Smt.K.Satya Kumari

OS No.241/2011 1 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PRODDATUR

Present:- Smt. K. Satya Kumari,

Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur.

Thursday, this the 22nd day of August, 2024

Original Suit No .241 of 2011

Punnapula Kullayappa, S/o. Late Venkatesu, Aged 64 years, Hindu, r/o. D.No.6-2-449, Kovvuru Nagar, Anantapur.

…. Plaintiff

Vs.

1Ummadisetty Kullayamma, W/o. Subramanyam, Aged 55 years, House wife, r/o. D.No.6-2-112, Kovvur Nagar, Anantapur.

2Punnapula Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Sreenivasulu, D/o.Venkatesu, Aged 50 years, dependent, r/o. D.No.7- 386, Rahamath Nagar, Anantapur, died (Amended as per orders in I.A.No.542/2019 dt.09.12.2019).

.... Defendants

This suit came up on 26.7.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.S. Ranga Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri

M.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for defendants and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s half share in the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2.The case of the plaintiff in brief are as follows :

The plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of plaintiff’s father by name P.Venkatesu. The defendants are plaintiff’s sisters. The father of the plaintiff died long back i.e., prior to 1968 leaving behind him, his wife, son i.e., the plaintiff and daughters i.e., defendants. After the death of the said

P.Venkatesu, the plaintiff, his mother and the defendants being sole legal heirs to

P.Venkatesu, have succeeded the entire estate of the deceased P.Venkatesu

OS No.241/2011 2 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

and all the plaintiff, defendants and his mother were in joint possession and enjoyment of the property left behind P.Venkatesu i.e., the plaint schedule property. The mother of the plaintiff also died recently. The plaintiff being only son to his parents has managed everything and performed the marriages of the defendants in the year 1969 and 1989 in long scale respectively with his own efforts by borrowing amounts and also performed all the traditional functions like deliveries, etc., being brother and he incurred huge amounts for well living separately with their respective places.

The plaintiff further submits that after the death of his mother in the year 2005, the defendants who are having no absolute rights over the entire plaint schedule mentioned property and highhandedly interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In fact, the plaintiff alone is having right over the suit schedule property and the defendants have no right to interfere with the peaceful possession of the property. The Hindu Succession Act have no application to them. In fact, the defendant No.1 has got right only 1/4th share in the schedule mentioned property. The plaintiff on number of occasions requested the defendants not to interfere with his peaceful possession of the property, but the husband and sons of the defendant No.1 highhandedly trespassing into the plaint schedule property without any manner of right or title and possession over the said property. As the plaintiff and defendants are being the sole legal heirs of their parents and each of them got entitled 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties.

While that is so recently some disputes arose between the plaintiff and defendants in enjoying the plaint schedule property. The defendants are colluding together and acting adverse to the interest of the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know that the defendants are creating some nominal documents with

OS No.241/2011 3 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

regard to the plaint schedule property with a malafide intention and to cause loss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further came to know that the defendants are creating some nominal documents in favour of third parties with regard to the plaint schedule property for which they are not entitled. If the defendants are created any documents in favour of third parties the alleged documents and transactions are not binding on the plaintiff. If the defendants are allowed to create any documents in favour of third parties, the plaintiff will be put to serious loss and damage. Under the above circumstances the plaintiff felt that it is no longer safe for him to enjoy the suit property along with the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff made demands for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property about one month back. In this regard, elders who are interested on them, held panchayats, all become futile and though the defendants concede the share of the plaintiff, they are arcing adverse against the plaintiff. in fact the plaintiff has contacted debts heavily for performing marriages, traditional functions and deliveries of the defendants. The plaintiff is ready for and partition and separate possession of the property in a amicable partition, but for the reasons best know to them, the defendants are not coming forward and trying to alienate the suit schedule properties to third parties.

Without division of the properties, they cannot alienate the joint property. Hence, the suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property. Hence, this suit.

3.The defendant No.2 filed her written statement denying the averments of the plaint. Adoption memo filed for defendant No.1.

The defendants contended that, the plaint schedule property is the property of P.Venkatesu. The defendants No.1 and 2 are sisters of plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff and defendants died on 26.7.1968 and leaving behind him

OS No.241/2011 4 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

his wife, plaintiff and defendants and also another daughter by name Subba

Lakshumma. The mother of the plaintiff and defendants died on 11.10.2005.

Originally, the father of the plaintiff and defendants died on 26.7.1968 and after his mother namely Atchamma take care for the welfare of the family and after the death of father of the plaintiff in the year 1968, the plaintiff went to

Ananthapur as who studied in Anantapura town and he married in the year 1969 and settled at Anantapur with his wife without take care and protection of his three unmarried sisters namely Kullayamma, Vijaya Lakshmi and Subba

Lakshumma. The entire burden took the mother of the defendants and performed the marriages of first defendant and first defendant settled with her husband at Anantapur town since 1969. The 2nd defendant and other daughter

Subba Lakshumma are with mother at Yerraguntla and lived with the amount of schedule lands. The Subba Lakshumma was not good health. Hence, she was unmarried till her death on 09.12.2002. The mother of 2nd defendant performed marriage to the 2nd defendant on 11.2.1990 on the same day the marriage was broken due to bad behavior of bridegroom of 2nd defendant marriage. After broken the marriage on 11.2.1990, the 2nd defendant is living with her mother at

Yerraguntla and living with the funds of schedule lands. The 2nd defendant again did not went to marriage and living with her mother and took care and protection of her mother and ill-health sister namely Subba Lakshumma.

On 05.2.1990, the defendants and plaintiff and also mother of plaintiff partitioned properties by family settlement and executed a partition agreement between them and divided three schedules like "A" "B" "C". The "A" Schedule property is house situated in Yerraguntla town. The said property got by plaintiff and the plaintiff would get rights after death of his mother. The mother of plaintiff and also 2nd defendant and Subba Lakshumma were reside in the said house till

OS No.241/2011 5 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

death of the mother of defendants. The Item No.1 and 2 of "B" schedule properties are not got defendants No.1 and 2 equally. The "C" schedule property got by 2nd defendant as the "C" schedule property allotted for the purpose of her marriage. The sister of plaintiff and defendants namely Subba Lakshumma died on 09.12.2002 due to ill health. Till her death she cultivated the schedule land with the help of mother and 2nd defendant. The plaintiff never come to

Yerraguntla at any point of time and did not took care and protection of the sisters and mother and at any point of time he never performed the deliveries of 1st defendant or necessities of 2nd defendant and other sister. The plaintiff came to Yerraguntla on 05.2.1990 only. Since 1968, the plaintiff did not come to

Yerraguntla and never performed formalities and needed necessities of the 2nd defendant and her mother. After the death of Subba Lakshumma, the 2nd defendant and mother of defendants leased out the plaint schedule land to others and living lease premium only. On 13.12.2002, the mother of defendants gifted the plaint schedule property to defendants gifted the plaint schedule property to defendants and executed gift deed on 13.12.2002 in favour of defendants by separate gift deeds respectively. Since 13.12.2002, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment over the schedule property without any interruption and abstraction and cultivating the land. The defendants have got pattadar pass book and title deed in their favour from Yerraguntla Mandal

Revenue authorities. In the year 2004 the 2nd defendant and mother of 2nd defendant shifted family to Ananthapur as the first defendant took them and take care and protection of 2nd defendant and mother of 2nd defendant and first defendant kept the second defendant and mother in her separate house and took care and protection. The plaintiff also residing in Ananthapur Town. But he did not come forward for took care and protection of his mother and 2nd

OS No.241/2011 6 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

defendant. On 11.10.2005 the mother of 2nd defendant died and after the first defendant took care and protection of the 2nd defendant as 2nd defendant is unmarried after broken the marriage on the same day. After death of mother of defendants, the defendants leased out the plaint schedule land and having possession and enjoyment over the said land. The item No.1 of the "B" Schedule property sold out while their mother alive. At present the 2nd defendant is depending on the lease premium of plaint schedule land and she is in care and protection of first defendant. At any point of time the plaintiff never in joint possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

The defendants further submits that the plaintiff sold out his "A" schedule property on 05.5.2010 and utilized the said amount for his own family purpose.

After sold out the "A" schedule property, the plaintiff with bad intention and came forward and filed this suit without any joint right and possession and enjoyment and filed the false suit and harassing the defendants for false claim. The plaintiff sold out Ac.0.06 cents of site situated in Ananthapur town, Kakkalapalli in Survey

Number 53 to G.Subba Lakshumma, W/o G.Sankar Reddy which is stands on the name of mother of plaintiff, by sweet words and convince his mother and sold out the same and utilized the amount his family purpose. Since 1970, the plaintiff did not took care and protection of his mother and sisters and settled at

Ananthapur and owns two houses at Ananthapur and did job in A.P.S.R.T.C. The schedule property is not at all joint property of plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff is never in joint possession and enjoyment over the schedule property since 1969. Even after according to partition agreement dt.05.2.1990, the plaintiff is not in joint possession and enjoyment. So, the division of the schedule property does not arise and the plaintiff is not having 1/3rd share over the schedule property. The defendants are the absolute owners over the plaint

OS No.241/2011 7 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

schedule property and got pattadar pass book and title deed in their favour after mother gifted the property to the defendants No.1 and 2 on 13.12.2002 and the defendants leased out the plaint schedule lands and the 2nd defendant living with lease premium of schedule property with care and protection of defendant No.1 at Ananthapur. The plaint schedule property is not a joint property. Hence, partition and separate possession of plaintiff's 1/3rd share does not arise. Hence, the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff is not in joint possession right and enjoyment over the schedule property. The plaintiff has no right and joint possession and since 1969 the plaintiff is not in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.The defendant No.1 filed her Additional written statement contending that, the defendant No.2 died on 25.8.2018 at Anantapur due to accident. Prior, the defendant No.2 was resided at Anantapur in the shelter of the defendant No.1 and her children namely U. Mani Nagendra Prasad, U.Pavan

Kumar, who were look-after to defendant No.2 till her death. So, the defendant

No.2 and her children are legal heirs and successors of the defendant No.2 as the defendant No.1 and her children took care to the defendant No.2 till her death. So the plaintiff is not legal heir to the defendant No.2. The plaintiff never look-after to the defendant No.2 at any point of time and moreover, on 05.2.1990, the defendants No.1 and 2 and plaintiff and also mother of the plaintiff partition by family settlement and divided three schedule like A, B, C.

The said original partition agreement dt.05.2.1990 in between the plaintiff and the defendants and also P.Achamma who is the mother of the parties. The said partition agreement dt.05.2.1990 and marked Ex.B.7 after payment of stamp duty penalty fixed by the Sub-Registrar, Proddatur after the impounding the document as per the orders of this Court.

OS No.241/2011 8 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

The defendant No.1 and her children are the legal heirs to the defendant

No.2, so the defendant No.1 is one of the legal heirs to the defendant No.2. The defendant No.1 children namely U. Mani Nagendra Prasad and U. Pavan Kumar are the necessary and proper parties to the suit, otherwise the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties. The plaintiff first of all has no any share in the suit schedule property as already partitioned effected by 05.2.1990 through partition agreement dt.05.2.1990 in between the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 and also P.Achamma. So the plaintiff is not entitled any share over the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

5. On hearing both sides and based on the pleadings of both sides, the following issues were framed for trial by my learned predecessor in the office on 24.1.2012.

1Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3 rd share and also for possession of the said share of the property against the defendants as prayed for?

2If so, to what relief?

6.Initially the plaintiff filed the suit seeking partition of the suit schedule property seeking 1/ 3rd share. Thereafter, he amended the plaint as per the orders in I.A.No.542/2019 dt.09.12.2019 seeking half share in the plaint schedule property. Hence, the issue No.1 framed dt.24.1.2012 was recasted the following issue:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to half share and also for

possession of the said share of the property against the

defendant No.1 as prayed for?

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were got marked. On behalf of the defendants,

DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were got marked.

OS No.241/2011 9 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

7.Heard on both sides.

8. Recasted issue No.1 : -

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to half share and also for

possession of the said share of the property against the

defendant No.1 as prayed for?”

The burden lies upon this issue is on the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed written arguments and argued that, the plaint schedule properties are purchased by the father of the plaintiff and defendants under registered sale deed dt.22.6.1936 and 16.6.1939. The plaintiff and defendants are children of P.Venkatesu. After the death of Venkatesu, the plaint schedule properties were succeeded by his legal heirs i.e., plaintiff, defendants and their mother and the suit schedule properties are absolute property of the father of the plaintiff and defendants.

On the other side, the learned counsel for the defendants argued that there was earlier partition was effected on 05.2.1990 in between the plaintiff, defendants and also mother of plaintiff by family settlement and executed a partition agreement between them and divided three schedules like "A" "B" "C".

The "A" schedule property fell into the share of the plaintiff. “B” schedule properties were fell to the share of defendants No.1 and 2 equally and “C” schedule property got acquired by the defendant No.2 as the same allotted for the purpose of her marriage. The learned counsel for the defendants further argued that on 13.12.2002, the mother of defendants gifted the plaint schedule property to defendants and executed gift deeds in favour of defendants by separate gift deeds. Since then, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment over the schedule property without any interruption and obstruction and cultivating the land. They also got pattadar passbook and title deed in their favour. The plaintiff sold away his share. As per the partition agreement

OS No.241/2011 10 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

dt.05.2.1990, the plaintiff is not in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

9.To prove the case of the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and

Exs.A.1 to A.4 were got marked. The evidence of PW.1 is almost all reiterated the plaint averments. Ex.A.1 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.22.6.1936 and Ex.A.2 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.16.6.1939, which shows that the father of the plaintiff and defendants by name P.Venkatesu purchased the suit schedule properties as per Exs.A.1 and A.2.

In the cross examination of PW.1, he admitted that he has been living at

Anantapur since 1969 and his marriage was also performed there. He admitted that the house bearing D.No.1/292 situated in Yerraguntla village belongs to his father. The 2nd defendant and his another sister Subba Lakshumma and his mother were lived in Yerraguntla village in the said house. The said Subba

Lakshumma who is another sister of the plaintiff was died due to ill-health. The marriage of the first defendant also performed in the year 1969 and she is also living in Anantapur along with her husband. The 2nd defendant marriage was performed in the year 1989 and that marriage was not successful as second defendant and her husband were separated. The second defendant also living along with the mother of the plaintiff since 1990. The plaintiff never tried to perform the 2nd marriage of second defendant. He admitted that he did not filed any document to show that he performed the marriages of his sisters including their welfare on that he incurred heavy debts for the marriages of his sisters.

10.On perusal of the cross examination of PW.1, it discloses that PW.1 did not filed any revenue extract to show his joint possession over the suit schedule property along with defendants. It is an admitted fact that the mother of the plaintiff and defendants was died in the year 2005. PW.1 admitted that during

OS No.241/2011 11 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

the lifetime of his mother, she had executed two registered gift deeds dt.13.12.2002 in favour of the defendants in respect of suit schedule lands, but plaintiff did not got issued any legal notice against the defendants calling upon them to give his share and also questioning about the validity of those two registered gift deeds. PW.1 was suggested that there was already a partition took place on 05.2.1990 in Yerraguntla village in between himself, defendants and his mother and Subba Lakshumma who is another sister of the plaintiff.

PW.1 admitted that the plaintiff and defendants together sold away the house bearing D.No.1/292 at Yerraguntla village on 05.5.2010.

11. The evidence of PW.2 was eschewed as PW.2 was failed to appear before the Court to expose himself for cross examination.

12.The evidence of PW.3 who is 3rd party, he categorically stated that the suit schedule properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendants, and till today there was no partition effected among the plaintiff and defendants after the death of their parents. In the year 2010, he used to reside in one of the house of the plaintiff and defendants as tenant for a long period. During the said period, he used to pay the rent to the plaintiff.

Whereas in the cross examination of PW.3, he admitted that the plaintiff studied in Anantapur city, after completion of study he settled there by marrying a woman in the same district and constructed a house at Anantapur. He further admitted that till the death of Subba Lakshumma who is another sister of the plaintiff, she used to manage the plaint schedule properties, after her death her mother Atchamma used to manage the same till her death. The second defendant and another sister Subba Lakshumma were resided along with her mother. PW.3 stated that he did not know whether the mother of the defendants gifted the plaint schedule property in favour of the defendants on 13.12.2002 by

OS No.241/2011 12 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

way of gift deeds.

13.The evidence of PW.3 is is no way helpful to the plaintiff to prove his case that plaintiff and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and the suit schedule property is open for partition.

14.It is the specific case of the defendants that there was earlier partition was effected on 05.2.1990 in between the plaintiff, defendants and also mother of plaintiff by family settlement and executed a partition agreement between them and divided three schedules like "A" "B" "C". The "A" schedule property fell into the share of the plaintiff. “B” schedule properties were fell to the share of defendants No.1 and 2 equally and “C” schedule property got acquired by the defendant No.2 as the same allotted for the purpose of her marriage. On 13.12.2002, the mother of defendants gifted the plaint schedule property to the defendants and executed gift deeds in favour of defendants by separate gift deeds. Since then, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and cultivating the land. They also got pattadar passbook and title deed in their favour. The plaintiff sold away his share. As per the partition agreement dt.05.2.1990, the plaintiff is not in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

15.To prove the case of the defendants, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were got marked. DW.1 who is second defendant in this case, she deposed her evidence almost all reiterated her written statement contents. Ex.B.1 shows that pattadar passbook stands in the name of defendant

No.2 and Ex.B.2 is title deed stands in the name of defendant No.2, Ex.B.3 pattadar passbook stands in the name of defendant No.1 and Ex.B.4 title deed stands in the name of defendant No.1. Ex.B.5 original gift deed dt.13.12.2002

OS No.241/2011 13 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

executed by the mother of the plaintiff and defendants in favour of the defendant

No.2 in respect of plaint. Ex.B.6 is original gift deed dt.13.12.2002 executed by the mother of the plaintiff and defendants in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.B.7 is unregistered partition deed dt.05.2.1990, but later the defendants paid stamp duty penalty on 22.6.2017. The District Registrar was also gave certificate under Sec.42 of Indian Stamps Act, 1892 on 29.6.2017.

In the cross examination of DW.1, it is elicited that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property of her father. As per Ex.B.7, the suit schedule property was already got partitioned on 05.2.1990 in between plaintiff, defendants and his mother, Subba Lakshumma who is another sister of plaintiff.

The recitals of Ex.B.7 shows that “A” schedule property fell into the share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sold away the said house i.e., his share on 05.5.2010. She admitted her signature on the sale deed dt.05.5.2010 as per Ex.A.3 i.e., signature of DW.1 in the sale deed. Ex.A.4 is certified copy of sale deed dt.05.5.2010. The plaintiff and first defendant have also signed in the said registered sale deed dt.05.5.2010 as vendors. As per Exs.B.1 to B.4, the DW.1 and first defendant have obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their names and they are in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

16.The evidence of DW.2 is also deposed in the same lines of DW.1 with regard to execution of registered gift deeds in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 by their mother in respect of suit schedule properties.

17.DW.3 who is one of the attestor of Exs.B.5 and B.6, his evidence also corroborated with the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 with regard to execution of

Exs.B.5 and B.6 in favour of the defendants No.1 and 2 by their mother in the presence of DW.3 and in the presence of one A. Mahaboob Basha.

OS No.241/2011 14 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

In the cross examination, DW.3 categorically stated that he know the contents of Exs.B.5 and B.6.

18.The learned counsel for the defendants argued that as per Ex.B.7 already partition effected and the plaintiff got his share, sold the same as per

Ex.A.4. The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon the decisions reported in (1974) AIR (Madras) 239 in between C.S. Kumaraswami Gounder

Vs. Aravagiri Gounder and Another., wherein their lordships held in para

No.10 that; “A partition in a joint Hindu family may denote

either of two things: (i) a division in status as between the

members of the coparcenary; and (ii) an actual division of the

properties belonging to the joint family by metes and bounds

as between the different members of the family. The

expression 'partition' has been used indiscriminately to

denote either one or the other of the two things. Once a

partition of the properties by metes and bounds has taken

place, naturally there will be the consequential transaction of

the parties, to whom the properties have been allotted

separately, taking possession of these properties. Thus it will

be seen that in the case of an express, completed partition

there will be three different stages--(i) the stage of effecting a

division in status, (ii) the stage of dividing the properties by

metes and bounds, and (iii) the stage of each party taking

possession of the properties allotted to his share. As far as

these three stages are concerned, it is conceded, having

regard to the decided cases, that each and every one of them

can be effected orally without there being a document. Even if

there is a written document in respect of the first and third

stages, then also it is conceded that the document does not

require registration, because neither the division in status nor

the actual taking possession the properties can be said to

create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or

OS No.241/2011 15 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

interest to or in immovable property. Therefore, it is only with

regard to the second stage, namely, division of properties in

different shares and allotment thereof to the various

members, if the same is reduced to writing, it requires

registration under Section 17(i)(b) of the Act. Under the Hindu

law, it is well settled that, severance in status can take place

either by the unilateral declaration of one of the coparceners

or by agreement between all the coparceners.”

19.In another decision relied upon by the defence counsel reported in (1979) AIR (AP) 275 in between Sikhari Lakshmaiah and others Vs. Sikhari

Peddamallaiah (died) and others., wherein their lordships held that; “Under S. 17 (1) (b) of the Act. Under the Hindu Law,

it is well settled that, severance in status can take place

either by the unilateral declaration of one of the

coparceners or by agreement between all the

coparceners. Where severance is effected as above, it is

not a transaction which requires any writing and even if

it is effected by means of any instrument in writing, that

will not fall within the scope of S. 19 (1) (b) of the Act.”

20.In another decision relied upon by the defence counsel reported in

(2004) AIR (SC) 4130 in between K.G. Shivalingappa (dead) By LRs. And

others Vs. G.S. Eswarappa and Others., wherein their lordships held in para

No.14 that;

“We have gone through the judgment of the first

Appellate Court with the help of the learned counsel for the

parties. The first Appellate Court came to the firm finding of

tact that there was a prior partition of the joint family property

amongst the three branches of Shivalingappa-(III), Rangappa

and Mahadevappa. The document Exh. D-101 though

unregistered could be relied upon to establish the severance

of status in the joint family. The parties were having separate

OS No.241/2011 16 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

possession of the properties over several decades and were

enjoyment of the properties that had fallen to the shares of

three branches by their respective owners. The branches of

Mahadevappa and Rangappa were cultivating equal portions

by paying taxes and they had also divided the house which

had come to their shares and were living in two portions

separately. For the lands acquired the branches of Rangappa

and Mahadevappa had received compensation which was

distributed by them amongst themselves to the exclusion of

the branch of Shivalingappa-(II), thus, evidencing the fact that

the properties were partitioned and the respective branches

were enjoying the properties and its usufruct separately. The

three branches had been disposing of the properties which

had fallen to their shares and had purchased separate

properties. The khata entries also indicated that the properties

were standing in their names separately. The learned Single

Judge has not adverted to or set aside any of the findings

recorded by the first Appellate Court. The learned Single Judge

has clearly fell in error in reversing the judgment without

disturbing any of the findings referred to above”.

21.There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The plaintiff and defendants are own brother and sisters. As per Ex.B.7, it clearly shows that there was an earlier partition had been effected between plaintiff, defendants and their mother and another sister Subba Lakshumma. As per the recitals of Ex.B.7 shows that on 05.2.1990, the defendants, plaintiff and also mother of plaintiff partitioned properties by way of family settlement and executed a partition agreement between them and divided three schedules like “A”, “B”, “C”. “A” schedule property house allotted to the plaintiff and the plaintiff would get rights after the death of his mother. “B” schedule property as per

Ex.B.7 was allotted to Subba Lakshumma and the said Subba Lakshumma would get rights after the death of her mother. “C” schedule property as per

OS No.241/2011 17 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

Ex.B.7 was allotted to defendant No.2 herein for the purpose of her marriage.

Ex.B.7 further discloses that defendant No.1 herein already got her share at the time of her marriage at about 22 years back, hence no share was allotted to her as per Ex.B.7. After the death of plaintiff’s mother, the plaintiff sold away the “A” schedule house property and he admitted the same. Ex.B.7 clearly shows that already there was partition was effected in between plaintiff, defendants, their mother and another sister by name Subba Lakshumma. It is also an admitted fact that the said Subba Lakshumma was died unmarried. PW.1 admitted that he sold away the “A” schedule property covered under Ex.B.7.

22.The evidence of DWs.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.B.1 to B.7 clearly shows that the plaintiff is never in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Already there was partition effected between the parties as per Ex.B.7, the question of again partition does not arise. The plaintiff failed to prove his joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share over the suit schedule property. The defendants No.1 and 2 are only the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties as per Exs.B.1 to B.6. The plaintiff failed to prove his case and he is not entitled any partition as prayed for. Accordingly, this issue is answered as against the plaintiffs.

23.Issue No.2: To what relief?

In view of findings in re-casted issue No.1, the plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for.

24. In the result, this suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 22nd day of August, 2024.

Sd/- K. Satya Kumari,

Senior Civil Judge,

Proddatur.

OS No.241/2011 18 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.22.8.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Plaintiff

PW.1: P. Kullayappa PW.2: B. Subbarayudu (Eschewed) PW.3: Syed Khajamiah

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff Ex.A.1: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.22.6.1936

Ex.A.2:Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.16.6.1939

Ex.A.3:Signature of DW.1 in the sale deed

Ex.A.4:Certified copy of sale deed dt.05.5.2010

Witness examined for Defendants DW.1: P. Vijaya Lakshmi DW.2: V. Chinna Bayanna DW.3: G. Bala Sambaiah

Exhibits marked for Defendants

Ex.B.1: Pattadar passbook of defendant No.2

Ex.B.2:Title deed of defendant No.2

Ex.B.3:Pattadar passbook of defendant No.1

Ex.B.4:Title deed of defendant No.1

Ex.B.5:Original gift deed dt.13.12.2002 in favour of defendant No.2

Ex.B.6:Original gift deed dt.13.12.2002 in favour of defendant No.1

Ex.B.7:Unregistered partition deed dt.05.2.1990, stamp duty penalty paid on 22.6.2017

Id/- K.S.K.

SCJ, PDTR

OS No.374/2011 1 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.23.8.2024

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PRODDATUR

Present:- Smt. K. Satya Kumari,

Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur.

Friday, this the 23rd day of August, 2024

Original Suit No .374 of 2011

Valluru Shaik Apsar Hussain, Aged 38 years, S/o. Lalu Mia, r/o. D.No.10/703, Islampura Street, Proddatur town and Mandal, Kadapa District.

…. Plaintiff

Vs.

1Valluru Jambruthunnisa, Aged 70 years, W/o. Valluru Lalu Mia, r/o. D.No.10/703, Islampura Street, Proddatur town and Mandal, presently r/o. D.No.10/897, Jangam Yerukalappa Street, Kadapa City and District. Died her

only legal heir i.e., the plaintiff who is already on

record.

2Syed Shasha Valli @ Syed Ameer Basha, Aged 60 years, S/o.Late Khaja Peer, Muslim, Business, r/o. D.No.10/901, Jangam Yerukalappa Street, Kadapa City and District.

.... Defendants

This suit came up on 23.7.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.S. Venkata Rathnam, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri

V.Lalu Saheb, Advocate for defendants and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking for partition of suit schedule property into eight equal shares and allot seven shares to the plaintiff and deliver seven such shares to the plaintiff and also to declare the registered sale deed bearing No.11720/2010 dt.18.12.2010 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is null and void and for costs of the suit.

2.The case of the plaintiff in brief are as follows :

The plaint schedule property originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff and husband of the first defendant by name Valluru Lalu Mia. The said

OS No.374/2011 2 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.23.8.2024

Valluru Lalu Mia died in the year 1969 intestate leaving behind him, his two wives (1) Valluru Ghousunnisa, and (2) Valluru Jambruthunnisa i.e., first defendant and his son i.e., the plaintiff as his legal heirs and they succeeded the entire estate of the said Lalu Mia including the suit schedule property. During the year 1996, the first wife Valluru Ghousunnisa who died issue-less and hence, the plaintiff and first defendant alone remained as the legal heirs of late Lalu Mia and they succeeded the entire property and they have been in possession and enjoyment. The first defendant insisted the plaintiff to marry one Shaik Sulthana

Begum who is the daughter of Shaik Khadar Basha who is younger brother of first defendant and the plaintiff got married her and all of them have been residing jointly at Proddatur.

On 30.9.1999, the plaintiff and his mother i.e., first defendant sold the part of property belonged to late Lalu Mia bearing old D.No.10/461, present

D.No.10/702 to Edamadaka Ramanjaneyulu under registered sale deed bearing

No.3395/1999 and delivered possession on the same day. While the matter stood thus there were ill-feelings in between first defendant and wife of the plaintiff by name Shaik Sulthana Begum and they used to quarrel regularly.

Whenever the plaintiff tried to convince them, they did not hear the words of the plaintiff and the first defendant used to criticize the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff became the henpecked at the hands of his wife and used to hear the words of his wife and did not take care the words of the first defendant. The first defendant used to criticize the plaintiff and his wife and quarrel with them for no fault on their part. In the meantime, the second defendant who is the sister’s son of the first defendant used to visit Proddatur and developed the intimacy with the first defendant. The first defendant with an intention to put the plaintiff and his wife into trouble and hardship executed a nominal registered sale deed bearing

OS No.374/2011 3 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.23.8.2024

No.11720/2010 dt.18.12.2010 and left the house of the plaintiff and residing with the second defendant at Kadapa. The first defendant has no exclusive right to sell the suit schedule property either to the second defendant or to anybody, even if the first defendant executed any sale deed in favour of the second defendant, the sale deed is not valid and not binding upon the plaintiff.

Taking undue advantage of the differences between the plaintiff and first defendant, the second defendant instigated that the first defendant and developed enmity between them. The first defendant is proclaiming in the town that she will sell all the properties of late Valluru Lalu Mia to the 3rd parties. The first defendant has no exclusive right to sell any of the properties of late Valluru

Lalu Mia. The plaintiff is entitled 7/8th share in the suit schedule properties and the first defendant has got only 1/8th share and she alone cannot sell any of the properties of late Lalu Mia, even if she sell any of the properties the purchaser would not get any valid title. The first defendant executed a registered sale deed in favour of the second defendant and the sale sale deed is not valid and binding upon the plaintiff as he is not party to the said document. The said sale deed dt.18.12.2010 is a fraudulent document pressed into in order to defeat the legitimate share of the plaintiff in respect of the same. The plaintiff vexed with the attitude of the first defendant and demanded for partition and for separate possession of his 7/8th share of the suit schedule properties and demanded for the cancellation of the above said sale deed executed in faovur of the second defendant. Hence, this suit.

3.The defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statements denying the averments of the plaint and contended that, the second defendant is the sister’s son of the first defendant and the plaint schedule property belonged to the Valluru Lalu Mia who died in the year 1969 intestate leaving behind his two

OS No.374/2011 4 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.23.8.2024

wives only, none but others. So the plaintiff is not the legal heir of Valluru Lalu

Mia. The first defendant is the sole and whole legal heir for the plaint schedule property after the death of the first wife Valluru Lalu Mia. The first defendant gave the shelter to the plaintiff since his childhood considering his parental poorness and relationship only. The plaintiff observing the whole position and situation of family matters pin-pointy. The defendant No.1 can sign in Urdu only and not known any other language read and to write, the plaintiff helps her in such matters. The defendant never insisted the plaintiff to get marry the daughter of Shaik Khader Basha, who is the younger brother of the first defendant. The first defendant wanted to mortgage a part of the property to meet her livelihood in the year 1999 through the help of the plaintiff. And the plaintiff informed the first defendant to mortgage the property to one Ramanjaneyulu.

The plaintiff colluded with Ramanjaneyulu and took the first defendant to

Registrar office on 30.9.1999 and registered the property in favour of said

Ramanjeneyulu and posing that mortgaging the property by taking an advantage of illiteracy of the defendant No.1. The plaintiff collected the interest regularly from the first defendant till December, 2010. In this juncture, the first defendant sold the plaint schedule property to second defendant to release above said mortgaged property. In the year 2010, the first defendant gave the entire amount to the plaintiff to release the property from the clutches of Ramanjaneyulu.

Whenever the defendant No.1 asks to the plaintiff pertaining the mortgaged property, the plaintiff used to escape by saying one pretext or other. When first defendant demanded with the support of second defendant to the plaintiff, he filed the suit against both the defendants. The first defendant got shock by knowing that the mortgaged property was not mortgaged, but sold away to

Ramanjaneyulu and that too the plaintiff as the sharer, which is null and void and

OS No.374/2011 5 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.23.8.2024

apart rom it the suit is filed by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is not the son of the Valluru Lalu Mia and he is no way concerned with the plaint schedule property. The first defendant is the whole and sole legal heir of the Valluru Lalu Mia and she has authority to do anything to her husband’s property in view of Muslim personal Law. Being having authority to do, the first defendant sold the plaint schedule property to the second defendant which is legalized. The plaintiff filed the above said suit with cock and bull stories and veering the Court form the law to harass the defendants with mollified intention.

4.The defendant No.2 filed his Additional written statement contending that, the question whether a person is a legal representative of the deceased party in a suit is a mixed question of law and fact and a legal representative need not necessarily be the alleged legal heir of such deceased party. The plaintiff cannot act as plaintiff and the 1st defendant at the same time, which is gross abuse of due process of law. For the purpose of continuing the suit against the deceased 1st defendant, the plaintiff ought to have taken steps, rather than styling himself as the legal representative. As no such steps have been taken by the plaintiff, the suit stands abated against the deceased first defendant. The defendants are vehemently contesting the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is neither the son of the deceased first defendant nor is the son of Valluru Lalu Miah, the husband of the deceased first defendant and that the plaintiff is in no way concerned with the suit property.

The second defendant further submits that the said Valluru Lalu Miah, during his life time, had two wives. His first wife was Valluru Ghousunnisa and the now deceased first defendant was his second wife. The said Valluru Lalu

Miah admittedly died intestate in the year 1969. The said Valluru Lalu Miah died

OS No.374/2011 6 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.23.8.2024

issue-less. Thus, neither his first wife Ghousunnisa nor his second wife

Jamruthunnisa (first defendant) were never blessed with any child or children and they both died issue-less. Admittedly one S. Khadar Basha is the brother of the deceased first defendant and the said S.Khadar Basha, son of late Hussain

Saheb, is the nearest blood relative of the deceased first defendant and he is the legal representative of the deceased first defendant as stated in the memo,

dated 22.06.2016, filed by the second defendant. The plaintiff is put to strict

proof of the fact that he is the legal representative of the deceased first defendant.

The plaintiff is the son of one S. Chand Basha Saheb. The aforesaid

S.Chadar Basha, son of late Hussain Saheb, is admittedly the father-in-law of the plaintiff and taking advantage of such relationship, the plaintiff suppressed the fact that the said S. Khadar Basha is the legal representative of the deceased first defendant and is proceeding with the suit by illegally assuming the role of dual party.

The plaint scheduled property and some more property originally belonged to the aforesaid Valluru Lalu Miah, son of Fakruddin. On 05.09.1969 the said

Valluru Lalu Miah gifted away the same, including the plaint scheduled property, in favour of his two wives Ghousunnisa and Jamruthunnisa (1st defendant) and on the same day delivered possession of the same to them under a registered gift deed dt.05.9.1969 in document No.4717/1969 and having accepted the gift, the said Ghousunnisa and the 1st defendant were jointly continuing in possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, the aforesaid

Ghousunnisa died intestate in or around the year 1996 and since then the 1st defendant was continuing in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same.

On 18.12.2010, the 1st defendant in exercise of her exclusive right in the plaint

OS No.374/2011 7 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.23.8.2024

scheduled property, sold away the same for valuable consideration in favour of the 2nd defendant under a registered sale deed dt.18.12.2010 in document

No.11720/2010 which is the impugned document of the plaint and since then the 2nd defendant is continuing in possession of the plaint scheduled property.

The second defendant further submits that, the said flow of title with regard to the plaint scheduled property is clearly recited in the aforesaid registered sale deed dt.18.12.2010. It is therefore, crystal clear that the 1st defendant got title to the plaint scheduled property under the said registered gift deed dt.5.9.1969 and the aforesaid Valluru Lalu Miah never had any right, title, possession or interest in the property thereunder, including the plaint scheduled property, as on the date of his death, occurred in the month of December, 1969 and as such, even if for a moment it is contemplated that the plaintiff is the son of the said Valluru Lalu Miah, there is nothing to devolve upon the plaintiff by way of succession, much less any share in the plaint scheduled property.

The plaintiff is a near relative of one V.S. Mukthiyar who is the Ex.Vice-

Chairmen acted as Chairman of the Proddatur Municipality and is a political heavy weight of Proddatur town. Simply because the plaintiff, having such heavy political connections, manipulated the alleged registered sale deed dt.30.09.1999, the surrounding circumstances under which the same came into existence having already been averred by the defendants in their written statement, it cannot be said that the plaintiff, who is a stranger to the plaint scheduled property is having any share therein. The registration extract of the aforesaid gift deed dt.5.09.1969 in document No.4717/1969, executed by Valluru

Lalu Miah in favour of the 1st defendant and another, was misplaced by the defendants and the same is found by the 2nd defendant now and is filed herewith with by way of a petition. In any case, the suit has become infructuous on the

OS No.374/2011 8 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.23.8.2024

death of the 1st defendant and the same is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff miserably failed to amend his pleadings. The plaintiff is not having possession of the plaint scheduled property and the fixed court fees paid by the plaintiff is not proper. The plaintiff ought to have paid court fees on the market value of the plaint scheduled property and the suit for partition is not maintainable. For the prayer of declaration of the registered sale deed dt.18.12.2010, as null and void, no court fees is paid by the plaintiff and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine. The plaintiff is not a party to the said registered sale deed dt.18.12.2010 and for that reason also, the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

5. On hearing both sides and based on the pleadings of both sides, the following issues were framed for trial by my learned predecessor in the office on 19.3.2015.

1Whether the plaintiff is the son of Valluru Lalu Mia and defendant No.1 and he is having any right or share in the properties of deceased Valluru Lalu Mia?

2Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition of suit schedule property and declaration that the registered sale deed bearing No.11720/2010 dt.18.12.2010 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is null and void?

3Whether the defendant No.5 is the lawful purchaser of the

suit schedule property? If so he is entitled for declaration

of his right and title over the same and for recovery of

possession from the plaintiff by way of counter claim?

4To what relief?

6.On perusal of the record, it discloses that the suit is filed by the

plaintiff against the defendants No.1 and 2 only and moreover, no counter

claim filed by the defendants. Hence, issue No.3 is unnecessarily framed

on 19.3.2015. Hence, issue No.3 is hereby struck off.

7.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.12 were got marked. On behalf of the

OS No.374/2011 9 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.23.8.2024

defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were got marked.

8.Heard on both sides.

9. Issues Nos.1 and 2 :-

“Whether the plaintiff is the son of Valluru Lalu Mia and

defendant No.1 and he is having any right or share in the

properties of deceased Valluru Lalu Mia?”

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition of

suit schedule property and declaration that the registered sale

deed bearing No.11720/2010 dt.18.12.2010 executed by the first

defendant in favour of the second defendant is null and void?”

The burden lies upon these issues are upon the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is the son of Valluru Lalu Miah.

The said Lalu Miah have two wives viz., Valluru Ghousunnisa and Valluru

Jambruthunnisa i.e., defendant No.1. After the death of said Lalu Miah and his first wife, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are alone remained as legal representatives of late Lalu Miah and they succeeded the entire property of Lalu

Miah. The first defendant and plaintiff are in possession and enjoyment of the property.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 argued that the plaintiff is not the son of Lalu Miah and the suit schedule property originally belongs to said Lalu Mia and said Lalu Mia was died intestate and issue-less. In the year 1969, the said Lalu Mia gifted away all his properties jointly in favour of his two wives i.e., Ghousunnisa and Valluru Jambruthunnisa. Since then, two wives of Lalu Mia were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same.

Subsequently, said Lalu Mia died and his wives never gave birth to any child.

Ghousunnisa was also died in the year 1996. Since then, first defendant was in continuous and exclusive possession of the property including the suit house property. The plaintiff is the son of one Chand Basha Saheb and he is not the son of Lalu Miah.

OS No.374/2011 10 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.23.8.2024

10.To prove the case of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and

Exs.A.1 to A.12 were got marked. The evidence of PW.1 is almost all reiterated the plaint averments. Ex.A.1 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.30.9.1999 executed by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in favour of

Edamadaka Ramanjaneyulu, Ex.A.2 is certified copy of sale deed dt.18.12.2010 bearing No.11720/2010 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2, Ex.A.3 is original transfer certificate of 10th class issued by

A.B.M.H. School, Proddatur dt.24.11.2011, which shows that that the plaintiff’s father name mentioned as Late Lalu Miah, Ex.A.4 is original marriage certificate issued by District Govt. Sir Khazi, Kadapa, Ex.A.5 is school study certificate from

IV to V class issued by Municipal Primary School, Proddatur, Ex.A.6 is original

Aadhar card, Ex.A.7 is original election voter identity card, Ex.A.8 is original house hold card dt.22.4.2013, Ex.A.9 is original LIC bond bearing

No.652395347 issued by LIC Office, Proddatur branch, Ex.A.10 is original renewal premium receipt of LIC dt.09.6.2020 issued in the name of plaintiff,

Ex.A.11 is original property tax receipt dt.15.9.2004 issued by Proddatur

Municipality in the name of Ghousunnisa Begum and Ex.A.12 is original property tax receipt dt.29.1.2005 issued by Proddatur Municipality in the name of

Ghousunnisa Begum. Exs.A.5 to A.12 shows that the father name of the plaintiff is shown as Valluru Lalu Miah.

Ex.A.1 recitals shows that defendant No.1 who is second wife of Valluru

Lalu Miah and plaintiff sold the property covered under Ex.A.1 to one

Edamadaka Ramanjaneyulu.

In the cross examination of PW.1, he admitted that he is not the son of the defendant No.1, defendant No.1 is the second wife of his father. His father Lalu

Mia was died in the year 1969. Defendants No.1 had no issues. He admitted that

OS No.374/2011 11 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.23.8.2024

in Ex.A.1, plaintiff shown as son of first defendant by name Jambruthunnisa, but he is not the son of Jambruthunnisa and he is the son of Ghousunnisa and Lalu

Miah. The first defendant did not know about the reading and writing in Telugu.

He did not filed the document No.4717/1969 dt.05.9.1969 which is referred in

Exs.A.1 and A.2. Ghousunnisa has one brother by name Khader Basha. The said Khadar Basha is none other than the father-in-law of PW.1. He admitted that his father Lalu Miah executed a registered gift deed in favour of his two wives in the year 1969 and said Ghousunnisa was died in the year 1996.

11.To prove the case of the plaintiffs, PW.2 by name P.Mahaboob

Basha was examined who is the identified witness of Ex.A.1 and also one of the attestor of Ex.A.1. Whereas in the cross examination of PW.2, he stated that the plaintiff called him while he was present in the Sub-Registrar Office at the time of execution of Ex.A.1. He did not know about the particulars of the present suit schedule property. PW.2 evidence shows that PW.2 did not know anything about the suit details and he is deposing his evidence at the instance of PW.1 only.

12.To prove the case of the defendants, the second defendant examined as DW.1. His evidence is almost all reiterated the written statement contents. In the cross examination, DW.1 stated that defendant No.1 is sister of his mother. The father-in-law of the plaintiff is DW.1’s mother’s brother. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died in the year 2016. Since there is no legal representatives to defendant No.1, nobody were added as legal heirs of deceased defendant No.1. Ex.B.2 is registration extract of gift deed dt.05.9.1969 executed by Lalu Miah in favour of the defendant No.1 and Ghousunnisa.

Defendant No.2 purchased the house from the defendant No.1 in the year 2010.

The evidence of DW.1 shows that the defendant No.1 got the suit schedule property from her husband after his death. Ex.B.1 and B.3 are the copy of

OS No.374/2011 12 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.23.8.2024

Nikhanama. In Exs.B.1 and B.3 reveals that the father name of the plaintiff shown as S.Chand Basha Saheb.

13.The evidence of DW.2 who is Shaik Khader Basha, he categorically stated that Valuru Ghousunnisa is his own sister and she married Valluru Lalu

Miah and his sister never gave birth to any child during her lifetime. Lalu Miah was also got married Jambruthunnisa i.e., defendant No.1 as second wife.

Defendant No.1 also never gave birth to any child. Exs.B.4 to B.7 were got marked through DW.2. Ex.B.4 is certified copy of deposition of PW.1 in

O.S.No.58/1980 on the file of this Court, Ex.B.5 is certified copy of Judgment

dt.08.2.1984 in A.S.No.79/1983 on the file of Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge Court,

Kadapa, Ex.B.6 is certified copy of Judgment in S.A.No.210/1985 on the file of

Hon’ble High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad and Ex.B.7 is certified copy of original

Court notice served on Valluru Ghousunnisa in I.A.No.327/1983 in

O.S.No.58/1980 on the file of this Court. Ex.B.6 shows that one Chilakapati

Mahaboob Basha filed suit against Valluru Ghousunnisa and three others, the sister of DW.2 contested the suit and finally the matter went to second appeal in

S.A.No.210/1985 and Valluru Jambruthunnisa also a defendant along with

Ghousunnisa in that suit. On perusal of Ex.B.5, it discloses that the Ghousunnisa appeal was allowed in favour of Ghousunnisa.

14.Exs.B.4 to B.7 i.e., Court records shows that the Valluru Lalu Miah @ Valluru Lalu Saheb died issue-less. In this suit, after filing chief affidavit of

DW.2, either the plaintiff or his counsel did not turn up to cross examine the

DW.2.

15.On perusal of the record, the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 shows that

Valluru Lalu Miah had two wives. The said V. Lalu Miah died issue-less. As per

Ex.B.2, the said Valluru Lalu Miah executed a gift deed in favour of his two wives

OS No.374/2011 13 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.23.8.2024

namely Valluru Ghousunnisa and Valluru Jambruthunnisa (defendant No.1) in respect of suit schedule property and other properties on 05.9.1969 and on the same day delivered possession of the same to them and accepted the gift by his two wives, Valluru Ghousunnisa and first defendant were jointly in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also an admitted fact that the

Gaibunnisa was died in and around the year 1996 intestate. After her death, the first defendant was continuing in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. Ex.A.2 shows that the first defendant sold the plaint schedule property to defendant No.2 under registered sale deed as per Ex.A.2 as she is absolute owner and exclusive right and title over the plaint schedule property as she got acquired the same from her husband Valluru Lalu Miah as per Ex.B.2. The plaintiff also admitted that Valluru Lalu Miah executed gift deed in favour of his two wives in respect of suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove his case that he is the son of Valluru Lalu Miah and defendant No.1.

Hence, he is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. Accordingly, issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the plaintiff.

16.Issue No.3: Struck off.

17.Issue No.4: To what relief?

In view of findings in issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for.

18.In the result, this suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23rd day of August, 2024.

Sd/- K. Satya Kumari,

Senior Civil Judge,

Proddatur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Plaintiff PW.1: Valluru Shaik Apsar Hussain PW.2: S.P. Mahaboob Basha

OS No.374/2011 14 S.C.J Court, Pdtr, Dt.23.8.2024

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff Ex.A.1:Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.30.9.1999 executed by the plaintiff and his mother i.e., defendant No.1 in favour of Edamadaka Ramanjaneyulu,

Ex.A.2:Certified copy of sale deed dt.18.12.2010 bearing No.11720/2010 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2

Ex.A.3:original transfer certificate of 10th class issued by A.B.M.H. School, Proddatur dt.24.11.2011

Ex.A.4:original marriage certificate issued by District Govt. Sir Khazi, Kadapa,

Ex.A.5:school study certificate from IV to V class issued by Municipal Primacy School, Proddatur,

Ex.A.6:original Aadhar card, Ex.A.7 is original election voter identity card,

Ex.A.7:Original election voter identity card of plaintiff

Ex.A.8:original house hold card dt.22.4.2013 of plaintiff

Ex.A.9:original LIC bond bearing No.652395347 issued by LIC Office, Proddatur branch,

Ex.A.10: original renewal premium receipt of LIC dt.09.6.2020 issued in the name of plaintiff,

Ex.A.11: original property tax receipt dt.15.9.2004 issued by Proddatur Municipality in the name of Ghousunnisa Begum

Ex.A.12: original property tax receipt dt.29.1.2005 issued by Proddatur Municipality in the name of Ghousunnisa Begum.

Witness examined for Defendants DW.1: Syed Shasha Valli @ Syed Ameer DW.2: Shaik Khader Basha

Exhibits marked for Defendants Ex.B.1:Photocopy of marriage registration extract dt.20.2.1998

Ex.B.2:Registration extract of gift deed dt.05.9.1969

Ex.B.3:Copy of Nikha Nama

Ex.B.4:Certified copy of deposition of PW.1 in O.S.No.58/1980 on the file of this Court

Ex.B.5:certified copy of Judgment dt.08.2.1984 in A.S.No.79/1983 on the file of Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge Court, Kadapa,

Ex.B.6:certified copy of Judgment in S.A.No.210/1985 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad

Ex.B.7:certified copy of original Court notice served on Valluru Ghousunnisa in I.A.No.327/1983 in O.S.No.58/1980 on the file of this Court

Id/- K.S.K.

SCJ, PDTR

SC No.348 of 2018 1 A.S.J Court, PDTR, dt:23.1.2025

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: PRODDATUR

Present:- Smt. K. Satya Kumari,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur.

Thursday, this the 23rd day of January, 2025

Sessions Case No.348/2018

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Talamanchipatnam Police Station ….Complainant

Vs.

1Narapureddy Kiran Kumar Reddy, S/o. Raghunatha Reddy, Aged 29 years, r/o. D.No.3/21, 2Narapureddy Rajasekhar Reddy, S/o. Chinna Gurivi Reddy, Aged 28 years, r/o. D.No.3/7, 3Narapureddy Dileep Kumar Reddy, S/o. Chinna Gurivi Reddy @ Dubbanna, Aged 25 years, r/o. D.No.3/7, 4Narapureddy Manohar Reddy, S/o. Chinna Gurivi Reddy @ Milatary Gureddy, Aged 25 yers, r/o. D.No.3/16, 5Narapureddy Ravindranatha Reddy, S/o. Venkata Rami Reddy @ Bhavanam, Aged 34 years, r/o. D.No.3-11-A,

All are residents of Chinna Komerla village, Mylavaram Mandal, Kadapa District. ….Accused

This case came up on 20.1.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri

P.Raghunatha Reddy, Advocate for Accused, having stood over for consideration, and after perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Talamanchipatnam police station has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 5 in Cr.No.135/2018 for the offence punishable u/Sec.147, 148, 323, 506, 509, 307 r/w.149 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution, as per the averments made in the charge sheet are as follows:-

Prior to this offence, recently LW.1/V. Muni Prasada Reddy and some people joined in Telugu Desam Party lead by P.Rama Subba Reddy from the

SC No.348 of 2018 2 A.S.J Court, PDTR, dt:23.1.2025

group of accused lead by C. Adinarayana Reddy. The same is undigested to A.1 to A.5 and so, they are intend to kill him and waiting for opportunity. While so, on 23.8.2018, at about 7.55 am, while LW.1 was present at his house along with

Lws.2 and 3/V. Vijaya Lakshmi and V. Lakshmi Devi, A.1 to A.5 formed themselves into members of an unlawful assembly armed with stones and came to the house of LW.1 and when they came upon LW.1 to kill him, Lws.2 and 3 intervened and tried to resist them. Then, A.1 to A.5 abused them vulgarly, kicked them with legs and pushed them aside. Again A.1 to A.5 went upon LW.1, questioned about their joining in their opposite group and opposing against them and so questioning, when A.1 to A.5 tried to kill him by raising stones, LW.1 afraid and hide in his house. Then A.1 to A.5 hurled stones against the house of

LW.1 and further threatened LW.1 by showing hunting stones and by raising war cries that they will kill him. Then, Lws.2 and 3 raised cries, Lws.6 to 9/K.S.Ramanjaneya Reddy, K.A. Subbamma, K.A. Pedda Gurivi Reddy and K.A.

Gurivi Reddy, came and intervened, the accused left the place.

Basing on the complaint of LW.1, LW.12/S.I. of police, registered a case in

Cr.No.135/2018, u/Sec.147, 148, 323, 506, 509, 307 r/w.149 of IPC, visited the scene of offence, seized 10 kadapa slab stone pieces and prepared rough sketch in the presence of Lws.10 and 11/M. Shadrak and K. Prasad under the cover of scene observation and seizure panchanama, examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses and on 24.8.2018, he arrested A.1 to A.5 and sent them for remand and on completion of investigation, LW.12 laid charge sheet in this case.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu, took cognizance of the case u/Sec.147, 148, 323, 506, 509, 307 r/w.149 of

IPC against accused Nos.1 to 5 and numbered it as PRC No.30/2018 and committed the same to the Court of Sessions as the offence under Sec.307 of

SC No.348 of 2018 3 A.S.J Court, PDTR, dt:23.1.2025

IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions numbered it as SC No.348/2018 and made over it to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of accused before this court, they were examined u/Sec.228 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’). Charge u/Sec.148, 323, 509 and 307 of IPC against Accused Nos.1 to 5 has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the alleged charges, the prosecution listed 12 witnesses as Lws.1 to 12, among them examined 09 witnesses as Pws.1 to 09 and Exs.P.1 to P.5 and also M.O.1 was got marked.

6. PW.1 is the complainant / victim and prime witness, PWs.2 and 3 are also the victims and eye witnesses, PWs.4 to 6 are the eye witnesses to the alleged incident. PW.7 and 8 are the mediators to the seizure panchanama and

PW.9 is the investigating officer in this case.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. examination by explaining the incriminating substance appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the incriminating material of prosecution and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

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

9.At the time of dictation of Judgment, this Court found noticed that the charges framed by my learned predecessor dt.08.1.2020 are not sufficient.

This Court opined that additional charges has to be framed u/Sec.216 (1) of

Cr.P.C. Hence, A.1 to A.5 were re-examined u/Sec.228 Cr.P.C. and additional charges u/Sec.147, 506 r/w.149 of IPC against A.1 to A.5 have been framed, read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 to 5 in Telugu for which they

SC No.348 of 2018 4 A.S.J Court, PDTR, dt:23.1.2025

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10.Now, the points for determination are:- 1“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence u/Sec.148, 323, 509 and 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?” 2“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence u/Sec.147, 506 r/w.149 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

11. Points No.1 and 2 :-

These two points are so intrinsically interlinked with each other and required common appreciation of facts and application of mind, hence this Court take these two points simultaneously to answer.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.8.2018, at about 7.55 am, while

LW.1/V. Muni Prasad Reddy, was present at his house along with Lws.2 and 3/V.Vijaya Lakshmi and V. Lakshmi Devi, at that time, A.1 to A.5 formed themselves into members of an unlawful assembly armed with stones and came to the house of LW.1 with intend to kill LW.1, on that Lws.2 and 3 intervened and tried to resist them. Then, A.1 to A.5 abused them vulgarly, kicked them with legs and pushed them aside. Again A.1 to A.5 went upon LW.1, questioned about their joining in their opposite political group. LW.1 afraid and hide in his house.

Then A.1 to A.5 hurled stones on the house of LW.1 and further threatened them by showing hunting sickles and by raising war cries that they will kill LW.1. In the meanwhile, Lws.6 to 9/K.S.Ramanjaneya Reddy, K.A. Subbamma, K.A. Pedda

Gurivi Reddy and K.A. Gurivi Reddy, came and intervened, then all the accused left the place.

To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1 was got marked.

12.To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/Sec.307 I.P.C. it is burden on the prosecution to prove the following

ingredients :

SC No.348 of 2018 5 A.S.J Court, PDTR, dt:23.1.2025

i) That the accused did an act; ii) That the act was done with intention or knowledge and under such circumstances to cause bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause death or that such bodily injury was in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that accused attempted to cause such death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; and iii) That the accused had no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury.

Thus, it is evident from the aforementioned ingredients that for an offence of attempt to commit murder punishable u/sec.307 IPC, the most important ingredient is intention (or) knowledge.

13.The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, who are the victims in this case. PW.1 who is the victim in this case, he categorically stated that on 23.8.2018 in between 7.30 am to 8.00 am, while he was present in his house along with his wife and mother, at that time, all the accused i.e., A.1 to A.5 came to his house and tried to attack him with an intention to kill him armed with sickles, knives and stones. In the meanwhile, his wife and his mother tried to rescue him from the hands of the accused, on that A.1 abused to PW.1’s mother and threatened her that he will kill PW.1. Then PW.1 escaped from the spot and went into his house. A.1 to A.5 pelted stones on his house. Upon hearing the cries of his wife and mother, their neighbours came to the spot and in the meantime, all the accused left the place. On the same day, at about 9.45 am, he went to the police station and gave complaint against all the accused as per Ex.P.1.

14.On perusal of Ex.P.1, the evidence of PW.1 is corroborated with the

Ex.P.1. Admittedly, basing on the statement of PW.1, the F.I.R., was registered.

SC No.348 of 2018 6 A.S.J Court, PDTR, dt:23.1.2025

The value to be attached to the F.I.R., depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. When a person gives a statement to the police officer, basing on which the F.I.R., is registered. Ex.P.1 corroborated with the evidence of PW.1.

15.PW.2 who is wife of PW.1 categorically stated that on 23.8.2018, in between 7.30 am to 8.00 am, all the accused came to their house with an intent to kill PW.1. A.1 tried to attack PW.1 with a sickle, A.3 tried to attack PW.1 with a knife and remaining accused armed with stones. In the meanwhile, PW.2 and her mother-in-law tried to rescue PW.1 from the hands of the accused, on that all the accused abused them in filthy language. A.3 kicked PW.1’s mother with his leg. In the meanwhile, PW.1 went inside of the house to rescue himself.

PW.2 and her mother-in-law raised a huge cries, their neighbours came to the spot. In the meanwhile, all the accused left the place and all the accused threatened PW.2 and her mother-in-law that they will kill PW.1. A.2 and A.5 pelted a stone upon their children.

16.The evidence of PW.3 who is mother of PW.1 also deposed that all the accused came to her house armed with sickles, knives, stones with an intent to kill PW.1. PW.1 went inside of the house to rescue himself. Then PW.2 and

PW.3 tried to intervene, on that A.1 beat PW.3. All the accused threatened to

PW.3 by showing knives that they will kill PW.1.

17.PW.4 who is the father of PW.1, he came to know about the alleged incident from his family members. His evidence is hearsay evidence.

18.PW.5 who is said to be the eye witness to the alleged incident, he stated that on 23.8.2018, in between 7.30 am to 8.00 am, while he was taking filter water and proceeded to his house in front of the house of PW.1, he found noticed that PWs.2 and 3 were raising huge cries and he also found noticed A.1 to A.5 were present there. A.1 and A.2 abused to PWs.2 and 3 in filthy language. A.1 and A.2 pushed PW.3 in the meanwhile, PW.1 went into inside of

SC No.348 of 2018 7 A.S.J Court, PDTR, dt:23.1.2025

house in order to rescue from the hands of the accused. A.1 to A.5 pelted stones upon the house of PW.1.

19. The evidence of PWs.6 and 7 who are the eye witnesses, also deposed in the same lines of PW.5.

20.The evidence of PW.9 who is the investigating officer, his evidence is with regard to registration of the F.I.R. basing on the complaint given by PW.1 as per Ex.P.3, visiting to the scene of offence, recording the statements of the witnesses. He seized M.O.1 from the scene of offence in the presence of PW.8 and LW.11/K. Prasad under the cover of panchanama dt.23.8.2018 at 10.30 am and he also prepared rough sketch under Ex.P.5.

21.The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that PW.1 did not sustained any injuries and there are no specific overtacts and no weapons seized.

22.So far as the motive is concerned, PWs.1 to 4 categorically stated that there are previous political rivalries in between PW.1 and accused on that the accused bore grudge, due to that the accused tried to kill PW.1. In this case, admittedly PWs.1 to 3 did not sustained any injuries. PW.9 seized M.O.1 i.e., 10 kadapa slabs from the scene of offence. Though PW.1 did not sustained any injury, his evidence disclosed that all the accused tried to kill him armed with sickles, stones and knives. In the meanwhile, PWs.2 and 3 tried to rescue him, on that PW.1 went into inside of the house in order to rescue himself from the hands of the accused. But the evidence of PW.9 shows that he seized stones as per M.O.1 in the scene. The evidence of PW.9 clearly shows that recovery of

M.O.1 is proved by the evidence of investigating officer i.e., it is established that all the accused used M.O.1 in the commission of offence i.e., pelted a stones upon the house of PW.1. The evidence of PWs.5 to 7 discloses that they were present at the time of the alleged incident and they witnessed the incident.

SC No.348 of 2018 8 A.S.J Court, PDTR, dt:23.1.2025

Though PWs.1 to 7 were cross examined, but nothing could be elicited to discard their evidence.

23.PWs.5 to 7 who are the eye witnesses of the alleged incident, they categorically deposed that on 23.8.2018, in between 7.30 am to 8.00 am, PW.5 taking filter water and proceeded to his house in front of the house of PW.1 and he found noticed that PWs.2 and 3 were raising huge cries and he also found noticed A.1 to A.5 were present there. A.1 and A.2 abused to PWs.2 and 3 in filthy language and they pushed PW.3 in the meanwhile, PW.1 went into inside of house in order to rescue from the hands of the accused. A.1 to A.5 pelted stones upon the house of PW.1.

24.PW.6 deposed that on 23.8.2018, at about 8.00 am, PW.6 while he was proceeding from his house to his fields, in front of the house of PW.1, he found noticed that A.1 to A.5 abused to PWs.2 and 3 and shouted them. A.1 to

A.5 tried to beat PW.1 and in the meantime, PWs.2 and 3 came and tried to rescue PW.1 from the hands of A.1 to A.5, on that all the accused beat PWs.2 and 3 with their hands and legs. A.1 to A.5 pelted stones upon PWs.2 and 3 and also on their house.

25.PW.7 also deposed that A.1 armed with sickle and A.2 to A.5 armed with knives and all the accused attacked on PW.1 and tried to kill him. On that

PWs.2 and 3 tried to rescue PW.1 from the hands of accused, on that A.1 beat

PW.3 with his hands and legs. A.1 abused PW.3 in filthy language and also beat her with hands and legs. A.1 to A.5 pelted stones upon the house of PW.1. A.1 threatened to PW.3 that he will kill PW.1 and left the place.

26.PW.6 deposed that all the accused beat PW.2 and PW.3 with their hands and legs. PW.7 deposed that A.1 beat PW.3 with his hands and legs. A.1 abused PW.3 in filthy language. But PW.2 stated that A.3 kicked PW.3 with his leg, whereas PW.3 stated that A.1 beat her. PW.3 did not stated specific overt

SC No.348 of 2018 9 A.S.J Court, PDTR, dt:23.1.2025

acts.

27.PWs.5 to 7 are the eye witnesses. The ocular evidence of the witnesses inspires confidence. On this aspect, this Court relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2024 (3) ALT (Crl.) 245 (S.C.) in between Shanmugasekhar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu in para No.6 their lordships held that

“As the ocular evidence of the eye witnesses inspires confidence,

minor discrepancies in their evidence regarding the exact time of the

incident are not sufficient to discard their testimony”

28.In the present case also, PWs.5 to 7 are the eye witnesses. Their evidence discloses that at the time of alleged incident, all the accused were present in the scene armed with sickles and knives and they tried to beat PW.1.

In the meanwhile, PWs.2 and 3 came and rescued PW.1, all the accused pelted stones upon the house of PW.1 and all the accused threatened to PWs.2 and 3 that they will kill PW.1. In this case, though the mediator was turned hostile, he identified his signature as per Ex.P.2 on the seizure panchanama dt.23.8.2018.

In this case, M.O.1 i.e., Kadapa stones were seized. Seizure of the stones were also proved which shows that all the accused pelted stones upon the house of

PW.1. Admittedly, in this case Pws.1 to 3 did not sustained any injuries. The prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Sec.307 of I.P.C. But the evidence on record which shows that all the accused formed themselves into members of unlawful assembly armed with stones came to the house of PW.1 with common object, all the accused pelted a stones upon the house of PW.1. A.1 to A.5 threatened PWs.2 and 3 by showing knives that they will kill PW.1 by raising war cries and the said incident was witnessed by the PWs.5 to 7. Hence, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused u/Sec.147, 506 r/w.149 of I.P.C only.

Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the accused.

SC No.348 of 2018 10 A.S.J Court, PDTR, dt:23.1.2025

29.Considering all the facts and circumstances discussed supra in foregoing paragraphs, it can be safely concluded that the accused intentionally threatened Pws.2 and 3 with dire consequences that they will kill PW.1. Thus, the prosecution clearly established the guilt of the accused for the offence u/Sec.147, 506 r/w.149 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the

point No.2 is answered in favour of the prosecution and as against the

accused.

30. Point No.3:

In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the

offence u/Sec.148, 323, 509 and 307 of I.P.C. and accordingly, they are

acquitted u/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. But accused Nos.1 to 5

are found guilty for the offence u/Sec.147, 506 r/w.149 of I.P.C. and

accordingly, they are convicted u/Sec.235 (2) Cr.P.C.

Sd/- K. Satya Kumari

Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur

On questioning the accused with regard to the quantum of sentence,

Accused No.1 stated that he is a diabetic patient. He is having wife and small children. His old aged mother undergone knee surgery and he pleaded mercy.

Accused No.2 stated that he is having wife and small children. Accused No.3 stated that he got married recently and he is having old aged parents. Accused

No.4 stated that he is having wife and small son. Accused No.5 stated that he recently undergone surgery on his legs due to Varicose Veins problem. He is having wife and 11 years old daughter. A.1 to A.5 pleaded mercy and they requested the Court to take lenient view with regard to quantum of sentence and they requested to impose fine instead of imposing sentence.

SC No.348 of 2018 11 A.S.J Court, PDTR, dt:23.1.2025

However, in view of the facts and circumstances involved in this case, this

Court is of the opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to implement either probation of offenders Act or Sec.360 of Cr.P.C. in this case. Hence, considering the dependency of the family members of the convicted, facts and circumstances present in this case, this Court is taking lenient view with regard to quantum of sentence.

Accused Nos.1 to 5 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each

(Rupees two thousand only) for the offence u/Sec.147 of I.P.C. In default of

payment of fine, each accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a

period of 06 (six) months.

Accused Nos.1 to 5 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each

(Rupees two thousand only) for the offence u/Sec.506 r/w.149 of I.P.C. and

in default of payment of fine, each accused shall suffer simple

imprisonment for a period of 06 (six) months.

Accused are informed about their right to prefer an appeal against the sentence imposed by this court.

M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Office is directed to furnish copy of judgment to the accused free of cost today itself, under proper acknowledgment.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 23rd day of January, 2025.

Sd/- K. Satya Kumari,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Accused PW.1: V. Muni Prasada Reddy- None - PW.2: V. Vijaya Lakshmi PW.3: V. Lakshmi Devi PW.4: V. Muni Reddy

SC No.348 of 2018 12 A.S.J Court, PDTR, dt:23.1.2025

PW.5: K.S. Ramanjaneya Reddy PW.6: K.A. Pedda Gurivi Reddy PW.7: K.A. Gurivi Reddy PW.8: M. Shadrak PW.9: R. Raghavendra Reddy

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Accused - Nil - Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Signature of PW.8 in seizure panchanama dt.23.8.2018 Ex.P.3: F.I.R. in Cr.No.135/2018 EX.P.4: Scene observation and seizure panchanama dt.23.8.2018 at 10.30 am Ex.P.5: Rough sketch of scene of offence

Material Objects: M.O.1: Stones (10 in number) Id/- K.S.K.

A.S.J, PDTR.

SC No.348 of 2018 13 A.S.J Court, PDTR, dt:23.1.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, PRODDATUR.

Present:- Smt. K. Satya Kumari,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur.

Sessions Case No.348/2018

(PRC No.30/2018 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Jammalamadugu in Cr.No.135/2018 of Talamanchipatnam PS.

1. ComplainantState Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tala- manchipatnam P.S.

2. Accused 1. Narapureddy Kiran Kumar Reddy, S/o. Raghunatha Reddy, Aged 29 years, r/o. D.No.3/21,

2. Narapureddy Rajasekhar Reddy, S/o. Chinna Gurivi Reddy, Aged 28 years, r/o. D.No.3/7,

3. Narapureddy Dileep Kumar Reddy, S/o. Chinna Gurivi Reddy @ Dubbanna, Aged 25 years, r/o. D.No.3/7,

4. Narapureddy Manohar Reddy, S/o. Chinna Gurivi Reddy @ Milatary Gureddy, Aged 25 yers, r/o. D.No.3/16,

5. Narapureddy Ravindranatha Reddy, S/o. Venkata Rami Reddy @ Bhavanam, Aged 34 years, r/o. D.No.3-11-A,

6. All are residents of Chinna Komerla village, Mylavaram Mandal, Kadapa District.

3. Offence chargedu/Sec.147, 148, 323, 506, 509 and 307 r/w.149 of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 5.

4. Plea of the accusedTotal denial.

5. Finding of the JudgeAccused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence u/ Sec.148, 323, 509 and 307 of I.P.C. But accused Nos.1 to 5 are found guilty for the offence u/Sec.147, 506 r/w.149 of I.P.C.

6. Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.148, 323, 509 and 307 of I.P.C. and accordingly, they are acquitted u/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. But accused Nos.1 to 5 are found guilty for the offence u/Sec.147, 506 r/w.149 of I.P.C. and ac- cordingly, they are convicted u/Sec.235 (2) Cr.P.C. Ac- cused Nos.1 to 5 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each (Rupees two thousand only) for the offence u/Sec.147 of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, each accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 06 (six) months. Accused Nos.1 to 5 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each (Rupees two thousand only) for the of- fence u/Sec.506 r/w.149 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, each accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 06 (six) months. Accused are informed about their right to prefer an appeal against the sentence im- posed by this court. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Office is directed to furnish copy of judg- ment to the accused free of cost today itself, under proper acknowledgment.

7. Prosecution conductedAddl. Public Prosecutor. by:

SC No.348 of 2018 14 A.S.J Court, PDTR, dt:23.1.2025

8. Accused defended by Sri P. Raghunatha Reddy, Advocate for the accused.

9. P.R.C. Committed by Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu

10. Date of offence23.8.2018

11. Date of report23.8.2018

12. Date of remand24.8.2018

13. Date of release on 29.8.2018 bail.

14. Date of committal to 01.11.2018

sessions Court.

15. Date of commence-01.8.2024 ment of trial

16. Date of close of trial20.1.2025

17. Date of judgment23.1.2025

Remarks:

SD/- K. SATYA KUMARI,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PRODDATUR

Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Kadapa.

Copy to The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jammalamadugu

The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Asst. Sessions Judge Court, Proddatur.

A.S.No.47 of 2025 1 II Addl. District Judge’s Court,

Proddatur dt.06.05.2026

APKD030001262025

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

KADAPA AT PRODDATUR

Present:- Smt. K. Satya Kumari,

II Addl. District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

Wednesday, this the 06th day of May, 2026

Appeal Suit No.47 of 2025

Chennuru Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o. Naga Malla Reddy, Hindu, aged 57 years, Business, resident of D.No.15/513-4- 2, Balaji Nagar-2, Mydukur Road, Proddatur Town and Mandal, Kadapa District. …. Appellant / Defendant

Vs.

Thulasi Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. Chengalaiah, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Business, resident of D.No.13/15, Thirumalanayunipeta, Proddatur Town and Mandal, Kadapa District. …. Respondent / Plaintiff

This appeal is filed to against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Proddatur in O.S.No.265 of 2023 dt.13.03.2025.

Between:-

Thulasi Mallikarjuna Rao. …. Plaintiff

And.

Chennuru Mallikarjuna Reddy.

….. Defendant

A.S.No.47 of 2025 2 II Addl. District Judge’s Court,

Proddatur dt.06.05.2026

This appeal is coming on 01.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt T. Padmaja, Advocate for Appellant and of Sri N.V. Vara

Prasad, Advocate for respondent, after hearing on both sides, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessfulappellant / defendant to set aside the decree and Judgment dt.13.03.2025, rendered in

O.S.No.265/2023 on file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Proddatur,

which is filed for recovery of money for an amount of Rs.12,08,000/- based on promissory note dt.26.06.2021 together with an interest and for costs.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed in the trial Court.

3. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from plaintiff for his necessities on 26.06.2021 and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a.

on demand either to the plaintiff or to his order. Thereafter, on repeated demands of the plaintiff, the defendant paid an amount Rs.2,40,000/- towards interest for the from 26.06.2021 to 26.06.2022 to the plaintiff on 26.06.2022 and endorsed the same on the back side of the suit promissory note.

Subsequently the defendant failed to repay the the suit amount inspite of

A.S.No.47 of 2025 3 II Addl. District Judge’s Court,

Proddatur dt.06.05.2026 repeated demands of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendant filed written statement by denying the plaint averments and further contended that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 05.10.2019, Rs.3,00,000/- on 17.08.2020, Rs.5,00,000/- on 27.08.2020, Rs.2,00,000/- on 28.11.2020 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 19.07.2021 from the plaintiff and executed pronotes respectively in favour of plaintiff and subsequently the defendant paid the total amounts with regard to the said promissory notes and hence the plaintiff also returned the said promissory notes to the defendant. The defendant is an educated person and he always writes names of the person from whom he borrowed amount, but he never give the promissory notes to any one without writing the name from whom he borrowed the amount. The defendant and plaintiff were close friends and were having good dealings with each other and the plaintiff used to sit in the cash counter of the defendant’s shop regularly even in the absence of the defendant. The defendant believed the plaintiff and used to go out on his work by leaving his shop in the custody of the plaintiff while the defendant go out on his work. Taking undue advantage of the said relation and having custody of the shop in the absence of the defendant, plaintiff misused the promissory notes

A.S.No.47 of 2025 4 II Addl. District Judge’s Court,

Proddatur dt.06.05.2026 written by the defendant for his business purpose which were kept in the draw of his table in his shop by using his stamp pad with his name and filled the promissory notes by affixing stamp and falsely implicated such false allegation. Further, the defendant sold his property to pay the debts of the plaintiff and other creditors. There was a panchayath held between plaintiff and defendant with the intervention of the elders and the defendant paid total amount with regard to the above mentioned promissory notes executed by the defendant for

Rs.3,00,000/- on 05.10.2019, Rs.3,00,000/- on 17.08.2020,

Rs.5,00,000/- on 27.08.2020, Rs.2,00,000/- on 28.11.2020 and

Rs.5,00,000/- on 19.07.2021 respectively in favour of plaintiff. But the plaintiff taking the undue advantage of their close relation misused the promissory notes of the defendant which were written by the defendant for his business purpose in the draw of the table of the defendant in his shop without passing any consideration, filed this suit based on the suit promissory note and the plaintiff by hiding the true facts created false allegations by misusing the suit promissory notes for his wrongful gain through the said promissory notes were not executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and also without any consideration. Hence, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.

A.S.No.47 of 2025 5 II Addl. District Judge’s Court,

Proddatur dt.06.05.2026

5. Basing on the above said rival contentions, the following issues framed by the Trial Court.

1Whether the suit promissory note is not true, valid and binding on the defendant and not suported by consideration as alleged by defendant ?

2Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for ?

3.To what relief ?

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 and A.2 were got marked. To rebut the case of the plaintiff, the defendant himself examined as DW.1 and no documents were got marked.

7. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the trial court decreed the suit with costs.

8.Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the present appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful appellant with the following grounds:

1.The trial court erred in decreeing the claim of the respondent instead of dismissing the suit. The entire approach of the trial court in decreeing the claim of the respondent is totally against the established principles of law.

2.The trial Court over looked the principles of law pertaining to the negotiable instruments under section 118 of the Act as the witnesses gave their false evidences before the

A.S.No.47 of 2025 6 II Addl. District Judge’s Court,

Proddatur dt.06.05.2026

Court for which the presumption of law pertaining to the negotiable instruments under Sec.118 of the Act is not maintainable in this case.

3. The trial court has not properly analyzed and not considered the evidence of D.W.1 as well as the written statement of the appellant.

4.The trial court did not consider the deposition of P.W.1 in which P.W.1 gave false evidence which is quite contra to the Ex.A.1 marked on behalf of the respondent himself.

The trial court did not observe and did not considered the submission given by the P.W.1 in the 13th line of his cross- examination that “it is not true to suggest that Ex.A.1 does not contain signatures of attestors” and the same admission given by P.W.1 in his cross-examination is supported by P.W.2 in his cross-examination.

5.The trial court failed to consider the statement given by

P.W.1 in 16th line of his cross-examination that the “defendant is literate person” which supports the contention of the appellant that the defendant being literate has no capacity to leave the gap while executing promissory note as he can write the name and particulars of the plaintiff at the time of execution of promissory note.

6.The trial court failed to observe the statement given by

P.W.1 in the 1st line of his cross-examination that “I have acquainted with defendant since 10 years as defendant also doing same business opposite to my shop. Defendant is my friend. Counsel confronted Ex.A.1, witness admitted seal can be affixed at any time and the statement given by

A.S.No.47 of 2025 7 II Addl. District Judge’s Court,

Proddatur dt.06.05.2026 him in the 17th line of his cross-examination that “stamp pad is in my custody” which clearly shows that the plaintiff himself affixed his stamp in the said promissory note which was some how stolen from the shop of appellant as he have every chance to stole the promissory note from the shop of appellant and he have every chance to affix the stamp as the stamp is in the custody of respondent.

7.The trial court failed to consider the admission given by

P.W.1 in 7th line of his cross-examination that “I have not issued notice before filing of the suit with an intention that the defendant would file criminal case against me and also would give reply to me” which clearly and strongly supports the contention of the appellant that the promissory note which was kept in the shop of appellant and was affixed stamp by the plaintiff himself.

8.The trial court failed to consider the admissions given by

P.W.3 in the 7th line of cross-examination of P.W.3 that “defendant is literate. It is true there is no need to defendant to affix seal in promissory as he is literate, which strongly supports the contention of the appellant that he never borrowed and he never executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.

9.The trial court failed to consider the statements given by

D.W.1 in 14th line of his cross-examination that “I don’t know one Gopal Reddy and Bala Gangaiah and in 16th line of his cross-examination that “counsel confronted promissory note dated 26.06.2021, witness admitted his signature on writings except seal in that promissory note.”

A.S.No.47 of 2025 8 II Addl. District Judge’s Court,

Proddatur dt.06.05.2026

10. The trial court erred in observing that the legal notice was not issued by the respondent and hence it is not maintainable and the respondent wantonly did not issued notice to the appellant because if the appellant receive the notice, he might have given the reply with true facts and also he might have filed criminal case for the stolen promissory note and hence the respondent misleaded the

Court and obtained decree and Judgment in his favour.

11.The respondent did not filed any document to show that he is capably of lending amount to the appellant.

9. For these among other grounds, it is prayed to allow the appeal with costs and set aside the decree and Judgment of the Principal Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Proddatur dt.13.03.2025 in O.S.No.265/2023.

10.Heard the learned counsel for appellant in which he reiterated the pleadings of parties, grounds of appeal as well as the submissions made

before the trial court and hence, prays to set aside the decree and judgment

of the trial court.

11.The learned counsel for the respondent also argued with regard to the pleadings of parties, evidence placed before the trial Court and hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.

12. Now, the points for consideration are :- 1Whether the appellant is entitled to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in

O.S.No.265/2023?

2If so, to what relief ?

A.S.No.47 of 2025 9 II Addl. District Judge’s Court,

Proddatur dt.06.05.2026 13.Point No.1:-

Keeping in view of the above contentions on both sides, on perusal of the evidence and Judgment of the trial Court, it is clear that the above suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money under the suit promissory note as per Ex.A.1.

14. The plaintiff adduced his evidence as PW.1 and got examined

P.Ws.2 and 3 and stated that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- on 26.06.2021 from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with an interest at 24% per annum and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note and subsequently, the defendant paid an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- on 26.06.2022 being the interest for the period from 26.06.2021 to 26.06.2022 and the same was endorsed on the back side of Ex.A.1 as Ex.A.2 and thereafter the defendant failed to repay the balance amount inspite of repeated demands, as such, the plaintiff filed the suit.

15. Whereas, the evidence and pleadings of the defendant / DW.1 is that, himself and plaintiff were close friends and has money dealings with the plaintiff since twelve years and he executed promissory notes in favour of plaintiff and later paid the debt amount and received the said pronotes from the plaintiff. The defendant came to know about missing of promissory note after receiving of summons from the court. The main contention of the defendant is that due to close friendship, the plaintiff used to sit in the cash

A.S.No.47 of 2025 10 II Addl. District Judge’s Court,

Proddatur dt.06.05.2026 counter of the defendant’s shop regularly even in the absence of the defendant and the defendant believed the plaintiff and used to go out of his work by leaving his shop in the custody of the plaintiff and taking undue advantage of the said relation, the plaintiff misused the promissory notes written by the defendant for his business purpose which were kept in the draw of his table in his shop by using his stamp pad with his name and filed the promissory notes by affixing stamp and thereby filed the present suit for unlawful gain. The said promissory note was not executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

16. It is already discussed supra, that the pleadings of plaintiff supported by the evidence of P.W.1 who is the plaintiff and the persons who were present at the time of borrowing amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff and execution of Ex.A.1 in favour of plaintiff by the defendant. The defendant argued that PW-2 and PW-3 are unreliable because PW-2 claimed to be an "attestor" while PW-3 denied attesting. P.Ws.2 and 3 clearly stated that in their presence, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A.1 promissory in favour of plaintiff and thereafter the defendant paid interest of Rs.2,40,000/- to the plaintiff and the same was endorsed on the backside of Ex.A.1. A Promissory Note, by definition under Section 4 of the NI Act, does not legally require attestation to be valid. On perusal of Ex.A.1 does not contain an "Attestors Column” and

A.S.No.47 of 2025 11 II Addl. District Judge’s Court,

Proddatur dt.06.05.2026 “Scribe Column” separately. P.W.2 in his cross-examination admitted that he cannot say whether he is the first or second attestor for Ex.A.1, but he signed as attestor in Ex.A.1. Whereas P.W.3 clearly stated he is not an attestor for

Ex.A.1. PW-2’s claim of attestation is likely a layman’s interpretation of being a "witness to the transaction" rather than a formal signatory. Even if the testimonies regarding the act of signing as witnesses are inconsistent, they both concurrently state that they witnessed the passing of consideration of

Rs.10,00,000/- to the defendant by the plaintiff and in turn the defendant executed Ex.A.1 in favour of plaintiff.

17. The defendant argued that because he is literate, the use of a name seal i.e., Tulasi Mallikarjuna Rao, Proddatur is suspicious and he used to write in the promissory note. While P.W.1 admitted the defendant is literate, in modern commercial transactions, the use of a "Name Seal" alongside or in lieu of a signature is common for business owners. Literacy does not legally bar the use of a stamp. Since the defendant admitted the seal was belongs to him, and failed to prove the plaintiff’s "undue advantage" through independent evidence, the execution is deemed proved. The defendant contended that he had previously borrowed and repaid multiple sums and that those notes were returned. However, he failed to produce these returned promissory notes in court. Under the Best Evidence Rule i.e.,

Sec. 91 & 92 of the Evidence Act, if a party claims a specific course of

A.S.No.47 of 2025 12 II Addl. District Judge’s Court,

Proddatur dt.06.05.2026 conduct (writing notes instead of using seals), they must produce those documents to prove that conduct. His failure to do so leads to an adverse inference against him. The execution of the signature on Ex.A.1 is not explicity denied as a forgery, rather, the defendant claims the document was “misused”. Under Sec.118 (a) of Negotiable Instruments Act, once the signature on a promissory note is admitted or proved, there is a mandatory statutory presumption that the instrument was made for consideration.

18. Further, a critical piece of evidence is the endorsement of

Rs.2,40,000/- on the reverse of the Ex.A.1 suit promissory note i.e., Ex.A.2.

The defendant denies the part-payment endorsement of Rs.2,40,000/- on the reverse of Ex.A.1. Legally, a person seeking to "cheat" or forge a document to save a time-barred suit would typically do so only as the three-year deadline approached. The plaintiff claims that if he intended to forge a document to cheat, he would have done it more effectively. The creation of a part-payment endorsement i.e., Ex.A.2 actually reduces the total interest amount payable to the plaintiff, which suggests a genuine transaction rather than a fraudulent one. If the plaintiff had fraudulent intent, he would likely wait until the end of the three-year period to "create" an endorsement. The fact that Ex.A.2 exists within the first year supports the plaintiff’s claim of a genuine transaction. Although the defendant denied the endorsement, he did not take steps under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the

A.S.No.47 of 2025 13 II Addl. District Judge’s Court,

Proddatur dt.06.05.2026 document for expert comparison and it further strengthening the plaintiff's case. Given the admission of the primary signature in Ex.A.1 by the defendant and the lack of a credible motive for the plaintiff to forge an "early" endorsement, this court may conclude that the defendant's denial of Ex.A.2 is a mere tactic to avoid liability. Accordingly, the plaintiff discharged the initial burden lies upon him to prove the execution of Ex.A.1 and receipt of consideration by the defendant.

19.Now, the onus of the burden shifts on the defendant to establish and prove that the plaintiff stolen the Ex.A.1 from his cash drawer in his absence and filed this suit for unlawful gain. To substantiate the said pleadings of the defendant, he himself examined as D.W.1. The evidence of

D.W.1 is almost all reiterated the written statement averments. The main defence taken by the defendant is that he used to keep singed, blank promissory notes in an unlocked table drawer and the plaintiff who is friend and used to sit in his office even in his absence committed theft of promissory note and thereby affixed his name seal and making an endorsement of the defendant on the backside of Ex.A.1 that he paid one year interest and filed the present suit for unlawful gain.

20. The defendant admitted that he is a businessman. It is inherently improbable that a businessman would leave signed, legally binding documents in a cash counter without locking and accessible to others even

A.S.No.47 of 2025 14 II Addl. District Judge’s Court,

Proddatur dt.06.05.2026 to a close friend. If the plaintiff had indeed stolen the Ex.A.1, a prudent man would have filed a police complaint or issue a public notice or legal caution immediately upon discovering the loss or upon receiving the suit notice. The absence of any such report of theft makes the defence appeal as an afterthought to evade liability. Further, the defendant failed to examine any independent witnesses to prove the plaintiff has sat at the cash counter of defendant or that specific blank notes were kept in the drawer. Bare allegations of “friendship” and “misuse” cannot override the written instrument i.e., Ex.A.1. Further, admittedly, the defendant listed five previous loans ranging from 2019 to 2021 to show a pattern of borrowing and repayment. However, the existence of past loans does not disprove the current debt. In fact, it establishes a “creditor – debtor relationship”, making it more probable that the plaintiff had the financial capacity to lend and the defendant had the necessity to borrow.

21. Even if we assume the defendant's version that he left “signed blank notes” in the cash drawer, Section 20 of the N.I. Act provides that where a person signs and delivers a blank stamp paper, he gives prima facie authority to the holder to make it into a negotiable instrument for any amount.

While the defendant claims there was no delivery, his negligence in leaving signed instruments in his shop prevents him from taking a plea of “non est factum” (it is not my deed) against a holder who has filed a suit based on

A.S.No.47 of 2025 15 II Addl. District Judge’s Court,

Proddatur dt.06.05.2026 those signatures.

22. Further, the defendant argued that the lack of a pre-suit legal notice is suspicious. While PW1 admitted he did not send a notice to avoid a criminal case or to give reply to him, the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) does not make a pre-suit notice mandatory for a money suit based on a

Promissory Note. The filing of the suit itself constitutes a "demand" in the eyes of the law. Therefore, this technical objection does not invalidate the plaintiff's claim.

23. Hence, the defendant’s story of “undue advantage” is a weak “preponderance of probability.” His admission of the signatures, coupled with the lack of any criminal complaint regarding the stolen notes and the technical presumption of the N.I. Act, leads this Court to believe the plaintiff’s version.

24. Once the execution of promissory note is proved by examining

P.Ws.1 to 3 and filing of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2, the presumption u/Sec.118 (g) of

Negotiable Instruments Act would arise that it is supported by consideration.

Hence, the Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 is true, valid and binding on the defendant.

Hence, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff established his case about the execution of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 by the defendant after receipt of amount under Ex.A.1 in favour of plaintiff and the defendant paid interest amount under Ex.A.2 and thereafter failed to repay

A.S.No.47 of 2025 16 II Addl. District Judge’s Court,

Proddatur dt.06.05.2026 the suit promissory note amount.

25.The above findings and Judgment of the trial court does not suffers from any infirmity of proper appreciation of evidence and application of law and it is needless to interfere into the judgment of the trial court based on the above contentions of the appellant. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is liable to be confirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

26.Point No.2:- If so, to what relief ?

In the result, the appeal suit filed by the appellant is dismissed with costs, by confirming the decree and Judgment dt.13.03.2025 passed in

O.S.No.265 of 2023, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Proddatur.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade II, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 06 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K. Satya Kumari,

II Addl. District Judge, Proddatur.

Appendix of evidence (No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side)

Sd/- K. Satya Kumari,

// True copy // II Addl. D.J.

Proddatur.

II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

S.C.No.243 of 2021 1 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court, Proddatur, dt.11.05.2026

APKD030009942021

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

KADAPA AT PRODDATUR

Present:- Smt. K. Satya Kumari,

II Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Kadapa at Proddatur.

Monday, this the 11 th day of May, 2026

Sessions Case No.243/2021

(P.R.C.No.38/2019 on the fie of the Judiciai Magistrate of First Ciass, Court, Mydukur) 1Name of the State being represented through Complainantthe Sub-Inspector of Police, Chapadu Police Station.

2Name of the Accused 1 Mula Mysura Reddy, S/o. Sura Reddy, aged 39 years, Occ: Cultivation, Mulavaripalli Village, H/o. Bhumayapalli Village, Khajipeta Mandal, The owner of Lorries bearing Nos.AP04-TX-8770 and AP39-T-9302.

2 Dasari Subbaiah, S/o. Pedda Subbaiah, aged 32 years, caste by Yadav, RaghavendraNagar,Porumamilla mandal, Driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP04-TX-8770.

3 Shaik Khader Basha, S/o. Bikari Saheb, residing at D.No.5/101, Seenappa Bhavi Street, Porumamilla Town, Driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP39-T-9302.

4 Kurrupati Penchalaiah, S/o. Ramudu, aged 29 years, resident of A. Acchintharayapalli village, Vallur Mandal,

S.C.No.243 of 2021 2 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court, Proddatur, dt.11.05.2026

Driver of the Tractor bearing No.AP04- TX-8756 attached with Trailor No.AP04- TX-8758.

5 Mallireddy Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy, aged 25 years, D.No.1/34, Tappetla Village, Valluru Mandal, The owner of Tractor attached with Trailor No.AP04-TX-3402/AP04-N-4401.

6 Chinnaguruvigandla Lakshumaiah, S/o. Venkataiah, aged 36 years, D.No.4/19, Pedda Lebaka, Valluru Mandal, The driver of the Tractor attached with trailor No.AP04-TX-3402/AP04-N-4401.

7 Battala Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Mallanna, aged 38 years, residing at D.No.1/39, Tappetla, Vallur Mandal, owner of the tractor attached with trailor bearing No.AP04-TX-3402/AP04-N-4401.

8 Kardham Rajesh, S/o. Chennaiah, aged 27 years, I. Bayanapalli Village, Duvvur Mandal, Driver-cum-Operator of JCB bearing No.AP04-BG-8366.

9 Ande Yellammagari Anjaneyulu @ Veeranjaneyulu, 35 years, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, D.No.6/193-16, Mulabata Street, Mydukur Town, the owner of the JCB bearing No.AP04-BG-8366.

3Offences charged Sec.379 of Indian Penal code, Sec.3 of PDPP Act and Sec.9Q of A.P. New Sand Policy Amendment Act and Sec.9(b) (2) of APMMC Rules 1966 and Sec.21 (4) of M.M.D.R. Act, 1957.

4Plea of the accused.Found not guilty.

5Finding of the judgeFound not guilty.

S.C.No.243 of 2021 3 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court, Proddatur, dt.11.05.2026 6Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accused Nos.1 to 9 are found not guilty for the offence under under Sec.379 of Indian Penal code and Sec.3 of PDPP Act and Sec.9Q of A.P. New Sand Policy Amendment Act and Sec.9(b) (2) of APMMC Rules 1966 and Sec.21 (4) of M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 and accordingly, they are acquitted u/ Sec.235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 9 shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437- A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The un- marked case property i.e., 1) Lorry bearing No.AP04-TX-8770 returned to its registered owner as per orders in Crl.MP.No.2385/2019 dt.12.09.2019; 2) Lorry bearing No.AP39-T- 9302 returned to its registered owner as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.2386/2019 Dt.12.09.2019;

3) Tractor and Trailor bearing Nos.AP04-TX- 8756 and AP04-TX-8758 returned to its regis- teredownerasperOrdersin

Crl.M.P.No.2418 /2019, Dt.12.09.2019, 4) Trac-

tor and Trailor bearing No. AP04-TX-3402 and AP04-N-4401 returned to its registered owner as per orders in Crl.MP.No.2419/2019 dt.16.09.2019 and 5) JCB bearing NO.AP04- BG-8366 returned to its registered owner as perOrdersinCrl.M.P.No.2384/2019, Dt.13.09.2019, on the file of Judicial Magis- trate of I Class, Mydukur shall holds good after expiry of appeal time.

7Accused defended bySri G. Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 9. 8Prosecution conducted Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. by 9Cr.No. and Name of the Crime No.184 of 2019 of Chapadu Police Police StationStation.

S.C.No.243 of 2021 4 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court, Proddatur, dt.11.05.2026 10Committed byP.R.C.No.38 of 2019 of the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur.

11Date of offence24.08.2019.

12Date of report24.08.2019.

13Date of remandA.1 to A.9 – 24.08.2019.

14Date of release on bailA.1 to A.9 – 06.09.2019.

15Date of committal to 16.03.2021.

sessions Court

16Date of commencement29.09.2021. of trial 17Date of closure of trial.06.05.2026.

18Date of Judgment11.05.2026.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of police, Chapadu Police station, filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 9 in Cr.No.184/2019 of Chapadu police station for the offence punishable under Sec.379 of Indian Penal code, Sec.3 of

PDPP Act and Sec.9Q of A.P. New Sand Policy Amendment Act and Sec.9(b) (2) of APMMC Rules 1966, Sec.21 (4) of MMDR Act, 1957 and Sec.3 r/w.

Sec.181 and Sec.5 r/w. 180 of M.V. Act.

2. The case of the prosecution, as per the averments made in the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 24.08.2019 at 12.00 A.M., on reliable information about illegal transportation of sand from Penna River, V. Rajupalem village, Chapadu

Mandal, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chapadu Police Station along with his constables and two panchayatdars left in police jeep and reached the Penna river situated on southern side of V. Rajupalem village at 1.00A.M. and found

S.C.No.243 of 2021 5 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court, Proddatur, dt.11.05.2026 the accused Nos.1 to 9 with two tractors and trailors, two lorries and loading the sand into their trailors and lorries with the help of JCB and on seeing them, the accused Nos.1 to 9 tried to skulk away, but they surrounded them and caught hold of them in the spot. On interrogation by the S.I. of Police in the presence of panchayatdars, the accused Nos.1 to 9, they confessed that they are loading the sand into their tractors and trailors and lorries with the help of JCB by committing theft in Penna river for illegal gratification and further the accused Nos.1 to 9 stated that they do not have valid driving licence to drive the said vehicles. Then the police personnel arrested the accused Nos.1 to 9 basing on their confession and seized the two lorries, two tractors and trailors and one JCB under cover of panchanama. Basing on the strength of the above panchanama, the S.I. of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.184 of 2019 for the offences u/Secs.379 of Indian Penal code, Sec.3 of

PDPP Act and Sec.9Q of A.P. New Sand Policy Amendment Act and Sec.9(b) (2) of APMMC Rules 1966 and Sec.21 (4) of M.M.D.R. Act, 1957. and sent the accused Nos.1 to 9 for judicial custody. The Tahsildhar of Chapadu Mandal give his report that there is no such sand quarri and no permission given for transporting the sand from Chapadu Mandal jurisdiction. The Investigating

Officer handed the seized sand to concerned Tahsildhar for proper disposal.

Thus the accused by their above acts, has thus render themselves liable punishable for the above offences. Hence, the charge.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur, took cognizance of the case under Sec.379 of Indian Penal code, Sec.3 of PDPP

Act and Sec.9Q of A.P. New Sand Policy Amendment Act and Sec.9(b) (2) of

APMMC Rules 1966, Sec.21 (4) of MMDR Act, 1957 and Sec.3 r/w. Sec.181 and Sec.5 r/w. 180 of M.V. Act against the accused Nos.1 to 9 and numbered it as PRC No.38/2020 and committed the same to the Court of Sessions as

S.C.No.243 of 2021 6 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court, Proddatur, dt.11.05.2026 the offence under Sec.21 (4) of MMDR Act is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions numbered it as SC No.243/2021 and made over it to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of all the accused, the copies of documents as contemplated U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to them. The accused

Nos.1 to 9 were examined u/Sec.228 of Cr.P.C. The charges under Sec.379 of Indian Penal code, Sec.3 of PDPP Act and Sec.9Q of A.P. New Sand Policy

Amendment Act and Sec.9(b) (2) of APMMC Rules 1966 and Sec.21 (4) of

MMDR Act, 1957 against accused Nos.1 to 9 have been framed, read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 to 9 in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the charges, the prosecution listed fifteen witnesses as L.Ws.1 to 11, among them examined ten witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 toP.4. No material objects were marked. The remaining witnesses who are LW.1-D.N.Sheshashayana Rao, L.W.2-G. Durga

Mohan, L.W..4-C. Nagendra, L.W.5-Y. Sri Hari, L.W.6-K. Samba Siva, L.W.7-

O. Rama Subbaiah and L.W.8-Mopuri Prabhakar were given up by the learned Public Prosecutor.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 to 9 were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating substance appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused Nos.1 to 9 denied the evidence of prosecution and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

S.C.No.243 of 2021 7 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court, Proddatur, dt.11.05.2026

8. Now, the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec.379 of Indian Penal code, Sec.3 of PDPP Act and Sec.9Q of A.P. New Sand Policy Amendment Act and Sec.9(b) (2) of APMMC Rules 1966 and Sec.21 (4) of M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 and Rule 9 (B) (2) of APMMCR, 1966, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9. Point :-

To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were got marked and no material objects were got marked.

To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.379

of India Penal Code, it is burden on the prosecution to prove the

following ingredients :

1 Dishonest Intention: The accused must have intended to dishonestly deprive the owner of the property. This means, the taking must be with intent to cause wrongful gain to one self or wrongful loss to another.

2 Movable Property: The subject of the theft must be a movable object, 3 Taking without consent: The property must be taken without the express or implied consent of the owner or person of the possession.

4 Moving the property: The act of theft is involves taking possession of the property and also moving it from its original location.

S.C.No.243 of 2021 8 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court, Proddatur, dt.11.05.2026

10.In this case, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of

PWs.1 to 4. P.W.1 is the police constable and he categorically deposed in his evidence that on 28.04.2019 at about 12.30 A.M. on credible information, the

S.I. of Police, Chapadu and his staff and himself along with mediators proceeded to V.Rajupalem Village, Chapadu mandal and when they reached

Penna river on the southern side of V. Rajupalem, they found one JCB, two tractors and two lorries loading sand with the help of JCB in the trailors and lorries and upon seeing them, accused Nos.1 to 9 who found there tried to skulk away and they caught hold of accused Nos.1 to 9 and produced them

before the S.I. of Police, and the S.I. of Police interrogated the accused Nos.1

to 9 in the presence of mediators and they revealed their identity particulars and further confessed that they are transporting the sand illegally for the purpose of illegal gratification and further confessed that they have no licence to transport the sand they have no driving licence. Then the S.I. of Police drafted the Ex.P.1 panchanama in the lighting of jeep and cell phone lighting in the presence of mediators and seized five vehicles under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. He signed in Ex.P.1 confession arrest and seizure panchanama and then return back to the police along with accused and seized property.

11. The evidence of PW.2 who acted as panchaydar at the time arrest of accused Nos.1 to 9 and seizure of incriminating material, has deposed that he did not know all the accused and he was not accompanied with the police at the time of seizure of sand lorries, tractors and J.C.B. by the police and he identified his signature as per Ex.P.2. As he did not support to the version of prosecution, the learned A.P.P. declared him as hostile and during his cross- examination, nothing is elicited in favour of the prosecution.

S.C.No.243 of 2021 9 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court, Proddatur, dt.11.05.2026

12. P.W.3 who is the Tahsildhar he deposed that upon the receipt of letter from Sub Inspector of Police, Chapadu Police, with regard to the information whether there was any sand reaches are there in Chapadu jurisdiction and also any permission given to the transportation of sand. On that on 16.10.2019, he gave a report that there were no sand quarry is existing in Chapadu jurisdiction and no permits were given for transportation of sand and no sand reach or private sand reach is existed in Chapadu

Jurisdiction as per Ex.P.3.

13. P.W.4 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chapadu Police Station also deposed in the same lines as that of P.W.1 with regard to the arrest of accused Nos.1 to 9 and seizure of two lorries, two tractors and trailors and one JCB from the scene of offence. P.W.4 further deposed that basing on

Ex.P.1 panchanama, he issued Ex.P.4 F.I.R. in Cr.No.154/2019 for the offence under Sec.379 of Indian Penal code, Sec.3 of PDPP Act and Sec.9Q of A.P.

New Sand Policy Amendment Act and Sec.9(b) (2) of APMMC Rules 1966,

Sec.21 (4) of MMDR Act, 1957 and Sec.3 r/w. Sec.181 and Sec.5 r/w. 180 of

M.V. Act and send the same to the concerned J.F.C.M. Court and all other concerned officials and later he send the accused Nos.1 to 9 for judicial custody. P.W.4 further deposed that on the same day, he send a requisition to the Tahsildhar, Chapadu with regard to whether any sand reaches or any permission given to anybody for transporting the sand in Chapadu jurisdiction.

As per the orders of the concerned J.F.C.M. Court, he released the vehicles to the concerned owners. He send the sand to the Mydukur dump yard. On 16.10.2019 he received the report from Tahsildhar, Chapadu and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

S.C.No.243 of 2021 10 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court, Proddatur, dt.11.05.2026

14. On perusal of the entire evidence, it is clear that P.W.1 along with other police constables and two mediators i.e., P.W.2 and L.W.8-Mopuri

Prabhakar were assisted with P.W.4 for the arrest of accused Nos.1 to 9 and seizure of lorries, tractors and trailors and JCB at the scene of offence.

Admittedly, P.W.2 who is the panchayatdar for the arrest of accused Nos.1 to 9 and seizure of crime vehicles at the scene of offence did not supported the case of prosecution. The other mediator i.e., L.W.8-Mopuri Prabhakar was not examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the reasons best known to him, leading to an adverse inference. No doubt, it is held in a plethora of cases by the Hon’ble Apex Court that even if the panchayatdars did not support to the prosecution case, if there is evidence of police officials which is convincing regarding the seizure, the same can be believed and the official acts are presumed to be correct unless and until the contrary is proved.

For this purpose, this Court scrutinize the testimony of PWs.1 and 4.

15. P.Ws.1 and 4 in their chief examination has deposed that the arrest was made at 12:30 A.M. (midnight) on a river bank in the "illumination of vehicle headlights." Identifying nine different individuals and attributing specific roles to them in the flickering light of a vehicle in a vast riverbed is highly improbable. Hence, the reliance on "vehicle lighting" for conducting a search and seizure is highly improbable and suspicious. Further, as per the Ex.P.1

Panchanama, it was typed on a laptop. Admittedly the scene of offence is a remote riverbank. The defense rightly points out that the Seizure

Panchanama is a computer printout. P.W.4 claims this was drafted at the scene of the offence at 1:00 A.M. on the riverbank. In the absence of electricity or a mobile workstation at a remote river reach, it is physically impossible to generate a computer printout. This leads to the irresistible conclusion that the panchanama was prepared in the police station and not at

S.C.No.243 of 2021 11 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court, Proddatur, dt.11.05.2026 the spot, making the entire seizure process fabricated and doubtful. P.W.3, the

MRO, stated that no sand quarries exist in the jurisdiction of Chapadu, and no permissions were granted. Crucially, the Mines and Geology Department did not file a complaint regarding the theft of sand, despite the Penna River shore being under their jurisdiction. P.W.4 failed to initiate separate proceedings for the measurement of the seized sand. Without weighing the sand, it is impossible to determine the quantum of theft, which is a mandatory requirement to prove the value of the property stolen under Section 379 IPC.

16. Moreover, no Vigilance officials who received the sand was examined by the Investigating Agency and the same was also not brought on the evidence and also failed to submit the above receipt pertaining to handed over the sand to the stock yard. Further, P.W.4 had not ascertained the exact place and its depth, from where the sand was taken. No scene observation report or rough sketch of the place of arrest is also prepared by them. Further the P.W.4 failed to send the sand samples to the chemical analysis to ascertain the type of material. The prosecution proved the seizure of two lorries, two sand tractor and trailors and one JCB as per Ex.P.1 from the possession of the accused Nos.1 to 9, but the prosecution failed to prove that where the sand was sold by the accused. No doubt as per Sec.24 of Indian

Evidence Act, the confession made before the police officer is not admissible in evidence. In this case, Ex.P.1 is the confession cum seizure panchanama which shows that they are illegally transporting the sand for the purpose of sale for higher prices and they have no permit and valid licence to transport the sand.In this case P.W.4 being the Investigating Officer except obtained a letter from P.W.3 showing that P.W.3 never gave any permission to anybody for transportation of sand, no person was examined from whom the accused are transporting the sand. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 is full of

S.C.No.243 of 2021 12 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court, Proddatur, dt.11.05.2026 lacunas and not trustworthy and the drafting of Ex.P.1 panchanama at the scene of offence is also doubtful and not believable.

17. Hence, the combination of hostile of independent witness, a dubious 1:00 A.M. seizure on a dark riverbank, a computer-printed document at a remote location, and the absence of a complaint from the Mining

Department leaves overwhelming doubt in the prosecution's story.

18.In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under

Sec.379 of Indian Penal code and Sec.3 of PDPP Act and Sec.9 Q of A.P.

New Sand Policy Amendment Act and Rule 9 (B) (2) of APMMC, 1966 and

Sec.21 (4) of MMDR Act beyond all reasonable doubt and this Court found that the accused Nos.1 to 9 is liable to be acquitted. Accordingly, the point is answered as against the prosecution.

19. In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 9 are found not guilty for the offence under under Sec.379 of Indian Penal code and Sec.3 of PDPP Act and Sec.9Q of A.P. New Sand Policy Amendment Act and Sec.9(b) (2) of

APMMC Rules 1966 and Sec.21 (4) of M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 and accordingly, they are acquitted u/Sec.235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 9 shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The unmarked case property i.e., 1) Lorry bearing No.AP04-TX-8770 returned to its registered owner as per orders in Crl.MP.No.2385/2019 dt.12.09.2019; 2) Lorry bearing No.AP39-

T-9302 returned to its registered owner as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.2386/2019

Dt.12.09.2019; 3) Tractor and Trailor bearing Nos.AP04-TX-8756 and AP04-

TX-8758 returned to its registered owner as per Orders in Crl.M.P.No.2418 /2019, Dt.12.09.2019, 4) Tractor and Trailor bearing No. AP04-TX-3402 and

S.C.No.243 of 2021 13 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court, Proddatur, dt.11.05.2026

AP04-N-4401 returned to its registered owner as per orders in

Crl.MP.No.2419/2019 dt.16.09.2019 and 5) JCB bearing NO.AP04-BG-8366

returned to its registered owner as per Orders in Crl.M.P.No.2384/2019,

Dt.13.09.2019, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Mydukur shall holds good after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected and

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

Sd/- K. Satya Kumari,

II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Accused

PW.1: K. Sreenivasula Reddy. - None- PW.2: T. Subbarayudu. PW.3: M. Sreehari. PW.4: N. Mohammad Rafi.

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Accused

Ex.P1: Confessional and Seizure Panchanama dt.24.08.2019. - Nil – Ex.P2: Signature of P.W.2 on Confessional and Seizure Panchanama dt.24.08.2019. Ex.P3: Report issued by P.W.3., Dt.16.10.2019. Ex.P4: F.I.R. in Cr.No.184 of 2019 of Chapadu Police Station.

Material Objects; - Nil - Id/- K

Sd/- K.S.K.,

II Addl. S.J.,

Proddatur