Smt.K.Maruthi Devi

1

IN THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. K.MARUTHI DEVI

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

FAC X ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

R.R.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Dated on this the 17 th day of December, 2020

O.S. No. 862 of 2011

BETWEEN:-

1. Gummadi. Balawanth Reddy (died as per LRs)

2. G. Kamalama W/o. Late G. Balawanth Reddy, Aged about 65yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.no. 8-7-183, Samatha Nagar, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

3. G. Gopal Reddy, S/o. Late Balawanth Reddy, Aged about 48yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 8-7-183, Samatha Nagar, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

4. Smt. S. Prabhavathi, D/o. G. Balawanth Reddy, W/o. S. Devender Reddy, Aged about 45yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. R/o. H.no. 8-7-183, Samatha Nagar, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad

5. V. Premavathi, D/o. G. Balawanth Reddy, W/o. V. Dayakar Reddy, Aged about 38yrs, R/o. Antharam Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District. .…. Plaintiffs

AND

1. K. V. Pratap, S/o. K.V. Ramanaiah, Aged about 57yrs, Occ: Advocate, R/o. H.no. 1-2-597/14, Domalguda, Hyderabad.

2. K. Bala Suvarna, W/o. K. Shankar Lingam, Aged about 37yrs, Occ: Business, 2

R/o. H.no. 8-7-187/B, R.B.I Colony, Samathanagar, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

3. Gummadi Malla Reddy, S/o. G. Balwanth Reddy, Aged about 50yrs, Occ: Business, R/io. H.no. 8-7-183/1, Old Bowenpally,

Secunderabad. ….. Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri. G.V.S.Ramaiah Naidu, Advocate for

the Plaintiffs and M/s. M. Dushyanth Reddy, Advocate

for defendants no. 1 and 2, and M/s. P. Srinath,

Advocate for defendant no.3 and having stood over

for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the

following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)This is a suit filed by the plaintiff no.1 (died) against defendants praying to declare the plaintiff as absolute owner of the suit schedule property and to direct the defendants to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the same and to cancel the registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 4004 of 1985 dt. 27.12.1985 and consequently to declare the registered development agreement cum general power of attorney bearing no. 1089 of 2011 dt. 25.06.2011 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

2)The brief facts of the plaint are that the plaintiff who is no more has succeeded land in Sy.no.63 admeasuring Ac.2-06gts of land towards his share out of the total extent of Ac.4-12gts of land in Sy.no.

63 from his father Malla Reddy. That after the death of G. Narayana

Reddy who is brother of plaintiff, the his widow namely Smt.

3

G.Laxmamma and his only daughter sold their share of Ac.2-06gts in

Sy.no.63 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff by virtue of partition and by virtue of purchase made by the plaintiff, he became absolute owner and possessor of Ac.4-12gts of land in sy.no.63 of Old Bowenpally Village,

Balanagar Mandal, Kukatpally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

Thereafter, the plaintiff has converted the said Ac.4-12gts of land into residential plots and sold away some of the plots by retaining some plots with himself. Out of remaining plots, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the house bearing no. 5-59/2/3, on plot no. 2/3, admeasuring 467sq.yds, situated at Sy.no.63, situated at Old Bowenpally Village,

Balanagar Mandal, Kukatpally Municipality, R.R.District (hereinafter called as suit schedule property).

3)That in the last week of October 2011, the defendant no.2 had started demolishing the hut and leveling the plots, and when the plaintiff questioned the acts of defendant no.2, he stated that he has entered into registered development agreement cum General Power of

Attorney with defendant no.1 and also stated that the defendant no.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property. Upon that when the plaintiff enquired with defendant no.1, he stated that he has purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 4004 of 1985 dt. 27.12.1985 wherein the plaintiff is not the vendor of the defendant no.1, thus the defendant no.1 has purchased the suit schedule property from a strange person who does not have the title 4 over the suit schedule property.

4)That the alleged registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 4004 of 1985 dt. 27.12.1985 appears to have been executed by the second son of the plaintiff namely Gummadi Malla Reddy, but the fact remains that Gummadi Malla Reddy (Defendant no.3) is not having any right or title to execute the sale deed in favour of anybody, as the plaintiff is the absolute owner and title holder of the suit schedule property, therefore,

Gummadi Malla Reddy is made as defendant no.3 herein to prove his title to the suit schedule property enabling him to alienate the suit schedule property. That inspite of request of plaintiff not to change the nature of the suit schedule property, the defendants no.1 and 2 in order to make unlawful gain have made construction of residential flats with an intention to create third party interest over the suit schedule property by alienating the flats to prospective purchasers. When the plaintiff made enquires in respect of the transactions took place behind his back, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant no.3 had executed a registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 4004 of 1985 dt. 27.12.1985 in favour of defendant no.1 without having any manner of right or title over the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the defendant no.1 had entered into a registered development agreement cum General Power of

Attorney in favour of defendant no.2 vide registered document bearing no. 1089 of 2011 dt. 25.06.2011 without any right. Thus the possession of defendants no.1 and 2 over the suit schedule property is illegal and 5 they are trespassers. The defendant no.2 is making construction knowingly well about no right or title over the suit schedule property and with illegal intentions to create some third party interest over the suit schedule property, thus the plaintiff has approached this court for cancellation of two registered documents bearing no. 4004 of 1985 and 1089 of 2011 dt. 27.12.1985 and 25.06.2011 respectively.

5)The defendant no.1 filed written statement and defendant no.2 filed adoption memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant no.1.

6)Defendant no.1 filed written statement denying the avernments made in the plaint and contended that the suit is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and by suppressing the real facts a false case is filed for wrongful gain. The defendants no.1 and 2 submitted that defendant no.1 purchased the suit schedule property on 27.12.1985 from defendant no.3 for valuable consideration under registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 4004 of 1985. Defendants no. 1 and 2 further contended that land bearing Sy.no.63 is an ancestral property of Gummadi Malla Reddy who is grand father of defendant no.3 and defendant no.3 along with the plaintiff, G. Gopal Reddy, G.

Kamalamma and other family members have entered into development agreement with one Laxmikanth C. Seth in respect of lands bearing

Sy.no. 61, 63, 64 and 52 and delivered vacant physical possession to

Laxmikanth C. Seth and said Laxmikanth C.Seth developed the said 6 lands into residential plots. Thereafter, defendant no.3 and other family members individually sold the developed plots to the intending purchasers and suit schedule property is one among the same, sold by the defendant no.3 to the defendant no.1 for valuable sale consideration and the same fact is recorded in Decree passed by the Special Court under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act in LGC No. 77 of 1999 filed by the plaintiff.

7)Defendants no.1 and 2 further contended that the suit in OS no. 574 of 1990 on the file of Prl. Sub-ordinate Judge, R.R.district is a collusive, manipulated suit and the same was filed after conversion land bearing Sy.no. 63 into residential plots and alienation of the same to several individual plot owners, which is not binding on this defendant, who purchased the suit schedule property prior to the filing of the above suit i.e., in the year 1984 itself. That thereafter, all the plot owners who purchased the plots from defendant no.3, G. Gopal Reddy, Plaintiff and other family members, have formed a welfare association by name

Samatha Nagar Welfare Association and defendant no.1 is a member of the said association from 1991 to till date and is participating in all activities of the welfare association.

8)The defendant no.1 submitted that the plaintiff never approached defendant no.1 at any point of time and also particularly last week of October, 2011 and plaintiff admitted tht the land bearing sy.no.

63 is an ancestral property and describing the vendor of the defendant 7 no.1 as a stranger at none time and another time as his second son and he is intentionally changing his version for wrongful gains and it is an admitted fact that after making layout, all the family members of the plaintiff individually sold away plots in Sy.no.63 according to their share and the plot owners who purchased plots in sy.no.63 from the plaintiff and his other family members constructed buildings and residing from the year 1984 itself without any disturbance. That making the vendor of defendant no.1 i.e., Gummadi Malla Reddy as defendant no.3 to the present suit is a part and parcel of plan hatched by the plaintiff and defendant no.3 who will not contest the suit and become exparte in order to give support to the plaintiff for grabbing the suit schedule property and it is a long standing game plan of plaintiff family members, that they will make their family member who sold the plot and executed sale deed to the plot purchaser as one of the defendant in the suit in order to get advantage of defeating the rights of genuinely purchased plot owners, in order to harass and extract from them under the guise of false litigation.

9)The defendant no.1 further contended that being the rightful owner of the suit schedule property, the defendant obtained permission for construction of ground plus five floors from the Zonal Commissioner,

West Zone, GHMC vide file no. 5425/ZC/WZ/Cir14/2011 on 15.09.2011 and defendant no.2 by investing huge amounts started the construction work and the same is under the verge of completion and the plaintiff 8 does not have any right to stop or interfere with the possession and enjoyment of defendants in any manner.

10)The defendants further contended that since the date of purchase of suit schedule property by the defendants vide registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 4004 of 1985 i.e., since more than 26yrs, the defendant no.1 was in continuous possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property without any disturbances and the defendant no.1 also prefected titile and possession by way of adverse possession also and the demand of plaintiff for recovery of possession and cancellation of sale deed dt. 27.12.1985 is time barred and the present suit is also barred by limitation and hence the suit is not entertainable. Further, the defendants have placed transactions in respect of land bearing Sy.no.63 which are as follows:

S.No. Name of the familyNumber ofExtent ofName of theRegistered memberthe plotsplot areapurchaserdocument soldnumbers 01G. Balwanth Reddy1, 4, 97, 99 854sq.ydsP.V.S.Raju1177 of 1987 (Plaintiff)Dr.Sowbagya2762 of 1989 Laxmi Ravi Kumar2785 of 1989 02G. Malla Reddy (D3)11, 2/3 &867sq.ydsY.S.R.K.Rao94 of 1986 93K.V. Pratap1750 of 1990 Mr. Chandu4004 of 1985

dt. 27.12.1985

03 G. Gopal Reddy24, 21 and836 sq.ydsG. Nageswar Rao4003 of 1985 10, 10427.12.1985 N.P. Babu1264 of 1992 P.S.N.Reddy1211 of 1988

11)Tht the plaintiff in his written statement in suit in OS no. 65 of 2008 on the file of SC & ST Addl. District Judge Court (now transferred 9 to III Addl. District Judge, R.R.District) categorically admitted on oath that himself and his two sons i.e., G. Gopal Reddy and G. Malla Reddy (D3) sold away entire property in land bearing sy.no.63, 61 and 64 and shared the sale proceeds among themselves and there is no land left in

Sy.no.63 and the plaintiff and his other family members accepted that except the part of land bearing sy.no.52, there is no land or plot or houses left over in any other lands i.e., land bearing Sy.no. 61, 63, 64 as per the family settlement dt. 07.10.2007 executed among themselves.

Further the plaintiff has not filed a piece of paper to show his ownership and the name of the plaintiff does not reflect in the possession column of pahanies for the year 2005 – 10 and the revenue authorities amended the same as “Houses” in column no.13 and to mislead the court, the plaintiff has wantonly obtained Nil encumbrance certificate from the SRO Vallabhnagar though the sale deed bearing doc.no. 4004 of 1985 exists in the records of SRO, Vallabhnagar and the name of the plaintiff does not reflect in the encumbrance certificate.

12)Further, knowingly well about the fact that no piece of land ins left over, with an intention to extract money, the plaintiff in collusion with Laxmikanth C. Seth filing false civil and criminal cases by abusing the law against genuine purchasers as if there exists land. That the plaintiff and his other family members inspite of holding Ac.1-13gts in

Sy.no.61, Ac.4-12gts in Sy.no.63, Ac. 2-11gtrs in Sy.no. 64 total admeasuring Ac. 8-36gts situated at Old Bowenpally Village, Balanagar 10

Mandal, R.R.District intentionally in collusion with each other created manipulated documents and involved in selling government Ceiling

Surplus Land in Sy.no. 52 of Old Bowenpally village to the general public, making loss to the government and cheated general public. That the defendants along with other members of Samatha Nagar colony

Welfare Association members, on 14.05.2012 filed a complaint before

Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of AP and 25 other authorities

detailing how the plaintiffs and his other family members abusing the process of law filed several false suits against the genuine purchasers and the Government of AP, for harassing, extracting money and selling the government lands, minting crores of rupees of Hon’ble Courts and other Government authorities taken up the matter and the same is under investigation. Since 1984 to till date, the plaintiff and defendant no.3 stays together in same premises and hence, the plaintiff is well aware of the execution of registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 4004 of 1985 in favour of defendant no.1 and the possession and enjoyment of the defendant no.1 and raising the claim today is time barred and is not entertainable under any circumstances. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

13)Defendant no.3 filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and further contended that plaintiff who is his father was verymuch influenced by his daughter Prabhavathi and her husband Devender Reddy who have already got initiated a partition suit 11 bearing OS no. 65 of 2008 on the file of III Addl. District Judge,

R.R.District, at L. B. Nagar and in the said suit the plaintiff herein is also defendant no.1. Whereas, the plaintiff herein has not even clarified that the joint properties were alienated by this defendant herein in favour of defendant no.1, as such it is the daughter of the plaintiff herein who is creating all sorts of problems by taking advantage of the plaintiff’s age.

As a matter of fact the plaintiff herein has also got initiated a civil suit vide OS no. 1211 of 2007 against defendant no.3 as well as other family members in respect of five sale deeds which were got executed by said

Devender Reddy in favour of third parties. As a matter of fact at no point of time, the execution of the registered sale deed by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant no.1 has not raised and further even during the final family settlement deed executed on 07.10.2007 before all family elders and well wishers the claim of the present suit schedule property was not raised though the plot in Sy.no.63 was also given to the said Devender

Reddy by the plaintiff. Whereas, the defendant no.3 and his brothers were handed over part of the premises and open plot in respect of

Sy.no.52 only and when the matter as regards claim of any property by the plaintiff herein is very much sub-judiced in view of the pending partition suit by family members and even other suits having got filed by the plaintiff himself and now a fresh claim in respect of the property which was got executed in the year 1985 is being put forth by the plaintiff which is verymuch time barred and further as this defendant is not aware of the execution of the said sale deed as such the same was 12 not included in the family settlement before the elders.

14)The defendant no.3 further contended that there is no cause of action to file the present suit and it is barred by limitation and the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit and the plaintiff without any knowledge about the facts of the case has filed the present suit with false allegations and prayed to dismiss the suit.

15)Basing on the above pleadings, following issues were settled for trial by my predecessor:

1.Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit property from the defendants?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of the registered sale deed no. 4004 of 1985 dt. 27.12.1985 and to declare the development agreement cum GPA dt. 1089 of 2011 dt. 25.09.2011 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff?

4.Whether the claim of the plaintiff is time barred?

5.To what relief?

16)To prove their case, initially deceased plaintiff no.1 filed his chief examination affidavit as PW1 and on the death of Plaintiff no.1, his evidence affidavit is eschewed. Thereafter LRs of Plaintiff no.1 i.e.,

Plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 were brought on record and plaintiff no.2 who is wife of late Plaintiff no.1 filed her chief examination affidavit as PW2 and

Ex.A1 to A6. After closure of the evidence on the side of plaintiffs,

Defendant no.1 examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to 13

B19. In support of the case of Defendant no.1, his sister-in-law is examined as DW2 and one B. J. Ramesh is examined as DW3 and

Ex.B20 and B21 are marked. The defendant no.3 neither cross examined the plaintiff nor deposed before this court to rebut the evidence of PW1 and DW1 to DW3.

17)Written arguments filed by Defendant no.1 and 2. Heard both sides, perused the material placed on record.

ISSUE No.1: Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint

schedule property?

ISSUE no.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of

possession of the suit schedule property?

18)To prove the ownership over the property the burden on the plaintiffs to prove their possession and title over the suit schedule property claimed by him. In support of his contention, Plaintiff no.2 examined herself as PW2 and she reiterated the contents of the plaint in her chief examination and she also got marked Ex.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 and

Ex.A7 are certified copies of registered Sale deed bearing doc.no. 4004 of 1985 dt. 27.12.1985, Ex.A2 is Development Agreement cum GPA bearing doc.no. 1089 of 2011 dt. 25.06.2011 executed by plaintiff in favour of Defendants no. 1 and 2, Ex.A3 is Pahanies for the years 2005 to 2010, Ex.A4 is three numbers of encumbrance certificates dt.

13.12.2011 for the period from 01.10.2007 to 12.12.2011, Ex.A5 is the valuation certificated issued by MCH dt. 13.12.2011, Ex.A6 is 14 photographs of suit schedule property. PW2 further stated that her father-in-law who is father of plaintiff no.1 had five sons and plaintiff no.1 is one among them and during the lifetime of her father-in-law, the partition was executed equally among his sons and out of that the plaintiff got the property to an extent of Ac. 2-06gts in sy.no. 63(no partition deed is filed). PW2 further stated that as per their contention the total extent of land in Sy.no.63 is Ac. 4-12gts and the other extent of

Ac.2-06gts fell to the share of G. Narayana Reddy who is one of the brothers of plaintiff who expired. PW2 stated that after the death of

G.Narayana Reddy, his wife Laxmamma and her daughter sold his share to the plaintiff and the same was recorded in OS no. 574 of 1990 on the file of Prl. Sub-ordinate Judge, R.R.District (no document is filed to that extent). Thus the plaintiff become the absolute owner of Ac.4- 12gts of land. PW2 stated that subsequently the plaintiff converted the land into plots and sold some plots to the purchasers and some plots were retained by himself and further, the plaintiff contended that in the suit schedule property there was a small hut and house number was also allotted (No document is filed to that extent).

19)In the cross examination of PW2, she admitted that her daughters filed suit vide OS no. 65 of 2008 on the file of III Addl. District

Judge, R.R.District for partition, claiming rights over the land covered in

Sy.no.63 of Old Bowenpally village. PW2 further admitted that she knows the existence of Samathanagar Welfare Association and she 15 gave evidence in LGC no. 77 of 1999 before Spl. Court, Land Grabbing and neither herself nor her husband have filed any suit against

Defendant no.3. PW2 stated that her husband, during his life time has made an application requesting the concerned authorities not to grant permission to defendant no.1 for making construction over the suit schedule property. PW2 admitted that an apartment is constructed in the suit schedule property after filing of the suit and she did not file any document to show that the suit schedule property fell to the share of her husband and her husband sold out some plots by keeping some plots for himself. In her further cross examination, PW2 admitted that her husband, Defendant no.3 and other family members have entered into development agreement with Lakshmikanth Seth for making plots and accordingly, he made plots.

20)PW2 in her further cross examination on 22.11.2017, she stated that she does not know about the development agreement cum

GPA vide doc.no. 1089 of 2011 dt. 25.06.2011 under Ex.A2, contradicting with her earlier version.

21)To rebut the evidence of PW2, and to prove their possession over the suit schedule property the defendant no.1 examined himself as

DW1 and he reiterated his version in written statement in his chief examination affidavit and in support of his claim, he relied upon Ex.B1 to

B19. Ex. B1 is nothing but Ex.A1 sale deed bearing doc.no. 4004 of 1985 dt. 27.12.1985 thorough which defendant no.1 claims he has 16 purchased the suit schedule property from defendant no.3 who is none other than the son of PW2, Ex.B2 nothing but Ex.A2 i.e., certified copy of Register Development Agreement cum GPA bearing doc.no. 1089 olf 2011 dt. 25.06.2011, Ex.B3 is original Encumbrance Certificate for the 01.10.2007 to 02.01.2012, Ex.B4 is the Certified copy of plaint in OS no.65 of 2008 on the file of court of Spl. Court, SC & ST, R.R. District which is a partition suit filed by the daughters of PW2, Ex.B6 is the original copy of building permit issued by the Commissioner, GHMC along with plan obtained by defendant no.1 for construction of apartment, Ex.B7 is original Encumbrance Certificate issued by SRO,

Vallabhanagar disclosing the names of the owners in Sy.no. 61, 63 and 64, Ex.B8 is letter dt. 30.12.2011 issued by Secretary, Samathanagar

Welfare Association in favour of defendant no.1 declaring that the defendant no.1 is one of the owners of the plot bearing no. 2 and 3, in

Sy.no. 63, 61 and 64part and plaintiff is the vendor of land in Sy.no. 61, 63 and 64, Ex.B9 is the receipt issued by Samathanagar Welfare

Association in favour of defendant no.1, Ex.B10, Ex.B11 and Ex.B12 are

Invitations of Samathangar Welfare Association on different occasions.

22)DW1 was cross examined by counsel for plaintiff. In his cross examination, DW1 admitted that he has verified the land revenue records pertaining to land in Sy.no.63 at the time of purchase of property and he does not remember which revenue record and whose name was present in the revenue record at the time of purchase of property. DW1 17 admitted that he has not filed any other document before this court to show that Defendant no.3 got alienable rights over the suit schedule property and he got mutated his name in the municipal records in the year 2011 but not in the revenue records. DW1 further admitted that plaintiff no.1, his son Gopal Reddy and defendant no.3 have partitioned their properties, and he again stated that he has not seen the partition deed in between the plaintiff no.1 and his two sons. DW1 admitted that he knows about Ex.B4 partition suit and stated that he does not know whether the plaintiff herein has taken a plea in his written statement in

OS no. 65 of 2008 stating that no partition took place.

23)In the further cross examination of DW1, he admitted that there is no mention in Ex.B1 with regard to the source of title of his vendor and as on the date of purchase of suit schedule property, door number was given to the suit schedule property as H.no. 5-59/2/3, plot no. 29 and basing on Ex.B1 document, he got mutated his name in the municipal records and he has not paid any municipal tax from the year 1985 to 2011 in respect of suit schedule property and added that since the suit schedule property was a dilapidated room, he has not paid any municipality tax for that property. DW1 further admitted that he has not paid either house tax or vacant land tax for the schedule property covered under Ex.B1 from 1985 to 2011 and Ex.B1 document, he has not filed any other document before this court to show that he is in possession of suit schedule property. DW1 stated that he is claiming 18 titled over the suit schedule property based on Ex.B1 and by way of adverse possession. DW1 stated that he came to know about OS no.

574 of 1990 after filing of this sort and he has not taken any steps for cancellation of the decree and judgment in OS no. 574 of 1990 and at his request, Ex.B8 was issued by the Secretary, Samathanagar Welfare

Association. DW1 stated that by the time of filing of the present suit, construction was under progress over suit schedule property.

24)DW1 was cross examined by counsel for defendant no.3, wherein DW1 admitted that defendant no.3 took a specific plea in his written statement that the signature in original Ex.B1 does not belong to him and that it was forged one. And by the time of transaction of original of Ex.B1 sale deed, the husband of defendant no.4 by name Devender

Reddy was present along with plaintiff no.1 and Gopal Reddy and on the same day, Devender Reddy executed registered sale deeds in favour of brother’s wife of DW1.

25)DW1 was recalled vide orders in IA no. 782 of 2018 dt.07.09.2018 and in his further chief examination, Ex.B13 Certified copy of judgment and decree in LGC no. 77 of 1999 dt. 28.01.2004,

Ex.B14 CC of GPA bearing doc.no. 1142 of 1991 dt. 23.12.1991 executed by Defendant no.3 in favour of one B.J.Ramesh, Ex.B15

Certified copy of agreement of sale dt. 21.09.1985 executed by G.

Laxmamma and another in favour of Laxmi Kanth C. Seth, Ex.B16

Certified copy of agreement of sale dt. 24.09.1985 executed by G.

19

Balvanth Reddy and others in favour of Laxmi Kanth C. Seth, Ex.B17

Original Registered sale deed vide doc.no. 251 of 1986 dt. 22.01.1986 executed by Defendant no.3 in favour of K.V.Savithri, Ex.B18 is Certified copy of Registered sale deed vide doc.no. 100 of 1986 dt. 27.12.1985 executed by G. Devender Reddy in favour Dr. Kande Kalpana were marked.

26)In his cross examination, DW1 admitted that he is not a party to Ex.B13 judgment and decree, but his plot is covered under

Ex.B13 and the suit schedule property is specifically mentioned in

Ex.B13 and there is no specific mention of extent of land in Sy.no.63 in

Ex.B13. DW1 admitted that in Ex.B14 there is no specific mention with regard to Sy.no.63 and as per Ex.B15 the total extent of land in Sy.no.63 is Ac.4-12gts where as the agreement is for an extent of Ac.0.04gts and as per Ex.B16 it is covering the land of Ac.2-00gts and either inEx.B15 or in Ex.B16 schedules no door number is mentioned. DW1 admitted that as per Ex.B15, B16 agreements, suit schedule properties mentioned therein are agreed to be sold to Lakshmikanth C Seth and he has no knowledge whether Ex.B15 and B16 are cancelled.

27)On the specific question by counsel for plaintiff with regard to the source of title of defendant no.3 subsequent to Ex.B15 and B16, to sell the suit schedule property to defendant no.1, DW1 stated that since

Malla Reddy i.e., Defendant no.3 is one of the executent of Ex.B16 and the development of those plots made by Lakshmikanth C Seth as such 20

Defendant no.3 got the source of title and executed suit schedule property in favour of defendant no.1 under registered sale deed Ex.B1.

28)DW1 admitted that in Ex.B17, the signature of defendant no.3 was with separate letters and denied that the signature of defendant no.3 in Ex.B16 is cursive writing and admitted that in Ex.B16 the word “REDDY” was written in cursive writing and “MALLA” was written with separate letters. DW1 stated that he cannot examine Vittal and Srinivas Reddy who are witnesses to Ex.B1. DW1 stated that the misplacement of Ex.B1 has come to his knowledge in the year 2016 and denied the suggestion that to suppress about the forgery, DW1 is willfully not producing the original of Ex.B1 and admitted that Ex.B13 does not contain suit schedule property and Ex.B14 does not mention sy.no.63. DW1 admitted that as per Ex.B15 all the family members of plaintiff got Ac.4-12gts of land in sy.no.63 and as per Ex.15 the agreement of sale is in respect of only Ac.0.04gts of land in sy.no.63 and Ex.B16 agreement of sale is in respect of only Ac.2-00gts of land out of Ac.4-12gts of land. DW1 stated that the signatures appearing on

Ex.B17 is partly tallying with the signature of vendor of defendant no.1 on the written statement and defendant no.3 has filed written statement by taking a plea of forgery and he has not initiated any legal action against Defendant no.3 against the statement of the written statement.

29)In Re-examination Ex.B19 i.e., CC of Decree in LGC no. 77 of 1999 was marked DW1 admitted that in Ex.B19 there is no mention of 21 plot no. 2/3 and the decree in LGC no. 77 of 1999 does not belong to plot no. 2/3.

30)In support of his contention, Defendant no.1 got examined his sister-in-law by name K.V. Savithri as DW2 and she filed her chief examination affidavit and submitted that defendant no.1 purchased the suit schedule property from defendant no.3 for valuable consideration and she has also purchased her residential plot from defendant no.3 through registered sale deed Ex.B17 and another sister of Defendant no.1 has also purchased a residential plot under Ex.B18 from defendant no.3 and ever since their purchase, they are in peaceful possession of their respective properties and thereby plaintiff has resorted to executed series of registered sale deeds and thereafter alleging the purchasers as encroachers and filing a false case against the purchasers. DW2 further contended that contention of plaintiffs that certain plots were retained by plaintiff no.1 including the suit schedule property and defendant no.3 had no right to alienate the same are false, baseless and invented for the purpose of the suit and defendant no.1 got constructed multi-storied building after obtaining valid permission from competent authority and plaintiffs are trying to get unjust enrichment by filing present suit.

31)In her cross examination DW2 admitted that herself and

DW1 have not obtained legal opinion before purchasing the plots and she has not filed any proof showing partition between defendant no.3 22 and his father G. Balvanth Reddy. DW2 admitted that the signature shown on written statement of Defendant no.3 is different from Ex.B17.

DW2 admitted that on Ex.B17 the registered value of the plots are shown Rs. 45,000/- as market value and she cannot say the reasons why defendant no.3 sold for lesser price and she has not filed any documents to show that defendant no.1 is in possession of the suit property from the date of purchase and at the time of commencement of construction work by defendant no.1, plaintiff filed the present suit and completed the construction work during the pendency of the suit.

32)In support of the contention of DW1, Founder president of

Samathanagar Welfare Association, B.J.Ramesh is examined as DW3 and he filed his chief examination affidavit and deposed that the receipts filed by DW1 are true and correct issued by the association and once the entire land was made into plots by Lakshmikanth Seth, neither

Gummadi Balwanth Reddy, nor his family members were in possession of any of the plots but Balwanth reddy and his family members individually sold the plots at the instance of Lakshmikanth seth, to the knowledge of Balwanth Reddy and his family members and they never raised cross objections about the sale deeds and only after the colony was developed, they developed evil thoughts and started claiming the plots by filing false suits against the innocent purchasers. DW3 further stated that plaintiff filed LGC no. 77 of 1999 in respect of 1200sq.yds in

Sy.no. 61, 63 and 64 and LGC no. 130 of 1999 in respect of 1581sq.yds 23 in sy.no. 61, 63 and 64 both situated at Old Bowenpally Village,

Balanagar Mandal, R.R.district on the file of special court under AP

Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad, and both the said LGCs were dismissed by Judgment and decree dt. 28.01.2004. PW2 deposed in the above said LGCs that the residents in Sy.no. 61, 63 and 64 named the colony Samathanagar Welfare Association and she also admitted that she, her husband and her sons executed an agreement of sale dt. 24.09.1985 in favour of Lakshmikanth Seth and in the said agreement it was clearly stated that possession of the land had been handed over to Lakshmikanth Seth. DW3 further stated that

Lakshmikanth Seth developed the land into plots and at his instance plaintiff and his family members individually executed registered sale deeds in favour of purchasers of plot, thus defendant no.1 got his registered sale deed under Ex.B1 from defendant no.3 in respect of suit schedule property and since then defendant no.1 has been in continuous possession over the suit schedule property and Ex.B20 and

Ex.B21 certificate issued by Registrar of Registrations in respect of

Samathanagar Welfare Association.

33)In cross examination DW3 admitted that welfare association is no way concerned with the title of the members of the welfare association and that plaintiff filed a criminal case against DW3 for forgery vide FIR no. 54 of 2002 at PS Bowenpally and denied that there are litigation pending between himself and plaintiff. DW3 stated that 24 one should own a plot in Samathanagar colony to become member of welfare society and their association will verify the title of the parties

before granting membership.

34)DW3 identified the signature of defendant no.3 on written statement and further admitted that there is no document evidencing partition in between the family members of Balvanth Reddy and adds that an oral partition took place in the year 1985 and he cannot say the exact date and month of said oral partition, but himself along with some other plot owners were present at the time of oral partition and one

Lakshmikanth Seth also present at the time of oral partition and their association has not come into existence by the date of oral partition.

DW3 stated that there is no document to show that defendant no.1 is in possession of suit plot except sale deed and at the instance of

Lakshmikanth Seth, suit plot was sold to defendant no.1 and the remaining unsold plots are in the custody and possession of family members of plaintiff and thereafter DW3 added that Lakshmikanth Seth who is in possession of remaining unsold plots and Lakshmikanth Seth did not sign on sale deed of Defendant no.1 and there is no specific recital in sale deed of defendant no.1 at the instance of Lakshmikanth

Seth the plot was sold to defendant no.1. DW3 admitted that the father of defendant no.3 has filed criminal complaint alleging that Ex.B14 GPA was forged by DW3 and the signatures of defendant no.3 in Ex.A7 of the year 1985 is differing with Ex.B14 in the year 1991 and the signature 25 of Defendant no.3 in pages of Ex.A7 are differing. DW3 stated that the signatures of defendant no.3 in English also differ in Ex.A7 and he has not obtained any concern from land owner Balvanth Reddy before forming the Welfare Association and that the family members of plaintiff are no way concerned with the Welfare association and the persons who are having plots only can become members in the Welfare

Association and the defendant no.1 requested him to give evidence in his favour and he is giving his evidence and the criminal case filed by plaintiff has been closed. DW3 further admitted that he does not have personal knowledge whether defendant no.3 has executed sale deed in favour of defendant no.1.

35)It is the contention of the learned counsel for plaintiffs that defendant no.3 has never executed any sale deed in favour of defendant no.1, much less Ex.A1 and that the defendant no.1 without having any manner of right has entered into the suit schedule property and made constructions in the suit schedule property and prayed to declare the plaintiffs as owner of the suit schedule property and to cancel Ex.A1 and to direct the defendants to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs.

36)On the other hand, it is the rival contention of the defendants no.1 and 2 that defendant no.3 who is none other than son of late

Balvanth Reddy i.e., plaintiff no.1 has executed Ex.B1 sale deed in his favour and therefore, by virtue of Ex.B1 sale deed, defendant no.3 has 26 attained ownership over the suit schedule property and since the date of

Ex.B1, the defendant no.1 has been in continuous possession of the suit schedule property without any interruption and the defendant no.1 has mutated his names in municipal records and thereafter, by obtaining due permission from the concerned authorities, the defendant no.1 has constructed structures in the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs with an intention of illegal gain has filed this false case to grab the suit schedule property and prayed to dismiss the suit. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the defendants no.1 and 2 relied upon following decisions:

1.AIR 2009 SC 2966 between P. K. Mohammad Abubukar Vs. P. S. M. Ahmed Abdul Khader.

2.AIR 1974 SC 706 between Munshi Mansoor Ali Khan and others Vs. Sukhbasilal and others (limitation)

3.AIR 1994 SC 853 between SP Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath

4.2007 AIR SCW 4609 between Arunima Baruah Vs. Union of India.

5.2012 DMC 300 (DB) between Subash Vs. Madhu

6.AIR 2014 SC 937 between Union of India Vs. Vasavi Housing Co-operative Society

7.AIR 1998 SC 1132 between Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Vs. K.M. Krishnaiah

37)On careful perusal of the evidence placed on record and the exhibits marked, it is the contention of the PW2 that her husband has acquired Ac.2-06gts of land in Sy.no.63 of Old Bowenpally village towards their share in the partition and thereafter, her husband has purchased land to an extent of Ac.2-06gts of land which is a share of his 27 brother G. Narayana Reddy from the wife of G. Narayana Reddy after his death, therefore, Plaintiff no.1 was owning a total extent of Ac.4- 06gts of land situated in Sy.no. 63 of Old Bowenpally village. But on perusal of the documents filed before this court no such partition was filed before this court to show that plaintiff no.1 has acquired certain land in partition.

38)It is the further contention of the plaintiffs that they have converted the said total Ac.4-12gts of land into residential plots and sold some of the plots to prospective purchasers by retaining some plots, which includes suit schedule property. But to that extent, PW2 has not filed any single document or layout to show that Ac.4-12gts of land was converted into residential plots and suit schedule property was retained by them which included the residential plots retained by them.

39)On the other hand, it is contention of defendant no.1 that plaintiff, G.Gopal Reddy, G. Kamalamma and other family members in the year 1985 have entered into agreement of sale under Ex.B15 and

Ex.B16 with one Lakshmikanth Seth in respect of land bearing Sy.no.61, 63, 64 and 52 and accordingly delivered the vacant physical possession to Lakshmikanth C. Seth for development and thereafter the

Lakshmikanth Seth developed the said land into residential plots and after development the plaintiff, defendant no.3 and other family members individually sold the developed plots to the intending purchasers and suit schedule property is one among the same sold by 28 the defendant no.3 to defendant no.1 for a valuable sale consideration and the same fact has been recorded in the decree passed by the

Special Court under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act in LGC No. 77 of 1999 filed by the plaintiff under Ex.B13. Further, DW2 stated that she has purchased her property which is situated in land in Sy.no. 63 of old

Bowenpally village under Ex.B17 from the defendant no.3 and the signature found on Ex.B17 is tallying with the signature found on written statement filed by the defendant no.3.

40) The counsel for the defendant no.1 in his cross examination elicited from the mouth of PW2 that Plaintiff has entered into development agreement with one Lakshmikanth C. Seth to develop the land to an extent of Ac.4-12gts of land. But said fact was not mentioned in the plaint filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is clear that plaintiff has suppressed the fact of entering into agreement with Lakshmikanth Seth and filed the present suit. Further, there is no whisper about the description of plots which were sold by the plaintiffs to the prospective purchasers and which plots were retained with them. Whereas, the defendant no.1 in his written statement has clearly mentioned plot numbers, sale deed numbers and the names of the prospective purchasers who purchased plots in Sy.no.63 of Old Bowenpally Village and the same was not denied by the plaintiffs and to that extent no rejoinder was filed by the plaintiffs.

41)On careful perusal of the record, Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 are one 29 and the same which shows that defendant no.1 has purchased the suit schedule property from defendant no.3. It is the contention of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 has played fraud and forged the documents and got registered Ex.B1 sale deed in his favour. In this regard, the plaintiff was at liberty to file a petition to summon SRO, Vallabhanagar where Ex.A1/Ex.B1 was executed along with records to compare the signatures in registers with the signatures on Ex.A1/Ex.B1.

42)The petitioner did not choose to do so to the best reasons known to her. The defendant no.3 who is son of PW2 who executed

Ex.B1 sale deed did not choose to enter into the witness box to face the cross examination which establishes the collusion between the parties.

43)The plaintiff who approached the court has to establish hims case by bringing the appropriate evidence. The plaintiff should stand on his legs and fall on it s legs but he cannot take the advantage of weakness of case of defendant. Ex.A1 is registered sale deed, Ex.A2 is development agreement cum GPA are the disputed documents, Ex.A3 is pahanies for the years 2005 to 2010. Revenue records establishes only possession but not the title. Mere filing of revenue records is not itself proved/ to prove the validity of Ex.A3, the concerned person for revenue records is to examine. Since in the possessor column it was mentioned as houses. Then the entire land converted into house sites, plots and revenue authorities considered the land as house plots, then the land cannot be treated as agricultural land. And any amount of 30 doubt arises in the pahanies.

44)The plaintiff relied upon Ex.A4 and A5 that the encumbrance certificates issued by SRIO, Vallabhanagar in respect of plot no. 2, 3in sy.no. 64. Ex.A4 does not disclose any transaction and shown as nill, wherein in Ex.A5 it discloses the name of D1 and D2 and also discloses the particulars of Ex.A1. It is not the case of plaintiff that the land in

Sy.no. 63 was converted as house sites. Nowhere in his pleadings, the plaintiff pleaded about the conversion of house sites. Plot no. 2 and 3 were allotted to the schedule property which further establishes that the plaintiff approached with unclean hands to the court and suppressed the real facts and filed the suit. Therefore, as discussed above, Ex.A3 and

Ex.A4 are noway helpful to the case of plaintiff. There remains Ex.A1 and A2 sale deed in favour of plaintiff, the development not in between

Defendant no.1 and 2 and Ex.A5 is certified copy of valuation certificate issued by municipal corporation of Hyderabad and Ex.A6 photographs of suit schedule property and Ex.A7 is certified copy of Ex.A1. All the documents are not helpful to the plaintiff to this case.

45)Now the point is plaintiff is having any land in Sy.no. 63. The claim of the plaintiff is, his family is having lands in Sy.no. 61, 63, 64 and the suit property and other properties in Sy.no. 63 fell to his share and he purchased some part of land from his brother. But no document is filed to prove the same. The evidence of defendants no.1 to 3 establishes that the land in Sy.no. 63 were converted into house sites.

31

And several people purchased the house plots and created a colony by name Samathangar Welfare Association in which the defendants no.1 is a member in which further establishes Defendant no.1 is in possession of schedule property.

46)On the other hand, the defendant no.1 and 2 filed Ex.B13 the judgment and decree in LGC no. 77 of 1999 dt. 28.91.2004 issued by land grabbing court, Hyderabad.

47)PW2 admitted they have given land for development to

Lakshmikanth Seth in turn there is a Samathanagar association was fomed which further goes to show the land in Sy.no.63 is converted as house plots. On perusal of Ex.B13, it appears that the plaintiff approached Land Grabbing court against the possessors of the land in

Sy.no. 62 and the said Land Grabbing Case was dismissed stating that the plaintiff has no land in Sy.no.63 and purchasers of plot in

Samathanagar colony are also in possession of house plots.

48) To prove his continuous possession, defendant no.1 has contended that the prospective purchasers of their respective plots, have formed into an association in the name and style of Samatha

Nagar Welfare Association, wherein defendant no.1 was also one of the members of said welfare association and in support of his contention, defendant no.1 filed Ex.B8 to B12. Which is the crux of the case that the plaintiffs have no land in Sy.no. 64 the plaintiff suppressed the real facts of LGS n o. 77 of 1999 and filed the present suit and played fraud 32 against the court. The plaintiffs did not object B13 and it appears they did not choose to question the judgment in LGC 77 of 1999 in appellate court which means the findings given by Land Grabbing court are final.

The judgment of LGC 77 of 1999 goes against the case of plaintiff and it is binding on the plaintiff.

49)The evidence of DW3 Mr. B.J. Ramesh who is secretary of

Samathanagar Welfare Association supported the case of defendant.

PW2 admitted in her evidence about the conversion of plots in Sy.no.63 by Lakshmikanth Seth which also goes against the case of plaintiff.

50)In support of his contention, the defendant no.1 relied upon a reported decision in AIR 1994 SC 853 between SP Changalvaraya

Naidu (died) by LRs Vs. Jagannadh (died) by LRs and others wherein it was held as follows:

One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property- grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. …... The facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another

51)The facts and circumstances of the above case and the case on hand are similar in nature.

52)The defendant relied upon 2012 DMC 300 (DB) Gujarath

High court Subhash Vs. Madhu wherein it was held, in absence of evidence given controverting the fact, mere suggestion in cross 33 examination to party making allegations is of no assistance in disproving such allegation.

53)Union of India Vs. Vasavi Housing Co-operative Society AIR 2014 SC 937 it was held that Title of property burden of proof in case of suit for declaration of title and possession – burden of proof lies on plaintiff to prove title irrespective of the fact that defendant proves his case – in case defendant cannot prove title, no benefit can be given to the plaintiff who claims to have title over suit property – entries in revenue records do not confer title over the property.

54)In support of his contention defendant no.1 relied upon a reported decision The defendant relied upon AIR 2009 SC 2966 TK

Mohammad Abubuckar (died per LR) and others Vs. P. S. M Ahmed

Abdul Quadir and others wherein it was held as follows:

suit for declaration of title and possession burden of proof is on plaintiff to make out his title and entitlement to possession. He cannot succeed on any alleged weakness in title or possession of the defendant.

55)From the above admission of PW2, it can be safely concluded that PW2 is not in possession of the suit schedule property. It is settled law that possession follows title. From Ex.B6 it is evident that defendant no.1 was granted permission to construct structure over plot no.2/3. sy.no.63, Samathanagar, Old Bowenpally by GHMC which further establishes that the Defendant no.1 is having a right, title and possession over suit property.

34

56)Therefore, from the above discussion, I am of the considered view that plaintiffs have not proved their title and possession over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 and against plaintiffs.

ISSUE no.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of the

registered sale deed no. 4004 of 1985 dt. 27.12.1985 and to declare

the development agreement cum GPA dt. 1089 of 2011 dt.

25.09.2011 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff?

57)As discussed by me in the above paragraphs and as the issues goes against the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled for cancellation of Ex.A1 and A2. This issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE no.4: Whether the claim of the plaintiff is time barred?

58)The plaintiff’s contention is that in the last week of October 2011, the defendant no.2 has started demolishing the hut and leveling the plot and plaintiff has questioned the same with defendant no.2 for which he stated that he has entered into registered development agreement cum GPA with Defendant no.1 and also stated that defendant no.1 is owner of suit schedule property and the Ex.A1 registered sale deed bearing no. 4004 of 1985 dt. 27.12.1985 was executed by the defendant no.3 in favour of defendant no.1. Hence, plaintiff filed the present suit against defendants no.1 and 2 stating that the cause of action arose from the date of knowledge.

35

59)The plaintiff who claims the date of knowledge is date of cause of action, has to prove and establish the same and pleadings does not disclose their name and title when questioned defendant no.2 in the Month of October. Why he kept quite all these days, not document is filed to establish the possession over the suit poroperty as discussed above Ex.B15 goes against the case of plaintiff. He is having knowledge the land in Sy.no.63 is not in possession in the year 1999, which clearly goes to show that the suit is barred by limitation.

60) Therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs is time barred and relied upon AIR 1974 SC 706 between Munshi Mansoor Ali Khan and others

Vs. Sukhbasilal and others wherein it was held as follows:

…. A suit may be within limitation under one article and may yet be barred under another article of the limitation act.

61)This issues is answered in favour of defendants and against plaintiffs.

62)In the result, suit is dismissed without costs

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court

on this the 14th day of December, 2020.

FAC X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Balvanth Reddy (eschewed)DW1: K.V. Pratap PW2: Gummadi KamalammaDW2: K.V. Savithri DW3: B.J.Ramesh 36

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Sale deed bearing doc.no. 4004 of 1985 dt. 27.12.1985 Ex.A2 : Development Agreement cum GPA bearing doc.no. 1089 of 2011 dt. 25.06.2011 Ex.A3 : Pahanies for the years 2005 to 2010 Ex.A4 : Three numbers of encumbrance certificates Ex.A5 : Valuation certificated issued by MCH dt. 13.12.2011 Ex.A6 : Photographs of suit schedule property Ex.A7 : Sale deed bearing doc.no. 4004 of 1985 dt. 27.12.1985

FOR DEFENDANTS

Ex. B1 : Sale deed bearing doc.no. 4004 of 1985 dt. 27.12.1985 Ex.B2 : Certified copy of Register Development Agreement cum GPA bearing doc.no. 1089 olf 2011 dt. 25.06.2011 Ex.B3 : Original Encumbrance Certificate for the 01.10.2007 to 02.01.2012 Ex.B4 : Certified copy of plaint in OS no. 65 of 2008 on the file of court of Spl. Court, SC & ST, R.R. District Ex.B5 : Certified copy of Written statement in OS no. 65 of 2008 on the file of Court of Special Court, SC & ST, R.R.District Ex.B6 : Original copy of building permit issued by the Commissioner, GHMC Ex.B7 : Original Encumbrance Certificate issued by SRO, Vallabhanagar in respect of plot owners in Sy.no. 61, 63 and 64, Ex.B8 : Letter dt. 30.12.2011 issued by Secretary, Samathanagar Welfare Association in favour of defendant no.1 Ex.B9 : Receipt issued by Samathanagar Welfare Association in favour of defendant no.1 Ex.B10 : Invitation of Samathanagar Welfare Association Ex.B11 : Invitation of Samathanagar Welfare Association Ex.B12 : Invitation of Samathangar Welfare Association Ex.B13 : CC of Judgment and decree in LGC no. 77 of 1999 dt. 28.01.2004 on the file of Spl. Court, Land Grabbing Prohinition Act at Hyderabad Ex.B14 : CC of GPA vide doc.no.1142 of 1991 dt. 23.12.1991 executed by Defendant no.3 in favour of DW3 Ex.B15 : CC of agreement of sale dt. 21.09.1985 executed by G. Laxmamma and another in favour of Laxmikanth C. Seth Ex.B16 : CC of agreement of sale dt. 24.09.1985 executed by G. Balvanth Reddy and others in favour of Laxmikanth C Seth Ex.B17: Original Registered sale deed vide doc.no. 251 of 1986 dt. 22.01.1986 Ex.B18: CC of registered sale deed vide doc.no. 100 of 1987 dt. 27.12.1985 executed by G. Devender Reddy in favour of Dr. Kande Kalpana 37

Ex.B19: CC of decree in LGC no. 77 of 1999 Ex.B20: Certificate of Registration obtained through Mee Seva Ex.B21: Continuation of Ex.B20

FAC X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

38

Judgment pronounced (Vide separate judgment) in the open court. In the result, suit is decreed without costs in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendants no. 3 to 6 to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property consisting of cellar, ground and first floor with RCC Roof admeasuring 344sq.yds in plot no.3, Sy.no.9, situated at near Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Hayathnagar within three months from the date of this judgment and the defendants are directed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property consisting of Cellar, Ground and First Floor.

The counter claim of the defendant no.2 is dismissed without costs.

X ADJ FAC I Spl.SJTCAAW 39

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR: HYDERABAD.

Present: SRI. V. BALA BHASKAR RAO.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DIST.

Dated on this the 26 th day of February, 2016

O.S. No. 1863 of 2012

BETWEEN:- T.S. Rama Rao S/o. Late Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 77yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.2-1-402/1/1, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. .…. Plaintiff

AND

1. Golla Yadaiah, S/o. Muttaiah, Aged about 70yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.no. 1-69/A, Brahmanapally village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District.

2. Golla Kistaiah, S/o. Muttaiah, Aged about 67yrs, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. H.no. 1-69, Brahmanapally village,

Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District. ….. Defendants

Claim: Suit filed praying this court to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, i) for specific performance of the agree- ment of sale dt. 24.08.1995 ii) to direct the defendant to execute the sale deed with proper recitals as to warranty of title and register the same and deliver possession of the suit schedule property to the defendant iii) in default to direct execution and reg- istration of sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property by permitting the plain- tiff to deposit the balance sale consideration in court iv) to grant costs of the suit v) to grant such other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be entitled for.

Cause of Action: The cause of action arose on 24.08.1995 when the plaintiff en- tered into agreement of sale by making payment of part sale consideration, on 22.01.1997 when the letter was issued by the plaintiff to the defendants and on 06.06.1998 when the legal notice was issued to the defendants and on 40 03.09.1998 when the agreement was renewed, on 25.08.2011 when the plaintiff got issued another legal notice, on 24.08.2012 when the plaintiff came to know that the defendants colluded with Ranga Reddy and trying to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of third parties and when the plaintiff demanded the defendant to execute the registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consid- eration and the cause of action is subsisting and continuing.

Suit Valuation: The suit is valued at Rs. 1,80,000/- and court fee of Rs.4,226/- is paid under sec. 39(a) of A.P Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, which is sufficient, and the same is valued for the purpose of Jurisdiction. Suit Presented on: 11.10.2012 Suit Numbered on: 12.10.2012

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri.K.Venugopala Chary Advocate for the

plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte and having

stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth

Order as follows:

1) That the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is hereby dismissed.

2) That there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 26th day of February, 2016.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

COSTS OF THE PETITION

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1) Stamp on plaint Rs.

2) Stamp on power Rs.

3) Service of Process Fee Rs.

4) Advocate fee Rs. ---

5) Misc. Charges. Rs. ---

6) Publication Rs. ---

7) FC not filed Rs. ---

--------------------- -------------------

Total Rs.

--------------------- -------------------

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that agriculture dry land in sy.no. 182, admeasuring Ac.6-00gts,situated at Mangalapally village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R.District and is bounded by:

41

NORTH:Land belonging to Golla Kistaiah

EAST:Land belonging to Gurra Mohan Reddy

WEST:Sitarama Housing plots

SOUTH:Land belonging to Kontham Satti Reddy

. II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

1

IN THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. K.MARUTHI DEVI

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

FAC X ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

R.R.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Dated on this the 18 th day of January, 2021

O.S. No. 697 of 2013

and

OS no. 324 of 2015

OS No. 697 of 2013:

BETWEEN:-

1. J. Babu Rao (died per LRs)

2. K. Jawahar Reddy S/o. K.R.K. Reddy, Aged about 50yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 3-4-142/5/A/1, Lingampally, Barkatpura, Hyderabad.

3. J. Varalaxmi, W/o. Late Babu Rao, Aged about 68yrs, Occ: Employee,

4. J. Navin Sharath, S/o. Late J. Babu Rao, Aged about 46yrs, Occ: Employee,

5. Kumar Ramana, S/o. Late J. Babu Rao, Aged about 36yrs, Occ: Employee,

6. Shalini, W/o. Madhukar, D/o. Late Babu Rao, Aged about 42yrs, Occ: Employee,

Plaintiffs no. 3 to 6 are R/o. H.no. 14/79, Yellow Stone Drive Stream Wood, Illions 601107, USA, Rep. By their GPA holder, K. Jawahar Reddy, S/o. K.R.K. Reddy, Aged about 50yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 3-4-142/5/A/1, Lingampally, Barkatpura, Hyderabad.

(Plaintiffs no. 3 to 6 are added as LRs of the plaintiff no.1 vide orders passed in IA no.330 of 2017 dt. 17.07.2018) .…. Plaintiff AND

Pamu Rajeshwari W/o. P. Sudhakar, Aged about 44yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 17-127/8/1, Sri Raghavendra Nagar Colony, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. ….Defendant 2

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence

of Sri. N. Bhaskar Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri.

P.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Defendant and having stood

over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the

following:-

OS No. 324 of 2015:

BETWEEN:-

Pamu Rajeshwari W/o. P. Sudhakar, Aged about 44yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 9-30, HMT Nagar, Street nO.4, Nacharam, R. R. District. .…. Plaintiff AND

K. Jawahar Reddy S/o. K.R.K. Reddy, Aged about 50yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 3-4-142/5/A/1, Lingampally, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. ….Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence

of Sri. P.Srinivas Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri. N.

Bhaskar Rao, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over

for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the

following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)The suit in OS no. 324 of 2015 was clubbed with OS no. 697 of 2013 as per the order dt. 27.08.2019 passed by this court for conducting joint trial and recording the evidence in OS no.697 of 2013.

2)OS no. 697/2013: Suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance for grant of direction to the defendant to execute registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property and to deliver the peaceful possession of suit schedule property, failing which the court to execute the sale deed and put the plaintiff in vacant possession of the suit schedule property and for the costs of the suit.

3)The brief facts of the plaint are that the defendant who is the absolute owner and possessor of shop bearing no.4 and 5 consisting of 360sq.fts of plinth area and common area of 175.2sq.fts, totally 535.2sq.fts in ground floor each totaling to 1070.4sq.ft, along with land admeasuring 67sq.yds out of total land admeasuring 168sq.yds in northern portion of house bearing no. 9-109, on plot no.

72 part in Sy.nos. 195/2, 197/2, 210, 211/1, 211/2, 212/1, 212/2, 212/3, 214 and 215 3 situated at HMT Nagar, Nacharam Village, under GHMC, Kapra circle I, Uppal

Mandal, Ranga Reddy district (hereinafter called as suit schedule property) vide registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 4994 of 1999 dt. 07.07.1999 registered at

SRO, Uppal, Ranga Reddy district. That on 09.11.2010 the defendant along with her husband approached the plaintiff for hand loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- by mortgaging the suit schedule property with a promise to clear the loan amount withing a year and a simple mortgage deed was executed to that effect and defendant has received Rs. 2,00,000/- vide Doc.no. 8186 of 2010 dt.09.11.2010 executed at Sub

Registrar office, Uppal. Further, as per the mortgage deed, the defendant is liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum and the defendant has handed over the title deeds along with link documents to the plaintiff.

4)Thereafter on the same day, the defendant and her husband decided to sell the suit schedule property and informed the same to the plaintiff and plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for a total consideration of

Rs.27,00,000/- and plaintiffs no.1 issued cheque bearing no. 147127 for Rs.

2,50,000/- drawn on Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd on 09.11.2010 and plaintiff no.2 issued cheques bearing no. 143896 and No. 143897 for Rs. 2,50,000/- each drawn on Mahesh Co-operative Bank Ltd., in total Rs. 7,50,000/- in favour of defendant as token of advance earnest money. Thereby the defendant has received Rs.9,50,000/- including Rs. 2,00,000/- of mortgage amount and both plaintiffs and defendant have entered into agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010 and the plaintiff no.1 has issued cheques bearing no. 147128 and 147129 for an amount of

Rs. 5,00,000/- each drawn on Mahesh Co-operative Bank and plaintiff no.2 paid Rs.

5,50,000/- by way of cash, i.e., a total amount of Rs. 15,50,000/-. That the defendant issued comprehensive receipt acknowledging the receipt of above amount.

5)That the defendant received Rs. 25,00,000/- out of agreed sale consideration of Rs. 27,00,000/- and the balance Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid at the 4 time of registration by the plaintiffs. That the defendant, for the reasons best known to him started postponing the matter on one or other pretext and avoiding execution of sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration. The plaintiff no.1 has executed GPA in favour of plaintiff no.2 on 24.03.2011 in respect of suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration, but the defendant is avoiding to execute the sale deed.

6)That in the month of August 2012, the defendant lodged a complaint with the police Kapra stating that the plaintiffs are harassing the plaintiff. The defendant took lenient view of the plaintiffs as weakness has approached the court by making false allegations against the plaintiff no.2 and filed OS no. 48 of 2013 (OS no. 324 of 2015) before the I Addl. Junior civil Judge, R.R.District for permanent injunction and obtained ad-interim injunction from the court on 29.01.2031. Thereafter, since the defendant is not coming forward for registration as per the agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010, the plaintiffs got issued legal notice on 18.03.2013 showing their readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration and requesting to execute the registered sale deed within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice and has also enclosed cheque no. 198756 for

Rs. 2,00,000/- showing their bonafides. That on receipt of said notice, the defendant got issued false and baseless reply inorder to avoid execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiffs but failed to return the cheque. Hence this suit.

7)Defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. The defendant further contended that the defendant never executed any agreement of sale in favour of plaintiffs and hence the alleged agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010 does not arise and on 09.01.2013, the plaintiff no.2 and his men without any manner of right, interest over the suit schedule property, trespassed into the business activities of Sri Lakshmi Diagnoses

Center and threatened the client of defendant and her husband to hand over the suit 5 schedule premises, else pay the borrowed money under mortgage deed and caused damage to the lab material and threatened patients to leave the premises.

8)The defendant further contended that on 10.01.2013, the plaintiff no.2 forcibly taken away the shutter keys from the client of the defendant and hence, the defendant approached police and made a complaint to SHO, PS Nacharam and no case is registered as the plaintiffs are highly politically influential persons. Hence the defendant has filed a suit in OS no. 48 of 2013 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil

Judge, R.R.District. The defendant has also issued reply notice dt. 18.03.20213 by

specifically mentioning to take back the cheque sent by the plaintiff along with his legal notice to defendant for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, cheque bearing no.

198756 pertains to Mahesh Bank, Kachiguda Branch, Hyderabad alleging to be given under the balance sale consideration in pursuance of agreement of sale. But the plaintiff did not choose to take back the cheque sent by him to the defendant, which clearly shows the evil intention of plaintiff to knock away the property of defendant. Further the agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2020 and comprehensive receipt dt. 10.11.2010 are fabricated and created for the purpose of this suit and the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit and prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

9)Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial on 01.09.2015:

1. Whether the Agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff has paid the sale consideration as agreed?

3. Whether the second plaintiff is having right to represent this case on behalf of the first plaintiff?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of Agreement of sale?

5. To what relief?

6

10)OS no. 324 of 2015: Suit filed by the plaintiff to grant perpetual injunction against the defendant and his men from interfering in the business activities of the plaintiff’s Sri Lakshmi Diagnoses Center including peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s schedule property and for the costs of the suit.

11)The brief facts of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of two shops bearing no. 4 & 5, by name and style of Sri Lakshmi

Diagnoses Center, consisting of 360sq.fts of plinth area and common area 175.2sq.ft (i.e., common passage and common stair case) totally 535.2sq.ft along with land admeasuring 67sq.yds or 56.02sq.mts out of total land admeasuring 168sq.yds in Northern portion of House bearing No. 9-109, on Plot no. 72 part in

Sy.nos. 195/2, 197/2, 210, 211/1, 211/2, 212/1, 212/2, 212/3, 214, 215 situated at

HMT Nagar, Nacharam Village, Uppal Mandal, Kapra Municipality, Ranga Reddy

District having purchased the same for valuable sale consideration through registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 4994/1999 dt. 07.07.1999 from G. Appa Rao and since the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in continuous possession of the suit schedule property and is running a Diagnoses center in the name and style of “Sri

Lakshmi Diagnoses Center”.

12)That on 09.11.2010 the plaintiff approached the defendant and borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum to meet his business needs, by executing a registered simple mortgage deed bearing doc.no.

8186/2010 dt. 09.1.2010 in favour of the defendant and the plaintiff handed over all original link documents pertaining to the suit schedule property. That the defendant has obtained signatures of the plaintiff on some blank stamp papers, white papers and affixed revenue stamps underneath some blank white papers and some signatures on the reverse of own blank cheques of the defendant and some blank cheques of the Diagnoses center husband in the time of registration of the mortgage deed.

7

13)That on 09.01.2013 the defendant and his men without any manner of right, interest and whatsoever has trespassed into the business activities of Sri

Lakshmi Diagnoses Center and threatened the plaintiff and her husband to handover the suit schedule property or to pay the principal amount borrowed under mortgage deed and caused damage to the Lab material and threatened the patients to leave the premises. Again on 10.01.2013 the defendant forcibly taken away the shutter keys from the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff approached the police

Nacharam and made a complaint, but the FIR is not registered. That on 21.01.2013, the defendant along with anti social elements are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and the plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of the defendant. Since the defendant is a politically influential person, the plaintiff had no other option except to approach the court. Hence this suit.

14)Written Statement filed by the defendant contending that the averments made in the plaint are not true and correct and admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and plaintiff’s borrowing an amount of

Rs. 2,00,000/- by executing Registered mortgage deed and handing over the original link documents pertaining to the suit schedule property to the defendant but denied that the plaintiff paid interest regularly to the defendant without fault and denied to have obtained signatures on blank stamp papers, white papers and affixed revenue stamps underneath the blank white papers. The defendant submited that on the same day evening the plaintiff and her husband have approached the defendant and J. Babu Rao and offered to sell the suit schedule property and on thorough discussions the defendant and J. Babu Rao have agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 27,00,000/-.

15)That the defendant and J. Babu Rao have issued cheques for Rs.

7,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff towards advance consideration and on 09.11.2010 J. Babu Rao issued cheque bearing no. 147127 dt.09.11.2010 for Rs.

2,50,000/- drawn on Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., in favour of plaintiff 8 and the defendant herein has issued two cheques bearing no. 143896 and 143897 for Rs. 2,50,000/- each both dt. 09.11.2010 drawn on Mahesh Co-operative Urban

Bank Ltd., in favour of plaintiff herein. Therefore, the plaintiff has received an amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- including the amount paid under the mortgage deed as advance cum part sale consideration. That as per the agreement dt. 10.11.2010 the defendant and J. Babu Rao have paid an amount of Rs. 15,50,000/- to the plaintiff through cheques bearing no. 147128 and 147129 for an amount of Rs.

5,00,000/- each drawn on Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank ltd., and the said cheques have been issued by J. Babu Rao and similarly the defendant herein has paid Rs. 5,50,000/- by way of cash to the plaintiff herein and after receipt of the above amounts from the defendant and J. Babu Rao, the plaintiff got issued a comprehensive receipt acknowledging the receipt of above said amounts, thus the plaintiff herein as on 10.11.2010 have received Rs. 25,00,000/- out of the agreed total sale consideration amount of Rs. 27,00,000/- and the plaintiff herein has agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- at the time of registration of the sale deed in pursuance of the above said agreement of sale.

16)That the plaintiff is prolonging the execution of the registered sale deed in favour of Defendant and J. Babu Rao by receiving the balance sale consideration and sought three months time for execution of sale deed and for handing over the suit schedule property to the defendant and J. Babu Rao from the date of agreement of sale. That on 21.03.2011 when the defendant and J. Babu

Rao have approached the plaintiff for execution of sale deed, the plaintiff requested extension of one month time and defendant accepted the same on execution of possession letter in favour of the defendant and J. Babu Rao and P. Sudhakar, the husband of plaintiff acted as an attesting witness. That as per the terms of agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010, the plaintiff herein has agreed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of defendant and J. Babu Rao and the defendant and 9

J. Babu Rao are always ready to pay the balance sale consideration. But the plaintiff is avoiding to execute the registered sale deed under one or other pretext.

That inspite of receipt of an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- failed to execute the registered sale deed and filed this false case for injunction with false allegations.

17)The defendant further contended that on 18.03.2013, the defendant and J. Babu Rao have jointly got issued legal notice to the plaintiff calling upon her to execute the registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration in terms of agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010 and on receipt of the said legal notice, on 28.03.2013, the plaintiff got issued reply notice with false allegations, denying the receipt of amounts. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

18)Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

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

2. To what relief?

19)During the course of trial, K. Jawahar Reddy, GPA holder of J. Babu

Rao i.e., plaintiff in OS no. 697 of 2013 is examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A19 are marked in the evidence of PW1. The defendant in OS no. 697 of 2013 is examined as DW1 and in the cross examination of PW1, Ex.B1 to B3 are marked in the evidence of DW1.

20)Heard both sides and perused the material placed on record.

ISSUE No.1 in OS no. 697 of 2013: Whether the agreement of sale dt.

10.11.2010, is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

21)The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant approached these plaintiffs that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff along with her husband approached the plaintiff for hand loan of Rs.

2Lalkhs to meet their family necessities on 09.11.2010 and agreed to mortgage the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 as security. Accordingly, the 10 plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 paid a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs and defendant executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 and as per the said mortgage deed, the defendant agreed to repay the amount of Rs. 2Lakhs with interest @ 24% per annum. In the mean time, the defendant requested the plaintiff to buy the property for Rs. 27Lakhs and agreed to execute agreement of sale in favourof the plaintiff and also to deliver the original cancelled agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of

Suresh executed by defendant and also if the plaintiff gives Rs. 25Lakhs, as such, the plaintiff is compelled to give Rs. 25Lakhs to the defendant basing on the agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010. The plaintiff wants to pay the amount through cross cheque, but at the request of the defendant, the plaintiff gave cheques to the defendant and further, defendant and her husband saying that Suresh who is agreement of sale cum GPA holder is not wiling to wait till the cross cheque is encashed by the defendant and to pay him and forced the plaintiff to issue bearer cheque as such to encash them on the spot and to pay Suresh Rs. 20Lakhs and get the cancellation of the earlier AGPA cum GPA and reback the property. As such, in such situation, the plaintiff issued bearer cheque for Rs. 23Lakhs to the defendant herein and the defendant withdrew a sum of Rs. 25Lakhs including the mortgage amount of Rs. 2Lakhs immediately and paid Rs. 20Lakhs to Suresh and got the cancellation of earlier AGPA cum GPA and also take return of the AGP along with link documents from Suresh and handed over the same to plaintiff herein.

22)The original agreement of sale cum GPA dt. 31.08.2010 in favour of

Suresh executed by defendant and its cancellation deed dt. 09.11.2010 are filed by the plaintiff before this court and the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A1 to A19 and the same were marked through PW1. Ex.A1 is original sale deed bearing doc.no. 4994 of 1999 dt. 07.07.1999 which is the link document purchasing the suit property by the defendant which was earlier deposited with Suresh and take back by the defendant when the earlier agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of Suresh cancelled on 09.11.2010 and handedover to the plaintiff on 10.11.2010 on the date of agreement 11 of sale as security to the performance of agreement of sale, Ex.A2 is original agreement of sale deed dt. 10.11.2010 is executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs for a total consideration of Rs. 27Lakhs including Rs.2lakhs which is paid under registered mortgage deed dt. 09.11.2010 by receiving Rs. 23Laksh by the defendant through cheques issued by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant and encashed by the defendant as per Ex.A15 to A19. Later, the plaintiff obtained receipt from the defendants i.e., Ex.A3 original comprehensive receipt dt.

10.11.2010 which shows clearly the defendant received Rs. 23Lakhs through cheques from the plaintiffs. Ex.A4 is original registered mortgage deed dt.

09.11.2010 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs by receiving Rs.

2Lakhs.

23)On the other hand, the defendant’s contention is that the defendant is an illiterate and the plaintiffs taken signatures on blank papers on some cheques and created the documents. Defendant relied upon Ex.B1 to B3. Ex.B1 is the cheque given by the plaintiffs but not encashed by defendant. Ex.B2 and B3 are not relevant to this case and R.Srinivasa Chary who is the childhood friend of plaintiff no.2 who executed the mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff no.2 for an emergency auction of his property, to stop the auction that he had to pay the bank auction amount, as such, he requested the plaintiff no.2 to arrange the auction amount. But the defendant failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate her contention either in written statement or in chief of PW1.

24)The defendant relied upon reported decision in 2012 (2) ALT 421 between Duddumpudi Venkata Rayudu Vs. Duddumpudi Raja Gopal @ Tatabbai and Anr., wherein it was held that execution of document, proof of signature on a document cannot be treated as proof of execution thereof unless it is proved that executents subscribed his signature or put his thumb impression knowing its contents thereon.

12

25)The counsel for defendant also relied upon 2011 (3) ALT 137 between

Chodi Mahalakshmi Vs. Koppada Sathi Raju and another wherein it was held that “When execution of agreement of sale is denied, mere proof of signature of executents thereon is not sufficient, it must be further established that executents affixed signatures after knowing the contents thereof.”

26)On the other hand, counsel for plaintiff argued that the defendant himself purchased the stamp paper from R. Narender document writer by Mr.

Sudhakar, husband of the defendant. One stamp paper bearing no. 086368 is used for Ex.A14 cancellation deed and AK086376 is used for mortgage deed and the other document AK086380 is used for agreement of sale. The two stamp papers

AK086380 and AK086376 are purchased in the name of J. Babu Rao for self and others that means the two papers were purchased to be used by plaintiffs no.1 and 2 for usage of mortgage for two copies, one is for plaintiff no.1 and another is for plaintiff no.2, but the sub-registrar refused to issue two original copies, one stamp paper was left unused. The counsel for further argued that the defendant has received amounts under Ex.A1 to A19 but the defendant contended that she is an illiterate and she put her signatures on white papers without receiving any amounts.

But on perusal of Ex.A2 in the middle of the contents, at the corrections, she attested her signature. If the plaintiff obtained her signatures on blank papers, how the signatures of the defendant appears in the middle of the contents. Under such circumstances the above reported decisions are not applicable to the case on hand.

27)In the cross of PW1, he stated that the execution of mortgage deed

Ex.A4 and Ex.A2 agreement of sale and also proved the payment through Ex.A7,

A8, A9 and Ex.A15 to A19. Defendant in her written statement denied all the averments and further admitted that Ex.A13 and A14 i.e., Agreement of sale cum

GPA registered and executed in favour of one Suresh for valid consideration of Rs.

14,93,500/- Ex.A13 is the cancellation of above said document even though the amount paid was not mentioned the consideration for cancellation of Rs.14,93,500/- 13 along with accrued interest therein is more than Rs. 20Lakhs. Therefore, the defendant paid more than Rs.20Lakhs to the above said Suresh to release the property. Later, the defendant executed the agreement of sale in favour of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 by receiving sale consideration of Rs. 25Lakhs, out of sale consideration of Rs. 27Lakhs. The defendant contended that she has not received any amount under Ex.A1 to A19 and the defendant further contended that he is an illiterate and put her signature on white papers without receiving any amount, but on perusal of

Ex.A2, in the middle of the contents, at the corrections, she attested her signature. If the plaintiff obtained her signatures on blank papers, how the signatures of the defendant appears in the middle of the contents. Therefore, the defendant invented for the purpose of the case and making wrong statements and later, the plaintiff relied upon the statement of account i.e., Ex.A7 showing payments made under cheques belonging to the plaintiffs and the letter issued by the Mahesh Bank i.e., showing the withdrawal made by the defendant. It clearly states without any ambiguity that the payment has been received by the defendant.

28)As the defendant has taken nearly whole consideration amounting to

Rs. 25Lakhs to avoid registration of suit schedule property which is a commercial property filed a suit for injunction.

29)Ex.A2 is the original agreement of sale deed dt. 10.11.2010 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs for total consideration of Rs. 27Lakhs including Rs. 2Lakhs which is paid under registered mortgage deed dt. 09.11.2010 by receiving Rs. 23Lakhs by the defendant through cheques. Ex.A15 to A19 are the bearer cheques issued by the plaintiffs at the request of defendants. The defendant failed to examine her husband who signed as witness in the agreement of sale i.e.,

Ex.A2 and who is also working as a Technician in the RTC Hospital, Tarnaka.

Hence, the contention of the defendant that she signed on white papers and not received any consideration not proved by the defendant by leading any evidence either oral or documentary and more over the plaintiff proved through documentary 14 evidence, Ex.A2 is agreement of sale and Ex.A3 is original comprehensive receipt

dt. 10.11.2010 for Rs. 23Lakhs and Ex.A6 to A9 and Ex.A15 to A19 showing the

payment to the defendant.

30)On the other hand, the defendant contention is that the plaintiff issued bearer cheques and obtained signatures on the back of cheque. Sec. 20 of NI Act i.e., inchoate stamped instruments where one person signs and delivers to another, a paper stamped in accordance with law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India and either wholly blank or having written thereon had incomplete negotiable instrument he thereby gives Prima-facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete as the case may be upon it a negotiable instrument for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The persons who signs shall be liable upon such instrument in the capacity in which he signed the same to any holder in due course for such amount. Provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intending by him to be paid there under.

31)Sec. 101 to 104 of Indian Evidence Act relates to burden of proof.

Burden of Proof means he who asserts must prove. In the present case, the defendant took a stand that the plaintiff obtained their signatures on blank papers, did not adduce any evidence to discharge her onus. No evidence was lead to prove the same. Hence, the defendant did not discharge the burden of proving the fact.

32) The plaintiff relied upon AIR 1979 SC 861 wherein it was held that “It is true that evidentiary admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong, but they do arise an estople and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them or his representative in interest unless shown or explained to be wrong they are an efficacious proof of the facts admitted.” 15

33)The plaintiff also relied upon 2003 (4) ALD 302 (DB) in LPA No. 20 of 1999, wherein it was held as follows:

16. Therefore, the requirement is that when GPA-holder is representing the party, the Judge is required to record in writing that he is permitted to appear and act on behalf of the party. In the instant case, the procedure prescribed under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice has been followed. The case dealt with by the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court was on a different footing. Apart from that, thus when once a person files a suit on behalf of the party, as a GPA holder he enters into the shoes of that party and except to the extent of personal knowledge, he is entitled to depose on other facts. In the instant case, what was relied upon by the plaintiffs is entirely documentary evidence, which are public documents and no personal knowledge was required to be pressed into service to establish the case of Plaintiff.

34)AIR 1974 SC 555 it was held that the burden of establishing malafides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of malafides are often more easily made then proved and the very seriousness of allegation demands proof of a high order of credibility.

35)But in the present case, the defendant failed to establish the allegations raised by the defendant.

36)The plaintiff also relied upon AIR 1963 SC 1633 in Civil Appeal No.

376 of 1961 Madavanchi Ramappa and Anr. Vs. Muthaluru Bojjappa wherein it was held that Sec. 77 of Indian Evidence Act – Certified copy of public document admissible in evidence without being proved by calling a witness – n o objection raised to mode of proof either in trial court or in appellate court – High court commits error of law in rejecting such document on ground that it had not been proved.

37)In the present case, the consideration of Rs. 23Lakhs passed on to the defendant through Ex.A15 to A19 are the certified copies issued by the bank authorities showing the payments of the sale consideration of Rs. 23Lakhs by way of cheques and bearer cheques containing the signature of the defendant on the reverse as such, the payment of consideration was proved by the plaintiffs by putting cogent evidence. Therefore, the agreement of sale deed dt. 10.11.2010 is true, valid and binding on the defendant. This issues is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

16

ISSUE No.2 in OS no. 697 of 2013: Whether the plaintiff has paid the sale

consideration as agreed?

38)As per Ex.A2, there is an agreement of sale between defendant and plaintiffs no.1 and 2 which was executed on 10.11.2010 which is answered in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A6 ot A9 and Ex.A15 to A19 bank statements and cheques showing the payment to the defendant and Ex.A15 to A19 bears the signature of the defendant admitting the payments in the bank and Ex.A3 is the original comprehensive receipt dt. 10.11.2010 where the defendant admitted the receipt of amount of Rs. 23Lakhs through cheques from the defendant.

39) On the other hand, the defendant denied that they have received only

Rs. 2Lakhs that too they mortgaged the property in favour of plaintiffs no.1 and 2.

Defendant admitted Ex.A4 mortgage deed and alleges that the plaintiffs obtained signatures of the defendant on blank stamp paper and blank white paper and created Ex.A2 and Ex.A2 is attested by the husband of the defendant and the defendant herself attested corrections in Ex.A2 and the defendant further contended that the documents created after obtaining signatures on the blank papers actually the Ex.A5 is the receipt for Rs. 2Lakhs which is paid for mortgage and Ex.A4 and

A5 already admitted by the defendant and Ex.A3 stamped receipt also signed by the husband of the defendant and denial is malafide and the defendant not taken any steps to prove the same and the plaintiff relied upon Sec. 20 of NI Act already discussed in issue no.1 and the contention of the defendant and another allegations made against the plaintiffs about the signatures taken on the back side of the cheques by the plaintiffs and encashed the same. But at the same time, the defendant not made any submission to the substantial amount paid to one Suresh for cancellation of earlier Agreement of Sale cum GPA executed in his favour for sale consideration of Rs. 14,93,500/- and got the cancellation i.e., Ex.A13 and A14 and delivered both the documents to the plaintiffs herein.

17

40)The defendant argued that no prudent man shall pay the sale consideration or any part of the consideration to the executents/defendant without any agreement of sale on 10.11.2010 i.e., some cheques were dt. 09.11.2010 and some cheques were dt. 10.11.2010 and comprehensive receipt I.e, Ex.A3 was prepared and signed on 10.11.2010. Hence Agreement iof sale was executed on 10.11.2010 and there is no malafides as alleged by the defendant. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE no.3: Whether plaintiff no.2 had right to represent this case on behalf

of the plaintiff no.1?

41)On request of defendant plaintiffs no.1 and 2 entered into agreement of sale and the plaintiff no.1 paid Rs. 13,50,000/- and plaintiff no.2 paid

Rs.11,50,000/- and both paid the amounts to the defendant and entered into an agreement of sale i.e., Ex.A2 and obtained receipts i.e., Ex.A3 and both are executed in favour of plaintiffs no. 1 and 2. Ex.A3 is original comprehensive receipt and Ex.A4 is original registered mortgage deed and cheques were paid from both the accounts of the plaintiffs and plaintiff no.1 went to US, upon that he executed

GPA in favour of plaintiff no.2. As such, plaintiff no.2 represented plaintiff no.1. As such the suit itself filed by the plaintiff no.2 as represented by his GPA holder i.e., plaintiff no.2 as such, the suit at the time of filing was filed by GPA holder i.e., plaintiff no.2. At the time of numbering the suit, and after satisfying the bonafides of the plaintiff no.2 and right to represent the plaintiff no.1, the suit is numbered.

Subsequently, the plaintiff no.1 died and LRs of plaintiff no.1 came on record.

42)On the other hand, the contention of the defendant that after the death of plaintiff no.1, the GPA lapsed and the legal heirs of plaintiff no.1 has no right to appoint plaintiff no.2 as GPA.

18

43)But the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 both entered into agreement of sale and as per the wish of plaintiff no.1, the plaintiff no.2 representing on behalf of the plaintiff no.1. Accordingly the issue is answered.

ISSUE no.4: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of

agreement of sale?

44)The plaintiffs no.1 and 2 entered into agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010 and executed Ex.A2 for total consideration of Rs. 27Lakhs and initially the plaintiffs paid Rs. 2Lakhs towards simple mortgage deed executed by defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. On the very next day, the defendant approached the plaintiffs and entered into agreement of sale for Rs. 27Lakhs and the defendant received Rs.

23Lakhs i.e., through Ex.A15 to A19 and the plaintiff has to pay remaining amount of Rs. 2Lakhs, but there is no mention of time limit in the agreement of sale Ex.A2.

The plaintiff several times asked the defendant to execute the registered sale deed in their favour by receiving the sale consideration but the defendant not came forward to execute the registered sale deed, then PW1 issued legal notice dt.

18,.03.2013 I.e, Ex.A1 along with xerox copy of cheque bearing no. 198756 dt.

17.03.2013 for Rs. 2Lakhs issued in favour of defendant by plaintiff no.2 along with postal receipts and acknowledgment card. On the other hand, the defendant after receiving Ex.A11 got issued reply notice i.e., Ex.A12 dt. 28.03.2013 denying the entire amount of Rs. 23Lakhs without any proof or evidence, as such, the denial is a malafide intention only to avoid the execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiffs to drag the litigation and enjoyment of property for ever. As per Ex.A2, it reveals that there is an agreement of sale between plaintiffs and defendant and Ex.A15 to A19 establishes that plaintiff paid the earnest money to the defendants and the balance of Rs. 2Lakhs has to be paid by the plaintiffs to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Further the plaintiff contended that even though the plaintiffs paid Rs.

25,00,000/- out of Rs. 27,00,000/- there is balance of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be paid, as 19 such, the registration has not taken place on that day and agreement of sale was executed promissing to register the regular sale deed after receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- after that the plaintiff many times offered the balance sale consideration but the defendant not ready to receive the same nor choose to execute the sale deed and finally the plaintiff sent cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/- towards balance of sale consideration along with the notice calling the defendant to receive the cheque amount and to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. But the defendant not received the amount and filed a false suit in OS no. 48 of 2013 praying the court to restrain the plaintiffs from interfering with peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

45)The defendant relied upon 2008 (1) ALT 94 Mamidi Jagannatham Vs.

Yelgani Shankaraiah and others wherein it was held that party approaching court with false case and unclean hands is not entitled for the equitable relief of specific performance. He also relied upon 2007 (4) ALT 283 between P. Sudhakar Reddy

Vs. N. Chalpathi Reddy where in it was held that when pleadings are not specific and ambiguous the plaintiff is not entitled for the discretionary relief of specific performance. He also relied upon 2012 (2) ALT 618 between Jala Anjaiah Vs.

Ramsetti Anjaiah wherein it was held that in a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, there cannot be any pleading contrary to very agreement of sale.

He also relied upon 2013 (4) ALT 712 (DB) between Srikrishna Devloor (DS Krishna died Per LR) Vs. N. Madhavi and others wherein it was held that in a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale has the relief of equitable in nature. Even if the agreement is proved court is required to take into account the conduct of parties, the fairness of the deal and entitlement of plaintiff. The plaintiff who indulges in dubious transactions and attempts to deceive innocent persons is not entitled to grant of such things. He also relied upon 2006 (3) ALT 242 (DB) Mohd. Abdul

Razaq Vs. B. Venkatesh @ Venkataiah wherein it was held that the descrition of 20 court to grant relief of specific performance must be governed by rules and sound judicial principles.

46)In the present case, the defendant approached the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the defendant was ready to mortgage her property with the plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 and accordingly the plaintiffs issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as per Ex.A5 original receipt

Dt.09.11.2010 for Rs. 2,00,000/- which shows payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the defendant. Ex.A1 is the original sale deed which is a link document and Ex.A2 is original agreement of sale deed dt. 10.11.2010 is executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs for a total consideration of Rs. 27,00,000/- including

Rs.2,00,000/- which is paid under registered mortgage deed dt. 09.11.2010 by receiving Rs.23,00,000/- by the defendant through cheques issued by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant and encashed by the defendant as per Ex.A15 to A19.

Therefore, there is an agreement of sale and it is proved under issue no.1 and as per issue no.2, the plaintiff paid the sale consideration as agreed, as per issues no.1 to 3 the plaintiff proved and established that there is an agreement of sale and the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale. The rulings above relied upon by the counsel for the defendant does not apply to the present case.

Hence this point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

ISSUE no.1 in OS no. 324 of 2015: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for

permanent injunction as prayed for?

47)It is settled law that injunction is an equitable relief. As per Ex.A1 to

A19 in OS 697 of 2013 it is proved and established that there is an agreement of sale between defendants herein and plaintiff herein and the defendants herein are always ready and willing to perform their part of contract, but the plaintiff herein not came forward to execute the sale deed in their favour prior to filing OS no. 324 of 2015 the defendants herein filed OS no. 697 of 2013 on the file of I Addl. District

Judge, R.R. District and the plaintiff herein suppressed the facts and filed a false

21 suit against these defendants and obtained an ad-interim injunction in their favour.

The person who comes to the court with unclean hands is not entitled for injunction.

The person who fall on their own legs should stand on their own legs.

48)Ex.B3 is the certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate which clearly shows the names of defendants herein in the possessor column. Which clearly shows that the defendants herein in are in possession of the suit schedule property.

Therefore, in view of the discussion in OS no. 697 of 2013 and in view of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff in OS no. 324 of 2015 has failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property. Hence he is not entitled for the permanent injunction. This issue is answered in favour of the defendants.

49)In the result, OS no. 697 of 2013 decreed without costs directing the defendant to execute registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff and to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property by receiving balance sale consideration from the plaintiffs within three months from the date of this judgment.

50)In the result, OS no. 324 of 2015 is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer - II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of January, 2021

FAC X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: K. Jawahar ReddyDW1: Pamu Rajeshwari

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Original Sale deed bearing doc.no. 4994 of 1999 dt. 07.07.1999 Ex.A2 : Original Agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010 22

Ex.A3 : Original Comprehensive Receipt dt. 10.11.2010 Ex.A4 : Original Registered mortgage deed dt. 09.11.2010 Ex.A5 : Original receipt dt. 09.11.2010 for Rs. 2,00,000/- Ex.A6 : Certificate duly issued by Mahesh Bank, Kachiguda Branch dt. 18.04.2013 Ex.A7 : Statement of account of Mahesh Bank dt. 31.03.2011 Ex.A8 : Letter issued by Mahesh Bank, Kachiguda dt. 18.04.2013 Ex.A9 : Statement of account of Mahesh Bank dt. 31.03.2011 Ex.A10: Original GPA dt. 24.03.2011 Ex.A11: Office copy of legal notice dt. 18.03.2013 Ex.A12: Copy of Reply notice dt. 28.03.2013 Ex.A13: Cancellation deed dt. 09.11.2010 Ex.A14: Agreement of sale cum GPA dt. 31.08.2010 in favour of one Suresh Ex.A15: Copy of cheque bearing no. 147127 dt. 09.11.2010 Ex.A16: Copy of cheque bearing no. 147128 dt. 09.11.2010 Ex.A17: Copy of cheque bearing no. 147129 dt. 09.11.2010 Ex.A18: Copy of cheque bearing no. 143896 dt. 09.11.2010 Ex.A19: copy of cheque bearing no. 143897 dt. 09.11.2010

FOR DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1 : Cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/- Ex.B2 : Certified copy of Mortgage deed Ex.B3 : Encumbrance Certificate

FAC X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

23

OS no. 697 of 2013

Judgment pronounced (VSJ) in the open court.

In the result, this suit is decreed without costs directing the defendant to execute registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff and to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property by receiving balance sale consideration from the plaintiffs within three months from the date of this judgment.

FAC X ADJ

OS no. 324 of 2015

Judgment pronounced (VSJ) in the open court.

In the result, this suit is dismissed without costs.

24

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR: HYDERABAD.

Present: SRI. V. BALA BHASKAR RAO.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DIST.

Dated on this the 15 th day of March, 2017

O.S. No. 180 of 2012

BETWEEN:-

Lakharam Chowdhari, S/o. Bhanaram Chowdhari, Aged about 46yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 38-87/7/1, Ambedkar Nagar colony, Sainikpuri, Under GHMC, Malkajgiri, R.R.District. .…. Plaintiff AND

B.Narasimha Goud, S/o. Ramulu Goud, Aged about 33yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 1-2-40/85, Gowrinathapuram, under GHMC Kapra, Keesara Mandal, R.R.District. ….Defendant

Claim: Suit filed praying this court to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, i) to evict the defendant from the suit schedule A, B and C properties and for recovery of arrears of Rs.1,14,400/- from the date of suit till the date of final realization to be recovered from the person and property of the defendant (ii) for recovery of damages for the removal of wall of Rs.1,00,000/- and

(iii) to award mesne profits at Rs.50,000/- per month to be awarded from the date of suit (I.e) 30.01.2012 till date of delivery of possession iv) for costs of the suit.

Cause of Action: The cause of action arose when the rental agreement lapsed on 14.06.2010 and when the defendant failed to vacate the premises and handover the same to the plaintiff and when the defendant has filed suit for perpetual injunction and got the order dt. 30.11.2011 and the cause of action is subsisting and continu- ing.

Suit Valuation: The suit is valued at Rs.4,37,700/- and court fee of Rs. 15,876/- is paid under sec.26(C) of A.P Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, which is sufficient, and the same is valued for the purpose of Jurisdiction.

Suit Presented on: 31.01.2012 Suit Numbered on: 01.02.2012

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri.G.Durga Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.P.Venkat

Reddy Advocate for defendant and having stood over for

consideration till this day, this Court doth Order as follows:

25

1) That the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is hereby decreed with costs.

2) That the defendant is directed to vacate and deliver the vacant physical possession of the suit schedule A, B and C properties to the plaintiff within two months.

3) That the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent from the defendant for the suit schedule A and B properties at Rs.13,100/- for the months of December 2011 and January 2012.

4) The plaintiff is also entitled for mesne profits from the defendant for being in illegal occupation of the schedule properties from 01.02.2012 till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule A and B properties by the defendant which is to be determined on filing separate application under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC.

5) That the caution deposit amount of Rs.1,40,000/- paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and the property tax amount of Rs. 1,04,018/- paid by the defendant for the suit schedule property be adjusted out of the above said amount to be determined.

6) That the plaintiff is also entitled for the mesne profits from the defendant for being in illegal occupation of the suit schedule C roperty from 01.02.2012 till the date of handing over the vacant possession by the defendant.

7) That it shall be determined on filing separate application under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 15th day of March, 2017.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

COSTS OF THE PETITION

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1) Stamp on plaint Rs.

2) Stamp on power Rs.

3) Service of Process Fee Rs.

4) Advocate fee Rs. ---

5) Misc. Charges. Rs. ---

6) Publication Rs. ---

7) FC not filed Rs. ---

--------------------- -------------------

Total Rs.

--------------------- -------------------

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

SUIT SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY

All that the one shop situated in North-East side of building bearing municipal No. 38-37/7/1 (new), 38-83/1(old) on Plot no. 4A, in Sy.no. 278 situated at Ambedkar Nagar, Near Sainikpuri X Roads, under GHMC, Malkajgiri, R.R.District and bounded by:

26

North :Main road (lead to Sainikpuri X to Neredmet X road) South : Defendant building East:Plywood shop (belongs to Srinath) West :North west shop belongs to Defendant

SUIT SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY

All that the one shop situated in North-West side of building bearing municipal No. 38-37/7/1 (new), 38-83/1(old) on Plot no. 4A, in Sy.no. 278 situated at Ambedkar Nagar, Near Sainikpuri X Roads, under GHMC, Malkajgiri, R.R.District and bounded by:

North :Main road (lead to Sainikpuri X to Neredmet X road) South : Defendant building East:North-East Shop West :Furniture shop belongs to Bharghav

SUIT SCHEDULE 'C' PROPERTY

All that the two rooms (kitchen, servant room situated in North-East side of building bearing municipal No. 38-37/7/1 (new), 38-83/1(old) on Plot no. 4A, in Sy.no. 278 situated at Ambedkar Nagar, Near Sainikpuri X Roads, under GHMC, Malkajgiri, R.R.District and bounded by:

North :Two shops (I.e) Suit schedule property – A & B South : Defendant Building East:Open place West : Neighbour's buildings

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

27

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR: HYDERABAD. Present: SRI. V. BALA BHASKAR RAO.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DIST.

Dated on this the 15 th day of March, 2017

OS No. 2267 of 2011

BETWEEN:- B.Narasimha Goud, S/o. Ramulu Goud, Aged about 33yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 1-2-40/85, Gowrinathapuram, under GHMC Kapra, Keesara Mandal, R.R.District. .…. Plaintiff AND

Lakharam Chowdhari, S/o. Bhanaram Chowdhari, Aged about 46yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 38-87/7/1, Ambedkar Nagar colony, Sainikpuri, Under GHMC, Malkajgiri, R.R.District. ….Defendant

Claim: Suit filed praying this court to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, i) to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his men, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment and business activities over the suit schedule property to direct the defendant not to evict the plaintiff without following due process of law ii) to award the costs of the suit, iii) to grant such other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be entitled for.

Cause of Action: The cause of action arose in the year 2004 when the plaintiff took suit premises on lease and on 11.06.2010 when the defendant executed the rental agreement and finally on 29.11.2011 when the defendant and his associates came to the suit property and demanded the plaintiff to vacate the premises on or before 01.12.2011 and if the plaintiff fails to evict the plaintiff forcibly and the cause of ac- tion is subsisting and continuing.

Suit Valuation: The suit is valued at Rs.1,57,200/- and court fee of Rs. 4,026/- is paid under sec.26(C) of A.P Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, which is sufficient, and the same is valued for the purpose of Jurisdiction.

Suit Presented on: 30.11.2011 Suit Numbered on: 30.11.2011

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri.P.Venkat Reddy Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. G.Durga

Prasad Advocate for defendant and having stood over for

consideration till this day, this Court doth Order as follows:

1. That the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is hereby dismissed.

2. That the plaintiffs do pay a sum of Rs. to the defendant towards costs of the suit.

28

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 12th day of March, 2017.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

COSTS OF THE PETITION

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1) Stamp on plaint Rs.

2) Stamp on power Rs.

3) Service of Process Fee Rs.

4) Advocate fee Rs. ---

5) Misc. Charges. Rs. ---

6) Publication Rs. ---

7) FC not filed Rs. ---

--------------------- -------------------

Total Rs.

--------------------- -------------------

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

SUIT SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY

All that the two shops situated in North-East side of building bearing municipal No. 38-37/7/1 (new), 38-83/1(old) on Plot no. 4A, in Sy.no. 278 situated at Ambedkar Nagar, Near Sainikpuri X Roads, under GHMC, Malkajgiri, R.R.District and bounded by:

North :Main road (lead to Sainikpuri X to Neredmet X road) South : Defendant building East:Plywood shop (belongs to Srinath) West :Furniture shop belongs to Bharghav

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

29 15.03.2017

Judgment pronounced (Vide separate common judgment) in the open court.

In the result, this suit is dismissed with costs.

II ASCJ

15.03.2017 30

Judgment pronounced (Vide separate common judgment) in the open court. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant physical possession of the suit schedule A, B and C properties to the plaintiff within two months and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent from defendant for the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties @ Rs.13,100/- for the months of December 2011 and January 2012 and the plaintiff is also entitled for mesne profits from the defendant for being in illegal occupation of the schedule property from 01.02.2012 till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties by the defendant which is to be determined on filing separate application under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC. The caution deposit amount of Rs.1,40,000/- paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and the property tax amount of Rs.1,04,018/- paid by the defendant for the schedule property shall be adjusted out of the above said amount to be determined. The plaintiff is also entitled for mesne profits from the defendant for being in illegal occupation of the schedule 'C' property from 01.02.2012 till the date of handing over the vacant possession by the defendant which is to be determined on filing separate application under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC.

II ASCJ

1

IN THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. K.MARUTHI DEVI

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

FAC X ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

R.R.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Dated on this the 18 th day of January, 2021

O.S. No. 697 of 2013

and

OS no. 324 of 2015

OS No. 697 of 2013:

BETWEEN:-

1. J. Babu Rao (died per LRs)

2. K. Jawahar Reddy S/o. K.R.K. Reddy, Aged about 50yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 3-4-142/5/A/1, Lingampally, Barkatpura, Hyderabad.

3. J. Varalaxmi, W/o. Late Babu Rao, Aged about 68yrs, Occ: Employee,

4. J. Navin Sharath, S/o. Late J. Babu Rao, Aged about 46yrs, Occ: Employee,

5. Kumar Ramana, S/o. Late J. Babu Rao, Aged about 36yrs, Occ: Employee,

6. Shalini, W/o. Madhukar, D/o. Late Babu Rao, Aged about 42yrs, Occ: Employee,

Plaintiffs no. 3 to 6 are R/o. H.no. 14/79, Yellow Stone Drive Stream Wood, Illions 601107, USA, Rep. By their GPA holder, K. Jawahar Reddy, S/o. K.R.K. Reddy, Aged about 50yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 3-4-142/5/A/1, Lingampally, Barkatpura, Hyderabad.

(Plaintiffs no. 3 to 6 are added as LRs of the plaintiff no.1 vide orders passed in IA no.330 of 2017 dt. 17.07.2018) .…. Plaintiff AND

Pamu Rajeshwari W/o. P. Sudhakar, Aged about 44yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 17-127/8/1, Sri Raghavendra Nagar Colony, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. ….Defendant 2

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence

of Sri. N. Bhaskar Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri.

P.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Defendant and having stood

over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the

following:-

OS No. 324 of 2015:

BETWEEN:-

Pamu Rajeshwari W/o. P. Sudhakar, Aged about 44yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 9-30, HMT Nagar, Street nO.4, Nacharam, R. R. District. .…. Plaintiff AND

K. Jawahar Reddy S/o. K.R.K. Reddy, Aged about 50yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 3-4-142/5/A/1, Lingampally, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. ….Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence

of Sri. P.Srinivas Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri. N.

Bhaskar Rao, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over

for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the

following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)The suit in OS no. 324 of 2015 was clubbed with OS no. 697 of 2013 as per the order dt. 27.08.2019 passed by this court for conducting joint trial and recording the evidence in OS no.697 of 2013.

2)OS no. 697/2013: Suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance for grant of direction to the defendant to execute registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property and to deliver the peaceful possession of suit schedule property, failing which the court to execute the sale deed and put the plaintiff in vacant possession of the suit schedule property and for the costs of the suit.

3)The brief facts of the plaint are that the defendant who is the absolute owner and possessor of shop bearing no.4 and 5 consisting of 360sq.fts of plinth area and common area of 175.2sq.fts, totally 535.2sq.fts in ground floor each totaling to 1070.4sq.ft, along with land admeasuring 67sq.yds out of total land admeasuring 168sq.yds in northern portion of house bearing no. 9-109, on plot no.

72 part in Sy.nos. 195/2, 197/2, 210, 211/1, 211/2, 212/1, 212/2, 212/3, 214 and 215 3 situated at HMT Nagar, Nacharam Village, under GHMC, Kapra circle I, Uppal

Mandal, Ranga Reddy district (hereinafter called as suit schedule property) vide registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 4994 of 1999 dt. 07.07.1999 registered at

SRO, Uppal, Ranga Reddy district. That on 09.11.2010 the defendant along with her husband approached the plaintiff for hand loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- by mortgaging the suit schedule property with a promise to clear the loan amount withing a year and a simple mortgage deed was executed to that effect and defendant has received Rs. 2,00,000/- vide Doc.no. 8186 of 2010 dt.09.11.2010 executed at Sub

Registrar office, Uppal. Further, as per the mortgage deed, the defendant is liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum and the defendant has handed over the title deeds along with link documents to the plaintiff.

4)Thereafter on the same day, the defendant and her husband decided to sell the suit schedule property and informed the same to the plaintiff and plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for a total consideration of

Rs.27,00,000/- and plaintiffs no.1 issued cheque bearing no. 147127 for Rs.

2,50,000/- drawn on Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd on 09.11.2010 and plaintiff no.2 issued cheques bearing no. 143896 and No. 143897 for Rs. 2,50,000/- each drawn on Mahesh Co-operative Bank Ltd., in total Rs. 7,50,000/- in favour of defendant as token of advance earnest money. Thereby the defendant has received Rs.9,50,000/- including Rs. 2,00,000/- of mortgage amount and both plaintiffs and defendant have entered into agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010 and the plaintiff no.1 has issued cheques bearing no. 147128 and 147129 for an amount of

Rs. 5,00,000/- each drawn on Mahesh Co-operative Bank and plaintiff no.2 paid Rs.

5,50,000/- by way of cash, i.e., a total amount of Rs. 15,50,000/-. That the defendant issued comprehensive receipt acknowledging the receipt of above amount.

5)That the defendant received Rs. 25,00,000/- out of agreed sale consideration of Rs. 27,00,000/- and the balance Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid at the 4 time of registration by the plaintiffs. That the defendant, for the reasons best known to him started postponing the matter on one or other pretext and avoiding execution of sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration. The plaintiff no.1 has executed GPA in favour of plaintiff no.2 on 24.03.2011 in respect of suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration, but the defendant is avoiding to execute the sale deed.

6)That in the month of August 2012, the defendant lodged a complaint with the police Kapra stating that the plaintiffs are harassing the plaintiff. The defendant took lenient view of the plaintiffs as weakness has approached the court by making false allegations against the plaintiff no.2 and filed OS no. 48 of 2013 (OS no. 324 of 2015) before the I Addl. Junior civil Judge, R.R.District for permanent injunction and obtained ad-interim injunction from the court on 29.01.2031. Thereafter, since the defendant is not coming forward for registration as per the agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010, the plaintiffs got issued legal notice on 18.03.2013 showing their readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration and requesting to execute the registered sale deed within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice and has also enclosed cheque no. 198756 for

Rs. 2,00,000/- showing their bonafides. That on receipt of said notice, the defendant got issued false and baseless reply inorder to avoid execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiffs but failed to return the cheque. Hence this suit.

7)Defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. The defendant further contended that the defendant never executed any agreement of sale in favour of plaintiffs and hence the alleged agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010 does not arise and on 09.01.2013, the plaintiff no.2 and his men without any manner of right, interest over the suit schedule property, trespassed into the business activities of Sri Lakshmi Diagnoses

Center and threatened the client of defendant and her husband to hand over the suit 5 schedule premises, else pay the borrowed money under mortgage deed and caused damage to the lab material and threatened patients to leave the premises.

8)The defendant further contended that on 10.01.2013, the plaintiff no.2 forcibly taken away the shutter keys from the client of the defendant and hence, the defendant approached police and made a complaint to SHO, PS Nacharam and no case is registered as the plaintiffs are highly politically influential persons. Hence the defendant has filed a suit in OS no. 48 of 2013 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil

Judge, R.R.District. The defendant has also issued reply notice dt. 18.03.20213 by

specifically mentioning to take back the cheque sent by the plaintiff along with his legal notice to defendant for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, cheque bearing no.

198756 pertains to Mahesh Bank, Kachiguda Branch, Hyderabad alleging to be given under the balance sale consideration in pursuance of agreement of sale. But the plaintiff did not choose to take back the cheque sent by him to the defendant, which clearly shows the evil intention of plaintiff to knock away the property of defendant. Further the agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2020 and comprehensive receipt dt. 10.11.2010 are fabricated and created for the purpose of this suit and the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit and prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

9)Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial on 01.09.2015:

1. Whether the Agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff has paid the sale consideration as agreed?

3. Whether the second plaintiff is having right to represent this case on behalf of the first plaintiff?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of Agreement of sale?

5. To what relief?

6

10)OS no. 324 of 2015: Suit filed by the plaintiff to grant perpetual injunction against the defendant and his men from interfering in the business activities of the plaintiff’s Sri Lakshmi Diagnoses Center including peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s schedule property and for the costs of the suit.

11)The brief facts of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of two shops bearing no. 4 & 5, by name and style of Sri Lakshmi

Diagnoses Center, consisting of 360sq.fts of plinth area and common area 175.2sq.ft (i.e., common passage and common stair case) totally 535.2sq.ft along with land admeasuring 67sq.yds or 56.02sq.mts out of total land admeasuring 168sq.yds in Northern portion of House bearing No. 9-109, on Plot no. 72 part in

Sy.nos. 195/2, 197/2, 210, 211/1, 211/2, 212/1, 212/2, 212/3, 214, 215 situated at

HMT Nagar, Nacharam Village, Uppal Mandal, Kapra Municipality, Ranga Reddy

District having purchased the same for valuable sale consideration through registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 4994/1999 dt. 07.07.1999 from G. Appa Rao and since the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in continuous possession of the suit schedule property and is running a Diagnoses center in the name and style of “Sri

Lakshmi Diagnoses Center”.

12)That on 09.11.2010 the plaintiff approached the defendant and borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum to meet his business needs, by executing a registered simple mortgage deed bearing doc.no.

8186/2010 dt. 09.1.2010 in favour of the defendant and the plaintiff handed over all original link documents pertaining to the suit schedule property. That the defendant has obtained signatures of the plaintiff on some blank stamp papers, white papers and affixed revenue stamps underneath some blank white papers and some signatures on the reverse of own blank cheques of the defendant and some blank cheques of the Diagnoses center husband in the time of registration of the mortgage deed.

7

13)That on 09.01.2013 the defendant and his men without any manner of right, interest and whatsoever has trespassed into the business activities of Sri

Lakshmi Diagnoses Center and threatened the plaintiff and her husband to handover the suit schedule property or to pay the principal amount borrowed under mortgage deed and caused damage to the Lab material and threatened the patients to leave the premises. Again on 10.01.2013 the defendant forcibly taken away the shutter keys from the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff approached the police

Nacharam and made a complaint, but the FIR is not registered. That on 21.01.2013, the defendant along with anti social elements are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and the plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of the defendant. Since the defendant is a politically influential person, the plaintiff had no other option except to approach the court. Hence this suit.

14)Written Statement filed by the defendant contending that the averments made in the plaint are not true and correct and admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and plaintiff’s borrowing an amount of

Rs. 2,00,000/- by executing Registered mortgage deed and handing over the original link documents pertaining to the suit schedule property to the defendant but denied that the plaintiff paid interest regularly to the defendant without fault and denied to have obtained signatures on blank stamp papers, white papers and affixed revenue stamps underneath the blank white papers. The defendant submited that on the same day evening the plaintiff and her husband have approached the defendant and J. Babu Rao and offered to sell the suit schedule property and on thorough discussions the defendant and J. Babu Rao have agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 27,00,000/-.

15)That the defendant and J. Babu Rao have issued cheques for Rs.

7,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff towards advance consideration and on 09.11.2010 J. Babu Rao issued cheque bearing no. 147127 dt.09.11.2010 for Rs.

2,50,000/- drawn on Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., in favour of plaintiff 8 and the defendant herein has issued two cheques bearing no. 143896 and 143897 for Rs. 2,50,000/- each both dt. 09.11.2010 drawn on Mahesh Co-operative Urban

Bank Ltd., in favour of plaintiff herein. Therefore, the plaintiff has received an amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- including the amount paid under the mortgage deed as advance cum part sale consideration. That as per the agreement dt. 10.11.2010 the defendant and J. Babu Rao have paid an amount of Rs. 15,50,000/- to the plaintiff through cheques bearing no. 147128 and 147129 for an amount of Rs.

5,00,000/- each drawn on Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank ltd., and the said cheques have been issued by J. Babu Rao and similarly the defendant herein has paid Rs. 5,50,000/- by way of cash to the plaintiff herein and after receipt of the above amounts from the defendant and J. Babu Rao, the plaintiff got issued a comprehensive receipt acknowledging the receipt of above said amounts, thus the plaintiff herein as on 10.11.2010 have received Rs. 25,00,000/- out of the agreed total sale consideration amount of Rs. 27,00,000/- and the plaintiff herein has agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- at the time of registration of the sale deed in pursuance of the above said agreement of sale.

16)That the plaintiff is prolonging the execution of the registered sale deed in favour of Defendant and J. Babu Rao by receiving the balance sale consideration and sought three months time for execution of sale deed and for handing over the suit schedule property to the defendant and J. Babu Rao from the date of agreement of sale. That on 21.03.2011 when the defendant and J. Babu

Rao have approached the plaintiff for execution of sale deed, the plaintiff requested extension of one month time and defendant accepted the same on execution of possession letter in favour of the defendant and J. Babu Rao and P. Sudhakar, the husband of plaintiff acted as an attesting witness. That as per the terms of agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010, the plaintiff herein has agreed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of defendant and J. Babu Rao and the defendant and 9

J. Babu Rao are always ready to pay the balance sale consideration. But the plaintiff is avoiding to execute the registered sale deed under one or other pretext.

That inspite of receipt of an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- failed to execute the registered sale deed and filed this false case for injunction with false allegations.

17)The defendant further contended that on 18.03.2013, the defendant and J. Babu Rao have jointly got issued legal notice to the plaintiff calling upon her to execute the registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration in terms of agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010 and on receipt of the said legal notice, on 28.03.2013, the plaintiff got issued reply notice with false allegations, denying the receipt of amounts. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

18)Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

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

2. To what relief?

19)During the course of trial, K. Jawahar Reddy, GPA holder of J. Babu

Rao i.e., plaintiff in OS no. 697 of 2013 is examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A19 are marked in the evidence of PW1. The defendant in OS no. 697 of 2013 is examined as DW1 and in the cross examination of PW1, Ex.B1 to B3 are marked in the evidence of DW1.

20)Heard both sides and perused the material placed on record.

ISSUE No.1 in OS no. 697 of 2013: Whether the agreement of sale dt.

10.11.2010, is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

21)The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant approached these plaintiffs that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff along with her husband approached the plaintiff for hand loan of Rs.

2Lalkhs to meet their family necessities on 09.11.2010 and agreed to mortgage the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 as security. Accordingly, the 10 plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 paid a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs and defendant executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 and as per the said mortgage deed, the defendant agreed to repay the amount of Rs. 2Lakhs with interest @ 24% per annum. In the mean time, the defendant requested the plaintiff to buy the property for Rs. 27Lakhs and agreed to execute agreement of sale in favourof the plaintiff and also to deliver the original cancelled agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of

Suresh executed by defendant and also if the plaintiff gives Rs. 25Lakhs, as such, the plaintiff is compelled to give Rs. 25Lakhs to the defendant basing on the agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010. The plaintiff wants to pay the amount through cross cheque, but at the request of the defendant, the plaintiff gave cheques to the defendant and further, defendant and her husband saying that Suresh who is agreement of sale cum GPA holder is not wiling to wait till the cross cheque is encashed by the defendant and to pay him and forced the plaintiff to issue bearer cheque as such to encash them on the spot and to pay Suresh Rs. 20Lakhs and get the cancellation of the earlier AGPA cum GPA and reback the property. As such, in such situation, the plaintiff issued bearer cheque for Rs. 23Lakhs to the defendant herein and the defendant withdrew a sum of Rs. 25Lakhs including the mortgage amount of Rs. 2Lakhs immediately and paid Rs. 20Lakhs to Suresh and got the cancellation of earlier AGPA cum GPA and also take return of the AGP along with link documents from Suresh and handed over the same to plaintiff herein.

22)The original agreement of sale cum GPA dt. 31.08.2010 in favour of

Suresh executed by defendant and its cancellation deed dt. 09.11.2010 are filed by the plaintiff before this court and the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A1 to A19 and the same were marked through PW1. Ex.A1 is original sale deed bearing doc.no. 4994 of 1999 dt. 07.07.1999 which is the link document purchasing the suit property by the defendant which was earlier deposited with Suresh and take back by the defendant when the earlier agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of Suresh cancelled on 09.11.2010 and handedover to the plaintiff on 10.11.2010 on the date of agreement 11 of sale as security to the performance of agreement of sale, Ex.A2 is original agreement of sale deed dt. 10.11.2010 is executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs for a total consideration of Rs. 27Lakhs including Rs.2lakhs which is paid under registered mortgage deed dt. 09.11.2010 by receiving Rs. 23Laksh by the defendant through cheques issued by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant and encashed by the defendant as per Ex.A15 to A19. Later, the plaintiff obtained receipt from the defendants i.e., Ex.A3 original comprehensive receipt dt.

10.11.2010 which shows clearly the defendant received Rs. 23Lakhs through cheques from the plaintiffs. Ex.A4 is original registered mortgage deed dt.

09.11.2010 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs by receiving Rs.

2Lakhs.

23)On the other hand, the defendant’s contention is that the defendant is an illiterate and the plaintiffs taken signatures on blank papers on some cheques and created the documents. Defendant relied upon Ex.B1 to B3. Ex.B1 is the cheque given by the plaintiffs but not encashed by defendant. Ex.B2 and B3 are not relevant to this case and R.Srinivasa Chary who is the childhood friend of plaintiff no.2 who executed the mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff no.2 for an emergency auction of his property, to stop the auction that he had to pay the bank auction amount, as such, he requested the plaintiff no.2 to arrange the auction amount. But the defendant failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate her contention either in written statement or in chief of PW1.

24)The defendant relied upon reported decision in 2012 (2) ALT 421 between Duddumpudi Venkata Rayudu Vs. Duddumpudi Raja Gopal @ Tatabbai and Anr., wherein it was held that execution of document, proof of signature on a document cannot be treated as proof of execution thereof unless it is proved that executents subscribed his signature or put his thumb impression knowing its contents thereon.

12

25)The counsel for defendant also relied upon 2011 (3) ALT 137 between

Chodi Mahalakshmi Vs. Koppada Sathi Raju and another wherein it was held that “When execution of agreement of sale is denied, mere proof of signature of executents thereon is not sufficient, it must be further established that executents affixed signatures after knowing the contents thereof.”

26)On the other hand, counsel for plaintiff argued that the defendant himself purchased the stamp paper from R. Narender document writer by Mr.

Sudhakar, husband of the defendant. One stamp paper bearing no. 086368 is used for Ex.A14 cancellation deed and AK086376 is used for mortgage deed and the other document AK086380 is used for agreement of sale. The two stamp papers

AK086380 and AK086376 are purchased in the name of J. Babu Rao for self and others that means the two papers were purchased to be used by plaintiffs no.1 and 2 for usage of mortgage for two copies, one is for plaintiff no.1 and another is for plaintiff no.2, but the sub-registrar refused to issue two original copies, one stamp paper was left unused. The counsel for further argued that the defendant has received amounts under Ex.A1 to A19 but the defendant contended that she is an illiterate and she put her signatures on white papers without receiving any amounts.

But on perusal of Ex.A2 in the middle of the contents, at the corrections, she attested her signature. If the plaintiff obtained her signatures on blank papers, how the signatures of the defendant appears in the middle of the contents. Under such circumstances the above reported decisions are not applicable to the case on hand.

27)In the cross of PW1, he stated that the execution of mortgage deed

Ex.A4 and Ex.A2 agreement of sale and also proved the payment through Ex.A7,

A8, A9 and Ex.A15 to A19. Defendant in her written statement denied all the averments and further admitted that Ex.A13 and A14 i.e., Agreement of sale cum

GPA registered and executed in favour of one Suresh for valid consideration of Rs.

14,93,500/- Ex.A13 is the cancellation of above said document even though the amount paid was not mentioned the consideration for cancellation of Rs.14,93,500/- 13 along with accrued interest therein is more than Rs. 20Lakhs. Therefore, the defendant paid more than Rs.20Lakhs to the above said Suresh to release the property. Later, the defendant executed the agreement of sale in favour of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 by receiving sale consideration of Rs. 25Lakhs, out of sale consideration of Rs. 27Lakhs. The defendant contended that she has not received any amount under Ex.A1 to A19 and the defendant further contended that he is an illiterate and put her signature on white papers without receiving any amount, but on perusal of

Ex.A2, in the middle of the contents, at the corrections, she attested her signature. If the plaintiff obtained her signatures on blank papers, how the signatures of the defendant appears in the middle of the contents. Therefore, the defendant invented for the purpose of the case and making wrong statements and later, the plaintiff relied upon the statement of account i.e., Ex.A7 showing payments made under cheques belonging to the plaintiffs and the letter issued by the Mahesh Bank i.e., showing the withdrawal made by the defendant. It clearly states without any ambiguity that the payment has been received by the defendant.

28)As the defendant has taken nearly whole consideration amounting to

Rs. 25Lakhs to avoid registration of suit schedule property which is a commercial property filed a suit for injunction.

29)Ex.A2 is the original agreement of sale deed dt. 10.11.2010 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs for total consideration of Rs. 27Lakhs including Rs. 2Lakhs which is paid under registered mortgage deed dt. 09.11.2010 by receiving Rs. 23Lakhs by the defendant through cheques. Ex.A15 to A19 are the bearer cheques issued by the plaintiffs at the request of defendants. The defendant failed to examine her husband who signed as witness in the agreement of sale i.e.,

Ex.A2 and who is also working as a Technician in the RTC Hospital, Tarnaka.

Hence, the contention of the defendant that she signed on white papers and not received any consideration not proved by the defendant by leading any evidence either oral or documentary and more over the plaintiff proved through documentary 14 evidence, Ex.A2 is agreement of sale and Ex.A3 is original comprehensive receipt

dt. 10.11.2010 for Rs. 23Lakhs and Ex.A6 to A9 and Ex.A15 to A19 showing the

payment to the defendant.

30)On the other hand, the defendant contention is that the plaintiff issued bearer cheques and obtained signatures on the back of cheque. Sec. 20 of NI Act i.e., inchoate stamped instruments where one person signs and delivers to another, a paper stamped in accordance with law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India and either wholly blank or having written thereon had incomplete negotiable instrument he thereby gives Prima-facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete as the case may be upon it a negotiable instrument for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The persons who signs shall be liable upon such instrument in the capacity in which he signed the same to any holder in due course for such amount. Provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intending by him to be paid there under.

31)Sec. 101 to 104 of Indian Evidence Act relates to burden of proof.

Burden of Proof means he who asserts must prove. In the present case, the defendant took a stand that the plaintiff obtained their signatures on blank papers, did not adduce any evidence to discharge her onus. No evidence was lead to prove the same. Hence, the defendant did not discharge the burden of proving the fact.

32) The plaintiff relied upon AIR 1979 SC 861 wherein it was held that “It is true that evidentiary admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong, but they do arise an estople and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them or his representative in interest unless shown or explained to be wrong they are an efficacious proof of the facts admitted.” 15

33)The plaintiff also relied upon 2003 (4) ALD 302 (DB) in LPA No. 20 of 1999, wherein it was held as follows:

16. Therefore, the requirement is that when GPA-holder is representing the party, the Judge is required to record in writing that he is permitted to appear and act on behalf of the party. In the instant case, the procedure prescribed under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice has been followed. The case dealt with by the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court was on a different footing. Apart from that, thus when once a person files a suit on behalf of the party, as a GPA holder he enters into the shoes of that party and except to the extent of personal knowledge, he is entitled to depose on other facts. In the instant case, what was relied upon by the plaintiffs is entirely documentary evidence, which are public documents and no personal knowledge was required to be pressed into service to establish the case of Plaintiff.

34)AIR 1974 SC 555 it was held that the burden of establishing malafides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of malafides are often more easily made then proved and the very seriousness of allegation demands proof of a high order of credibility.

35)But in the present case, the defendant failed to establish the allegations raised by the defendant.

36)The plaintiff also relied upon AIR 1963 SC 1633 in Civil Appeal No.

376 of 1961 Madavanchi Ramappa and Anr. Vs. Muthaluru Bojjappa wherein it was held that Sec. 77 of Indian Evidence Act – Certified copy of public document admissible in evidence without being proved by calling a witness – n o objection raised to mode of proof either in trial court or in appellate court – High court commits error of law in rejecting such document on ground that it had not been proved.

37)In the present case, the consideration of Rs. 23Lakhs passed on to the defendant through Ex.A15 to A19 are the certified copies issued by the bank authorities showing the payments of the sale consideration of Rs. 23Lakhs by way of cheques and bearer cheques containing the signature of the defendant on the reverse as such, the payment of consideration was proved by the plaintiffs by putting cogent evidence. Therefore, the agreement of sale deed dt. 10.11.2010 is true, valid and binding on the defendant. This issues is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

16

ISSUE No.2 in OS no. 697 of 2013: Whether the plaintiff has paid the sale

consideration as agreed?

38)As per Ex.A2, there is an agreement of sale between defendant and plaintiffs no.1 and 2 which was executed on 10.11.2010 which is answered in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A6 ot A9 and Ex.A15 to A19 bank statements and cheques showing the payment to the defendant and Ex.A15 to A19 bears the signature of the defendant admitting the payments in the bank and Ex.A3 is the original comprehensive receipt dt. 10.11.2010 where the defendant admitted the receipt of amount of Rs. 23Lakhs through cheques from the defendant.

39) On the other hand, the defendant denied that they have received only

Rs. 2Lakhs that too they mortgaged the property in favour of plaintiffs no.1 and 2.

Defendant admitted Ex.A4 mortgage deed and alleges that the plaintiffs obtained signatures of the defendant on blank stamp paper and blank white paper and created Ex.A2 and Ex.A2 is attested by the husband of the defendant and the defendant herself attested corrections in Ex.A2 and the defendant further contended that the documents created after obtaining signatures on the blank papers actually the Ex.A5 is the receipt for Rs. 2Lakhs which is paid for mortgage and Ex.A4 and

A5 already admitted by the defendant and Ex.A3 stamped receipt also signed by the husband of the defendant and denial is malafide and the defendant not taken any steps to prove the same and the plaintiff relied upon Sec. 20 of NI Act already discussed in issue no.1 and the contention of the defendant and another allegations made against the plaintiffs about the signatures taken on the back side of the cheques by the plaintiffs and encashed the same. But at the same time, the defendant not made any submission to the substantial amount paid to one Suresh for cancellation of earlier Agreement of Sale cum GPA executed in his favour for sale consideration of Rs. 14,93,500/- and got the cancellation i.e., Ex.A13 and A14 and delivered both the documents to the plaintiffs herein.

17

40)The defendant argued that no prudent man shall pay the sale consideration or any part of the consideration to the executents/defendant without any agreement of sale on 10.11.2010 i.e., some cheques were dt. 09.11.2010 and some cheques were dt. 10.11.2010 and comprehensive receipt I.e, Ex.A3 was prepared and signed on 10.11.2010. Hence Agreement iof sale was executed on 10.11.2010 and there is no malafides as alleged by the defendant. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE no.3: Whether plaintiff no.2 had right to represent this case on behalf

of the plaintiff no.1?

41)On request of defendant plaintiffs no.1 and 2 entered into agreement of sale and the plaintiff no.1 paid Rs. 13,50,000/- and plaintiff no.2 paid

Rs.11,50,000/- and both paid the amounts to the defendant and entered into an agreement of sale i.e., Ex.A2 and obtained receipts i.e., Ex.A3 and both are executed in favour of plaintiffs no. 1 and 2. Ex.A3 is original comprehensive receipt and Ex.A4 is original registered mortgage deed and cheques were paid from both the accounts of the plaintiffs and plaintiff no.1 went to US, upon that he executed

GPA in favour of plaintiff no.2. As such, plaintiff no.2 represented plaintiff no.1. As such the suit itself filed by the plaintiff no.2 as represented by his GPA holder i.e., plaintiff no.2 as such, the suit at the time of filing was filed by GPA holder i.e., plaintiff no.2. At the time of numbering the suit, and after satisfying the bonafides of the plaintiff no.2 and right to represent the plaintiff no.1, the suit is numbered.

Subsequently, the plaintiff no.1 died and LRs of plaintiff no.1 came on record.

42)On the other hand, the contention of the defendant that after the death of plaintiff no.1, the GPA lapsed and the legal heirs of plaintiff no.1 has no right to appoint plaintiff no.2 as GPA.

18

43)But the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 both entered into agreement of sale and as per the wish of plaintiff no.1, the plaintiff no.2 representing on behalf of the plaintiff no.1. Accordingly the issue is answered.

ISSUE no.4: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of

agreement of sale?

44)The plaintiffs no.1 and 2 entered into agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010 and executed Ex.A2 for total consideration of Rs. 27Lakhs and initially the plaintiffs paid Rs. 2Lakhs towards simple mortgage deed executed by defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. On the very next day, the defendant approached the plaintiffs and entered into agreement of sale for Rs. 27Lakhs and the defendant received Rs.

23Lakhs i.e., through Ex.A15 to A19 and the plaintiff has to pay remaining amount of Rs. 2Lakhs, but there is no mention of time limit in the agreement of sale Ex.A2.

The plaintiff several times asked the defendant to execute the registered sale deed in their favour by receiving the sale consideration but the defendant not came forward to execute the registered sale deed, then PW1 issued legal notice dt.

18,.03.2013 I.e, Ex.A1 along with xerox copy of cheque bearing no. 198756 dt.

17.03.2013 for Rs. 2Lakhs issued in favour of defendant by plaintiff no.2 along with postal receipts and acknowledgment card. On the other hand, the defendant after receiving Ex.A11 got issued reply notice i.e., Ex.A12 dt. 28.03.2013 denying the entire amount of Rs. 23Lakhs without any proof or evidence, as such, the denial is a malafide intention only to avoid the execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiffs to drag the litigation and enjoyment of property for ever. As per Ex.A2, it reveals that there is an agreement of sale between plaintiffs and defendant and Ex.A15 to A19 establishes that plaintiff paid the earnest money to the defendants and the balance of Rs. 2Lakhs has to be paid by the plaintiffs to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Further the plaintiff contended that even though the plaintiffs paid Rs.

25,00,000/- out of Rs. 27,00,000/- there is balance of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be paid, as 19 such, the registration has not taken place on that day and agreement of sale was executed promissing to register the regular sale deed after receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- after that the plaintiff many times offered the balance sale consideration but the defendant not ready to receive the same nor choose to execute the sale deed and finally the plaintiff sent cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/- towards balance of sale consideration along with the notice calling the defendant to receive the cheque amount and to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. But the defendant not received the amount and filed a false suit in OS no. 48 of 2013 praying the court to restrain the plaintiffs from interfering with peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

45)The defendant relied upon 2008 (1) ALT 94 Mamidi Jagannatham Vs.

Yelgani Shankaraiah and others wherein it was held that party approaching court with false case and unclean hands is not entitled for the equitable relief of specific performance. He also relied upon 2007 (4) ALT 283 between P. Sudhakar Reddy

Vs. N. Chalpathi Reddy where in it was held that when pleadings are not specific and ambiguous the plaintiff is not entitled for the discretionary relief of specific performance. He also relied upon 2012 (2) ALT 618 between Jala Anjaiah Vs.

Ramsetti Anjaiah wherein it was held that in a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, there cannot be any pleading contrary to very agreement of sale.

He also relied upon 2013 (4) ALT 712 (DB) between Srikrishna Devloor (DS Krishna died Per LR) Vs. N. Madhavi and others wherein it was held that in a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale has the relief of equitable in nature. Even if the agreement is proved court is required to take into account the conduct of parties, the fairness of the deal and entitlement of plaintiff. The plaintiff who indulges in dubious transactions and attempts to deceive innocent persons is not entitled to grant of such things. He also relied upon 2006 (3) ALT 242 (DB) Mohd. Abdul

Razaq Vs. B. Venkatesh @ Venkataiah wherein it was held that the descrition of 20 court to grant relief of specific performance must be governed by rules and sound judicial principles.

46)In the present case, the defendant approached the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the defendant was ready to mortgage her property with the plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 and accordingly the plaintiffs issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as per Ex.A5 original receipt

Dt.09.11.2010 for Rs. 2,00,000/- which shows payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the defendant. Ex.A1 is the original sale deed which is a link document and Ex.A2 is original agreement of sale deed dt. 10.11.2010 is executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs for a total consideration of Rs. 27,00,000/- including

Rs.2,00,000/- which is paid under registered mortgage deed dt. 09.11.2010 by receiving Rs.23,00,000/- by the defendant through cheques issued by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant and encashed by the defendant as per Ex.A15 to A19.

Therefore, there is an agreement of sale and it is proved under issue no.1 and as per issue no.2, the plaintiff paid the sale consideration as agreed, as per issues no.1 to 3 the plaintiff proved and established that there is an agreement of sale and the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale. The rulings above relied upon by the counsel for the defendant does not apply to the present case.

Hence this point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

ISSUE no.1 in OS no. 324 of 2015: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for

permanent injunction as prayed for?

47)It is settled law that injunction is an equitable relief. As per Ex.A1 to

A19 in OS 697 of 2013 it is proved and established that there is an agreement of sale between defendants herein and plaintiff herein and the defendants herein are always ready and willing to perform their part of contract, but the plaintiff herein not came forward to execute the sale deed in their favour prior to filing OS no. 324 of 2015 the defendants herein filed OS no. 697 of 2013 on the file of I Addl. District

Judge, R.R. District and the plaintiff herein suppressed the facts and filed a false

21 suit against these defendants and obtained an ad-interim injunction in their favour.

The person who comes to the court with unclean hands is not entitled for injunction.

The person who fall on their own legs should stand on their own legs.

48)Ex.B3 is the certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate which clearly shows the names of defendants herein in the possessor column. Which clearly shows that the defendants herein in are in possession of the suit schedule property.

Therefore, in view of the discussion in OS no. 697 of 2013 and in view of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff in OS no. 324 of 2015 has failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property. Hence he is not entitled for the permanent injunction. This issue is answered in favour of the defendants.

49)In the result, OS no. 697 of 2013 decreed without costs directing the defendant to execute registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff and to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property by receiving balance sale consideration from the plaintiffs within three months from the date of this judgment.

50)In the result, OS no. 324 of 2015 is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer - II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of January, 2021

FAC X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: K. Jawahar ReddyDW1: Pamu Rajeshwari

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Original Sale deed bearing doc.no. 4994 of 1999 dt. 07.07.1999 Ex.A2 : Original Agreement of sale dt. 10.11.2010 22

Ex.A3 : Original Comprehensive Receipt dt. 10.11.2010 Ex.A4 : Original Registered mortgage deed dt. 09.11.2010 Ex.A5 : Original receipt dt. 09.11.2010 for Rs. 2,00,000/- Ex.A6 : Certificate duly issued by Mahesh Bank, Kachiguda Branch dt. 18.04.2013 Ex.A7 : Statement of account of Mahesh Bank dt. 31.03.2011 Ex.A8 : Letter issued by Mahesh Bank, Kachiguda dt. 18.04.2013 Ex.A9 : Statement of account of Mahesh Bank dt. 31.03.2011 Ex.A10: Original GPA dt. 24.03.2011 Ex.A11: Office copy of legal notice dt. 18.03.2013 Ex.A12: Copy of Reply notice dt. 28.03.2013 Ex.A13: Cancellation deed dt. 09.11.2010 Ex.A14: Agreement of sale cum GPA dt. 31.08.2010 in favour of one Suresh Ex.A15: Copy of cheque bearing no. 147127 dt. 09.11.2010 Ex.A16: Copy of cheque bearing no. 147128 dt. 09.11.2010 Ex.A17: Copy of cheque bearing no. 147129 dt. 09.11.2010 Ex.A18: Copy of cheque bearing no. 143896 dt. 09.11.2010 Ex.A19: copy of cheque bearing no. 143897 dt. 09.11.2010

FOR DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1 : Cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/- Ex.B2 : Certified copy of Mortgage deed Ex.B3 : Encumbrance Certificate

FAC X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

23

OS no. 697 of 2013

Judgment pronounced (VSJ) in the open court.

In the result, this suit is decreed without costs directing the defendant to execute registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff and to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property by receiving balance sale consideration from the plaintiffs within three months from the date of this judgment.

FAC X ADJ

OS no. 324 of 2015

Judgment pronounced (VSJ) in the open court.

In the result, this suit is dismissed without costs.

24

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR: HYDERABAD.

Present: SRI. V. BALA BHASKAR RAO.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DIST.

Dated on this the 15 th day of March, 2017

O.S. No. 180 of 2012

BETWEEN:-

Lakharam Chowdhari, S/o. Bhanaram Chowdhari, Aged about 46yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 38-87/7/1, Ambedkar Nagar colony, Sainikpuri, Under GHMC, Malkajgiri, R.R.District. .…. Plaintiff AND

B.Narasimha Goud, S/o. Ramulu Goud, Aged about 33yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 1-2-40/85, Gowrinathapuram, under GHMC Kapra, Keesara Mandal, R.R.District. ….Defendant

Claim: Suit filed praying this court to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, i) to evict the defendant from the suit schedule A, B and C properties and for recovery of arrears of Rs.1,14,400/- from the date of suit till the date of final realization to be recovered from the person and property of the defendant (ii) for recovery of damages for the removal of wall of Rs.1,00,000/- and

(iii) to award mesne profits at Rs.50,000/- per month to be awarded from the date of suit (I.e) 30.01.2012 till date of delivery of possession iv) for costs of the suit.

Cause of Action: The cause of action arose when the rental agreement lapsed on 14.06.2010 and when the defendant failed to vacate the premises and handover the same to the plaintiff and when the defendant has filed suit for perpetual injunction and got the order dt. 30.11.2011 and the cause of action is subsisting and continu- ing.

Suit Valuation: The suit is valued at Rs.4,37,700/- and court fee of Rs. 15,876/- is paid under sec.26(C) of A.P Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, which is sufficient, and the same is valued for the purpose of Jurisdiction.

Suit Presented on: 31.01.2012 Suit Numbered on: 01.02.2012

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri.G.Durga Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.P.Venkat

Reddy Advocate for defendant and having stood over for

consideration till this day, this Court doth Order as follows:

25

1) That the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is hereby decreed with costs.

2) That the defendant is directed to vacate and deliver the vacant physical possession of the suit schedule A, B and C properties to the plaintiff within two months.

3) That the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent from the defendant for the suit schedule A and B properties at Rs.13,100/- for the months of December 2011 and January 2012.

4) The plaintiff is also entitled for mesne profits from the defendant for being in illegal occupation of the schedule properties from 01.02.2012 till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule A and B properties by the defendant which is to be determined on filing separate application under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC.

5) That the caution deposit amount of Rs.1,40,000/- paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and the property tax amount of Rs. 1,04,018/- paid by the defendant for the suit schedule property be adjusted out of the above said amount to be determined.

6) That the plaintiff is also entitled for the mesne profits from the defendant for being in illegal occupation of the suit schedule C roperty from 01.02.2012 till the date of handing over the vacant possession by the defendant.

7) That it shall be determined on filing separate application under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 15th day of March, 2017.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

COSTS OF THE PETITION

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1) Stamp on plaint Rs.

2) Stamp on power Rs.

3) Service of Process Fee Rs.

4) Advocate fee Rs. ---

5) Misc. Charges. Rs. ---

6) Publication Rs. ---

7) FC not filed Rs. ---

--------------------- -------------------

Total Rs.

--------------------- -------------------

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

SUIT SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY

All that the one shop situated in North-East side of building bearing municipal No. 38-37/7/1 (new), 38-83/1(old) on Plot no. 4A, in Sy.no. 278 situated at Ambedkar Nagar, Near Sainikpuri X Roads, under GHMC, Malkajgiri, R.R.District and bounded by:

26

North :Main road (lead to Sainikpuri X to Neredmet X road) South : Defendant building East:Plywood shop (belongs to Srinath) West :North west shop belongs to Defendant

SUIT SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY

All that the one shop situated in North-West side of building bearing municipal No. 38-37/7/1 (new), 38-83/1(old) on Plot no. 4A, in Sy.no. 278 situated at Ambedkar Nagar, Near Sainikpuri X Roads, under GHMC, Malkajgiri, R.R.District and bounded by:

North :Main road (lead to Sainikpuri X to Neredmet X road) South : Defendant building East:North-East Shop West :Furniture shop belongs to Bharghav

SUIT SCHEDULE 'C' PROPERTY

All that the two rooms (kitchen, servant room situated in North-East side of building bearing municipal No. 38-37/7/1 (new), 38-83/1(old) on Plot no. 4A, in Sy.no. 278 situated at Ambedkar Nagar, Near Sainikpuri X Roads, under GHMC, Malkajgiri, R.R.District and bounded by:

North :Two shops (I.e) Suit schedule property – A & B South : Defendant Building East:Open place West : Neighbour's buildings

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

27

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR: HYDERABAD. Present: SRI. V. BALA BHASKAR RAO.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DIST.

Dated on this the 15 th day of March, 2017

OS No. 2267 of 2011

BETWEEN:- B.Narasimha Goud, S/o. Ramulu Goud, Aged about 33yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 1-2-40/85, Gowrinathapuram, under GHMC Kapra, Keesara Mandal, R.R.District. .…. Plaintiff AND

Lakharam Chowdhari, S/o. Bhanaram Chowdhari, Aged about 46yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 38-87/7/1, Ambedkar Nagar colony, Sainikpuri, Under GHMC, Malkajgiri, R.R.District. ….Defendant

Claim: Suit filed praying this court to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, i) to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his men, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment and business activities over the suit schedule property to direct the defendant not to evict the plaintiff without following due process of law ii) to award the costs of the suit, iii) to grant such other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be entitled for.

Cause of Action: The cause of action arose in the year 2004 when the plaintiff took suit premises on lease and on 11.06.2010 when the defendant executed the rental agreement and finally on 29.11.2011 when the defendant and his associates came to the suit property and demanded the plaintiff to vacate the premises on or before 01.12.2011 and if the plaintiff fails to evict the plaintiff forcibly and the cause of ac- tion is subsisting and continuing.

Suit Valuation: The suit is valued at Rs.1,57,200/- and court fee of Rs. 4,026/- is paid under sec.26(C) of A.P Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, which is sufficient, and the same is valued for the purpose of Jurisdiction.

Suit Presented on: 30.11.2011 Suit Numbered on: 30.11.2011

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri.P.Venkat Reddy Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. G.Durga

Prasad Advocate for defendant and having stood over for

consideration till this day, this Court doth Order as follows:

1. That the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is hereby dismissed.

2. That the plaintiffs do pay a sum of Rs. to the defendant towards costs of the suit.

28

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 12th day of March, 2017.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

COSTS OF THE PETITION

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1) Stamp on plaint Rs.

2) Stamp on power Rs.

3) Service of Process Fee Rs.

4) Advocate fee Rs. ---

5) Misc. Charges. Rs. ---

6) Publication Rs. ---

7) FC not filed Rs. ---

--------------------- -------------------

Total Rs.

--------------------- -------------------

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

SUIT SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY

All that the two shops situated in North-East side of building bearing municipal No. 38-37/7/1 (new), 38-83/1(old) on Plot no. 4A, in Sy.no. 278 situated at Ambedkar Nagar, Near Sainikpuri X Roads, under GHMC, Malkajgiri, R.R.District and bounded by:

North :Main road (lead to Sainikpuri X to Neredmet X road) South : Defendant building East:Plywood shop (belongs to Srinath) West :Furniture shop belongs to Bharghav

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

29 15.03.2017

Judgment pronounced (Vide separate common judgment) in the open court.

In the result, this suit is dismissed with costs.

II ASCJ

15.03.2017 30

Judgment pronounced (Vide separate common judgment) in the open court. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant physical possession of the suit schedule A, B and C properties to the plaintiff within two months and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent from defendant for the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties @ Rs.13,100/- for the months of December 2011 and January 2012 and the plaintiff is also entitled for mesne profits from the defendant for being in illegal occupation of the schedule property from 01.02.2012 till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties by the defendant which is to be determined on filing separate application under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC. The caution deposit amount of Rs.1,40,000/- paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and the property tax amount of Rs.1,04,018/- paid by the defendant for the schedule property shall be adjusted out of the above said amount to be determined. The plaintiff is also entitled for mesne profits from the defendant for being in illegal occupation of the schedule 'C' property from 01.02.2012 till the date of handing over the vacant possession by the defendant which is to be determined on filing separate application under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC.

II ASCJ

1

SC no. 734 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN cum XVII ADDL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE

R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Maruthidevi I Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women cum XVII Addl. District &

Sessions Judge.

R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.

Dated on this the 11th Day of June, 2021

SC No. 734 of 2019

Name of the complainant: The State through PS Meerpet Name of the accused: Varrikuppala Shiva Kumar @ Shiva, S/o. Srinivas, Aged about 22yrs, Occ: Household, R/o. h.no. 10-80, Prashanthi Nagar, Meerpet Village, Balapur Mandal, R. R. District. Crime Number: 140 of 2018 Offence Under Section: 376(2)(n), 354-D, 448, 506 of IPC PRC No.: 39 of 2019 on the file of II Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at L. B. Nagar

Case Committed by: G. Kavitha Devi, II Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L. B. Nagar

Prosecution conducted by: Sri. G.Buchireddy, Addl. PP Defence conducted by: M/s. L. Harish, Advocate for Accused Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Sentence of order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under section 376(2)(n), 354(D), 448, 506 of IPC framed against accused and accused is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time

This case coming before me for hearing in the presence of

Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of M/s. L. Harish,

Advocate for the accused and having stood over the matter for

consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) The Inspector of Police, PS Meerpet filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 376(2)(n), 354(D), 448, 506 of IPC in Cr.no. 140 of 2018 of PS Meerpet.

2

SC no. 734 of 2019

2) The brief facts of the charge sheet are that on 20.02.2018 at 7PM the complainant Desai Vennala lodged report with the police stating that while she was pursuing her intermediate, the accused developed acquaintance with the complainant stating that he has been following her since she was in her 9th standard and made phone calls to her and proposed his love for her and in the same manner, he followed the complainant on her way to college daily for two years in the name of love and pressurized her. Therefore, the complainant accepted his love forcibly. That in the year 2015, the accused started controlling her and restricted her clothing, especially jeans and on one occasion the accused forcibly entered her residence and tore her T-shirt and warned her not to wear in future. That after few days, the accused started to enter her residence and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her many times and blackmailed her by means of photographs and abused the complainant. That after six months of his torture the complainant broke her love with the accused and then the accused started blackmailing her stating that if she fails to marry him, he would kill her brother and father and started following her on the way regularly and requested to take necessary action.

3)Basing on the said complaint, LW13 A. Man Mohan, Inspector of Police,

PS Meerpet registered a case in Cr.no. 140 of 2018 u/sec. 376(2)(n), 354-D, 448, 506 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW13 got examined and recorded the statements of complainant through LW12 B.

Hymavathi, ASI of Police, PS Rachakonda. Thereafter, LW13 visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence observation panchanama and drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of mediators LW4 Bhatotra

Praveen Kumar and LW5 Juntipally Chakali Ashok and he examined and recorded the statements of LW2 Desai Srinivas Murthy and LW3 Desai Itihass.

4) Thereafter, on the next day morning, LW13 sent the victim to

Government Maternity Hospital, Koti for medical examination where LW8 Dr. P.

Sree Devi, Associate Professor/Professor of Government Maternity Hospital, 3

SC no. 734 of 2019

Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad has conducted medical examination over the victim and seized incriminating material and handed over the same to police for forwarding the same to FSL for examination and report. LW10 Dr. G. Pandu,

Asst. Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad examined the material objects sent by LW8 and issued report. Basing on the FSL Report, LW8 issued final report opining that sexual assault cannot be ruled out.

5)While investigation was in progress, on 22.02.2018 at 8AM on receipt of credible information about the presence of accused at his residence, the deputed staff of LW13 apprehended the accused at his residence and produced him

before LW13 at PS Meerpet and LW13 interrogated the accused and recorded

his confession statement in the presence of LW6 Ramavath Swamy and Yadagiri

Yeshwanth and effected the arrest of accused and sent the accused to Osmania

Hospital for subjecting him for potency test with a requisition letter.

6)That LW9 G. Deva Raju, Asst. Professor, Osmania Medical

College/Hospital, Hyderabad conducted Potency Test over the accused and issued certificate opining that “there is nothing to suggest that the individual examined is not capable of performing act of sexual intercourse.

7)Subsequently, LW13 got recorded the statement u/sec. 164 Cr.P.C of the victim through LW11, III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L. B. Nagar.

Thereafter on his transfer, LW13 handed over the CD file to LW14 N. Yadaiah,

Inspector of Police, PS Meerpet and then LW14 received the FSL report from

LW10 and after receipt of concerned documents and after completion of investigation, LW14 filed charge sheet against the accused.

8) The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under section 376(2)(n), 354-D, 448, 506 of IPC against the accused in PRC No. 39 of 2019 by learned II Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L. B. Nagar and committed the case to the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at

L.B. Nagar as the learned Magistrate having perused the record found the case 4

SC no. 734 of 2019

as exclusively triable by the court of sessions after furnishing the case copies as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

9) The Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad took the case on file in SC No. 734 / 2019 and made over the case to this court for the purpose of disposal according to law.

10) This court having considered the record, framed charges under section 376(2)(n), 354(D), 448, 506 of IPC against accused read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the said charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

11) During the course of trial to prove its case the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW9 and marked Ex. P1 to Ex.P8.

12) After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating evidence that is brought on record against them for which he denied the said evidence and reported no defence evidence.

13) Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

14) Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has

proved the guilt of accused for the charge under section 376(2)(n), 354(D),

448, 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

15) It is the case of the prosecution that the accused has followed the victim and pressurized her to love him and forcibly had sexual intercourse with the victim and when the victim broke up her love with the accused, he started blackmailing the victim stating that he would kill her brother, father.

16)PW1 who is victim in this case has stated that in the year 2015, accused went to her and informed her that he has been following her while she was returning to home since she was studying 9th standard and he has obtained her mobile number from one of her friend and since then the accused started making blank calls to her and texted messages to her, for which the initially complainant ignored but thereafter since accused continued to talk to her, she started talking 5

SC no. 734 of 2019

to him. PW1 further stated that on one occasion accused followed her up to her house and went to her house in the absence of her father and brother and restricted her from wearing jeans, T-Shirts and further stated that she should not talk to anyone and accused tore her Shirt also and upon that she refused his demands. PW1 further stated that on one occasion, accused went to her house in the absence of her father and brother and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her by threatening her that he would kill her father and brother and he also beat her indiscriminately and in the same manner, accused had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions and when she strictly opposed his acts, accused started blackmailing her stating that her father and brother must pass from his area only and if she refuses accused, he shall kill her father and brother and unable to bare his torture, on 20.02.2018, she lodged report with police under

Ex.P1.

17)PW2 Srinivasa Murthy Desai father of PW1 stated that on 20.02.2018, he went to his office and on that day his son informed him over phone that accused followed PW1 in the name of love since she was studying 9th standard and thereafter accused harassed PW1 physically and mentally to love him and if PW1 refuses to love him, accused would kill him and his son and on the said threat, accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with PW1 and upon that on the same day, himself, PW1 and LW3 D. Itihas went to police station and PW1 lodged complaint against accused.

18)PW3 Itihas brother of PW1 has stated that on 20.02.2018 PW1 informed him that accused followed her since she was studying 9th standard and when she was in intermediate, accused obtained the phone number of PW1 from her friend and he used to call PW1 and used to state that he loves PW1 and harassed her and unable to bear the torture of accused, PW1 accepted his proposal. PW3 further stated that thereafter in his and his father’s absence accused went to their house and forcibly had sexual intercourse with PW1 and he has also threatened

PW1 stating that if she discloses the matter to any one he shall kill him and his 6

SC no. 734 of 2019

father and in the same manner, on several occasions, accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with PW1. PW3 further stated that the accused has his sister on her dressing too, upon that he informed the same to PW2 over phone and then three of them went to police station and PW1 lodged report against accused.

19)The prosecution has examined J. Ashok who is panch witness for scene of offence and he deposed that on one occasion when he was standing at ground floor of Janapriya apartments, police called him to 3rd floor and conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P2 and drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P3 in his presence and in the presence of one LW4 B.

Praveen Kumar and obtained their signatures on Ex.P2 and P3.

20)The panch witness for confession panchanama Ramavath Swamy is examined as PW5 and he stated that about two years back, when he went to police station on his personal work, at request of police he acted as panch witness for confession and police introduced accused to him and accused confessed before him that he has harassed PW1 to love him and accused has also confessed that he has sexually assaulted PW1 and policed obtained his signature on Ex.P4 confession panchanama. PW5 further stated that no material objects were seized in his presence.

21)The medical officer who conducted potency test over the accused is examined as PW6 and he stated that 22.02.2018 on receipt of requisition from

Inspector of Police, PS Meerpet, he conducted potency test over the accused and opined that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing the act of sexual intercourse and issued Ex.P5 potency certificate.

22)PW7 Dr. P. Sridevi, the then Asst. Professor at Government Maternity

Hospital, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad who examined the victim has stated that on 20.02.2018, on receipt of requisition from PS Meerpet, on 21.02.2018, she conducted clinical examination of the victim and collected the material objects and sent the same to FSL and on examination, the victim told that she was 7

SC no. 734 of 2019

assaulted by a known person for 10 to 12times over a period of one and half years and last was on 17.09.2017 and there was a threatening of life of family members and on clinical examination, the hymen of the victim was not intact and vagina was admitting two fingers and found no external injuries and after receiving Ex.P6 FSL report she opined that sexual assault cannot be ruled out and issued Ex.P7 Medical report.

23)The prosecution has examined the police official who recorded the statement of victim u/sec. 161 Cr.P.C as PW8. PW8 B. Hymavathi has stated that on 20.02.2018, as per the instructions of Inspector of Police, she recorded the statement of PW1.

24)PW9 A. Manmohan, the investigating officer in this case has stated that on 20.02.2018 on receipt of Ex.P1 from PW1, he registered a case under Ex.P8 FIR and took up investigation and during the course of investigation, he got examined and recorded the statement of PW1 through PW8 and then he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence observation panchanama and drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and sent PW1 to Government Maternity Hospital for medical examination where PW7 examined and issued medical certificate and later sent vaginal swabs and smears to FSL.

PW9 further stated that on 22.02.2018 he arrested the accused and recorded his confession statement in the presence of mediators i.e., PW5 and LW7 Y.

Yeshwanth and then sent the accused to Osmania Medical College for potency test and accordingly, PW6 examined the accused and issued Potency Certificate and then he sent a requisition to III Metropolitan Magistrate and got recorded

Statement of the victim u/sec. 164Cr.P.C and thereafter, he produced accused

before court for Judicial custody and thereafter he handed over the CD file to

LW14 N. Yadaiah who after verifying the investigation done by him filed charge sheet against the accused.

25)Learned APP on behalf of prosecution contended that the accused followed PW1 in the name of love and exploited the victim sexually in the house 8

SC no. 734 of 2019

of PW1 and thereafter the accused started restricting PW1 in all petty matters and unable to bare the harassment when the PW1 intended to breakup relation with the accused, the accused started threatening PW1 stating that he would kill father and brother of PW1 if she fails to act according to his will and thereby on several occasions, the accused criminally trespassed into the house of PW1 and had sexual intercourse with PW1 and also blackmailed PW1 stating that he is in possession of her obscene photographs and started stalking. Learned APP further contended that the Ex.P7 Medical certificate clearly proves that the PW1 was sexually assaulted by the accused. Further, as per Sec. 114-A of Indian

Evidence Act mere penetration is sufficient to prove sexual offences. Therefore, by examining PW1 to PW9, and by getting marked Ex.P1 to P8, the prosecution has proved and established the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed to convict accused.

26)On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused contended that since 2015 the accused has intimacy with PW1 and the accused restricted PW1 about her dressing sense, and aggrieved by that the PW1 has lodged a false complaint against the accused. The learned counsel for the accused further contended that lodging Ex.P1 is after thought and the conduct of PW1 is doubtful which is evident from her evidence and there is no corroborating evidence with the version of PW1. Further, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is of hearsay nature and also they are interested witnesses on whose evidence much reliance cannot be placed. The learned counsel for the accused contended that a serious doubt arises on careful scrutiny of the manner of arrest of accused. Thereby the prosecution has failed to proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed to acquit the accused. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the accused relied upon a reported decision in 2021 (1) ALT (Crl.) 223 AP between Kagitha Narendra @ Sunny Vs. State of AP.

27)As per the contention of PW1, she stated that since her 9th class the accused used to follow her. But at any point of time, she did not recognize the 9

SC no. 734 of 2019

acts of accused. Later, the accused obtained her mobile number from her friend and made calls to her and that initially she ignored his calls. Since the year 2015 itself, the accused started following her and accused came to her house in the absence of her father and brother, and the accused restricted PW1 not to ware

Jeans and T-Shirts. Further, PW1 stated that the accused tore her shirt. But as per the evidence of PW8, PW1 not disclosed that the accused tore the T-shirt of

PW1.

28)It is the further version of PW1 that the accused frequently came to her house in the absence of her father and brother and had sexual intercourse with her by threatening that he shall kill her father and brother. When ever the accused had sexual intercourse, she strongly opposed the acts of accused. But strangely at any point of time, the PW1 not disclosed about the acts of accused to her father and brother.

29)In the cross examination of PW1, she stated that they went to police station at 11:30AM and till evening police made enquiries and then Ex.P1 was registered and the accused came to police station between 12noon to 1PM.

PW1 in her cross examination stated that her college hours starts at 9:30AM and she starts from home at about 8:30AM. PW1 further stated that they are living in

Janapriya Apartments and the Apartment consists of 200 to 300flats and the accused came to her house for more than twenty times in the absence of her family members. PW1 admitted that none of the neighbors objected the accused when he came to their house and no panchayath was held with regard to the acts of the accused. PW1 in her cross examination admitted that she alone scribed the Ex.P1.

30)To support the version of PW1, PW2 and PW3 who are father and brother of PW1 were examined.

31)PW2 who is father of PW1 stated that on 20.02.2018 when he went to his office, at that time, his son PW3 informed him over phone about the acts of accused and also stated the accused threatened PW1 that if she fails to accept 10

SC no. 734 of 2019

his love, he would kill him and PW3, and on that threat the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with PW1. In his cross examination, PW2 stated that he went to Police station in between 3PM to 5PM on 20.02.2018 and by the time he reached the police station, his daughter and his son were present and he met

Circle Inspector of Police in the Police Station. PW2 denied that PW1 filed a false case against the accused.

32)On perusal of chief examination and cross examination of PW2, it reveals that only on the date of lodging complaint by PW1, he came to know about the facts of the case. Hence the evidence of PW2 can be treated as hearsay evidence.

33)PW3 who is brother of PW1 in his chief examination stated in the same lines of PW1 and PW2 and he further stated that PW1 disclosed the matter to him stating that the accused has threatened her that he would kill him and PW2 if

PW1 fails to co-operate with the accused in sexual intercourse and PW3 also stated that the accused restricted his sister on her dressing. PW3 in his cross examination stated that on 20.02.2018 PW1 made a call to him about the facts of the case and immediately he and PW1 went to the police station to lodge Ex.P1.

34)From the above evidence of PW3 it reveals that PW3 got knowledge about the acquaintance between PW1 and accused only on the date of lodging

Ex.P1 i.e., on 20.02.2018. Hence his evidence also can be treated as a hearsay evidence and he is an interested witness.

35)It is the version of PW1 that on 20.02.2018 they went to police station at 11:30AM and accused came to Police station between 12noon to 1PM. But it is the version of PW3 that, by the time himself and PW1 went to police station, in the evening accused was brought to police station. Whereas, PW3 admitted in his cross examination that the accused was apprehended by SHE team at

Karmanghat temple and after apprehending the accused SHE team personnel made the accused to board their vehicle and PW3 drove the two wheeler of the accused to Meerpet police station accompanied by PW1 and accused was 11

SC no. 734 of 2019

brought to police station. It is the version of PW9 the investigating officer in this case that the accused was arrested on 22.02.2018. PW9 the investigating officer in this case stated in his cross examination that one SHE team will be available for every DCP Zone and if SHE team personnel apprehends any person, they will immediately handover the accused to the local police station and thereafter the concerned police station take action on due process of law.

PW9 admitted that he has to record the statement of SHE team officials and he has to show them in the charge sheet in the list of witnesses. Whereas, on perusal of the charge sheet with regard to the arrest of accused, it was mentioned that the accused was arrested on 22.02.2018 at about 8AM at his residence by the deputed staff of the investigating officer and then the investigating officer secured the presence of panch witnesses and conducted confession panchanama in their presence at police station itself.

36)Whereas, in the case on hand, statements of SHE teams were not recorded and also none of the SHE Team members were cited as witnesses in the charge sheet for the reasons best known to them. Even for a while if is presumed that the accused was apprehended by police Meerpet on 20.02.2018 itself and he was with police till evening hours on that day, the investigating official has not explained the reason for not effecting the arrest of accused immediately and why he waited till 22.02.2018 to effect his arrest. Further, the above inconsistent versions of PW1, PW3 and PW9 leads to ambiguity in the manner of arrest by the investigating officer which are major discrepancies.

37)In support of prosecution case, PW4 is examined as panch witness for scene of offence and PW4 in his cross examination stated that while he was standing near Janapriya Apartments, the police called him to act as panch witness and police conducted panchanama and drafted rough sketch under

Ex.P2 and P3 in his presence. In the cross examination PW4 stated that when he reached the scene of offence, 12 to 15members gathered and six police personnel were present and many people are living in the said flats and when he 12

SC no. 734 of 2019

was at scene of offence it is about 6PM on 20.02.2018. As per the evidence of

PW9, in his cross examination PW9 stated that he went to visit scene of offence at 8PM on 20.02.2018 in hurry without recording the statements of PW2 and

PW3 who are present at police station.

38)PW5 who is panch witness for confession panchanama has stated that no material objects were seized in his presence. But it is the version of prosecution that the accused used to make calls to PW1 and threatened her stating that he would kill PW2 and PW3 and it is also the version of Prosecution that accused was in possession of photographs of PW1 and by means of said photographs, the accused blackmailed PW1. The investigating officer has not seized any mobile phones of PW1 and accused and also not collected any call data particulars of accused or any photographs from the possession of accused regarding the alleged obscene photographs of PW1.

39)It is the prosecution case that the accused has followed PW1 since her 9th standard and has obtained her phone number from a friend of PW1 and started making calls to her while she was pursuing her intermediate. It is the further case of prosecution that the accused taken obscene photographs of the PW1 and being in possession of said photographs the accused threatened PW1 stating that if she fails to co-operate with him to have sexual intercourse he would kill

PW2 and PW3.

40)Sec. 354(D) of IPC reads as follows:

1) Any man who— i. follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or ii. monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking;

41)The main ingredient for sec. 354(D)(i) is contacting a woman despite her clear indication of disinterest. It is an admitted fact that the accused is following

PW1 since the year 2015 and accused obtained her phone number and started making phone calls and initially she ignored but thereafter she started talking to 13

SC no. 734 of 2019

the accused. PW1 in Ex.P1 stated that after one and half year she broke up with accused and in her cross examination PW1 stated that accused came to her house for more than twenty times in the absence of her family members and she has not informed about his coming to her house to anyone and no panchayaths were held with regard to the acts of accused in the presence of elders.

42)The said evidence of PW1 clearly reveals that she has allowed accused to come to her house for more than twenty times in the absence of her family members which clearly indicates that PW1 has never shown any disinterest towards accused. Further it is not the case of prosecution that the accused has monitored PW1 through internet, or any other communication which amounts to stalking. But it is the case of the prosecution that the accused was in possession of obscene photographs of PW1. The investigating officer i.e., PW9 in his cross examination admitted that he has not seized any such material objects from the possession of accused in proof of stalking by the accused. Thereby the prosecution has utterly failed in proving the offence of stalking u/sec. 354-D of

IPC against the accused.

43)The main contention of the learned APP is that as per Sec. 114-A of IPC, mere penetration is sufficient to make out an offence of rape and depth of penetration is immaterial. Learned APP further contended that as per the evidence of PW7 since hymen was not intact and is admitting two fingers it is proved and established that PW1 was assaulted sexually.

44) At this juncture, the defence counsel contended that though the accused visited her house in the absence of her father and brother, and had sexual intercourse with her for several times, PW1 has not disclosed her grievance neither to her family members nor has chose to lodge a complaint before police which clearly shows the conduct of PW1 which is doubtful. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for accused relied upon 2021 (1) ALT (Crl.) 223 (AP) between Kagitha Narendra @ Sunny Vs. State of AP through SHO, Ponnur rural Circle wherein it was held as follows:

14

SC no. 734 of 2019

11. …. When her version is tested in the light of her subsequent conduct and other evidence on record, allegation of rape by resorting to extortion and blackmail appears to be apparently absurd and inherently improbable. Firstly, conduct of the victim is most unnatural. Although, she had immediately brought a minor indiscretion relating to sharing of obscene pictures to the notice of her parents PW2 and PW3, PW1 is strangely silent with regard to such gross act of raping her by administering drugs for about two years. On the contrary, she continues her association and cohabits with the appellant on a number of times. A laconic explanation that the appellant held out threats does not appear to be convincing. ……. …

16. In the aforesaid catena of decisions, the Apex Court unequivocally held dishonest intention or bad faith must exist at the initial stage of the relationship. Mere failure to live up to the promise of marriage without anything more cannot be a ground to convict a person of rape. In the present case, allegation of cohabitation by use of blackmail and/or extortion has not been proved. Subsequent failure to marry, primarily, arose due to lack of willingness on the part of parents of both the parties. In this backdrop, it would be incorrect to come to a conclusion that the appellant had dishonestly induced PW1 to cohabit on a false promise of marriage and her consent was vitiated on such misconception of fact.

45)To prove the offence u/sec. 376(2)(n) of IPC, the prosecution has examined PW6 who is the medical officer who conducted potency test over the accused and Ex.P5 Potency Certificate opining that the accused is potent of committing sexual act.

46)The prosecution has also examined the medical officer who conducted medical examination over the victim/PW1 as PW7. PW7 in her cross examination admitted that she has not mentioned in Ex.P7 that the victim was habituated in sexual intercourse. PW7 again stated that the hymen was not intact and admitting two fingers in vagina and she admitted that the hymen not intact does not mean that she has participated in sexual intercourse.

47) In a reported decision in 2003 Lawsuit SC 211 Uday Vs. State of

Karnataka wherein it was held as follows:

23. Keeping in view the approach that the court must adopt in such cases, we shall now proceed to consider the evidence on record. In the instant case, the prosecutrix was a grown up girl studying in a college. She was deeply in love with the appellant. She was however, aware of the fact that since they belonged to different castes, marriage was not possible. In any event the proposal for their marriage was bound to be seriously opposed by their family members. She admits having told so to the appellant when he proposed to her the first time. She had sufficient intelligence to

understand the significance and moral quality of the act she was

consenting to. That is why she kept it a secret as long as she could.

Despite this, she did not resist the overtures of the appellant, and in

fact succumbed to it. She thus freely exercised a choice between

resistance and assent. She must have known the consequences of

the act, particularly when she was conscious of the fact that their

15

SC no. 734 of 2019

marriage may not take place at all on account of caste considerations. All these circumstances lead us to the conclusion that she freely, voluntarily, and consciously consented to having sexual intercourse with the appellant, and her consent was not in consequence of any misconception of fact

48) Further, the sexual assault is a legal issue and not a medical diagnosis.

The size of the vaginal opening has no bearing on a case of sexual assault. No incriminating evidence was found by the FSL or the doctor to prove the guilt of accused.

49)It is admitted that as per Sec. 114-A of IPC, mere penetration is sufficient to prove that rape was committed. In the case on hand, the PW1 in her cross examination admitted that the accused had sexual intercourse with her for twenty times in her house itself. PW1 is strangely silent with regard forcibly having sexual intercourse by the accused for so long inspite of being sexually assaulted from which it can be presumed that PW1 has given her consent for sexual intercourse. Further, the prosecution has not examined any independent witness i.e., any neighbours of the Janapriya apartments to prove the ingress and egress of the accused to the house of PW1 to strengthen the version of PW1 with regard to criminal trespass by accused to the house of PW1. From the above lines it reveals that the PW1 continues her association and cohabited with the accused on number of occasions and failed to report the same to anyone which clearly shows the consenting nature of PW1. Thereby the prosecution failed to prove and establish that the accused criminally trespassed into the house of PW1 and by threatening PW1 has sexually assaulted her.

50)On overall appreciation of the evidence of prosecution and the material placed on record it reveals that there are major discrepancies in the investigation conducted by the investigating officer in lodging Ex.P1 complaint, arrest of the accused by the investigating officer on 22.02.2018, non citing the SHE Team officials who alleged to have apprehended the accused at Karmanghat Temple on 20.02.2018, and non recording the statements of any independent witnesses at the scene of offence, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of 16

SC no. 734 of 2019

accused. Further, the PW1 did not appear to be a witness of sterling quality on whose sole testimony a conviction could sustain. She has tried to conceal facts from the court which were relevant. Her evidence on the question of delay in

Ex.P1 was also unsatisfactory. The story of prosecution of rape as unfolded by the PW1 was not bound to be correct and the statement of PW1 did not lend any assurance and the medical opinion also not supporting the prosecution case

hence it is not safe to rely on the evidence of PW1 that she was subjected

to sexual intercourse against her will and consent.

51)In view of the above discussion the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and is acquitted. The point is answered accordingly.

52)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under section 376(2)(n), 354(D), 448, 506 of IPC framed against accused and accused is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer - II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of June, 2021

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL

OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA

REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: Desai Vennela None PW.2: Srinivasa Murthy Desai PW.3: Itihas PW.4: J. Ashok PW.5: Ramavath Swamy PW.6: Dr. G. Devaraju PW.7: Dr. P. Sridevi PW.8: B. Hymavathi 17

SC no. 734 of 2019

PW.9: A. Manmohan

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3: Rough Sketch Ex.P4: Confession panchanama Ex.P5: Potency Certificate Ex.P6: FSL Report Ex.P7: Medical Report Ex.P8: First Information Report

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS: Nil

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

18

SC no. 734 of 2019

19

SC no. 734 of 2019

Police present, Accused is present. Judgment pronounced (VSJ) in the open court. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under section 376(2)(n), 354(D), 448, 506 of IPC framed against accused and accused is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

I Spl.CTAW

1

SC no. 779 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN cum XVII ADDL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE

R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Maruthidevi I Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women cum XVII Addl. District &

Sessions Judge.

R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.

Dated on this the 7th Day of April, 2021

SC No. 779 of 2019

Name of the complainant: The State through PS Meerpet Name of the accused: Madasu Shiva Raj @ Shiva S/o. Raghu, aged about 28yrs, Occ: CCTV Technician, R/o. H.no. 9-5-20/B, Ibrahimbagh, Golkonda, Hyderabad. Crime Number: 120 of 2018 Offence Under Section: 376(2)(n), 420, 493 of IPC PRC No.: 170 of 2018 on the file of II Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at L. B. Nagar.

Case Committed by: Sri. G. Kavitha Devi, II Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at L. B. Nagar

Prosecution conducted by: Sri. G.Buchireddy, Addl. PP Defence conducted by: M/s. B. Bikshapathi Goud, Advocate for Accused Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Sentence of order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under section 376(2)(n), 420 of IPC framed against accused and accused is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 mobile phone shall be returned to its owner after expiry of appeal time

This case coming before me for hearing in the presence of

Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of M/s. B.

Bikshapathi Goud, Advocate for the accused and having stood

over the matter for consideration till this day, this court

delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) The Inspector of Police, PS Meerpet filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 376(2)(n), 420 of IPC in Cr.no. 120 of 2018 of

PS Meerpet.

2

SC no. 779 of 2019

2) The brief facts of the charge sheet are that on 14.02.2018 at 6PM the complainant Kum. Sabavath Priyanka lodged report with the police, Meerpet stating that in the month of August 2017, while she was working in Sri Renuka

Devi Bangle Store, at that time the complainant came in contact with the accused who came to their Bangle store to fix CCTV camera and thereafter the accused developed acquaintance with the complainant by speaking to her over phone and proposed his love for her and intended to marry her. On believing his words, the complainant accepted his proposal and then the accused visited the house of complainant on five occasions and had sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage and in that in the month of October 2017, the complainant called him over phone and informed that she was pregnant and from then the accused switched off his mobile and not talking to her and thereby by the accused cheated the complainant and requested to take necessary action.

3)Basing on the said complaint, LW16 A. Man Mohan, Inspector of Police,

PS Meerpet registered a case in Cr.no. 120 of 2018 u/sec. 376(2)(n), 420, 493 of

IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW15 Smt. B.

Hymavathi, ASI of Police, PS Saroornagar examined and recorded the statement of LW1/victim and on next day, sent the victim to Government Maternity Hospital,

Koti, Hyderabad for medical examination, where LW11 Dr. V. Suvarna, Asst.

Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Govt. maternity Hospital, Sultan Bazar,

Hyderabad, Examined the victim and collected material objects and sent the same to FSL for examination and report. LW13 Dr. G. Pandu, Asst. Director,

Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad examined the victim and furnished report.

4)During the course of investigation, LW16 examined and recorded the statement of LW2 Sabavath Gopal Naik, and thereafter, LW16 visited the scene of offence and there, LW16 secured the presence of mediators LW7 Chavva Sai

Kumar and LW8 Ganji Krisha and conducted scene of offence observation panchanama and drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence in their presence.

3

SC no. 779 of 2019

Further, LW16 examined and recorded the statements of LW3 Sabavath Bujji,

LW4 Sabavath Narender, LW5 Sabavath Jaya.

5)While investigation was in progress, on 16.02.2018 at about 2PM, on receipt of credible information about the availability of accused, deputed the staff of LW16 apprehended the accused at his residence at Ibrahimbagh, Golkonda and produced before LW16. Accordingly, LW16 recorded the confessional statement of the accused in the presence of mediators LW9 Pandala Suresh and

LW10 Mudavath Sai Kumar and in pursuance of the confession of accused,

LW16 seized one VIVO mobile phone from his possession under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of above mediators.

Thereafter, LW16 sent the accused to Osmania Hospital for conducting potency test and LW12 G. Venugopal Rao, Asst. Professor of Osmania Medical College/

Hospital, Hyderabad conducted potency test over the accused and opined that the individual has no signs in favour of impotency and issued report.

6)LW16 also got recorded the statement of the victim u/sec. 164Cr.P.C through local magistrate After completion of investigation and after collecting relevant documents, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against the accused.

7)That on 05.02.2019, the accused was produced before Medical Officer,

Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for potency test and LW9 Dr. Khaja

Moinuddin, Associated Professor, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad conducted potency test on the accused and furnished report opining that “There is nothing to suggest that, the individual examined is not capable of performing the act of sexual intercourse”. Then on the same day, the accused was produced before court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation and after collecting relevant documents, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against the accused.

8) The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under section 376(2(n)), 420, 493 of IPC against the accused in PRC No. 170 of 2018 by 4

SC no. 779 of 2019

learned II Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabadat L. B. Nagar and committed the case to the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar as the learned Magistrate having perused the record found the case as exclusively triable by the court of sessions after furnishing the case copies as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

9) The Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad took the case on file in SC No. 779 / 2019 and made over the case to this court for the purpose of disposal according to law.

10) This court having considered the record, framed charges under section 376(2(n), 420 of IPC against accused read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the said charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

11) During the course of trial to prove its case the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Ex. P1 to Ex.P8 and M.O.1.

12) After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating evidence that is brought on record against them for which they denied the said evidence and reported no defence evidence.

13) Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

14) Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has

proved the guilt of accused for the charge under section 376(2)(n), 420 of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

15)It is the case of prosecution that the accused who came to the bangle store where the victim is working to affix CCTV Camera in the Bangle Store, and developed acquaintance with the victim, and in the name of love and with a false promise of marriage, the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim, due to which the victim conceived and when the victim informed the same to the accused, he started avoiding the victim and thereby cheated the victim. It is reported that the victim died.

5

SC no. 779 of 2019

16)To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 who is the step mother of the victim, PW2 who is brother of the victim, PW3 who is the sister-in-law of the victim, PW4 who is circumstantial witness, PW5 who is panch witness for scene of offence, PW6 who is the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama, PW7 who is the medical officer who examined the victim,

PW8 who is the woman police official who examined and recorded the statement of victim, PW9 who is the Medical officer who examined the accused and issued

Potency Certificate and PW10 who is the investigating officer who conducted entire investigation and filed charge sheet.

17) PW1 deposed that she is the second wife to her husband and victim is her step daughter and after her marriage with the father of the victim, the victim along with her brother stayed in their own house which is situated at a distance from their house. PW1 stated that her step daughter used to work in Renuka

Yellamma Bangle store near their house and there, the victim got acquaintance with the accused who came to fix CCTV cameras in the said shop. PW1 further stated that the accused mesmerized the victim with gullible words and on the false promise of marriage, went to the room of victim and forcibly had sexual intercourse with the victim, as a result, the victim got pregnancy. PW1 further stated that she noticed that the belly of victim increased and enquired with the victim the reason for the same and then the victim narrated the about the incident. PW1 further stated that she took the victim to the hospital where the doctor declared that the victim was pregnant and thereafter the victim made phone calls to the accused, but the phone of accused was switched off and thereafter they searched for the accused but in vain and then they lodged the complaint against the accused with the police.

18)In the cross examination, PW1 stated that the victim died about two years back in Osmania General Hospital where she delivered one girl child and after delivery, the accused taken away the girl child with him and she does not know what happened to that girl. PW1 further stated that while the accused was in jail, 6

SC no. 779 of 2019

on proposal of parents of accused they performed the marriage of victim with the accused and they lived in their house for one month and later, the accused took away the victim to their house. PW1 admitted that she came to know about the facts through victim only and she did not witness anything about the facts.

19)PW2 who is the brother of the victim stated that his sister used to work in

Renuka Yellamma Bangle shop and there she got acquaintance with the accused. PW2 further stated that generally he used to go on his work during early hours in the morning hours and return back by 5:30 to 6PM and he came to know about the facts through his mother only. PW2 further stated that after the victim got pregnancy then his mother tried to perform the marriage of the victim with the accused, but they could not tract out the accused and further he stated that the accused is held responsible of the acts of the accused.

20)In his cross examination, PW2 admitted that he has not disclosed before police that he came to know about the facts of the case through his mother. PW3 who is sister-in-law of the victim also stated on the same lines of PW2.

21)PW4 who is the circumstantial witness has stated that he is neighbour to

PW1 and on the pretext of marriage of PW2, PW1 and her husband living separately from PW2 and victim used to work in a bangle store and she developed friendship with the accused and he noticed the accused three to four times in their lane and when he questioned the accused as to why he is coming to their lane, at that time the victim disclosed that the accused is her friend. PW4 further stated that later the victim got pregnancy and accused left victim/LW1.

PW4 further stated that PW1 who is mother of victim tried to perform the marriage of victim with the accused, and to that when victim made phone calls to the accused, it was always found switched off.

22)PW4 in his cross-examination stated that PW1 and her family members not disclosed before him about the facts of the case and he came to know about the facts from PW1 and victim.

7

SC no. 779 of 2019

23)PW5 who is the panch witness for scene of offence stated that the police disclosed about the facts of the case that the accused on the pretext of marriage had sexual intercourse with one Priyanka and Priyanka got pregnancy and later

Police drafted scene of offence panchanama and obtained his signature.

24)In his cross examination the defence counsel raised several suggestions but he denied the same.

25)PW6 who is the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama has stated that he enquired with the accused and the accused confessed before him that he used to install CCTV Cameras, accordingly, the accused installed

CCTV Camera in Bangle Store where Priyanka i.e., Victim was working, later, the accused developed friendship and fell in love with Priyanka and in the absence of family members the accused used to visit the house of Priyanka and had sexual intercourse with her for four to five times. After some days, Priyanka told the accused that she got pregnancy and thereafter, Priyanka made many phone calls to the accused but the accused switched off his mobile phone. PW6 further stated that in his presence, M.O.1 VIVO mobile phone was seized in his presence.

26)In his cross examination PW6 stated that the police not issued any memo to act as panch witness.

27)PW7 who is the medical officer who conducted clinical examination over the victim stated that she did not find any external injuries on the person of victim and per abdomen uterus size is 22 to 24weeks and external genitalia is healthy and no fresh tears or bleeding or discharge are found, hymen found not intact, vagina is healthy, perineum normal, per vaginal examination admitting two fingers, cervix long. PW7 further stated that she collected smears and swabs, nails and pubic hair and sent the same to to FSL for examination and report. As per FSL report I.e, Ex.P4 semen and spermatozoa are not detected, blood and foreign material or hair not found and she opined that as per clinical and radio- 8

SC no. 779 of 2019

logical examination, the victim 24 to 26weeks pregnant and she issued Medical

Certificate under Ex.P5.

28)PW8 is the Woman ASI of police who recorded the statement of victim as per the instructions of LW10 A. Man Mohan

29)PW9 the medical officer who conducted potency test over the accused stated that he conducted potency test and opined that there is nothing to suggest that the individual examined is not capable of performing act of sexual intercourse, accordingly, he issued Ex.P6 Potency Test Certificate.

30)PW10 who is the investigating officer has deposed that on 14.02.2018 at 6PM, he received a complaint under Ex.P7 from LW1 Sabavath Priyanka who is the victim, and basing on it he registered a case in Cr.no. 120 of 2018 u/sec.

376(2)(n), 420, 493 of IPC and issued Ex.P8 FIR and took up investigation.

PW10 further stated that during the course of investigation, he instructed PW8 to record the statement of victim, and he recorded the statements of PW1 to PW4, visited the scene of offence and secured panch witnesses and conducted scene of offence panchanama and also drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and referred victim to Government Maternity hospital,

Koti for medical examination. PW10 further stated that PW7 examined the victim and issued Medical Certificate and also produced the victim before LW14 M.

Kalpana, III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L. B. Nagar and got recorded the statement of victim u/sec. 164Cr.P.C and he sent the victim to AIDS Control

Society Hyderabad. PW10 further stated that on 16.02.2018, deputed ID party apprehended the accused and produced before him and then he affected the arrest of the accused and recorded the confession statement of the accused in their presence and seized M.O.1 VIVO mobile phone from the possession of accused under cover Ex.P3. PW10 further stated that he referred the accused to

Osmania Medical College to conduct potency test, accordingly PW9 conducted potency test and issued Ex.P6 and thereafter, he referred the accused to AIDS 9

SC no. 779 of 2019

Control Society for HIV Antibody test and thereafter he produced the accused

before court for judicial custody.

31)PW10 in his cross examination admitted that as per Ex.P1, there is a delay in lodging complaint before arrest, but he has not mentioned the same in

FIR and he also admitted that in Col.no.3(b) the date and time mentioned as 14.01.2018 at 18hrs. PW10 again stated that it is a typographical mistake, instead of 14.02.2018, it was typed as 14.01.2018. PW10 admitted that the same is not mentioned in charge sheet or any other document and he has collected the data from service provider, but he has not collected the evidence that the phone of accused was found switched off and PW10 admitted that he has not taken the signature of the service provider. PW10 further admitted that he has not examined the owner of the Bangle Store where the victim used to work. PW10 stated that as the said Bangle store was windup, he could not examine the owner of the Bangle Store where the victim used to work. PW10 stated that he is not aware whether the victim and accused were married as per the Hindu marriage rituals.

32)The learned APP argued that the victim used to work in one bangle stores where she got acquaintance with the accused and later it was developed into love and in the absence of inmates of the family members, the accused used to visit the house of the victim and had sexual intercourse with the victim, as a result, she conceived and from the day when the same was disclosed to the accused the accused started avoiding the victim and then victim lodged Ex.P1 complaint against the accused. The learned APP further argued that from the evidence of PW1 to PW3 it is clear that victim had acquaintance with the accused and love affair existed between both of them and by examining PW4 who is the neighbour of PW1 who witnessed the ingress and egress of accused to the house of victim, the prosecution has established that the accused visited the house of victim in the name of friendship in absence of inmates of the house of victim. Learned APP further argued that in support of the version of PW1 to 10

SC no. 779 of 2019

PW4, the prosecution has examined PW5 and PW6 who are panch witnesses for scene of offence and confession cum seizure panchanama and they supported the version of prosecution. Further, from the medical evidence of PW7 who conducted clinical examination over the victim confirmed the pregnancy which is at the age of 22 to 24weeks and PW9 the medical officer who conducted potency test over the accused opined that the accused is capable of performing sexual act and hence the prosecution has established the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim by visiting the house of the victim in the absence of the inmates of the house of victim, resulting to the pregnancy of the victim.

Therefore from the evidence of PW1 to PW4, the identity of accused is established and from the evidence of PW7 and PW9 medical evidence, prosecution has established that out of the sexual intercourse between victim and accused, victim conceived and is 22 to 24weeks pregnant. Thereby the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused inspite of having sexual intercourse with the victim with a promise of marriage, failed to marry the victim and cheated the victim and prayed to convict the accused.

33) On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused contended that the victim has willfully given her consent to have sexual intercourse with the accused. It is the further case of defence counsel that the PW1 has admitted in her cross examination that they have performed the marriage of victim with the accused and the victim and accused after their marriage, stayed in the house of

PW1 for a period of one month and thereafter accused took victim along with him and stayed in their house and victim delivered a girl child and accused took the custody of said child. It clearly shows the genuine antecedents of the accused. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the evidence of PW1 to PW4 is hearsay nature and the same is admitted in their cross examination which is fatal to the case of prosecution. Further, the DNA test was not conducted over the accused and victim to establish the paternity of the child 11

SC no. 779 of 2019

which is the major lacuna in the case of prosecution and thereby the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Further,there is a delay in lodging FIR which is not properly explained by the prosecution. Hence prayed to acquit the accused. In support of his contention, the learned counsel

for the accused relied upon reported decision Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs.

State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2019 (9) SCC 608 wherien it was held as follows:

18 To summarize the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the “consent” of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.

34)In support of his contention with regard to the charge under section 420 of

IPC, the learned counsel for the accused relied upon reported decision between

Surapathi Laxmana Rao Vs. State of AP rep. By Public Prosecutor reported in 2004 (1) ALT (Crl.) 251 (AP) wherein it was held as follows:

9. It is explicit from the above referred decisions (Uday Vs. State of Karnataka 2003 (1) ALT (Crl.) 326 (SC)) that the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with the person with whom she is in deep love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact. ……

11. …….. When the consent of P.W. 1 who is the victim girl for sexual intercourse is not because of the petitioner/accused promising to marry her, it cannot be said that the petitioner/ accused committed offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC. Since the trial Court and the appellate Court committed grave error in convicting the petitioner/ accused for the offence under Section 417 of IPC it needs to be rectified by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

35)Considering the rival contentions of both the counsels and considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before this court, it reveals that the victim lodged a complaint against the accused stating that the accused had sexual intercourse with her with a false promise of marriage, as a result, she conceived and thereafter, the accused failed to marry her and thereby cheated her.

12

SC no. 779 of 2019

36) It is one of the contention of the counsel for the accused that there is a delay in lodging FIR and the investigating officer has not explained the reasons for delay in lodging Ex.P8 FIR.

37)In a reported decision between State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Prem

Singh AIR 2009 SC 1010, it was observed as under :- "So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the delay in a case of sexual assault, cannot be equated with the case involving other offences. There are several factors which weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the police station to lodge a complaint. In a tradition bound society prevalent in India, more particularly, rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the FIR."

38)In view of the above decision, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused with regard to delay in lodging FIR is brushed aside.

39)It is the further contention of the defence counsel that the victim was in love with the accused and hence she has given her consent to have sexual intercourse.

40)In this regard, the evidence of PW4 plays a vital role. PW4 in his examination in chief stated that he has noticed the accused on three or four occasions visiting the house of victim and on his enquiry, the victim informed him that the accused is her friend. Further, by the time of lodging Ex.P7, the victim was aged about 20yrs i.e., she is a major and is expected to have knowledge about the consequences of having sexual intercourse. From the evidence of

PW4 it is clear that there is a ingress and egress of accused to the house of victim in the absence of the inmates of the house of victim who has admitted

before PW4 that the accused is her friend which shows the welcoming nature of

the victim towards accused. Further, it is a known fact that sexual acts will be committed in isolation, hence eye witness cannot be expected. Therefore, it is established that if a full grown girl consents to the act of sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage and continues in such activity until she becomes pregnant, it is an act of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by misconception of fact.

13

SC no. 779 of 2019

41) Further, on perusal of the evidence of PW1 who is the step mother of victim it reveals that the accused has married the victim as per the rituals of

Hindu Marriage and the accused has taken custody of the child of the victim who died at Osmania General Hospital after delivery. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused has cheated the victim with a false promise of marriage and had sexual intercourse with the victim.

42) In view of above discussion, and in view of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offences punishable u/sec. 376 and 420 of IPC and hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and is entitled of acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

43)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under section 376(2)(n), 420 of IPC framed against accused and accused is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 mobile phone shall be returned to its owner after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer - II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of April, 2021

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL

OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA

REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: Sabavath BujjiNone PW.2: S. Narender PW.3: Sabavath Jaya PW.4: Yacharam Naveen Kumar PW.5: G. Krishna PW.6: M. Sai Kumar PW.7: Dr. V. Suvarna PW.8: B. Hymavathi PW.9: Dr. G,. Venu Gopal Rao PW.10: A. Man Mohan 14

SC no. 779 of 2019

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P2: Rough sketch Ex.P3: Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P4: FSL Report Ex.P5: Medical Certificate Ex.P6: Potency Test Certificate Ex.P7: Complaint Ex.P8: First Information Report

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1: Opinion of Hyderabad University Committee

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

M.O.1 : White colour VIVO Mobile phone

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

15

SC no. 779 of 2019

07.04.2021

Police present, Accused is present. Judgment

pronounced (VSJ) in the open court.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under section 376(2)

(n), 420 of IPC framed against accused and accused is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 mobile phone shall be returned to its owner after expiry of appeal time.

I Spl.CTAW