Smt.K.Nagalakshmi

1Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAKINADA

PRESENT:- Smt. K. Naga Lakshmi

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Friday, this the 28th day of June, 2019

O.S.643/2015

Between:

1. Veeramreddy Vasantharayudu son of Venkayya, Hindu, Aged 16 years, Student, 4-288/2 Sarpavaram Junction, Gaigolapadu, Kakinada.

2. Veeramreddy Sai Venkata Bapanna Dora son of Venkayya, Hindu, Aged 14 years, Student, 4-288/2, Sarpavaram Junction, Gaigolapadu.

(Plaintiffs 1 and 2 being minors represented by their next friend, guardian and mother Veeramreddy Ganga Bhavani Wife of Venkayya, Hindu, Aged 40 years, Student, 4-288/2, Sarpavaram Junction, Gaigolapadu, Kakinada).

(As per the orders passed in IA.240/2019 dt.22.02.2019 the guardian for the 1st plaintiff was discharged and he was declared as major)

...Plaintiffs

And

1. Veeramreddy Venkayamma wife of Vasantharayudu, Hindu, Aged 75 years, Housewife, Door No.1-150 Atchampeta Hamlet of Panadapadu, Kakinada, J.C.J.

2. Kola Narayana Rao Son of Arjuna Rao, Hindu, Aged 37 years,

Cultivation, Door No.1-259, Gomchala, Kakinada, J.C.J. ...Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 13.06.2019 for final hearing in the presence of and Sri. R.V.Subrahmanyam, advocate for plaintiffs and Sri. B.V. Prasad for defendant no.1 and of Sri. B. Radha Krishna, Advocate for defendant No.2, and having been heard and 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 plaintiffs against the defendants for seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over plaint schedule property and for costs.

2.The plaint averments in brief are as under:

The plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are brothers and sons of late Venkayya who is the son of the 1st defendant and Vasantharayudu. Item no.1 of the plaint schedule property has been purchased by Vasantha Rayudu under a registered sale deed dt.27.10.1993 from M. Satyavathi and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same under the above said sale deed. Item no.2 of the plaint schedule property purchased by the said 2Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019

Vasantha Rayudu under 2 registered sale deeds dt.26.06.1999 and 24.07.1999. Since then he was put in possession and enjoyment of the said property until his death. Item no.3 of plaint schedule property purchased by the said Vasantha Rayudu under registered sale deed dt.18.04.1987 and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same since date of purchase of said property. Item no.4 is the residential house portion of the said Vasantha Rayudu.

3.The plaintiffs further submitted that the said Vasantha Rayudu and 1st defendant is having one son and two daughters. The name of the son is

Venkayya who is the father of the plaintiffs Nos.1&2. Venkaiah predeceased Vasantha Rayudu. After death of Venkaiah, the daughters of

Vasantha Rayudu prevailed upon Vasantha Rayudu and they wanted to put spokes in the family of the plaintiffs, even though the said Vasantha

Rayudu is having great love and affection towards the plaintiffs since the father of the plaintiffs has developed the properties. In putting spokes in between the plaintiffs and Vasantha Rayudu, the daughters of Vasantha

Rayudu got filed OS.270/2007 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge

Court, Kakinada and the same was dismissed.

4.The plaintiffs further submitted that after filing of the above suit a compromise has been arrived in between the late Vasantha Rayudu and mother of the plaintiffs on 16.05.2007, where under it is agreed that the plaintiffs shall continue under the guardian ship of their mother and the lands of the plaintiffs situated at Thimmapuram shall be cultivated under the guardianship of the mother of the plaintiffs through Peda Babu and she has to provide best education to the plaintiffs who are minors and also agreed to account for the amount received by her. As per the said settlement the mother of the plaintiff submitted the account to Vasantha

Rayudu. After the said settlement the relationship between the plaintiffs and Vasantha Rayudu became cordial and during course of time Vasantha

Rayudu developed great love and affection towards the plaintiffs. The said 3Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019

Vasantha Rayudu in sound and disposing state of mind executed a will on 02.08.2010 bequeathing the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs, but he gave a right of residence to his wife who is the 1st defendant with regard to 1st floor of item no.1 of the plaint schedule property. The will dt.02.08.2010 is the last will and testament executed by Vasantha Rayudu.

After the execution of the will Vasantha Rayudu died on 12.08.2010. After death of Vasantha Rayudu the plaintiffs became absolute owners of plaint schedule properties and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. As per the will executed by Vasantha Rayudu on 02.08.2010 the plaintiffs got cultivated the item no.1 and 2 of plaint schedule property with the help of maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs. At present the paddy crop has been raised in item no.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property. After compromise arrived in between the Vasantha Rayudu and plaintiffs, the maternal aunt of the plaintiffs stopped their interference and poisoning the mind of Vasantha Rayudu.

5.The plaintiffs further submitted that since few months again they started poisoning the mind of 1st defendant and started creating troubles of the plaintiffs with the assistance of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant along with 10 others tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over plaint schedule property on 28.10.2015 which is subsequently resisted by the plaintiff’s guardian with the help of her father and neighbours. Then the defendant proclaiming that he supported by the 1st defendant and he will come with much force and take possession of the property at any costs. The plaintiffs are apprehending danger to the property since the 2nd defendant is not lawful citizen besides that he is having much physical force in the locality. The plaintiffs being minors taking assistance of their grandfather and continuing their education. If the defendants interfere with the plaint schedule property there will be put to irreparable loss and not in a position to continue their education. Hence, this suit.

4Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019

6.After service of summons, both defendants appear through their counsels and filed their written statements separately denying the averments of the plaint contending that Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu never showed any love and affection towards plaintiffs or the mother of the plaintiffs and there is enmity in between late Veeramreddi Vasantha

Rayudu and the mother of the plaintiffs. No settlement between the

Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu and the mother of the plaintiff with regard to doing the cultivation by the mother of plaintiffs through Peda Babu. The said Peda Babu is the man behind the screen who invented false litigation.

There is no chance of handed over all the self acquired properties of

Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu to the mother of the plaintiffs for doing cultivation through Peda Babu. Either the plaintiffs or mother of the plaintiffs or Peda Babu never in possession of the plaint schedule property at any point of time. During the life time of Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu he alone used to cultivate the land and enjoyed the proceeds derived from the plaint schedule property. After his death, by virtue of the will dt.17.06.2010 executed by Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu in a sound and disposing state of mind all the pliant schedule properties were devolved upon his wife Venkayamma i.e 1st defendant. After death of the

Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu, the 1st defendant alone used to enjoy the plaint schedule property till disposed the same to the 2nd defendant.

Therefore, the 1st defendant became absolute owner of item no.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property by virtue of will dt.17.06.2010 till the date of disposed the same to the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant purchased item no.1 and 2 of plaint schedule property from the 1st defendant on 02.06.2015 under registered sale deed bearing doc. No.2592/2015 and she delivered the possession to the 2nd defendant. Since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by doing cultivation in item no.1 and 2 of schedule properties. After knowing the same the plaintiffs cleverly filed this suit for bare injunction without having any possession 5Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019 over item no.1 and 2 of schedule properties by the time of filing of the suit by creating false and fictitious will dt.02.08.2010 with forged thumb impression. The thumb impression on the alleged will dt.02.08.2010 is not that of the Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu. For that reason the said will is not came into light till date. The said Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu never executed a will dt.02.08.2010 and it is forged one.

7.The defendants further contended that after death of Veeramreddi

Vasantha Rayudu on the cause of mourning days the mother of the plaintiff came to the house of the 1st defendant and might have committed theft of the documents which are revealed through this suit. The 1st defendant is in search of original documents pertaining to item no.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties after the death of her husband late Veeramreddi

Vasantha Rayudu. The fact of custody of the documents by the plaintiff was not known to the defendants till the 1st defendant knows the contents of the suit.

8.The defendants further contended that plaintiffs got knowledge about the alienation made by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant, and got filed this suit on the false grounds without any valid cause of action.

By the time of filing of the suit the plaintiffs are not in possession of the plaint schedule property, mere suit for injunction is not maintainable under law without seeking declaration of the alleged rights. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

9.The 2nd defendant filed written statement reiterating the entire contents in the written statement of the 1st defendant. Further he contended that taking advantage of the custody of original documents which came into light through this suit, the mother of the plaintiffs hatched a plan to squat a way the properties of late Veeramreddi Vasantha

Rayudu. In fact the 1st defendant is in search of original documents pertaining to item no.1 an 2 of plaint schedule properties after death of her 6Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019 husband late Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu. Now it is understood that during the mourning days of Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu the 1st plaintiff being grandson performed the obsequies and when the 1st defendant in the deep mourning state, the mother of plaintiff with an evil thought might have taken all the documents which was not noticed by the 1st defendant at that time and subsequently she was under impression that those documents misplaced and the said fact was also mentioned in the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant is in possession and enjoyment of item no.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property from the date of purchasing the same i.e 02.06.2015.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

10.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues framed for trail by my learned predecessor in office on 10.11.2016.

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property?

2. Whether the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction?

4. To what relief?

11.Substantiating the case of the plaintiff, the mother and natural guardian of plaintiffs got examined as PW.1 and both attestors of will dt.02.08.2010 got examined as PW.2 and PW.4 and one independent witness got examined as Pw.3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7. Denying the claim of the plaintiff and substantiating the defense the 2nd defendant got examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.B1 on behalf of defendants.

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

During the course of trial when the matter is coming for cross examination of DW.1, the 1st plaintiff is declared as major and natural guardian/mother of 1st plaintiff was discharged to act as guardian for 1st plaintiff as per orders in IA.240/2019 dt.22.02.2019.

7Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019

Undisputted Facts:

13.The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the brothers and sons of late Venkayya who is the son of 1st defendant and Vasantha Rayudu. Item no.1 of the plaint schedule property has purchased by Vasantha Rayudu under registered sale deed dt.27.10.1993 from M. Satyavathi. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Item no.2 of the plaint schedule property has purchased by Vasantha Rayudu under 2 registered sale deeds dt.26.06.1999 and 24.07.1999. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Item no.3 of the plaint schedule property purchased by Vasantha Rayudu under registered sale deed dt.18.04.1987.

Since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

Item no.4 is the residential house portion of the Vasantha Rayudu. The said Vasantha Rayudu and 1st defendant got one son and two daughters.

The name of the son is Venkayya who is the father of the plaintiffs.

Venkayya predeceased Vasantha Rayudu. Previously there was a suit

Os.270/2007 was filed between the family of Vasantha Rayudu and the

mother of the plaintiffs. Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu died on 12.08.2010.

14.Issue no.1&3

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction?

These two issues are interlinked issues. Hence, this court discussed together.

15.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued before the court that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the plaint schedule property by virtue of Ex.A6 will executed by grandfather of the plaintiff namely Veeramreddi

Vasantha Rayudu and the possession was delivered to the mother of the plaintiffs as guardian to provide best education to the plaintiffs with the income derived from the plaint schedule property. After death of grandfather of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of 8Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019 plaint schedule property and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The 2nd defendant along with 10 others tried to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over plaint schedule property. The evidence of Pw.1 corroborated by the evidence of

PW.2 to 4 coupled with Ex.A1 to A7 establishes the case of the plaintiffs.

Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to seek permanent injunction.

The counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the following decisions:-

1. Buchi Reddy and others, Appellants v. Ananthula Sudhakar, Respondent (Reported in AIR 1999 Andhra Pradesh 188).

2. Chikkam Koteswara Rao, Appellant v. Chikkam Subbarao and others, Respondents. (Reported in AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1542 (v 58 C 317).

16.Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd defendant argued before the court that mere custody of the documents cannot be proved the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment over plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Ex.A6 is created one and the evidence let in on behalf of the plaintiffs goes to contra to the pleadings. The plaintiffs must succeed on strength of his own case and cannot depend upon the weakness of the case of the defendants. The counsel for the 2nd defendant relied upon the following decisions:-

1. Margadarshini Educational Society v. P.Subhashan and another. (Reported in 2009 (3) ALD 655).

17.The claim of the plaintiffs substantiated by the oral evidence of the guardian of the plaintiffs as PW.1. She filed her chief examination affidavit in lieu of her chief examination reiterating the entire contents as in the plaint.

18.To get corroboration the plaintiff’s got examined PW.2 to PW.4. The 2nd attestor of Ex.A6 got examined as PW.2. He deposed that previously some disputes took place between the mother of the plaintiffs and in her in laws family and subsequently a compromise has been arrived in between the mother of the plaintiff and her in laws family. As per the said 9Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019 compromise the lands of grandfather of the plaintiffs were given to the plaintiffs and those are cultivated under the guardian ship of mother of the plaintiff through one Peda Babu for providing best education to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, out of love and affection the grandfather of the plaintiffs executed a will in favour of the plaintiffs bequeathing the plaint schedule property. The grandfather of plaintiff executed Ex,.A6 will in sound and disposing state of mind in favour of the plaintiffs in his presence. Himself and one Veyanka Venugunti Subharayudu singed as attestors.

19.PW.3 deposed that he is the relative of grandfather of the plaintiffs namely Veramreddi Vasantha Rayudu. Previously some suit were pending between the plaintiffs mother and the family of Veramreddi Vasantha

Rayudu. After filing the said suits compromise has been arrived. After settlement the relationship between plaintiffs and Vasantha Rayudu became cardial and the Vasantha Rayudu developed great love and affection towards plaintiffs. The said veeramreddi vasantha Rayudu possessed nearly 7 kunchas of land in Thimmapuram. It is the neighbouring property of his property. He has to cross the property of

Vasantha Rayudu to reach his property.

20.Whereas coming to the evidence of PW.4 he deposed in his chief examination that he is the maternal grandfather of plaintiffs and father of the PW.1. Further he deposed that previously some disputes arose between PW.1 and her in laws family and filed OS.270/2007 which has dismissed on merits. After filing of the said suit a compromise has been arrived in between the Vasantha Rayudu and PW.1. Due to that the plaintiffs shall continue under the guardianship of PW.1 and the lands of

Veeramreddi vasantha Rayudu have given to the plaintiffs and the same is cultivated by the pW.1 through pedababu. In the above suit the said

Vasantha Rayudu has given evidence as DW.2 and he stated that the 10Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019 disputes have settled and compromise memorandum has executed with terms and conditions agreed by them. Due to the death of Vasantha

Rayudu the 1st defendant falsely contended that there is no compromise.

During the life time of Vasantha Rayudu in sound and disposing state of mind executed a will on 02.08.2010. At the time of execution of the said will he was present and he signed as 1st attestor. After death of

Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu, the plaintiffs came into possession of the schedule property. The 1st defendant brought into existence of the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant to harass the plaintiffs and the said sale deed is shame and nominal document. The 2nd defendant never in possession of the plaint schedule property.

21. As against the claim of the plaintiffs and substantiating the contention of the 2nddefendant he got examined as DW.1 and got marked

Ex.B1. He filed his chief examination affidavit in lieu of his chief examination reiterating the entire contents as in his written statement.

22.This is a suit for bare permanent injunction the court only looked into whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and whether the defendants tried to interfere into the possession of the plaintiffs.

23.It is the case and contention of the plaintiffs that during the pendency of the previous suit between the Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu who is the grandfather of the plaintiffs and the mother of the plaintiffs, there was a compromise took place between them on 16.05.2007, the lands situated at Thimmapuram shall be cultivated by the mother of the plaintiffs through Pedababu and the income derived from the said lands used for providing best education to the plaintiffs. Subsequently the said

Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu out of love and affection towards plaintiffs executed a Ex.A6 will dt.02.08.2010 bequeathing the plaint schedule 11Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019 property to the plaintiffs by giving right of residence to the 1st defendant in the 1st floor of item no.4 of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, as per the contention of the plaintiffs the possession was given to the plaintiffs during the life time of said Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu. In order to prove the possession and title over plaint schedule property, the plaintiffs filed Ex.A1 to A5 viz., pattadhar pass book, title deed and sale deeds of item no. & 3 of plaint schedule property stands in the name of

Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu. A glance at item no.1 to 3 of plaint scheduleproperty those are agricultural lands and the plaintiff filed

Pattadhar pass book and title deed relating to the item no.1 and 2 of schedule property.

24.As per the contention of the defendant the plaintiffs mother stolen

Ex.A1 to A5, when the plaintiffs and their mother stayed in the house of 1st defendant during the mourning days of late Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu and E.xA6 will is forged document.

25.Further they contended that no compromise took place between

Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu and the mother of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove that they are the lawful custodian of the documents ie.Ex.A1 to A5. But the plaintiffs kept silent in this aspect. Even there is no suggestion to the DW.1 in this regard. Further the counsel for 2nd defendant argued that Ex.B1 sale deed executed by 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant clearly reflects that Ex.A1 to A5 were misplaced. A glance at Ex.B1 there is a recital about missing of documents Ex.A1 to A5. Furthermore Ex.B1 is executed prior to filing of the suit. Further Pw.2 and Pw.4 who are the attestors of Ex.A6 not stated single sentence about the handing over the documents of Ex.A1 to A5 to the plaintiffs at the time of execution of alleged will i.e Ex.A6. Therefore, there is no reasonable explanation on part of the plaintiff with regard to the lawful custody of Ex.A1 to A5 with plaintiffs. Further the plaintiffs did 12Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019 not file any compromise deed as alleged by the plaintiffs to prove the compromise took place between Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu and the mother of the plaintiffs. Therefore, mere custody of the documents cannot prove the possession of the property. Further the plaintiffs contended that as per the said compromise the possession of the plaint schedule property has given to the plaintiff’s mother to cultivate the same through Pedababu.

But the plaintiff failed to examine the said Peda Babu to prove whether

Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu had given the possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs. Except filing pass book, title deed and sale deeds with regard to item no.1 to 3 of plaint schedule property stands in the name of Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu, no document is filed to prove the possession of the plaintiffs over plaint schedule property. As per the case of the plaintiffs the possession of the schedule property was given to the plaintiffs in the year 2007 as per the compromise. But till the date of filing of the present suit, the name of the plaintiffs were not mutated in the revenue records with regard to the plaint schedule property. On this point there is no explanation on part of the plaintiff. Further as per the contention of the plaintiffs after death of Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu

Ex.A6 will dt.02.08.2010 came into force and plaintiffs became the absolute owners of plaint schedule property from the date of death of

Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu and they cultivating the plaint schedule property with the help of their maternal grandfather. In this regard there is no worth noting evidence on part of the plaintiff to show when Peda Babu has given the possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs to their own cultivation.

26.Further the defendants contended that Ex.A6 will dt.02.08.2010 is forged one. As per the evidence of PW.1 there is no necessity to their counsel to draft their pleadings against them. Further she deposed that after filing of the suit the dispute between her and her mother in law not pacified and no talking terms between them. Further she deposed that 13Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019 after filing the suit her mother in law did not hand over any document to her. Further she deposed that the description of the documents mentioned in the plaint as original will is within the custody of the 1st defendant.

During the course of trial the said will was filed by the plaintiffs without obtaining the same from 1st defendant. Further she deposed that Ex.A6 will was handed over to their counsel at the time of filing of the suit. But as per the endorsement in the description of the listed documents in the plaint, it clearly shows that Ex.A6 original will is within the custody of the 1st defendant. Therefore, it is an obligation on part of the plaintiffs to remove the suspicious circumstances as alleged by the defendants. It is an admitted fact that it is mere permanent injunction suit, title cannot be decided and validity of the will also cannot be decided. But the plaintiffs in one breath contended that they have taken possession from Peda Babu when the Ex.A6 will came into force. Even though this aspect is kept a side, PW.1 deposed that during the life time of said Veeramreddi Vasantha

Rayudu, he enjoyed the property peacefully till his death. In another breath PW.1 deposed that as per the compromise deed the plaint schedule property was handed over to the plaintiffs on 16.10.2007. It is also contrary to the pleadings in the plaint as they mentioned that on 16.05.2007, compromise took place between Veeramreddi Vasantha

Rayudu and the mother of plaintiffs. Therefore, two contrary statements of the PW.1 cannot be believed. Further PW.1 deposed that she never did any financial transactions and rundered accounts with her father in law during his life time. Further she categorically stated that she filed suit for recovery of plaint schedule property. PW.4 who is the father of PW.1 and maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs also stated that the present suit is filed for recovery of plaint schedule property. Such statement itself is sufficient to prove that the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

14Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019

27.Whereas coming to the evidence of PW.2 who is said to be 2nd attestor of Ex.A6 will dt.02.08.2010, during his cross examination, he deposed that he never acted as elder in any compromise during the life time of said Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu. He does not know the civil disputes of the said Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu during his life time. At the time of drafting his chief examination affidavit he has verified the original will and further stated that he identified his signature on the said will. At the time of execution of E.xA6 himself, Veeramreddi Vasantha

Rayudu and scribe alone were present. Further he deposed that the said

Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu said to the plaintiffs to take possession of the schedule property after his demise. Whereas, coming to the evidence of PW.3 in his cross examination he deposed that he does not know who filed this suit and against whom it is filed. Further he deposed that he does not know the contents of his chief examination affidavit. Therefore, the statement itself is sufficient to exclude the evidence of PW.3.

28.PW.4 who is the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs and father of

PW.1 and also the 1st attestor of Ex.A6 will dt.02.08.2010, he deposed that previously two suits were filed between Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu and

Pw.1 and both are compromised. Further he deposed that the compromise was not recorded into the court. Further he deposed that no property was given to Pw.1 under said compromise deed. Further he deposed that the plaint schedule property is acquired by Pw.1 through will executed by

Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu. Further he deposed that he was present at the time of execution of Ex.A6 and the said Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu handed over the documents, will and other related papers with regard to the plaint schedule property to him. At that time the testator Veeramreddi

Vasantha Rayudu, Veeramreddi Sathibabu, scribe by name Olaganti

Satyanarayana and himself were present. Further he deposed that he has handed over the Ex.A6 will to their counsel at the time of filing of the suit.

After filing of the suit till today he did not saw the Ex.A6. Further he 15Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019 categorically stated that her daughter/PW.1 came into the possession of the plaint schedule property after death of senior Veeramreddi Vasantha

Rayudu. Further he admitted that after death of said Veeramreddi

Vasantha Rayudu the income deriving from his properties is only source of income for maintaining of the 1st defendant. Further he deposed that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs to hand over the possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs. Further he deposed that he got knowledge about the alienation of the plaint schedule property by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant through sale deed.

29.Therefore, as per the evidence of PW.4 that said Veeramreddi

Vasantha Rayudu executed Ex.A6 will and all documents along with will were handed over to him. But there is no pleadings in this regard and the endorsement in description of the listed documents in the plaint reflects that the said will is in the custody of 1st defendant. He admitted that he has gone through the evidence of PW.1. So that he deposed the said fact to cover up the Lacunas in the evidence of Pw.1. Further as per his evidence he was present at the time of execution of will. But as per the evidence of PW.2, PW.4 was not present at the time of execution of Ex.A6.

Further as per PW.4 evidence, the plaint schedule property is only the source of income to the 1st defendant for her maintenance and no property was given to the plaintiffs under compromised deed. The plaintiffs came into possession after death of Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu.

30.The 1stdefendant did not turn up to cross examine PW.1 to PW.4 and also failed to adduce her evidence. The 2nddefendant is the purchaser of item no.2 of plaint schedule property. He got examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Ex.B1 sale deed stands in the name of the 2nd defendant.

31.It is a suit for bare permanent injunction the plaintiff has to prove their case on the strength of their own case without depending upon the weakness of the case of defendants.

16Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019

32.To substantiate the contention of the plaintiffs, they cross examined

DW.1 at length. But nothing could be elicited from the mouth of witness to prove the contention of the plaintiffs. There is no worth noting evidence on behalf of the plaintiff to prove the possession and enjoyment of the of plaint schedule property except the sale deeds stands in the name of

Veeramreddi Vasantha Rayudu. As per the contention of the plaintiffs, item no.4 of plaint schedule property is the RCC building and in the said building the 1st floor is in the occupation of 1st defendant and the ground floor is in the possession of the plaintiffs. But they did not file any tax receipts, electricity bills or any other documents to prove their possession over item no.4. Further the evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 not at all helpful to the case of plaintiff to prove the possession of plaintiffs over plaint schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs utterly failed to prove their possession over plaint schedule property. Accordingly these two issues are answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.

33.ISSUE NO.2

2. Whether the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration?

It is the case and contention of the defendants that by the time of filing of the suit the plaintiffs got knowledge about the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant and put him in possession of item no.1 and 2 of schedule property, mere suit for injunction is not maintainable under law without seeking declaration of their alleged rights.

In such a case there is a cloud on the title of the plaintiffs over plaint schedule property and the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit for declaration of title instead of simple suit for injunction. It may be a fact that prior to filing of the suit, there is no exchange of notices denying the title. However, PW.1 and PW.4 admitted that they got knowledge about sale transaction between the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant with regard 17Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019 to item no.1 and 2 of plaint schedule property after filing of the suit. At least subsequent to the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs ought to have amend the plaint for seeking declaration of title instead of continuing the suit for injunction. In such a case simple suit for injunction is not maintainable. The plaintiffs could not establish that E.xA6 is genuine document and under it a valid title was conveyed to the plaintiffs. Even

Ex.A6 is believed, it cannot be proved the possession of the plaintiffs over plaint schedule property. The evidence of PW.2 and PW.4 with regard to

Ex.A6 is no way helpful to prove the possession of the plaintiffs over plaint schedule property. As there is no sufficient evidence on part of the plaintiffs to prove their possession, the voluminous evidence regarding their title and the predecessor in title is of no use. The decisions submitted by the both parties are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the presence case. Under these circumstances the plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction against defendants.

Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.

34.ISSUE NO.4:- To what relief?

In the above forgoing discussion in issue nos.1 to 3, considering the pleadings of the both parties and the evidence of both oral and documentary let in by the both parties, the plaintiffs failed to establish their contention. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for seeking the relief of permanent injunction. This issue is answered accordingly.

35.In the result, the suit stands dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 28th day of June 2019.

Sd/- K. Naga Lakshmi

II ADDL. JR. CIVIL JUDGE,

KAKINADA.

18Fairjudgment OS.643/15,Dt.28.06.2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: P.W.1: Veeramreddy Ganga bhavani DW.1: Kola Narayana Rao P.W.2: V. Sathi Babu P.W.3: Veeramreddy Venkateswara Rao P.W.4: Inuganti Subbarayudu

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For Plaintif: Ex.A1/---: The pattadar pass book for items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property in favour of Vasantharayudu. Ex.A2/---: The title deed pass book for items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property in favour of Vasantharayudu.

Ex.A3/26.06.1999: The registered sale deed in favour of Vasantharayudu.

Ex.A4/24.07.1999: The registered sale deed in favour of Vasantharayudu for part of item no.2 of the pliant schedule property.

Ex.A5/18.04.1987: The registered sale deed in favour of Vasantharayudu for item no.3 of the plaint schedule property.

Ex.A6/02.08.2010: The will executed by Vasantharayudu.

Ex.A7/---: The death extract of Vasantharayudu.

For Defendant:

Ex.B1/02.06.2015: The registered sale deed bearing no.2592/2015 stood in the name of the 2nd defendant executed by the 1st defendant.

Sd/- K. Naga Lakshmi

II AJCJ

1 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAKINADA

PRESENT:- Smt. K. Naga Lakshmi

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Monday, this the 24th day of June, 2019

O.S. 330/2014

Between: Paruchuri Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Venkata Krishnayya, Age 65 years, Occ: Retired Employee, T/o. Door No.2-37-15/2, Bathinavari Street, Alcott Gardens, Rajahmundry. ...Plaintif

And

1.Chintakayala Ravi Babu, S/o.Lova Raju, Age. 63years, Occ:Retired Employee, R/o. Door No.1-1-35, Srungavarm Village, Machavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2.R. Sannibabu, S/o.Kannama Naidu, Age.50 years, Occ:Retired Employee, R/o.Door No.5-10-38/1, Bank Colony, 1st Line, Tuni, East Godavari District.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 06.06.2019 for final hearing in the presence of and Sri. Batchu Rajesh, advocate for plaintif and suit is abated against 1st defendant and of Sri. Marla Narasimha Rao, Advocate for 2nd defendant, and having been heard and 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 plaintif against the defendants for seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over plaint schedule property.

2.The plaint averments in brief are as under:

The plaintif is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

The plaint schedule property is vacant house site of an extent of 918.33 sq,yards situated in RS.No.17, Patta No.314 of Thimmapuram village,

Kakinada. Originally the plaint schedule property belongs to Ravi

Mangayamma W/o.Venkata Rao. She has acquired the property along with some other property by virtue of sale deed dt.24.03.1984 executed by Velugubanti Latsa Rao which was registered as Doc No.2552/1984.

Thereafter, she sold away the schedule property to Donepudi Arjuna Rao for a sale consideration Rs.13,78,000/- and executed a sale deed 2 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019 dt.18.01.2012 in his favour and delivered the possession of the schedule property to him. The said sale deed was registered as Doc no.267/2012.

3.The plaintif further submitted that Donepudi Arjuna Rao in turn sold the schedule property to Parchuri Krishnakanth who is the son of plaintif on 19.01.2012 and has executed a possessory agreement of sale with general power of attorney and delivered the possession of the schedule property authorizing Parchuri Krishnakanth to execute sale deed in his favour or in favour of his nominees. The said sale deed cum general power of attorney is registered as Doc.No.280/2012.

4.The plaintif further submitted that his son namely Parchuri

Krishnakanth has executed a registered sale deed dt.17.12.2012 basing on the possessory agreement of sale cum general power of attorney dt.19.01.2012 in favour of the plaintif conveying the title over plaint schedule property to the plaintif. The said document is registered as

Doc.No.5474/2012 in sub-register officer, Samalkot. Thus the plaintif became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. Ever since the plaintif is in the possession of the plaint schedule property as absolute owner without hindrance from the 3rd party.

5.The plaintif further submitted that he used to visit the plaint schedule property, whenever he has occasion to come Kakinada. On 09.08.2014 the plaintif’s husband came to know that the defendants herein have come to schedule property and tried to encroach the same and to make some constructions there in. Immediately the plaintif along with one Nethala Ramachandra Rao rushed to the plaint schedule property and found the defendants there. Then the plaintif questioned the defendants as to why they are trying to encroach the schedule property. The defendants did not give proper reply nor produce any title deeds. The plaintif has informed the defendants that the plaintif got surveyed the property recently through the Mandal Surveyor and that the 3 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019 said mandal surveyor demarcated the schedule property and has also shown the boundaries fixed by the surveyor. Then the defendants have claimed that they got title deed in their favour and that they will bring the title deeds for verification of boundaries of their properties. Then the plaintif has given his contact number and also obtained the mobile numbers of the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintif asked the defendants to come up with their title deeds for proper verification of the boundaries with respect of the title deeds of both parties. But the defendants did not respond inpite of several phone calls made by the plaintif.

6.The plaintif further submitted that recently on 23.08.2014 the defendants again went to the schedule property without intimating to the plaintif. The plaintif came to know the same through the villages and rushed to the plaint schedule property along with Nethala Ramachandra

Rao. By the time of reaching the schedule property, the defendants have left the schedule property. The plaintif is apprehending a highhanded encroachment by the defendants into the plaint schedule property. The plaintif is the permanent resident of Rajahmundry and the defendants are highhanded person and has no respect for law and order. The defendants have no right to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over plaint schedule property. Hence, this suit.

7.After service of summons, the defendants 1 and 2 appeared through their counsel. After appearance of the defendants, the 1st defendant died. No steps have been taken by the plaintif. Hence, suit is abated against 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant field written statement denying the averments of the plaint contended that the alleged documents mentioned in the plaint are not binding on the defendants. The 2nd defendant is the owner of the plot no.7 and the 1st defendant is the owner of the plot no.4. So the question of 4 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019 encroachment does not arose. D1 and D2 are the absolute owners of their respective sites in the same layout. The plaintif has purchased a park site in the layout and trying to encroach in the sites of defendant’s no.1 and 2 on the guise of false, fabricated and fake document. The plaintif has no title or interest in the property of this defendants.

8.The 2nd defendant further contended that originally the landed property of Ac.3.40 cents is the self acquired property of Velugubanti

Ramarao, Subbarao, Rambabu, Latsa babu, Latcha Rao, Suribabu and

Srinivas who purchased the same on 21.04.1981 from uppuluri

Venkatadri Satyanarayana under Doc.No.862/1981. The said brothers have orally partitioned the property and Ac.1.90 cents was allotted to

V.Ramarao, Subbarao, Rambabu, Latcha babu. These four persons have divided their land along with others land into the plots with layout plan no.52/2002 and sold an extent of 260sq.yards in plot no.7 to the 2nd defendant under sale deed dt.30.10.2003 bearing doc.No.3310/2003 and also sold an extent of 228 sq.yards in plot no.4 to the 1st defendant under sale deed dt.27.09.2003 bearing doc.No.3028/2003. Since then the defendants have been possession and enjoyment of their respective sites.

9.The 2nd defendant further contended that he used to visit his plot very often. In the month of July 2014 when the 2nd defendant placing the boundaries stones some people tried to remove the stones alleging that the site belongs to the plaintif. Then this defendant has shown his document and layout plan to them. Then the said unknown persons left the place.

10.The 2nd defendant further contended that the landed property was divided into the plots with LP.No.52/2002. The plaintif is claiming right on the public site. The vendor of the plaintif has no right to sell the property and the plaintif has no right to purchase the same. There is 5 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019 road between open site and plot no.7 and plot no.4 which belongs to this defendant and 1st defendant. The plaintif is also claiming right on the public road. The defendants are the absolute owners of the plot no.7 and plot no.4. The plaintif as no right title or interest in the schedule property. The plaintif is nothing but a land grabber. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

11.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues framed for trail by my learned predecessor in office on 05.07.2016.

1. Whether the plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for permanent injunction?

3. To what relief?

12.During the course of trail, on behalf of the plaintif, the plaintif, himself got examined as PW.1 and independent witness got examined as

PW.2 and got marked EX.A1 to Ex.A7. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants, the 2nd defendant got examined as DW.1, and the other independent witnesses got examined as DW.2 to DW.5 and got marked

Ex.B1 to B6.

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

14.Issue no.1&2:

1. Whether the plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for permanent injunction?

These two issues are interlinked issues. Hence, this court discussed together.

15.The counsel for the plaintif argued before the court that by virtue of Ex.A1 registered sale deed, the plaintif has became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The same was purchased by the plaintif from his lawful vendors. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants are highhanded persons and no respect for law and order, tried to encroach the schedule property and to make some construction there in without any right or title over plaint 6 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019 schedule property. The plaintif establishes his title and possession over plaint schedule property by examining PW.1 and PW.2 supported with documentary evidence of Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. Hence, the plaintif is entitled for the decree.

16.The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant argued before the court that the defendants are the absolute owner of the plot no.4 and plot no.7 of the property and they are the absolute owners of the said property situated in LP.No.52/2002. They purchased the same under registered sale deeds dt.30.10.2003 and 27.09.2003. The plaintif without having right, title or interest in plot no.4 & 7 claiming right over the defendants property along with public site situated in LP.NO.52/2002 by alleging that they purchased the same from his son. The documents filed by the plaintif are fake and created by the plaintif along with their son and the vendor of the plaintif.

17.The counsel for the 2nd defendant highlighted the proposition of law in various pronouncements by the Hon’ble high court of AP, by arguing that the defendants denying the title of the plaintif over plaint schedule property and there is genuine dispute with regard to the title over plaint schedule property. Hence, the plaintif is not entitle for seeking the relief of permanent injunction without seeking the relief of declaration of the right over plaint schedule property. The counsel for the 2nd defendant relied upon the following decisions:-

1. Potluri Srinivas Chaowdary and another (Reported in LAWS (APH) 2016 1258.

2. JHARKHAD STATE Housing board vs. Didar Singh and another (Reported in LAWS (SC) 2018 10 109.

18.At this juncture, to substantiating the pleadings made in the plaint, the plaintif got examined himself as PW.1 and one independent witness as Pw.2 and got marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. Upon the chief examination 7 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019 of the PW.1 he deposed that the he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is vacant site of an extent of 918.33 sq.yards situated in RS.No.17, Patta no.314 of

Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada. Originally the plaint schedule property belongs to Ravi Mangayamma. She acquired the same by virtue of sale deed dt.24.03.1984 executed by Velugubanti Latcha Rao. Subsequently she sold away the schedule property to Dhonipudi Arjuna Rao by executing Ex.A3 sale deed dt.18.01.2012 and delivered the possession of the schedule property. The said Dhonipudi Arjuna Rao in turn sold the schedule property to Purchuri Krishnakanth who is the son of the plaintif under Ex.A2 possessory sale agreement cum general power of attorney dt.19.01.2012. Then the plaintif’s son Parchuri Krishnakanth has executed registered sale deed dt.17.12.2012 in favour of the plaintif conveying the title over plaint schedule property to the plaintif.

Therefore, the plaintif became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

19.Further PW.1 deposed that he used to visit the plaint schedule property whenever he has occasion to come to Kakinada. On 09.08.2014 he came to know that the defendants came to the schedule property and tried to encroach and to make to some construction there in.

Immediately he along with Nethala Ramachandra Rao rushed to the plaint schedule property and questioned the defendants as to why they are trying to encroach the plaint schedule property. But the defendants did not give any proper reply nor produce any title deeds. Then he informed the defendants that he got surveyed the schedule property through mandal surveyor and the surveyor demarcated the schedule property and also shown the boundaries. Then the defendants have claimed that they got title deeds in their favour. Then he asked the defendants to come with their title deed for verification. But they did not respond, inspite of several phone calls made by him.

8 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019

20.He further deposed that recently on 23.08.2014 the defendants again went to the plaint schedule property. The same was came to know through the villagers and he along with Nethala Ramachandra Rao rushed to the schedule property. By seeing then the defendants have left the schedule property.

21.PW.2 is also deposed in the same lines as that of PW.1 by asserting that he went to the schedule property along with Pw.1 when defendants tried to enter into the schedule property and to make construction in the schedule property. On questioning them the defendants went away from the schedule property.

22.As against the case of the plaintif and to substantiate the case of the defendants, the 2nd defendant got examined as DW.1. Upon his chief examination, he deposed that the documents filed by the plaintif are not binding upon him and also on 1st defendant. He is the owner of the plot no.7 and the 1st defendant is the owner of plot no.4. So the question of encroachment does not arise. D1 and himself is the owner of the plot no.4 and 7 in the same layout. The plaintif has purchased a park site in the layout and trying to encroach into the site of defendants under the guise of false and fabricated documents without any manner of right. He further deposed that originally the land property of Ac.03.40cents is self acquired property of Velugubanti Ramarao, Subba Rao, Ram babu, Latcha

Babu, Latcha Rao, Suri babu and Srinivas who purchased the same on 21.04.1981 from Uppuluri Venkatadri Satyanarayana bearing doc.no.862/1981. Later the said brothers have orally partitioned the property and Ac.01.90 cents was allotted to V.Rama Rao, Subba Rao, Ram

Babu and Latcha Babu. Those 4 persons have divided their land along with others land into plots with layout plan no.52/2002 and sold an extent of 260 sq. yards in plot no.7 to him under sale deed dt.30.10.2003 and also sold an extent of 228 sq. yards in plot no.4 to the 1st defendant 9 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019 under sale deed dt.27.09.2003 since the date of purchase himself and 1st defendant have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective sites.

23.DW.1 further deposed that in the month of July 2014 when he placing the boundary stones, some peoples who are not known to him tried to remove the stones alleging that the site belongs to the plaintif.

Then he has shown his document to the said persons then they left from that place. The plaintif is claiming right on public site. The vendor of the plaintif has no right to sell the property. There is a road between the open site and plot no.7 and plot no.4 which belongs to the defendants.

The plaintif is claiming right on the public road.

24.The 2nd defendant got examined the relative of the defendants namely Yeka Satyanarayana as DW.2. Upon his chief examination he deposed that he made inquiries about the site alleged to have been purchased by the plaintif at request of his brother in law/1st defendants.

The 1st defendant purchased 228 sq. yards in plot no.4 and the 2nd defendant purchased 260 sq. yards in plot no.7 in LP.NO.52/2002 from

Velugubanti people. The document executed by the Ravi Mangayamma in favour of D. Arjuna Rao, enclosed the ration card of Ravi Mangayamma for identification proof by alleging that she has resided in Door no.1-136 of Panasapadu Village. He has applied under RTI Act with regard to the correctness of door number of Ravi Mangayamma. The panchayat secretary addressed a letter dt.17.06.2016 mentioning that there is no such door number in Panasapadu panchayat and also he applied under

RTI act to the Tahsildhar samalkot for information with regard to the genuinous of ration card which was shown as address proof in doc.

No.267/2012. The Tahsildhar of samalkota as per his letter dt.22.02.2017 stated that no record is available with regard to the ration card affixed in doc.no.267/2012.

10 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019

25.He further deposed that he made a representation to the district registrar, east Godavari Kakinada to cause enquiry about fraudulent registration of Doc.no.267/2012 which is in the name of D.Arjuna Rao.

The district registrar after thoroughly enquiry directed sub-register

Kakinada not to entertain any registrations in plot no.4 and 7 in

Lp.no.52/2002 in survey no.72/2017 of panasapadu village executed by

D.Arjuna Rao and P. Krishnakanth. The plaintif has no right in the property and he never in possession of the schedule property. The defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the plot no.4 and 7 in

Lp.no.52/2002.

26.Further the 2nd defendant got examined his neighbour namely

Gullipalli Murali Krishna as Dw.3. He deposed that he purchased plot no.1 from Velugubanti people in the year 2003. The defendants purchased plot no.4 and 7. Since then the defendants and their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same.

27.Further the vendor of the defendants got examined as Dw.4. He deposed that himself and his brothers have purchased Ac.03.40cents himself and his brothers have jointly sold away the sites to the defendants and executed a sale deeds in their favour. The photo affixed in E.xA3 is not that of Rayi Mangayamma. She is presently residing at

Rajahmundry.

28.Further the 2nddefendant got examined the said Ravi

Mangayamma as DW.5. She deposed that she has sold away her property an extent of Ac.0.50 cents to the 3rd party in and around 2002.

The photo affixed in the sale deed which was shown to her does not belongs to her. She never sold away any property to anybody beyond 2002. Her sur-name is Rayi but not Ravi.

29.This is a suit for bear permanent injunction the court only looked into whether the plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint 11 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019 scehduel property as on the date of filing of the suit and the whether the defendants tried to enter into the possession and enjoyment of the plaintif’s over plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is vacant site. Therefore, the possession follows title in case of vacant site.

Therefore, the court taken into consideration of the title over plaint schedule property incidentally to decide de-Jure possession over plaint schedule property.

30.It is the case and contention of the plaintif that the plaintif is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by purchasing the same under Ex.A1 sale deed from her son. The plaintif’s son acquired the same under Ex.A2 posesssory sale agreement cum general power of attorney executed by Donepudi Arjuna Rao. The said Arjuna Rao purchased the same under Ex.A3 from Ravi Mangayamma. Per contra the 2nd defendant contented that the plaintif claiming the right over plot no.4 and plot no.7 which belongs to the defendants along with parking place without having any right. The defendants purchased plot no.4 and 7 in LP.no.52/2002 from lawful vendors under Ex.B2. The 2nd defendant further contended that the so called Ravi Mangayamma is not original

Rayi Mangayamma. The counsel for 2nd defendant argued that originally the landed property of Ac.03.40cents is self acquired property of

Velugubanti people who purchased the same under Doc.No.862/1981.

Later the said Velugubanti brothers orally partitioned and Ac.01.90cents was allotted to Velugubanti Rama rao, Subba Rao, Ram babu and Latcha babu. These four persons have divided their land along with others land into plots with layout no.52/2002 and sold an extent of 260 sq.yrds in plot no.7 to the 2nd defendant under Ex.B2 sale deed and plot no.4 to the 1st defendant. Since then they are in possession and enjoyment of their respective plots. In this regard Pw.1 deposed that his vendor is his son.

His son purchased the schedule property from Dhonepudi Arjuna Rao.

The said Dhone pudi Arjuna Rao purchased the schedule property from 12 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019

Ravi Mangayamma. Further he deposed that the he will examine the said

Arjuna Rao who is the vendor of his son. But he did not examine the said

Arjuina Rao to prove his vendor’s title over plaint schedule property. He further deposed that the said Arjuna Rao purchased the plaint schedule property from Ravi Mangayamma under Ex.A3. As per the contention of the defendants the said Mangayamma who executed Ex.A3 is not real

Mangayamma. It is suggested PW.1 that the ration card photo copy in page no.5 of Ex.A3 is not genuine and it does not belongs to the real Rayi

Mangayamma. But the same was denied by the Pw.1. Further he denied the suggestion that the signature in Ex.A3 does not belongs to the real

Mangayamma. Further he dined this suggestion that the said Arjuna Rao colluding with Rayi Mangayamma and executed Ex.A3 though she is not the owner of the property. It is the case of the 2nd defendant that as per

Ex.B3 the Ravi Mangayamma never resided in door no.1-136,

Panasapadu Village and there is no such door number in panasapadu village. For that the counsel for plaintif argued that Ex.B3 obtained for the information with regard to 2016 to know whether the said

Mangayamma is residing in door no.1-136 in the year 2016 but as per

Ex.A3 said Mangayyamma was resided in door no.1-136 at the time of execution of Ex.A3. Therefore, Ex.B3 is not at all helpful to the case of the 2nd defendant. Further 2nd defendant contended that the copy of ration card of Ravi Mangayamma which is enclosed with Ex.A3 as identity proof of executant does not belongs to the real Mangayamma and it is not genuine one. As per Ex.B4 it clearly establishes that no ration card was issued in the name of Rayi Mangayamma and her husband in

Panasapadu Village. During the cross examination of PW.1 he deposed that he doesn’t know whether the defendants approached Rayi

Mangayamma and questioned about Ex.A1 to A3. Then the real

Mangayamma stated that the photo graph and signature in Ex.A3 does not belong to her and then she addressed a letter to the district registrar.

13 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019

But the defendants proved the same by filing E.xB5. Further the Aadhar card copy of Ravi Mangayamma enclosed with Ex.B5 clearly reflects that she was resided in door no.1-64 of Panasapadu village but not in door no.1-136. But as per Ex.A3 Ravi Mangayamma was resided in door no.1- 136 of Panasapadu village. Ex.B3 clearly reflects that Rayi Mangayamma never resided in door no.1-136. Further PW.1 deposed that he does not know whether the MRO gave certificate that the ration card shown in

Ex.A3 page no.5 was not issued by MRO office. Further he denied that the grama panchayat panansapadu village issued proceedings stating that the door no.1-136 is not in existence at panasapadu village. The same fact is proved by the 2nd defendant by filing Ex.B4 certificate issued by Tahsildhar samalkot by stating that no ration card was granted in the name of husband of Rayi Mangayamma at Panasapadu (v).

31.Further the 2nddefendant contended that the real Rayi

Mangayamma made an application to the District registrar East Godavari to ascertain the genuinity of transaction between Ravi Mangayamma and

Dhonepudi Arjuna Rao and also genuinity of doc.no.267/2012. In this regard PW.1 deposed that he does not know whether the district registrar issued proceedings and as per the said proceedings there is a direction that not to entertain any registration with regard to plot no,4 and 7 in

LP.No.52/2002 in survey no.17 of panasapadu village. On perusal of

Ex.B6 it clearly proved that the sub-registrar samalkot instructed not to entertain any registration of plot no.4 and 7 in LP.no,52/2002 in survey no.17 of panasapadu village executed by 1) Dhonepudi Arjuna Rao, 2.Parchuri Krishnakanth 3.parchuri Vekateswara Rao.

32.In order to prove his contention the 2nddefendant got examined the

Rayi Mangayamma as DW.5. During the cross examination, she deposed that the photograph and signature in Ex.B5 belongs to her. Therefore, the photo in Ex.A3 does not belongs to the real Rayi Mangayamma and 14 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019 she is not the executant of Ex.A3. Whereas coming to the cross examination of PW.2 he deposed that he doesn’t know whether Ravi

Mangayamma and Rayi Mangayamma are two diferent persons. Further he deposed that he cannot say whether the photographs affixed on E.xA3 mentioning Ravi Mangayamma is real owner of the property. Further he deposed that he does not know whether the Arjuna Rao purchased the property from real Mangayamm or impersonated Mangayamma. Further he deposed that he doesn’t know whether the Mangayamma was resided in door no.1-136 of panasapadu Village. Therefore, there is necessity to decide the fact whether the plaintif’s vendor and the plaintif’s vendor’s vendor got valid title over plaint schedule property. But, in the above forgoing discussion the plaintif failed to prove his vendor’s vendor title is perfect title over plaint schedule property. When the plaintif failed to prove the title of his predecessor title, automatically he failed to prove his title over plaint schedule property. Further the plaintif contended that Ex.B1 does not belongs to the Thimmapuram and it belongs to the

Tuni layout as it is Hyderabad layout plan. In this regard during the cross examination of Pw.1, he deposed that the total extent of property in layout 52/2002 is Ac.02.86cnets. Further he admitted that Regional

Deputy Director, Rajahmundry layout the property up to Ac.02.50cents and beyond that the director of town and country planning Hyderabad having power to layout the property. Further he deposed that the property situated in Thimmapuram and the properties with regard to

Ex.A6 are diferent properties. Further he deposed that he does not know whether their property was converted into non-agricultural lands from agricultural lands by RDO Kakinada.

33.Further PW.1 deposed that Ex.A4 reflected that Velugubanti Tatarao sold away the property an extent of Ac.0.50cents to Ravi Mangayamma.

But the as per the case of the plaintif the said Ravi Mangayamma purchased the property from Velugubant Latcha Rao. Therefore, Ex.A4 is 15 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019 contrary to the case of the plaintif. Furthermore,Ex.A4 does not reflect the sale transaction between Ravi Mangayamma and Dhonopudi Arjuna

Rao. Hence, the plaintif utterly failed to prove his vendor’s vendor’s vendor title. Consequently he failed to prove his possession. Further

PW.1 deposed that the plaint schedule property and the property with regard to Ex.A6 are diferent properties. Therefore,Ex.A6 is no way connected to the plaint schedule property.

34.On perusal of Ex.A7 the schedule reflects that the property with regard to Ex.A7 is situated in survey no.133/1A3 of Tuni Municipality.

Therefore, it is no way connected to the plaint schedule property and also not relating to the plot no.7 in LP.No.52/2002 at Thimmapuram in survey no.17.

35.As against the claim of the plaintif the 2nddefendant substantiated his case by his oral evidence as DW.1 is that he is the absolute owner of the plot no.7 which is part and parcel of the plaint schedule property by virtue of Ex.B2. Further he contended that the predecessor in title of the plaintif is not perfect title. The vendor’s vendor’s vendor namely Ravi

Mangayamma is not a real Rayi Mangayamma. So that the plaintif is not having valid title and the plaintif filed fake and fabricated documents.

His vendor Velugubanti Lathcha Rao informed that the photo enclosed with Ex.A3 does not belongs to the Rayi Mangayamma . To prove his contention the 2nd defendant got examined his vendor Velugubanti

Latcha Rao as DW.4. He categorically deposed that himself and his brothers purchased the property an extent of Ac.03.40cents and out of which they applied for layout to the property an extent of Ac.02.40cents to the director town and country planning Hyderabad and the same was laid out into 33 plots. He along with his brothers sold away plot no.4 and 7 to the defendants. Further he identified his signatures in Ex.B2 as he is the vendor of the defendants.

16 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019

36.Further the 2nddefendant got examined the purchaser of the plot no.1 in the same layout as DW.3. DW.2 is the person who applied for

Ex.B6. Their evidence is totally supported with the case fo the defendants. Further the 2nddefendant got examined the plaintif’s predecessor in title namely Rayi Mangayamma. She deposed that the photo and signature shown to her in Ex.B5 belongs to her. During the cross examination of DW.5 nothing could be elicited from the witness to substantiate the contention of the plaintif. Therefore, in the above forgoing discussion the 2nd defendant raised the genuine dispute with regard to the title of the plaintif over plaint schedule property. When the title of the plaintif is under cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish the possession, necessarily the plaintif will have to file a suit for declaration and for injunction.

37.As the suit for injunction simplicitor is concerned only with possession. Normally the issue of the title will not be directly and substantially is issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in case where de-Jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant site, the issue of title may directly and substantially arises from consideration, as without a finding there on, it wil not be possible to decide the issue of possession.

38.In the present case the 2nd defendant disputing the title of the plaintif and the plaint schedule property is vacant site. Hence, it is necessity to looked into the title of the plaintif over plaint schedule property incidentally. But the plaintif did not examine his vendor or vendor’s vendor. There is not worth noting evidence to prove the title of the plaintif. PW.2 evidence is not at all helpful to the case of the plaintif. At-least the plaintif did not examine any neighbour his property. Ex.A6 is also contrary to the case of the plaintif. The 17 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019 2nddefendant by filing Ex.B2 and by examining his vendor as DW.4 and his neighbour as DW.3 and the vendor’s vendor’s vendor of the plaintif as Dw.5 raised the genuine dispute with regard to the title of the plaintif.

But the plaintif failed to remove the cloud on his title. Further PW.1 during his cross examination admitted that the defendants claiming the right and title over plaint schedule property prior to filing of the suit.

Then the plaintif failed to prove his possession over plaint schedule property. The decisions submitted by the 2nd defendant 1). Potluri

Srinivas Chaowdary and another (Reported in LAWS (APH) 2016 12 58.

2).JHARKHAD STATE Housing board vs. Didar Singh and another (Reported in LAWS (SC) 2018 10 109 are not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case. With these observations these two issues are answered in favour of the 2nd defendant and against the plaintif.

39.ISSUE NO.3:- To what relief?

In the above foregoing discussion in issue nos.1 and 2, considering the pleadings of the both parties and the evidence of both oral and documentary let in by the both parties, the plaintif failed to establish his contention Hence the plaintif is not entitled for seeking the relief of permanent injunction. This issue is answered accordingly.

40.In the result, the suit stands dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 24th day of June 2019.

Sd/- K. Naga Lakshmi

II ADDL. JR. CIVIL JUDGE,

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: PW.1: Paruchuri Venkateswara Rao

PW.2: Nethala Ramachandra Rao 18 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019

FOR DEFENDANT:

DW.1: Rongali Sunnibabu DW.2: Yaka Satyanarayana DW.3: Gullipalli Murali Krishna DW.4: Velugubanti Latcha babu DW.5: Rayi Mangayamma

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For Plaintif: Ex.A1/17.12.2012: The sale deed in favour of the plaintif relating to the plaint schedule property registered as Doc.No.5474 of 2012, S.R.O., Samarlakot.

Ex.A2/19.01.2012: The possessory sale agreement-cum-G.P.A, in favour of Paruchuri Krishna kanth relating to the plaint schedule property, registered as Doc.No.280/2012, SRO, Samalkota.

Ex.A3/18.01.2012: The sale deed in favour of the Donipudi Arjuna Rao relating to the plaint schedule property registered as Doc.No.267/2012, SRO. Samalkota.

Ex.A4/05.01.2012: The original copy of E.C. issued by SRO, Samalkot in respect of land situated in Survey No.17 of Thimmapuram Village of an extent of Ac.0-50 cents.

Ex.A5/27.08.2012: The original copy of E.C. issued by issued by SRO, Samalkot in respect of land situated in Survey No.17 of Thimmapuram Village of an extent of 918.33 sq.yards.

Ex.A6/21.02.2017: The photo copy of plan given to the plaintif with letter by Regional Deputy Director Town and Country Planning Office, Rajahmundry to show that L.P.No.52/2002 is issued for Tuni property.

Ex.A7/----: Irrevocable power of attorney cum sale agreement in favour of Peruri Krishna Murthy, S/o.Guru Murthy of Tetagunta of Tuni Mandal registered document No.105/2001 of Sub-Registrar Office, Tuni issued through mee-seva.

For Defendant:

Ex.B1/---: The photo copy layout plan.

Ex.B2/30.10.2003: The original sale deed .

Ex.B3/17.06.2016: The letter by Panchayat Secretary, Panasapadu to Yeka Satyanarayana.

Ex.B4/22.02.2017: The proceedings of Tahsildar, Samalkot to Yeka Satyanarayana.

19 Fair judgment OS.330/14,Dt.24.06.2019

Ex.B5/---: The office copy of letter by Rayi Mangayamma to the District Registrar, East Godavari District, Kakinada.

Ex.B6/15.02.2017: The proceedings of District Registrar to Yeka Satyanarayana.

Sd/- K. Naga Lakshmi

II AJCJ

1Fair Judgment in OS.622/16, Dt:26.06.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAKINADA

PRESENT:- Smt. K. Naga Lakshmi

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Wednesday, this the 26th day of June, 2019

O.S.622/2016

Between:

Oleti Adhilakshmi W/o. Mahalakshmi, Hindu, Age 38 years, House wife, D.No.3-123, Polavaram Village, Thammavaram Panchayat, Kakinada Rural Mandal. ...Plaintif

And

1. Karri Tatarao, S/o.Apparao, Hindu, Age 45 years, Fisherman, D.No.11-14/2, Kothapatnam, Uppada, Kothapalli Mandal, Eg.District.

2. Karri Kameswari W/o. Tatarao, Hindu, Age 40 years, Business, D.No.11-14/2, Kothapatnam, Uppada,

Kothapalli Mandal, Eg.District. ...Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 13.06.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Medisetti Satyanarayana, advocate for plaintif and of Sri M.Raja Rao, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and 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 plaintif based on the suit promissory notes for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,95,330/- along with subsequent interest and costs from the defendant.

2.The plaint averments in brief are as under:

The 1st defendant is the husband of the 2nd defendant. Both defendants borrowed an amount of Rs. 90,000/- from the plaintif on 24.12.2015 for their necessities i.e marriage expenditure agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 12% yearly compound on demand to the plaintif, or his order on demand and executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintif. Again the defendants borrowed an amount of

Rs.90,000/- from the plaintif on 16.05.2016 for their family expenses agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% yearly compound on demand to the plaintif or his order and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintif.

2Fair Judgment in OS.622/16, Dt:26.06.2019

3.Further the plaintif submitted that inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendants did not repay any amount.

Therefore, the plaintif got issued registered legal notice to the defendants on 25.08.2016 demanding them to repay the said amount. The 1st defendant refused to receive the said notice and the 2nd defendant received the said legal notice on 31.08.2016. Inspite of repeated demands and notice the defendants failed to repay the above debt amount. The defendants are not agriculturists and they are not entitled to the benefits of Act.4/1938, and 7/1977. Hence, this suit.

4.After service of summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement by denying the averments of the plaint contended that the plaintif is doing financial business and chit business unauthorizedly. The plaintif is the distant relative of sister of 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant joined as a member in the chit of

Rs.50,000/- conducted by the plaintif in the year 2012 and the same was auctioned by the 2nd defendant for Rs.30,000/- with loss of Rs.20,000/-. At the time of giving auction amount the plaintif did not obtain any security

as 2nd defendant is her distant relative. Again the 2nd defendant joined in

another chit of Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2013 and auctioned the same for an amount of Rs.70,000/- with a loss of Rs.30,000/- at the time of giving the said auction amount the plaintif did not obtain any security from the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant has due 10 installments in the chit of

Rs.50,000/- and 5 installments in the chit of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintif.

The 2nd defendant failed to pay the said installments due to financial problems. Thereby the plaintif called the defendants and given pressure on them to clear of the above said amounts including interest. The defendants requested the plaintif for granting some time. But the plaintif did not heed the words of the defendants and threatened them. The plaintif demanded the 2nd defendant and got her thumb impression on the 3Fair Judgment in OS.622/16, Dt:26.06.2019 promissory note got prepared by the plaintif one year back. The plaintif also directed the 2nd defendant to bring the 1st defendant for obtaining his thumb impression on the said promissory note. But the 2nd defendant did not comply the direction of the plaintif. Thereby the plaintif disputed with defendants and got the thumb impression of the both defendants on the promissory notes got prepared by the plaintif six months back.

Except that nothing was happened in between the plaintif and defendants. After receiving the legal notice from the plaintif, the 2nd defendant approached the plaintif and questioned about the illegal claim of the plaintif. Further the 2nd defendant also paid an amount of

Rs.10,000/- towards part payment in full and final settlement of

Rs.50,000/- and requested six months time for payment of balance amount. After receiving the part payment the plaintif agreed to grant time and filed this false suit surprisingly by using the said fraudulent promissory note which were obtained from the defendants under unavoidable circumstances.

5.The defendants further contended that the alleged suit promissory note dt.24.12.2015 does not contain the thumb impression of the 1st defendant. Therefore, the alleged claim against the 1st defendant is not maintainable. The alleged suit promissory notes are not supported by consideration. The attestors and scribe were not present at the time of obtaining the thumb impression of the defendants. The defendant have no necessity to borrow such a huge amount from the plaintif.

6.The defendants further contended that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Admittedly the defendants are the residents of Uppada Village of U.Kothapalli Mandal. The alleged suit promissory notes does not reveal the place of execution. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4Fair Judgment in OS.622/16, Dt:26.06.2019

7.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues framed for trail on 24.04.2017.

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount?

3. To what relief?

ADDITIONAL ISSUE framed on 07.05.2019.

4. Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

8.Substantiating her claim, the plaintif herself got examined as PW.1 and both attestors of suit promissory note dt.16.05.2016 got examined as

PW.2 and PW.3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 on behalf of the plaintif.

Denying the claim of the plaintif and substantiating their defense, the 2nd defendant herself got examined as DW.1 and the scribe of suit promissory notes got examined as DW.2 and no documents were marked on behalf of defendants.

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

10. Issues. No.1&2:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount?

11.The learned counsel for the plaintif argued before the court that the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.90,000/- from the plaintif on 24.12.2015 and again borrowed an amount of Rs.90,000/- on 16.05.2016 and executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 suit promissory notes in her favour. In order to prove the execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 suit promissory notes and passing of consideration under it, the plaintif got examined the attestors of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. PW.1 evidence supported by the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 coupled with Ex.A1 to A5. Therefore, the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount. The plaintif counsel relied upon the following decisions:

5Fair Judgment in OS.622/16, Dt:26.06.2019

1. Ramasubramoniam versus Ranganathan (Reported in Laws (KER) 1978 9 4).

2. Arunachalam Chettiar and another, Appellants v. Murugappa Chettiar and another, Respondents. (Reported in 1956 Madras 629 (AIR V 43 C 201 Nov).

12. The learned counsel for the defendant argued before the court that the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 suit promissory notes are not supported by consideration. The plaintif obtained Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 from the defendants under chit transaction at Uppada. Hence, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the plaintif is not entitled to recover the suit amount.

13.The case and contention of the plaintif substantiated by her oral evidence as PW.1 corroborated by the oral evidence of attestors of Ex.A2 suit promissory note as PW.2 and PW.3 is that on 24.12.2015 the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.90,000/- from the plaintif for their necessities i.e marriage expenditure and executed Ex.A1 demand promissory note in her favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% yearly compound. The transaction under Ex.A1 took place in the presence of Chammiti Golla Babu as 1st attestor and Surimalla Veerababu

as 2nd attestor and one Ulavala Namasivaya is the scribe of Ex.A1.

14.Further the evidence of plaintif as PW.1 establishes that on 16.05.2016, again the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.90,000/- for their family expenses and executed Ex.A2 demand promissory note in her favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% yearly compound on her demand or order. The transaction under Ex.A2 took place in the presence of Marada Salman Raju as 1st attestor and S. Kasi Raju as 2nd attestor and one Ulavala Namasivaya is the scribe of Ex.A2.

15.Further the evidence of PW.1 goes to reveal that he got issued a legal notice under Ex.A3 demanding the defendants to discharge the above debts due to her under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. But the 1st defendant 6Fair Judgment in OS.622/16, Dt:26.06.2019 refused to take notice. The said returned cover is marked as Ex.A4. The 2nd defendant received the same on 31.08.2016 which is evidenced by

Ex.A5 Acknowledgement. Inspite of repeated demands and notice the defendants failed to repay the amount due under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

16.To get corroboration to her evidence the plaintif has chosen to examine the both attestors of Ex.A2 namely Marada Salman Raju and

S.Kasi Raju as Pw.2 and PW.3. They deposes in the same lines as that of

Pw.1, asserting themselves that the execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 took place in their presence and both defendants jointly borrowed an amount of

Rs.90,000/- on 24.12.2015 and again they borrowed an amount of

Rs.90,000/- on 16.05.2016. They attested Ex.A2 suit promissory note and one Ulavala Namasivayya is the scribe of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

17.As against the case of the plaintif and substantiating their defense, the 2nd defendant herself got examined as DW.1 and the scribe of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 got examined as DW.2. The case and contention of the defendants substantiated by the oral evidence of 2nd defendant as DW.1 corroborated by the evidence of scribe of suit promissory notes as DW.2 is that the 2nd defendant joined as subscriber in the chits run by the plaintif in the year 2012 and 2013. Further she deposed that after auctioned the chits she committed default in payment of chit installments. Then the plaintif called them and given pressure. Then the disputes arose between the plaintif and the defendants. Further she deposed that the plaintif pressurized them and got thumb impressions of the 2nd defendant on

Ex.A1 and thumb impressions of the both defendants on Ex.A2. Except that nothing was happened in between the plaintif and the defendants.

After receiving the notice which was got issued by the plaintif, the 2nd defendant approached the plaintif and made part payment of Rs.10,000/- and requested time to pay the defaulted chit installments. But the plaintif filed this false suit by using the said fraudulent promissory notes which 7Fair Judgment in OS.622/16, Dt:26.06.2019 were obtained from the defendants under unavoidable circumstances.

Further she deposed that no consideration passed under alleged suit promissory notes. Further she deposed that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

18.To substantiated their contention the defendants got examined the scribe of Ex.A1 and E.A2, he deposed that he is the scribe of Ex.A1 and A2.

He drafted Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 at his house. Further he deposed that no transaction took place and no consideration was passed under Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2 in his presence. He never visited Polavaram for drafting Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2.

19.It is the case and contention of the plaintif that the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.90,000/- from the plaintif on 24.12.2015 and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif. As per the contention of the defendants that Ex.A1 does not contain the thumb impression of the 1st defendant and it contains only the thumb impression of the 2nd defendant. Further they contended that Ex.A1 obtained under chit transaction and so that it is not supported by consideration. In this regard to prove the execution of Ex.A1 suit promissory note and passing of consideration under it, the plaintif did not examine the attestors of Ex.A1.

Further the scribe of Ex.A1 got examined as DW.2 on behalf of the defendants. He categorically denied the execution of Ex.A1 and passing of consideration under it in his presence. Further the plaintif contended that Ex.A1 executed by both defendants. But a glance at Ex.A1 it contains only the thumb impression of the 2nd defendant. Further PW.1 and DW.1 also admitted that the thumb impression appended on Ex.A1 belongs to the 2nd defendant only. Therefore, as per the admission of PW.1 and DW.1 coupled with Ex.A1 it is proved that Ex.A1 was not executed by both defendants. Therefore, there is no consistency between the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the plaintif. Except self testimony of plaintif, 8Fair Judgment in OS.622/16, Dt:26.06.2019 there is no worth noting evidence on part of the plaintif to prove the execution of Ex.A1 and passing of consideration under it. Hence, the plaintif failed to discharge the initial burden lies upon her that the defendants executed Ex.A1 and received the consideration under it.

Further PW.1 deposed that she has no documentary evidence to show that she possessed Rs.90,000/- as on the date of transaction. Further she admitted that the defendants did not borrow any amount from her for the purpose of their daughter’s marriage. Further she admitted that the marriage of the defendant’s daughter performed in the year 2012 at

Annavaram and she attended to that marriage. But Ex.A1 reflects that the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.90,000/- from the plaintif for the purpose of marriage expenses. Therefore, the plaintif utterly failed to the prove the execution of Ex.A1 by both defendants and passing of consideration under it.

20.Further the contention of the plaintif that the defendants again borrowed an amount of Rs.90,000/- from the plaintif on 16.05.2016 and executed Ex.A2 suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% pa and subsequently the defendants failed to repay the same. Then the plaintif got issued legal notice demanding the defendants to pay the said amount. The 2nd defendant received the said notice and kept quite. On the other hand, the defendants contended that E.xA2 suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and it is obtained by the plaintif from the defendants under chit transaction. Further they contended that immediately after receiving the said notice, the 2nd defendant approached the plaintif and made part payment of Rs.10,000/- and requested time to pay the defaulted chit installments.

21.In order to prove the execution of Ex.A2 and passing of consideration under it. The plaintif got examined both attestors of Ex.A2 as PW.2 and

PW.3. They deposed that the transaction under Ex.A1 and A2 took place in 9Fair Judgment in OS.622/16, Dt:26.06.2019 their presence and the defendants received consideration in their presence. But they signed as attestors in Ex.A2 only. During the cross examination of PW.2 who is said to be the 1st attestor of E.xA2, deposed that he signed as attestor in Ex.A2 only. Further he deposed that he does not know all the transactions between the plaintif and defendants. Further he deposed that his chief examination affidavit reflectes about Ex.A2 transaction only. But in his chief examination he deposed about the transaction under Ex.A1 and A2. Whereas, coming to the evidence of PW.3 who is said to be the 2nd attestor of Ex.A2, during the cross examination he deposed that the defendants brought the white paper and revenue stamp and that immediately again he says that the defendants brought blank promissory notes. Further he deposed that he saw Ex.A2 at about six months back. But he has given evidence in the year 2018 and the suit is field in the year 2016. There is no chance of seeing Ex.A2. The clear and categorical admissions that he has seen Ex.A2 suit promissory note at about six months back itself is sufficient to exclude the evidence of PW.3.

Further he deposed that his chief examination affidavit prepared under instructions of the plaintif. Further he deposed that his chief examination affidavit reveals about the transaction under Ex.A2 only. But in his chief examination affidavit he deposed about the transaction under Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2. Therefore PW.3 evidence cannot be believable and not supported with the case of the plaintif.

22.To substantiate their contention the plaintif cross examined DW.1 and DW.2. During their cross examination, nothing could be elicited from their mouth about the execution of Ex.A1 and A2 and passing of consideration. Further DW.2 who is said to be the scribe of Ex.A1 and A2 categorically denied the execution and passing of consideration under

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 in his presence. The decisions submitted by the counsel for plaintif (1) Ramasubramoniam versus Ranganathan (Reported in 10Fair Judgment in OS.622/16, Dt:26.06.2019

Laws (KER) 1978 9 4). (2) Arunachalam Chettiar and another, Appellants v. Murugappa Chettiar and another, Respondents. (Reported in 1956

Madras 629 (AIR V 43 C 201 Nov) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

23.In the above forgoing discussion the plaintif failed to prove the execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and passing of consideration under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 suit promissory notes. These two issues are answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintif.

24.Additional ISSUE No.4

4. Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

It is the contention of the defendants that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The defendants and attestors of

Ex.A1 and A2 are the residents of Uppada of U.Kothapalli Mandal. The suit promissory notes do not reflects the place of execution. A glance at Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 those are not reflects the place of execution. Nearby the signature of the scribe, he mentioned as Uppada. During the cross examination of PW.1 she deposed that the defendants are the residents of

Uppada. Further she deposed that she does not know whether Ex.A1 and

A2 contents reveals that those are not executed at Polavaram. Further she deposed that she does not know the scribe of Ex.A1 and A2. Further she deposed that she can identify the scribe of Ex.A1 and E.A2 and she will examine him. Therefore, PW.1 has given two contrary statements.

Whereas coming to the evidence of DW.2 he deposed that He is the resident of Uppada. He drafted Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 at his residence. He never visited Polavaram for drafting any promissory notes and further he deposed that he always drafted the promissory notes at his house only.

25.Therefore, as per the admissions made by the PW.1 coupled with the evidence of DW.2 the plaintif failed to prove the execution of Ex.A1 and 11Fair Judgment in OS.622/16, Dt:26.06.2019

A2 suit promissory notes and passing of consideration and also failed to prove that the transaction under Ex.A1 and A2 took place at Polavaram.

These issue is answered in favour of defendants and against plaintif.

26.ISSUE NO.3

3. To what relief?

In the above forgoing lengthy discussion in issue Nos.1 & 2 and

additional issues no.4, the plaintif failed to establish her contention.

Hence the suit is dismissed. This issue is answered accordingly.

27.In the result, the suit stands dismissed. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 26th day of June 2019.

Sd/- K. Naga Lakshmi

II ADDL. JR. CIVIL JUDGE,

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1: Oleti Adhilakshmi DW.1: Karri Kameswari

PW.2: Marada Salman Raju DW.2: Vulavala Nammassivaya

PW.3: Seelam Kasi Raju

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintif:

Ex.A1/24.12.2015 : The suit promissory note executed by defendants.

Ex.A2/16.05.2016 : The sit promissory note executed by the defendants.

Ex.A3/25.08.2016 : The office coy of the registered legal notice.

Ex.A4/--- : The return cover from the 1st defendant.

E.A5/31.08.2016 : The acknowledgement from the 2nd defendant.

For Defendant:NIL

Sd/- K. Naga Lakshmi

II AJCJ

1Fair Judgment in OS 379/18 Dt:28.06.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAKINADA

PRESENT:- Smt. K. Naga Lakshmi

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Friday, this the 28th day of June, 2019

O.S.379/2018

Between: Geddada Bebi, W/o. Srinu, Aged 37 years, housewife, D.No.71-9-13, Tarakaramana Nagar, Lalacheruvu, Rajamahendravaram. ...Plaintif

And

Kopisetti Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late Veerraju, Aged 54 years, Business, D.No.1-230, Kothuru, near water tank,

V.K.Rayapuram Village, Samalkot mandal. ...Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 26.06.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Umamaheswara Rao, Advocate for plaintif and of Sri.A. Muralidhar, Advocate for defendant and of and having been heard and 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 plaintif based on the suit promissory note for recovery of an amount of Rs.42,900/- along with subsequent interest and costs from the defendant.

2.The plaint averments in brief are as under:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintif on 29.07.2015 for the purpose of his necessities i.e family expenses and executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintif agreeing to repay the same together with interest at Rs.24% p.a. on demand to the plaintif or her order. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendant failed to repay the said amount and postponed the same on one pretext or other. So, that the plaintif got issued registered legal notice to the defendant on 17.07.2018 calling upon him to repay the entire debt. The defendant is not an agriculturist.

Therefore, he is not entitled to the benefits under debt relief Acts 4/1938 and 7/1977. Hence, this suit.

3.After service of summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed written statement by denying the averments of the plaint contended that he has no need to borrow such a huge amount 2Fair Judgment in OS 379/18 Dt:28.06.2019 from the plaintif. He never borrowed any amount from any person much less the plaintif. The mother of the plaintif is resident of Venkata

Krishnapuram and the defendant used to attend coolie work at the house of plaintif’s mother. At that time there is an altercation took place as the mother of the plaintif did not pay wages for the work done by the defendant. Thereupon the defendant questioned the same and demanded for payment of wages as agreed by the plaintif. Then the mother of the plaintif keeping bore grudge and filed this suit in the name of the plaintif. The suit promissory note is created document and it is not supported by consideration. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues framed for trail on 17.11.2018.

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

6.Substantiating her case, the plaintif got examined as PW.1 and both attestors of the suit promissory note, by name Pilli Nooka Raju and

Surampudi Ramana got examined as Pw.2 and Pw.3 and and got marked

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 on behalf of the plaintif. Denying the suit claim of plaintif and substantiating his defense, the defendant himself got examined as DW.1 and no documents were marked on behalf of defendant.

7.Heard. Perused the material on record.

8.Issues. No.1&2:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

These two issues are interlinked issues. Hence, this court discussed together.

3Fair Judgment in OS 379/18 Dt:28.06.2019

9.The learned counsel for the plaintif argued before the Court that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/- and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note in the presence of both attestors and scribe of the suit promissory note. In order to prove the execution of Ex.A1 suit promissory note and passing of consideration under it, the plaintif got examined himself as PW.1 and both attestors of the suit promissory note as PW.2 and Pw.3. PW.1 evidence corroborated by the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 supported with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Hence, the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for defendant argued

before the Court that the defendant never borrowed any amount from

the plaintif and the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and it is created one. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

11.The case and contention of the plaintif substantiated by her oral evidence as PW.1 and corroborated by the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 who are the attestors of Ex.A1 suit promissory note is that on 29.07.2015, she lent an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the defendant and on the even date, after receipt of consideration, the defendant executed a demand promissory note under Ex.A1 in her favour agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% p.a.

12.Further the evidence of PW.1 goes to establish that the defendant executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note in the presence of both attestors namely Pilli Nooka Raju and Surampudi Ramana and the scribe namely

Kasireddy Suryanarayana. Inspite of repeated demands made by her, the defendant failed to repay the above debt. Then she got issued a legal notice under Ex.A2 to the defendant, demanding him to discharge the debt amount due to the plaintif. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice. Inspite of repeated demands and notice the defendant failed to repay the above debt.

4Fair Judgment in OS 379/18 Dt:28.06.2019

13.PW.2 also deposes in the same lines as that of PW.1 asserting himself that the transaction under Ex.A1 took place in his presence and further affirms that he is the 1st attestor of the Ex.A1 suit promissory note. The 2nd attestor of suit promissory note got examined as PW.3. He deposed that he is the 2nd attestor of suit promissory note. The defendant received the consideration from the plaintif and executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif in his presence. Thus the plaintif by examining herself as PW.1, both attestors as PW.2 and PW.3 and placing documentary evidence of Ex.A1 to A3 could relieve from the initial burden that on 29.07.2015 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.25,000/- from her and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note in her favour agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% p.a. Then the onus of proof shifts on the defendant to rebut the case of plaintif.

14.As against the claim of the plaintif and substantiating his defense, the defendant got examined as DW.1. The case and contention of the defendant substantiated by his oral evidence as DW.1 is that he is doing coolie work. He has no need to borrow such a huge amount from the plaintif. The suit promissory note is created one and not supported by consideration. Further he deposed that an altercation took place with regard to the payment of wages between the mother of the plaintif and himself when he was attended coolie work at the house of mother of the plaintif. Then the mother of the plaintif created the suit promissory note and got filed this suit in the name of the plaintif.

15.It is the case and contention of the defendant that when the defendant attended collie work at the house of the plaintif’s mother, altercation took place between them as because of non-payment of wages for the work done by him and taking advantage of that E.xA1 suit promissory note created by the mother of the plaintif and got field this 5Fair Judgment in OS 379/18 Dt:28.06.2019 suit in the name of the plaintif. During the cross examination of PW.1 admitted that when the defendant attended coolie work at the house of plaintif’s mother, an altercation took place between them. She admitted to that extent only. Whereas, coming to the cross examination of PW.2 who is the father of the plaintif, the defendant suggested pW.2 that when the defendant attended coolie work at the house of the plaintif, an altercation took place. Therefore, the defendant stands on two inconsistence pleas by saying in one breath that there is an altercation between the defendant and the mother of the plaintif and in another breath he contended that the said altercation took place between plaintif and defendant. In that view the contention of the defendant that the suit promissory note is created one is proved to be false.

16.According to the case of the plaintif prior to filing of the suit, she got issued notice under Ex.A2 demanding the defendant to repay the debt due to her under E.xA1. Inspite of repeated demands and notice, the defendant failed to repay the debt amount. But the defendant except denying the fact in his written statement, no single suggestion made to PW.1 denying the receipt of notice. The plaintif filed Ex.A2 along with postal receipt to show that she got issued legal notice to the defendant. In this regard the defendant has not given any reasonable explanation for not giving replay to Ex.A2. Even after filing of the suit he did not take any steps to prove his contention that the suit promissory note is created one. During the cross examination of DW.1 he deposed that the thumb impression affixed in E.xA1 is not that of him and he can send the same for expert opinion for comparison. But he did not take any such type of steps. Had really, the suitpromissory note is created one definitely he would have taken such type of steps. But he did not do so. In that view also the contention of the defendant that the suit 6Fair Judgment in OS 379/18 Dt:28.06.2019 promissory note is created one and it is not supported by consideration does not deserve to be appreciated.

17.Further the contention of the defendant that he has no necessity to borrow such a huge amount. Except the self testimony of defendant, there is no worth noting evidence to prove his contention. Further the plaintif proved the execution of Ex.A1 and passing of consideration under it by examining both attestors of E.xA1 suit promissory note.

Therefore, the defendant has taken plea that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration is only to avoid the payment under

Ex.A1.

18.The evidence of PW.1 amply corroborated by the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 could establish that the defendant requested the plaintif and then the plaintif lent an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the defendant on 29.07.2015. Then the defendant received the consideration and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note in the presence of PW.2 and PW.3 and scribe. PW.1 to PW.3 cross examined at length, but nothing could be elicited from their mouth to substantiate the contention of the defendant and the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 is consisting with each other in all material facts. Therefore, there is no suggesting inference to discredit the case of the plaintif. As such the plaintif by examining himself as

PW.1, both attestors of suit promissory note as PW.2 and PW.3 could prove and establish the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and passing of consideration under it. Accordingly, these two issues are answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant holding that the suit promissory note Ex.A1 dt.29.07.2015 is true, valid and binding on the defendant.

19.ISSUE No.3

To what relief?

7Fair Judgment in OS 379/18 Dt:28.06.2019

In the light of issue no.1& 2 been answered in favour of the plaintif and in absence of any material to show that the defendant discharged his liability, the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount of Rs.

42,900/- from the defendant along with future interest. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendant.

20.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.42,900/- (Rupees

Forty Two Thousand Nine Hundred only). The plaintif is entitled for interest at the rate of 12 % p.a from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a till the date of realization on the

principal sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 28th day of June 2019.

Sd/- K. Naga Lakshmi

II ADDL. JR. CIVIL JUDGE,

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1: Geddada bebi DW.1: Kopisetti Nageswara Rao

PW.2: Pilli Nooka Raju

PW.3: Surampudi Ramana

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintif: Ex.A1/29.07.2015: The suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif. Ex.A2/17.07.2018 : The office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintif to the defendant along with postal receipt.

For Defendant: NIL

Sd/- K. Naga Lakshmi

II AJCJ

1 Fair Order inPRC.20/2021, Dt.19.07.2021.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE-CUM- II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAKINADA

PRESENT:- Smt.K.Naga Lakshmi

II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada

MONDAY, THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2021.

P.R.C.20/2021

(Crime No.279/2020 of II Town L&O POLICE STATION, KAKINADA)

BETWEEN:

State - Inspector of Police, II Town L&O Police Station,

Kakianda....Complainant

AND

Mallimoggala Siva, S/o.Venkata Ramana, 29 years, Nai-brahmin, Door no.4-22, Near Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Vangapanduvari Street, Kadiyam Village & Mandal, Rajahmundry Rural,

Aadhaar No.878457431978. ...Accused.

The case is coming on today before me for disposal in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of complainant and of Sri P.Sathish Kumar, counsel on behalf of Accused and upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

COMMITTAL ORDER

1.The inspector of police II Town L & O PS, Kakinada filed a charge sheet against accused for the offence U/Sec.307 IPC in Cr.No.279/2020 of II Town L & O POLICE STATION, Kakinada.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that

(i) LW.1/Mortha Pandu is residing at door no.59-81-107, Indira Colony,

Muggupeta, Jagannadhapuram, Kakinada and working as Room boy at Padma

Vilas Lodge, Dantuvari Street, Suryaraopeta, Kakinada. LW.2/Mortha Durga

Rao, LW.3/Mortha Rama Lakshmi and LW.4/Cheppula Nani are the parents and brother in law of LW.1/Mortha Pandu. LW.2/Mortha Durga Rao and LW.3/Mortha

Rama Lakshmi have blessed one male and one female children and the

LW.1/Mortha Pandu is youngest child to LW.2/Mortha Durga Rao and

LW.3/Mortha Rama Lakshmi and studied up to 9th class. LW.2/Mortha Durga

Rao, LW.3/Mortha Rama Lakshmi performed marriage to their daughter

Easteru with one Cheppula Nanibabu of Godarigunta, Kakinada and the

LW.1/Mortha Pandu is unmarried.

2 Fair Order inPRC.20/2021, Dt.19.07.2021.

ii)The wife of accused by name Mallimoggala Lakshmi Prameela @

Lakshmi has been working as Sweeper at Padma Nivas Lodge since one month and she blessed one male child, aged about 4 years and the accused is not doing any work. In this regard some disputes are going on in between the accused and his wife Lakshmi Prameela. On that the wife of accused came out from her house and residing at Lodge along with her son. Since then the accused used to visit the said lodge and asked his wife to come with him to lead conjugal life. But she refused his requests.

iii)One month back, accused came to that lodge and quarrelling with his wife, on hearing the same, LW.1/Mortha Pandu interfered and asked the accused about quarrel, meantime some argument raised between the accused and the LW.1/Mortha Pandu. Immediately LW.1/Mortha Pandu phoned to LW.5/Kadiyala Srinivas and informed the same over phone, on receipt of phone call, LW.5/Kadiyala Srinivas came to Lodge and sent Lakshmi with the accused. But his wife did not lead conjugal life with the accused and went away to her parent’s house.

iv)About 20 days back, the accused came to Padmas Nivas Lodge once again, entered into a lodge room and tried to commit theft of cell phone. On seeing the same, LW.1/Mortha Pandu caught hold the accused and informed the same to LW.5/Kadiyala Srinivas over phone. Then LW.5/Kadiyala Srinivas came there, admonished the accused and warned him did not visit the lodge once again. Then the accused realized that LW.1/Mortha Pandu is responsible about his wife went to her parent’s house and admonishing him by the

LW.5/Kadiyala Srinivas and put bore grudge against the LW.1/Mortha Pandu and waited for opportunity to revenge against the LW.1/Mortha pandu.

v)On 10.12.2020 night after completion of work, LW.1/Mortha Pandu left from that lodge and reached to main road, Kakniada at about 7-45 PM and stood in-front of IDFC First Bank, near II Town Police Station, Main road,

Kakinada for auto to go to his house at Jagannadhapuram, Kakinada. At that time the accused followed the LW.1/Mortha Pandu and suddenly attacked on the LW.1/Mortha Pandu with knife and hacked on his left side neck by saying that “CHAVARA NAA KODAKA” with a view to kill him and caused severe bleeding injury. Again accused tried to hack the LW.1/Mortha Pandu, on seeing the same, LW.1/Mortha Pandu raised his left hand and obstructed the same, resulting which LW.1/Mortha Pandu received a small bleeding injury on his left hand wrist. Immediately LW.1/Mortha Pandu raised alarms loudly and went to

GGH, Kakinada on an auto and admitted for treatment.

3 Fair Order inPRC.20/2021, Dt.19.07.2021.

3.Based on the MLC intimation and statement of LW.1/Mortha Pandu,

LW.16/SI of police registered a case in Cr.No.279/2020, U/Sec.307 IPC on 10.12.2020 at 21:45 hours.

4.During the course of investigation, LW.17/P.Eswarudu Inspector of Police received copy of FIR from LW.16/SI of Police and taken further investigation in this case and LW.17/Inspector of Police visited GGH, Kakinada, secured the

LWs.1 to 4 and recorded their statement. On 11.12.2020 from 7-00 AM to 8- 00 AM, photographed the scene of offence in various angles with the help of

LW.11/Mallisetti Manoj (Photographer) and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. LW.17/Inspector of Police arrested the accused on 11.12.2020 at 11-00 AM near gate, TRC Bus complex, Kakinada in the presence of

LWs.12/Manupati Nagamani and LW.13/Vepada Naga Satya Siva Santhi, seized the weapon i.e., blood stained curved knife and blood stains T-Shirt from the possession of accused, got recorded his confessional statement by the LWs.12 & 13.

5.LW.17/Inspector of police forwarded the seized material objects i.e,

Blood stained clothes of LW.1/Mortha Pandu i.e, T-Shirt and Lower, Weapon

Curved knife and blood stains T-Shirt of accused to the Asst.Director, RFSL,

Vijayawada for chemical analysis.

6.This court has taken cognizance for the offences U/Sec.307 IPC in

Cr.No.279/2020 of II Town L&O PS, Kakinada against accused.

7.On perusal of the record, this court finds that there is a prima-facie case against the accused for trial of offences U/Sec.307 IPC in Cr.No.279/2020 of II

Town L&O PS, Kakinada.

8.The offence U/Sec.307 IPC in Cr.No.279/2020 of II Town L&O PS,

Kakinada is exclusively triable by court of session, Rajamahendravaram.

Therefore, it is a fit case for committal to the court of session, session division, Rajamahendravaram U/Sec.209(a) of Crpc.

9.Accused was remanded to Judicial custody on 11.12.2020 and he is in

Judicial Custody from 11.12.2020 and in Central Prison at

Rajamahendravaram. Hence, this court issued Form-22 (Committal Order)

U/Sec.209 Cr.PC prior to Committal of this case and Committal to accused to

Judicial Custody. The Superintendent, Central Prison at Rajamahendravaram, 4 Fair Order inPRC.20/2021, Dt.19.07.2021.

is directed to produce the accused before Hon’ble Sessions court, as and when summons received from Hon’ble Court.

10.Office is directed to submit the case record, documents and material objects, if any to the court of sessions, East Godavari District,

Rajamahendravaram as provided U/Sec.209 (c) of Crpc after duly indexing the same.

11.This court received orders copy dt.15.03.2021 from the Hon’ble IV Addl.

District Judge-Cum-Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Kakinada by

appointing Sri.P.Sathish Kumar, Advocate, Kakinada to defend the accused, as

Legal Aid counsel.

12.The committal of this case shall be notified to the public prosecutor,

Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District U/Sec.209(d) Crpc.

13.In the result, the case is committed to the Hon’ble court of sessions,

Rajamahendravaram, U/Sec.209(a) of Crpc.

Typed to dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 19th day of July, 2021.

Sd/-K.Naga Lakshmi

II Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate-cum- II Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Appendix of Evidence Both sides-NIL.

Sd/-K.Naga Lakshmi

II AJFCM-CUM-

II AJCJ.