 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		2
Apr 2026		26
Mar 2026		101
Feb 2026		22
Jan 2026		15
Dec 2025		37
Nov 2025		38
Oct 2025		6
Sep 2025		1
Apr 2025		49
Mar 2025		295
Feb 2025		154

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt K DHANA LAKSHMI handled?

Smt K DHANA LAKSHMI has handled 5748 court orders since 2022 at Jinnaram, JCJ Complex. The average disposal rate is 117 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt K DHANA LAKSHMI hear?

Based on available records, Smt K DHANA LAKSHMI primarily handles Criminal matters (Summary Trial Cases, Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Jinnaram, JCJ Complex.

Where is Smt K DHANA LAKSHMI currently posted?

Smt K DHANA LAKSHMI is posted as Junior Civil Judge Court Jinnaram at Jinnaram, JCJ Complex, Sangareddy, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt K DHANA LAKSHMI available online?

Yes. 31 judgments by Smt K DHANA LAKSHMI are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt K DHANA LAKSHMI dispose cases?

Smt K DHANA LAKSHMI disposes approximately 117 cases per month, based on 5748 orders handled over their tenure at Jinnaram, JCJ Complex.

Since when is Smt K DHANA LAKSHMI serving?

Smt K DHANA LAKSHMI has been serving at Jinnaram, JCJ Complex since 2022.

Case Types

STC 57%

CC 29%

OS 12%

PRC 1%

MC 1%

EP 0%

DVC 0%

Posting History

Aug 2025 — May 2026

Junior Civil Judge Court Jinnaram · 248 orders
Oct 2024 — May 2025

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at jogipet · 759 orders
Aug 2024 — Oct 2024

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at jogipet · 311 orders
Jun 2023 — Apr 2024

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at jogipet · 2,480 orders
Nov 2022 — Mar 2023

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at jogipet · 421 orders
Jun 2022 — Sep 2022

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at jogipet · 1,319 orders
Apr 2022 — Jun 2022

Junior Civil Judge · 210 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 14

Convicted 1

Other Judges at this Court

Ms.patlolla Tejasri

Junior Civil Judge Court Jinnaram

8 orders

← View all judges at Jinnaram, JCJ Complex