K Shreewani

SPL. JFCM.EXCISE JUDGE, Nalgonda

Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex · Nalgonda · Telangana

K Shreewani, SPL. JFCM.EXCISE JUDGE, Nalgonda, is posted at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex, Nalgonda, Telangana, India. 316 court orders on record since 2022. 14 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, PRC cases.

316

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/225/2015

Palakuri Rani vs Bommagani Linga Swamy

28 Mar 2024

OS.No.225 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES) –CUM- II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT NALGONDA

Present: - Smt. K. Shreewani Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (For Proh. & Excise Offences)-cum- II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

Dated this, 28 th day of March, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No.225 of 2015

Between: -

Palakuri Rani D/o.Laxminarayana (W/o.Ramesh), Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kakulakondaram Village of Nalgonda Mandal and District.

... Plaintiff

AND

1. Bommagani Linga Swamy S/o.Late Laxminarayana, Age: 38 years,

2. Bommagoni Gopala Krishna S/o.Late Laxminarayana, Age: 35 years, Both are Agriculturists and R/o.Vookondi Village of Mungode Mandal, Nalgonda District. …Defendants

This suit is coming on for final hearing in the presence of Sri Veeramalla Narsimha, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri N. Narsimha Reddy, Advocate for the defendants and upon hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff; on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

1. This is a Suit filed by the plaintiff for partition declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are that the plaintiff and defendant’s sister and brothers and they are the children of Sri Laxminarayana. Further submitted that the plaintiff and defendants are the absolute owner and 2

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

exclusive possessor of the agricultural lands covered in Sy.No.49-E, 50/E, 52/E, 53/E, 56/E, 65/AA and 67/E totally admeasuring Ac.10-08 gts., of dry land situated at Vookondi Village of Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda

District.

(ii). Further submitted that during the life time Sri Laxminarayana has acquired the suit schedule lands through his ancestors i.e., his father Sri

Gopaiah. After demise of the father of the parties acquired the same and his name was in continuous possession and enjoyment over the said lands.

His name also mutated in the revenue records and pattedar pass book and title deed and also issued in his favor and his name is appearing in

Col.No.12 and 13 of the pahanies which is evident from the C.C. of pahani for the year 1424 dt: 30.06.2015. The Kartha of family Sri Laxmi Narayana died in the year 2004 intestate, leaving behind him his wife Smt. Sarojana.

However, her name was not mutated in the revenue record and she also died in the year 2014 even till today the suit schedule land stands on the name of the kartha of the Joint Hindu Family.

(iii). Further submitted that the plaint schedules are inherited properties of the joint Hindu family comprised of plaintiff and defendants. They are undivided coparceners governed by the principles of Mithakshra Hindu

Law. Further submitted that no final partition took place with meets and bunds among the coparceners of the Joint Hindu family. The parties have been cultivating the suit schedule lands jointly according to their own 3

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

convenience. The plaintiff and the defendants are in joint and constructive possession over the suit schedule lands.

(iv). Further submitted that the properties are common joint family properties and the parties are in the joint and they are in constructive possession over the suit schedule lands by maintaining the separate mess.

The agricultural produce on the said land is being divided in equal shares between the plaintiffs and defendants. Further submitted that the plaintiff and defendants are coparceners and belongs to Hindu undivided joint family members under sec.6 of Hindu Succession Act by way of survivorship plaintiffs and defendants are entitled share in the suit schedule land. Both the parties are in joint and constructive possession over the suit schedule land.

(v). Further submitted that due to recent boom there is heavy hike in the land value with in the vicinity of suit schedule lands. the defendants are trying to alienate the suit schedule joint family properties in favour of the third parties with a view to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiff over the suit schedule lands. Hence, this suit.

3. The defendants filed written statement stating case is not maintainable either in law or on facts of case. Further submitted that father of plaintiff and defendants had inherited the suit schedule lands apart from other land measuring Ac.3-00 gts., in Sy.No.65 of Vookondi Village of

Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda District from his father. Further submitted that 4

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

during his life time, the father of plaintiff had sold away the agricultural dry land measuring Ac.3-00 gts., in Sy.No.65 of Vookondi Village of Munugode

Mandal, Nalgonda District in favour of Ramachandru and Anjaneyulu to meet the marriage expenses of the plaintiff. With the sale proceeds apart from cash and gold with him, the father of the plaintiff had performed the marriage of the plaintiff in the year 1990. The plaintiff had orally relinquished her future interest in the joint family property since she had received the cash, gold apart from other valuable house hold articles at the time of her marriage. In recent time the value of the suit schedule lands have been increased in many folds and taking undue advantage of the same, the plaintiff had filed the above suit with a malafide intention to extract money from the defendants. Further submitted that the father of the plaintiff died much before 2005 Amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the plaintiff was not a coparcener as on the date of death of her father and as such she is not entitled to equal share as per with the defendants in suit schedule lands.

Further, in view of her oral relinquishment of her future interest in the suit schedule lands, she is not entitled to any share in the undivided interest of her father also. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled any share much less 1/3rd share in the suit schedule lands. Therefore, they prays to dismiss this suit with costs.

4. Basing on above pleadings and the material on record the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit schedule property into two shares and allot one share to the plaintiff?

2. To what relief?

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

5. In the course of trial the plaintiff’s case examined herself as

PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 as documentary evidence.

Ex.A6: CC of pahani for the year 2012-13 (4 papers), Ex.A7: CC of pahani for the fasli No.1424 (7 copies), Ex.A8: True copy of pahani for the year 2013-14, Ex.A9: True copy of pahani for the year 2014- 15 and Ex.A10 is true copy of pahani for the year 2018-19 (5 copies).

6. After closure of the evidence of parties the arguments of learned counsel for both sides were heard.

ISSUE No.1 :

It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property inherited by her father from his ancestors. The plaintiff as PW.1 deposed regarding all the averments in the plaint and to substantiate her case filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A.10 as on her behalf.

During the cross examination, she admitted that apart from the suit schedule property other properties were also inherited by my paternal grandfather Gopaiah from his ancestors she further admitted that her paternal grandfather died and her father died on 21.09.2000. She further admitted that she was married in the year 6

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

1990 and her in laws place is Kakulakondaram village of Nalgonda

Mandal. She stated that she does not know whether that apart from the Suit schedule land her father had agricultural land measuring Ac 3.00 gts in sy no 65 of Ukondi village and that her father had sold the said land to one Ramachandru and one

Anjaneyulu She further admitted that apart from the suit schedule land her father also inherited the a residential house at Ukondi village and that the defendants are residing in the said house and that she has not inclided the said house for partition in the present suit. She further denied all the suggestion given by the defendant counsel.

7. In order to proceed with determining the issue No.1, it would be very much necessary to rely on the following dicta which was laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of the right of daughters in ancestral propertyand is essential to be relied upon in order to decide the lis on hand.

Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma

AIR 2020 SCC 3717

Resultantly, we answer the reference as under:

(i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on

the daughter born before or after amendment in the same

manner as son with same rights and liabilities.

(ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier

with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or

testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th

day of December, 2004.

(iii) Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not

necessary that father coparcener should be living as on

9.9.2005.

(iv) The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally

enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption

of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of

ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was

survived by a female heir, of Class I as specified in the

Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female.

The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be

given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree

has been passed the daughters are to be given share in

coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for

final decree or in an appeal.

(v) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to

Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot

be accepted as the statutory recognized mode of partition

effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the

provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a

decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of

oral partition is supported by public documents and partition

is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been

affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of

partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted

and to be rejected out rightly.

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

8. Defendant did not dispute that the suit schedule property was inherited by the father of the plaintiff and defendant from his ancestors but stated that apart from the suit schedule land their father also acquired the land measuring Ac 3.00 gts in Sy.No. 65 of Vookondi Village of Munugode Mandal Nalgonda. He further stated that the said land was sold by the father to one

Ramachandru and one Anjaneyulu to meet the marriage expenses of the plaintiff with the sale proceeds from cash and gold with him their father had performed the marriage of the plaintiff in the year 1990 and that plaintiff had orally relinquished her further interest in the joint family property the defendants further stated that their father died much before to 2005 Amendment to section 6 of Hindu

Succession Act therefore the plaintiff is not a coparcener as on the date of death of their father and that she is not entitled to equal share in the undivided interest of their father.

9. To prove his claim Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and reiterated the same facts as in the written statement and marked EX B1 to EX B3 through him EXB1 is the Registered sale deed dated 19.06.1990 executed by father of PW1 in the favour of one Bommagani Ramachandru S/o Ramulu EXB2 is the registered sale deed 19.06.1990 executed by father of PW1 in the favour of on Bommagani Anjaneyulu S/o Ramulu and EXB3 is the

Registered sale deed dated 19.06.1990 executed by father of PW1 in the favour of on Bommagani Sathaiah S/o Ramulu i.e., DW2.

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

During the cross examination he admitted that plaintiff is

Elder sister and that she was married in the year 1990 to the son of his maternal uncle namely Palakuri Ramesh and at the time of marriage no document was written he further admitted that the suit schedule properly of Ac 10.00 gts is his ancestral property and it is inherited by his father through his grandfather and till today the property is in the name of his father He further admitted that at the time of death of his father DW.1 was working as the cleaner in the lorry and his brother was working in the hotel and that plaintiff had taken the responsibility of his father He further admitted that after he received the information of death of his father he brought the deed body of his father from the house of the plaintiff and performed the last rites further he denied the suggestions given by the plaintiff counsel.

10. One Bommagani Sathaiah was examined as DW2 he too stated the same facts as of DW1. During the cross examination he stated that the land is in the name of father of PW1 and he has acquired it from his father he denied the suggestion that the land was sold by her father for the medical treatment of his wife

Bommagani Anjamma and he added that he sold the said land for the marriage of PW1 and he has purchased the said land he further stated that he has purchased the said land through a registered Sale Deed He further stated that the land measuring Ac 10

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

3.00 gts in Sy.No. 65 was sold to Bommagani Ramachandru S/o

Ramulu, Bommagani Anjaneyulu S/o Ramulu and Bommagani

Sathaiah S/o Ramulu i.e., himself some days before marriage of in the year 1990 for the total consideration of Rs.18,000/- i.e., per acre Rs.6000/- through a registered sale deed. He further stated that there was no document written relating to the dowry given to

PW1 He further admitted that there was a panchayath conducted between PW1 and the defendants. He further admitted that father of PW1 Died at the house of PW1 after his death he was brought to the house of the defendants for his funeral rights and that at the last stage PW1had taken care of both her mother’s he further denied all the suggestions given by the plaintiff counsel.

11. Now let us look into the validity of Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. It is the plea of the defendants that the land measuring Ac 3.00 gts in Sy no 65 was sold to Bommagani Ramachandru S/o Ramulu ,Bommagani Anjaneyulu S/o Ramulu and Bommagani Sathaiah

S/o Ramulu ie DW2 himself some days before marriage in the year 1990 for the total consideration of Rs. 18,000/- i.e., per acre Rs 6000 through a registered sale deed in Sy.No.65 by their father. It is admitted fact that the property is inherited by the father from his ancestors. Hence the property is considered to have been devolved upon him after the commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Hence by application of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, the defendant No.1 has become tenants in common to the property 11

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

Accordingly the father of the plaintiff and the defendants has got absolute rights to deal with the suit schedule property in any manner he wishes as he has an independent power and predominant interest over the said property.

12. Having held so execution of Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 i.e., registered sale deeds executed by the father of the plaintiff and the defendants in favour of one Bommagani Ramachandru S/o

Ramulu, Bommagani Anjaneyulu S/o Ramulu and Bommagani

Sathaiah S/o Ramulu cannot be questioned by the plaintiff or by defendants. From the above discussion it is can be held that alienation of Ac 3.00 land in Sy.No. 65 cannot be questioned as it was alienated by the father of the plaintiff and the defendant when he was alive however as the plaintiff has not shown the said property in the suit it would not cause any changes in the suit schedule property.

13. From the evidence on record it can be seen that there is no dispute regarding the plaint schedule property standing in the name of father of the plaintiff which is covered under Exs.A1 &

A10. It is the case and evidence of plaintiff that his father acquired the suit schedule property from his ancestors which remained undisputed. The plaintiff by examining himself as PW.1 and by documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A10 proved by ascertaining that the plaint schedule property is the property of his father.

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

Though PW.1 subjected to cross-examination on material aspects, nothing was elicited to prove the defence and also to disprove the averments in the plaint. The only contention of defendant is that

PW.1 has relinquished her rights. When the defendant state that

PW1 has relinquished her rights only oral contentions cannot be accepted and the burden of proving the defence heavily rests on the defendants. Except the oral testimony of DW.1 and DW2, there is nothing on record to prove that the Plaintiff relinquished her right over the suit schedule property orally since she received cash, gold apart from other valuable house hold articles at the time of marriage.

14. In view of the above observations, the plaintiff has proved that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property and that she is entitled for a share along with the defendants and it is to be divided into equal shares and that she is entitled to one of such shares i.e., 1/3rd, out of it. Hence the issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO 2:

In view of my findings on issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for.

15. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs. A preliminary decree is granted directing the defendants for partition of the suit schedule property into three equal shares and for 13

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

separate possession and allotment of 1/3rd share out of it by metes and bounds in favour of the plaintiff within two months. Failure on the part of the defendants, the plaintiff is at liberty to take recourse for final decree proceedings.

Typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of March, 2024.

Sd/-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (For Proh. & Excise Offences) –cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

PW.1: Palakuri Rani

THE DEFENDANTs:

DW.1: Bommagani Linga Swamy DW.2: Bommagani Sathaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: CC of pahani for the year 1990-91 (3 papers), Ex.A2: CC of pahani for the year 1995-96 (5 papers), Ex.A3: CC of pahani for the year 2000-01 (4 papers), Ex.A4: CC of pahani for the year 2005-06 (4 papers), Ex.A5: CC of pahani for the year 2009-10 (3 papers), Ex.A6: CC of pahani for the year 2012-13 (4 papers), Ex.A7: CC of pahani for the fasli No.1424 (7 copies), Ex.A8: True copy of pahani for the year 2013-14, Ex.A9: True copy of pahani for the year 2014-15 Ex.A10: True copy of pahani for the year 2018-19 (5 copies).

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

THE DEFENDANTs:

Nil

Sd/-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (For Proh. & Excise Offences) –cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda

OS/225/2015

Palakuri Rani vs Bommagani Linga Swamy

28 Mar 2024

OS.No.225 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES) –CUM- II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT NALGONDA

Present: - Smt. K. Shreewani Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (For Proh. & Excise Offences)-cum- II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

Dated this, 28 th day of March, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No.225 of 2015

Between: -

Palakuri Rani D/o.Laxminarayana (W/o.Ramesh), Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kakulakondaram Village of Nalgonda Mandal and District.

... Plaintiff

AND

1. Bommagani Linga Swamy S/o.Late Laxminarayana, Age: 38 years,

2. Bommagoni Gopala Krishna S/o.Late Laxminarayana, Age: 35 years, Both are Agriculturists and R/o.Vookondi Village of Mungode Mandal, Nalgonda District. …Defendants

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

1. This is a Suit filed by the plaintiff for partition declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties.

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

District.

(ii). Further submitted that during the life time Sri Laxminarayana has acquired the suit schedule lands through his ancestors i.e., his father Sri

Gopaiah. After demise of the father of the parties acquired the same and his name was in continuous possession and enjoyment over the said lands.

His name also mutated in the revenue records and pattedar pass book and title deed and also issued in his favor and his name is appearing in

However, her name was not mutated in the revenue record and she also died in the year 2014 even till today the suit schedule land stands on the name of the kartha of the Joint Hindu Family.

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

convenience. The plaintiff and the defendants are in joint and constructive possession over the suit schedule lands.

Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda District from his father. Further submitted that 4

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

during his life time, the father of plaintiff had sold away the agricultural dry land measuring Ac.3-00 gts., in Sy.No.65 of Vookondi Village of Munugode

4. Basing on above pleadings and the material on record the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit schedule property into two shares and allot one share to the plaintiff?

2. To what relief?

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

5. In the course of trial the plaintiff’s case examined herself as

PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 as documentary evidence.

6. After closure of the evidence of parties the arguments of learned counsel for both sides were heard.

ISSUE No.1 :

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

1990 and her in laws place is Kakulakondaram village of Nalgonda

Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma

AIR 2020 SCC 3717

Resultantly, we answer the reference as under:

(i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on

the daughter born before or after amendment in the same

manner as son with same rights and liabilities.

(ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier

with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or

testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th

day of December, 2004.

(iii) Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not

necessary that father coparcener should be living as on

9.9.2005.

(iv) The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally

enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption

of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of

ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was

survived by a female heir, of Class I as specified in the

Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female.

The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be

given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree

has been passed the daughters are to be given share in

coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for

final decree or in an appeal.

(v) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to

Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot

be accepted as the statutory recognized mode of partition

effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the

provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a

decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of

oral partition is supported by public documents and partition

is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been

affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of

partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted

and to be rejected out rightly.

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

Succession Act therefore the plaintiff is not a coparcener as on the date of death of their father and that she is not entitled to equal share in the undivided interest of their father.

Registered sale deed dated 19.06.1990 executed by father of PW1 in the favour of on Bommagani Sathaiah S/o Ramulu i.e., DW2.

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

During the cross examination he admitted that plaintiff is

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

3.00 gts in Sy.No. 65 was sold to Bommagani Ramachandru S/o

Ramulu, Bommagani Anjaneyulu S/o Ramulu and Bommagani

Hence by application of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, the defendant No.1 has become tenants in common to the property 11

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

12. Having held so execution of Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 i.e., registered sale deeds executed by the father of the plaintiff and the defendants in favour of one Bommagani Ramachandru S/o

Ramulu, Bommagani Anjaneyulu S/o Ramulu and Bommagani

13. From the evidence on record it can be seen that there is no dispute regarding the plaint schedule property standing in the name of father of the plaintiff which is covered under Exs.A1 &

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

Though PW.1 subjected to cross-examination on material aspects, nothing was elicited to prove the defence and also to disprove the averments in the plaint. The only contention of defendant is that

PW.1 has relinquished her rights. When the defendant state that

ISSUE NO 2:

In view of my findings on issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for.

15. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs. A preliminary decree is granted directing the defendants for partition of the suit schedule property into three equal shares and for 13

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

Typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of March, 2024.

Sd/-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (For Proh. & Excise Offences) –cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

PW.1: Palakuri Rani

THE DEFENDANTs:

DW.1: Bommagani Linga Swamy DW.2: Bommagani Sathaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

THE PLAINTIFF:

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

THE DEFENDANTs:

Nil

Sd/-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (For Proh. & Excise Offences) –cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda

OS/225/2015

Palakuri Rani vs Bommagani Linga Swamy

28 Mar 2024

OS.No.225 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES) –CUM- II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT NALGONDA

Present: - Smt. K. Shreewani Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (For Proh. & Excise Offences)-cum- II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

Dated this, 28 th day of March, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No.225 of 2015

Between: -

Palakuri Rani D/o.Laxminarayana (W/o.Ramesh), Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kakulakondaram Village of Nalgonda Mandal and District.

... Plaintiff

AND

1. Bommagani Linga Swamy S/o.Late Laxminarayana, Age: 38 years,

2. Bommagoni Gopala Krishna S/o.Late Laxminarayana, Age: 35 years, Both are Agriculturists and R/o.Vookondi Village of Mungode Mandal, Nalgonda District. …Defendants

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

1. This is a Suit filed by the plaintiff for partition declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties.

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

District.

(ii). Further submitted that during the life time Sri Laxminarayana has acquired the suit schedule lands through his ancestors i.e., his father Sri

Gopaiah. After demise of the father of the parties acquired the same and his name was in continuous possession and enjoyment over the said lands.

His name also mutated in the revenue records and pattedar pass book and title deed and also issued in his favor and his name is appearing in

However, her name was not mutated in the revenue record and she also died in the year 2014 even till today the suit schedule land stands on the name of the kartha of the Joint Hindu Family.

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

convenience. The plaintiff and the defendants are in joint and constructive possession over the suit schedule lands.

Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda District from his father. Further submitted that 4

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

during his life time, the father of plaintiff had sold away the agricultural dry land measuring Ac.3-00 gts., in Sy.No.65 of Vookondi Village of Munugode

4. Basing on above pleadings and the material on record the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit schedule property into two shares and allot one share to the plaintiff?

2. To what relief?

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

5. In the course of trial the plaintiff’s case examined herself as

PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 as documentary evidence.

6. After closure of the evidence of parties the arguments of learned counsel for both sides were heard.

ISSUE No.1 :

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

1990 and her in laws place is Kakulakondaram village of Nalgonda

Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma

AIR 2020 SCC 3717

Resultantly, we answer the reference as under:

(i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on

the daughter born before or after amendment in the same

manner as son with same rights and liabilities.

(ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier

with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or

testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th

day of December, 2004.

(iii) Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not

necessary that father coparcener should be living as on

9.9.2005.

(iv) The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally

enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption

of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of

ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was

survived by a female heir, of Class I as specified in the

Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female.

The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be

given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree

has been passed the daughters are to be given share in

coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for

final decree or in an appeal.

(v) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to

Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot

be accepted as the statutory recognized mode of partition

effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the

provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a

decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of

oral partition is supported by public documents and partition

is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been

affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of

partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted

and to be rejected out rightly.

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

Succession Act therefore the plaintiff is not a coparcener as on the date of death of their father and that she is not entitled to equal share in the undivided interest of their father.

Registered sale deed dated 19.06.1990 executed by father of PW1 in the favour of on Bommagani Sathaiah S/o Ramulu i.e., DW2.

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

During the cross examination he admitted that plaintiff is

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

3.00 gts in Sy.No. 65 was sold to Bommagani Ramachandru S/o

Ramulu, Bommagani Anjaneyulu S/o Ramulu and Bommagani

Hence by application of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, the defendant No.1 has become tenants in common to the property 11

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

12. Having held so execution of Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 i.e., registered sale deeds executed by the father of the plaintiff and the defendants in favour of one Bommagani Ramachandru S/o

Ramulu, Bommagani Anjaneyulu S/o Ramulu and Bommagani

13. From the evidence on record it can be seen that there is no dispute regarding the plaint schedule property standing in the name of father of the plaintiff which is covered under Exs.A1 &

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

Though PW.1 subjected to cross-examination on material aspects, nothing was elicited to prove the defence and also to disprove the averments in the plaint. The only contention of defendant is that

PW.1 has relinquished her rights. When the defendant state that

ISSUE NO 2:

In view of my findings on issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for.

15. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs. A preliminary decree is granted directing the defendants for partition of the suit schedule property into three equal shares and for 13

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

Typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of March, 2024.

Sd/-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (For Proh. & Excise Offences) –cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

PW.1: Palakuri Rani

THE DEFENDANTs:

DW.1: Bommagani Linga Swamy DW.2: Bommagani Sathaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

THE PLAINTIFF:

O.S.No. 225 of 2015

THE DEFENDANTs:

Nil

Sd/-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (For Proh. & Excise Offences) –cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda

CC/1952/2022 Acquitted

Excise Ramannapet. vs Banothu Bojya

24 Mar 2023

CC 1952 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTARATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES)-CUM-II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE AT:: NALLAGONDA

Present: Smt. K. Shreewani Spl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, (For Proh. & Excise Offences)-cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2023

C.C. No.1952 of 2022

Between:-

The State of Telangana through Proh. & Excise Station, Ramannapet.

…Complainant AND

A1. Banothu Bojya S/o.Thavru, Age: 55 yrs, Occ: Labour, R/o.Gangamula Thanda, Narayanpuram Mandal. A2. Belde Ashok S/o.Narayana, Age: 66 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.Janagam Village, Narayanpuram Mandal. …Accused

Section of law : U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order : IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 & 2 are found not guilty for an offence under Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly, accused are acquitted for an offence under Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Sec. 437 A of Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the higher court by the prosecution or by the de-facto complainant. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming before me today for final disposal in the

presence of APP for State and of Sri J. Laxmaiah, Advocate counsel

for the Accused and having heard and having stood over for

consideration till this day this court delivered the following:- 1

CC 1952 of 2022

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case arising out of the charge sheet filed by the Proh. &

Excise Inspector, Ramannapet Excise Station, in COR No.11 of 2022 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

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

On 17.03.2022 at about 10.00 a.m., on receipt of credible information, LW.3, P&EI, Ramannapet along with his staff proceeded to

Gangamula Thanda, Narayanapuram Mandal. Lw.3 has secured Lws.1 & 2 as mediators and proceeded to house of accused and found one person came out from house at the time of Lw.3, mediators and staff reached house. On enquiry by Lw.3 accused has disclosed his name. Then Lw.3 along with his staff and Lws.1 & 2 are entered into that hut after serving search memo on accused began searching. During the searching Lw.3 and staff are found one white coloured plastic can which containing about (05) liters of ID liquor, (10) kgs of Jaggery in plastic bag and (02) kgs of

Alum. On further enquiry by Lw.3 the accused person has admitted that he was brought Jeggery and alum from A2. Then Lw.3 has informed to accused person in presence of Lws.1 & 2 that possessing and selling of ID liquor to send to Govt Chemical examiner for analysis and arrested accused persons under cover of panchanama.

Basing on the panchanama, LW.3 registered a case vide COR

No.11/2022 for the offence under Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1995 and completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused persons.

3. This case is taken on file for the offences punishable U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused persons. On appearance of accused persons copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

CC 1952 of 2022

4. The accused persons were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C and charge

U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 were framed, read over and explained in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 3 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P6. Learned APP given up the evidence of LW.2 and LW.3, hence their evidence is closed.

The list of witnesses examined by the prosecution are as follows:

1)PW.1 & 2 are the panch witnesses

2)PW.3 is the investigating officer

The list of document exhibited by the prosecution are as follows:

1)Ex.P1 is the Signature of PW.1 on scene of offence panchanama

2)Ex.P2 is the Signature of PW.1 on sample bottles

3)Ex.P3 is the Signature of Pw.2 on scene of offence panchanama

4)Ex.P4 is the Signature of Pw.2 on sample bottles

5)Ex.P5 is the COR

6)Ex.P6 is the Scene of offence panchanama

6. The accused persons were examined as contemplated u/Sec.313

Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused persons denied the same and reported no defence.

7. Heard arguments. The learned APP submitted arguments as on merits and learned counsel for accused submitted arguments.

8. Points for determination:- 3

CC 1952 of 2022

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused persons for an offences under Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, beyond reasonable doubt?”

9. POINT :-

Prosecution to support and substantiate its case, has examined

PW.1 to PW.3. PW.1 & PW.2 who are panch witnesses deposed in his evidence that police did not conduct any scene of offence panchanama in their presence. Further deposed that while they were returning from their work, police stopped them and obtained their signatures on blank white paper.

10. PW.3, M. Shankar is the investigating officer who registered the case and investigated the case in his chief examination testified the chronological events of the investigation which are similar to the allegations made in the charge sheet. During the cross examination of

PW.3, he categorically denied all the suggestions given by the learned counsel for accused.

11. During the cross examination, the learned APP failed to elicit anything from PW.1 & Pw.2 in support of prosecution case.

12. The learned APP has sought permission for cross examination of

PW.1 & PW.2, but nothing could elicit in their cross examination.

13. For bringing home the guilt of the accused the prosecution is to prove the following essential ingredients of the offence under Sec.

7(A)r/w8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act:

Sec: 7(A)r/w8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

7(A) Prohibition of production etc., of arrack:-

The production, manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase, sale and transport of arrack is hereby prohibited. 8. Punishment for buying, selling, consumption etc., of liquors: whoever 4

CC 1952 of 2022

(a) consumes any liquor except in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1968, (Act 17, of 1968) or the terms of a rule, notification, order, licence or permit issued there under shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to six months or with fine which may extend up to one thousand rupees or with both.

(b) possesses, collects, buys, sells, transports, produces or manufactures any liquor other than arrack except in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1968, (Act 17, of 1968) or the terms of any rule, notification , order, licence or permit issued there under shall be punished.

(i) where the liquor involved in the offence is less than such quantity as may be notified in this behalf with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend up to three years or with fine which shall not be less than rupees ten thousand or shall not be less than thrice the value of the liquor involved in this offence whichever is higher but which may extend up to six times value of such liquor, such value being arrived at in the manner prescribed or with both.

(ii) Where the liquor involved in the offence is not less than such quantity notified as aforesaid with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend up to five years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees twenty thousand or shall not be less than thrice the value of the liquor involved in the offence whichever is higher but which may extent up to six times value of such liquor, such value being arrived at in the manner prescribed or with both.

(iii) Where the commission of any offence either under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) is abetted, the abettor shall be liable for punishment with imprisonment either description and with fine as provided there in.

Pradesh Excise Act 1968, (Act 17, of 1968) sells any liquor other than arrack otherwise than accordance with the provisions of this Act or terms of any rule, notification, order, licence or permit issued there under shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to six months or with fine which may extend up to rupees one thousand or with both..

(d.) allows consumption of arrack upon premises in his immediate possession shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which extend 5

CC 1952 of 2022

up to three years or with fine which extend up to ten thousand rupees or with both. e) contravenes the provisions of section 7-A shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend up to five years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees ten thousand but which may extend up to rupees one lakh.

14. In order to prove the guilty of accused person, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of above definition. On the appreciation of above evidence, PW.3 is the investigating officer who has registered the case, conducted panchanama and filed charge sheet. PW.1 & 2 being the independent and panch witnesses has denied the conduct of panchanama in their presence and also the seizure of I.D. liquor. Hence, there is no evidence on the record to show that accused was in constructive possession of I.D. liquor at the alleged place of offence. Police failed to obtain any ownership certificate from grampanchath whether the house belongs to the said accused and there is no evidence of independent witness in the prosecution witnesses to show that accused was owner or in constructive possession of house from which contraband was seized.

15. This court is of opinion that basing on the evidence of interested witnesses, PW.3, accused cannot be convicted. Prosecution miserably failed to prove the nexus in between the accused persons and seized property, beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt.

16. IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 & 2 are found not guilty for an offence under Sec. 7(A)r/w8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Accordingly, accused are acquitted for an offence under Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Sec. 437 A of Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the higher court by the prosecution or by the de-facto complainant. The unmarked 6

CC 1952 of 2022

case property i.e. sample bottles if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this 24th day of March, 2023.

Sd/-

Spl.Judl.First Class Magistrate (For Proh.& Excise Offences )-cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Defence

PW-1 Korra Raju None PW-2 Megavath Bichya PW-3 N. Shankar

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P2: Signature of PW.1 on sample bottles Ex.P3: Signature of Pw.2 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4: Signature of Pw.2 on sample bottles Ex.P5: COR Ex.P6: Scene of offence panchanama

Defence: Nil M.Os. Marked

Nil

Sd/-

Spl.Judl.First Class Magistrate (For Proh.& Excise Offences )-cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

CC/1953/2022 Acquitted

Excise Ramannapet. vs Vankudothu Gudi.

24 Mar 2023

CC 1953 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTARATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES)-CUM-II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE AT:: NALLAGONDA

Present: Smt. K. Shreewani Spl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, (For Proh. & Excise Offences)-cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2023

C.C. No.1953 of 2022

Between:-

The State of Telangana through Proh. & Excise Station, Ramannapet.

…Complainant AND

Vankudothu Gudi W/o.Madhu, Age: 55 yrs, Occ: Coolie, R/o.Vachya Thanda, Naryanpur Mandal. …Accused

Section of law : U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order : IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for an offence under Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for an offence under Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Sec. 437 A of Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the higher court by the prosecution or by the de-facto complainant. The unmarked case property i.e. sample bottles if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming before me today for final disposal in the

presence of APP for State and of Sri J. Laxmaiah, Advocate counsel

for the Accused and having heard and having stood over for

consideration till this day this court delivered the following:- 1

CC 1953 of 2022

JUDGMENT

1. This is a case arising out of the charge sheet filed by the Proh. &

Excise Inspector, Ramannapet Excise Station, in COR No.04 of 2022 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

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

On 19.04.2022 at about 5.00 p.m., on receipt of credible information, LW.3, P&EI, Ramannapet along with his staff proceeded to

Vachya Thanda, Narayanapuram Mandal. Lw.3 has secured Lws.1 & 2 as mediators and proceeded to house of accused and found on person standing before the house and she observe the excise staff and ran away from place of offence. On enquiry by Lw.3 to neighbours disclosed her.

Then Lw.3 along with his staff and Lws.1 & 2 are entered into that house after pasting search memo to accused house door and began searching.

During the searching Lw.3 and staff are found one white coloured plastic can which containing about (02) liters of ID liquor. Then Lw.3 has informed to accused that possessing and selling of ID liquor is an offence under the TS prohibition Act. Then Lw.3 has seized that ID liquor can and drawn 2 sample bottles each containing 180 ml and sealed them as per procedure to send to Chemical examination for analysis under cover of panchanama. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused.

Basing on the panchanama, LW.3 registered a case vide COR

No.15/2022 for the offence under Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1995 and completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused persons.

3. This case is taken on file for the offences punishable U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused persons. On 2

CC 1953 of 2022

appearance of accused persons copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C and charge U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 were framed, read over and explained in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 3 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P6.

The list of witnesses examined by the prosecution are as follows:

1)PW.1 & 2 are the panch witnesses

2)PW.3 is the investigating officer

The list of document exhibited by the prosecution are as follows:

1)Ex.P1 is the Signature of PW.1 on scene of offence panchanama

2)Ex.P2 is the Signature of PW.1 on sample bottles

3)Ex.P3 is the Signature of Pw.2 on scene of offence panchanama

4)Ex.P4 is the Signature of Pw.2 on sample bottles

5)Ex.P5 is the COR

6)Ex.P6 is the Scene of offence panchanama

6. The accused was examined as contemplated u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C.

explaining the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused person denied the same and reported no defence.

7. Heard arguments. The learned APP submitted arguments as on merits and learned counsel for accused submitted arguments.

CC 1953 of 2022

8. Points for determination:- “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused persons for an offences under Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, beyond reasonable doubt?”

9. POINT :-

Prosecution to support and substantiate its case, has examined

PW.1 to PW.3. PW.1 & PW.2 who are panch witnesses deposed in their evidence that police did not conduct any scene of offence panchanama in their presence. Further deposed that while they were returning from their work, police stopped them and obtained their signatures on blank white paper.

PW.3, he categorically denied all the suggestions given by the learned counsel for accused.

11. During the cross examination, the learned APP failed to elicit anything from PW.1 & Pw.2 in support of prosecution case.

12. The learned APP has sought permission for cross examination of

PW.1 & PW.2, but nothing could elicit in their cross examination.

13. For bringing home the guilt of the accused the prosecution is to prove the following essential ingredients of the offence under Sec.

7(A)r/w8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act:

CC 1953 of 2022

Sec: 7(A)r/w8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

7(A) Prohibition of production etc., of arrack:-

The production, manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase, sale and transport of arrack is hereby prohibited. 8.

Punishment for buying, selling, consumption etc., of liquors: whoever

Pradesh Excise Act 1968, (Act 17, of 1968) sells any liquor other than arrack otherwise than accordance with the provisions of this Act or terms 5

CC 1953 of 2022

of any rule, notification, order, licence or permit issued there under shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to six months or with fine which may extend up to rupees one thousand or with both..

(d.) allows consumption of arrack upon premises in his immediate possession shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which extend up to three years or with fine which extend up to ten thousand rupees or with both. e) contravenes the provisions of section 7-A shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend up to five years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees ten thousand but which may extend up to rupees one lakh.

CC 1953 of 2022

16. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for an offence under Sec. 7(A)r/w8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for an offence under Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Sec. 437 A of Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the higher court by the prosecution or by the de-facto complainant. The unmarked case property i.e. sample bottles if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this 24th day of March, 2023.

Sd/-

Spl.Judl.First Class Magistrate (For Proh.& Excise Offences )-cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Defence

PW-1 Vankudothu Devilal None PW-2 Karamtoth Mohan PW-3 N. Shanker

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution:

Nil

Sd/-

Spl.Judl.First Class Magistrate (For Proh.& Excise Offences )-cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

Order Record 297 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/23/2023	STATE BANK OF INDIA, Maithri Womens College Branch, Nalgonda Represented by its Branch Manager vs Bogoju Vijaya Laxmi (since died represented by her legal heirs Mummadi Narsimha Chary and 3 others	28 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
OS/208/2011	Meka Anji Reddy vs Meka Venugopal Reddy @ Swami Reddy	28 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
OS/225/2015	Palakuri Rani vs Bommagani Linga Swamy	28 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
OS/348/2023	Mohd. Aneef Khan vs Janjirala Yadamma	28 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
OS/415/2008	Somanaboina Sathamma vs Kunukuntla Venkaiah	28 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
OS/506/2023	Gade Pichamma and others vs The Joint Sub-Registrar Office of the District Rgistrar, Municipal Complex, Ramagiri Nalgonda.	28 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
OS/560/2022	Amireddy Venkat Reddy vs Pindi Srinivas Reddy	28 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
OS/606/2023	Andhra Pradesh Graameena Vikas Bank, Munugode Branch, rep. by Nasu Radha Krishna vs Kumbam Prabhavathi	28 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200837/2017	SHO II TOWN, NALGONDA. Singamaneni gwori vs Laxmimmalla varun raj	28 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
OS/168/2013	Gutha Prabhakar Reddy vs Kolipaka Saritha	27 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
CC/114/2020	P.S.Devarkonda vs Palakurla Venkataiah	27 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200027/2017	SHO P.SNarketpally vs Sama Maheshwar reddy	27 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
CC/201234/2016	SHO, P.S Narketpally vs Malleboina Saidulu	27 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
OS/4/2013	Adepu Durgamma vs Irigi Venkulu	26 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
OS/199/2011	Muchapothula Janaiah vs T.Venkateshwara Rao	26 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
OS/510/2020	Neelakantam Swamy and 2 Others vs Neelakantam Bhagyapathi and 6 Others	26 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
CC/171/2024	Patan Valli vs Mereddy Srikanth	26 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
CC/201231/2016	SHO, P.S Narketpally vs Paladugu VijayKumar	20 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
OS/17/2023	Kodadala Yellaiah vs Erla Eswar Rao	19 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
CC/201351/2016	Eesam Yadaiah vs Gandamalla Vamishidhar	19 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
OS/281/2019	Surigi Meri vs Pottepaka Durgamma @ Jeevamma	18 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200519/2015	Bobbali Ravindra Reddy vs Chintha Srinivas	18 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200782/2017	SHO NARKETPALLY, G. shobha rani vs Vschikulla shankaraiah and others	18 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200719/2017	limgapally gopal vs Vsmerugu gopinath	13 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
OS/201/2023	Panasa Bhagyamma vs Panasa Anjaiah	06 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
OS/725/2022	SBI RP Rd Nalgonda 20175 Br Chief Manager M. Ramu vs MD Nazeer	06 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200953/2015	W.P. S Nalgonda vs Parupally Ravi and 2 others	06 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
CC/29/2020	P.S. Nalgonda II town vs B.Naresh	05 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200002/2014	WPS. Nalgonda vs Sirimoju Sundar Murthy	04 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200109/2015	WPS. Nalgonda vs Gajula Shanker and 4 others	01 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
CC/201642/2016	SHO, P.S Narketpally vs Kota Srinivas reddy	29 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
OS/319/2021	Kakularapu Yadagiri Reddy vs Yerrabothu Srinivasa Reddy	28 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
OS/788/2022	Tirunagari Naresh vs Malle Ranga reddy	28 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
OS/47/2020	IDBI Bank Ltd., Br. Nalgonda vs Pallapu Thirupathamma and another	27 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
CC/700/2023	P.S. Nalgonda II town vs Surarapu Saidulu @ Ravi	27 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
OS/171/2017	Sunkireddy Arunamma and Others vs Sunkireddy Ramulamman and Others	26 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
CC/1319/2020	P.S.Surya pet -I town vs Putta Kishore and 4 others	26 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200925/2015	WPS Nalgonda vs Dhanavath Venkanna and Laxmi	26 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
OS/259/2023	Mittapally Venkateshwarlu vs Narapaka Narsimha	23 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200783/2017	SHO. NARKETPALLY,MD. abdul jabber vs Turaka veerbabu	23 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
CC/201639/2016	SHO, P.S Narketpally vs Dandugula Venkanna	23 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
OS/324/2023	Smt.Ravula Sattemma and another vs The Tahsildar, Chandur Mandalam	22 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
CC/201033/2015	S.H.O.P.S.Narketpally vs Yasa Narsi reddy and 2 others	22 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200513/2017	Bojja Chandra Shekar Reddy vs Daravath venkanna	20 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
EP/261/2015	Madireddy Venkat Reddy vs Madireddy Karunakar reddy	19 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200480/2015	Maiala Narayana Reddy vs Chinthkuntla Srinivas	19 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
OS/90/2008	Barisetty Vijaya vs Sree Ramula Sharen Uvaraj	13 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200373/2017	Manda Padma @ Pushapalatha vs Dharavath Prudhviraj	12 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
OS/794/2022	Kothapally Vinay Kumar vs Irigi Shiva	05 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200074/2018	Nakirekamnti kamala vs DHONGARI SIMHADRI	02 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
CC/201913/2016	W.P. S Nalgonda vs Sirikonda Venkanna and 2 others	02 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
CC/1610/2022	Excise Nalgonda. vs Tummala Srinivas Reddy.	01 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
CC/201252/2016	WPS Nalgonda, Gudise Laxmi Kumari vs Gudise Sathyanarayana and 3 others	01 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
CC/202079/2016	SHO, P.S Narketpally vs Koppu Chandrashekar and Meenamma	31 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200105/2016	W.P. S Nalgonda,Shaheen vs SK.Janimiya and 2 others	30 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/138/2020	ICICI Bank Limited rep its by Siddhant Jain vs Mallaih Uggidi and 1 Other	29 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/26/2023	Mekala Vijayabhaskar and other 2 vs Idikuda Prameela	24 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/172/2014	Shahin Begum vs Rahmathunnisa Begum	24 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/576/2020	Garlapati Nagireddy vs Veeramalla Ramulu	24 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200645/2017	P.S. Narketpally vs Syed Khader	24 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/429/2012	Mereddy Narendar Reddy vs The Deputy Execuitive Engineer	23 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/761/2022	Dhoti Saidulu vs Doti Bixmaiah	23 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/100224/2018	Mohd. Junaid vs Rudrakshi Bixamaiah and another	23 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
CC/1894/2019	P.S. Nalgonda II town vs Gadhe Srinivas reddy and others	23 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/147/2019	Komatireddy Sravanthi Reddy vs Komatireddy Chanukya Reddy	22 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/151/2015	Canara Bank vs Gundagoni Aruna	22 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200339/2014	Nalgonda II town vs Antham Dasharatha	19 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
CC/202099/2016	SHO, P.S Narketpally vs Kotra Sambaiah	18 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/138/2023	Kapi Sridhar Goud vs Kapi Yadamma and 3 others	12 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/268/2013	Chennoju Kalingacharan vs Vasupula Sudarashan	12 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
CC/716/2023	P.S. Narketpally vs Oleti Mahalachulu Rao @ Mahalaxmi	12 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
CC/202133/2016	W.P. S Nalgonda vs Korra Krishna	12 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/100222/2018	Syndicate Bank, Br.Nalgonda. vs Mohd.Parvez Hussain and another	11 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
CC/755/2023	Excise Ramannapet. vs Anthati Das and 4 others	11 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/50/2023	Maila Sunitha vs Regatte Amrendar Reddy and another 5	10 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/275/2022	Canara Bank, Nalgonda Branch vs Amireddy Sunitha	10 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
CC/201644/2016	SHO, P.S Narketpally vs Kesani Peddulu and 3 others	09 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
CC/202070/2016	SHO P.S Nalgonda II Town vs Royya Kiran Kumar and 3 others	08 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
CC/1009/2023	P.S. Narketpally vs Gunuguntla Charan @ Chanti	06 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200185/2018	Ramasahayam Ashok reddy. vs Ramasani Srinivas.	05 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200188/2018	Murarishetti Ramesh vs Ramasani srinivas	05 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/59/2019	Bolla Madhu and 2 others vs Bolla Laxmamma and 3 othrs	04 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/363/2020	Jinukuntla Yadaiah vs Jinukuntla Satyam and 3 Others	04 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/907/2022	Vuppala Vijay Kumar vs Yasmin Mohammad	04 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200/2019	Chikkulla Dhanunjay vs Bandari Shankar	04 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200092/2014	PS.of Nalgonda I town vs A.M. Devi	04 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
CC/200146/2017	Gantekampu Prakash vs Thadoju Srinivasa Chary	02 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
CC/773/2019	The State of Telangana represented by S.Shekar,Sub Inspector of Police, Munugode PS. vs Kunreddy Sudhakar Reddy	27 Dec 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1209/2023	P.S. Nalgonda II town vs Chepyala Narsimha @ Raju	26 Dec 2023	Judgement	—
CC/202424/2014	SHO NALGONDA 2 TOWN vs Silgireddy Vikram and all others	26 Dec 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1094/2020	WPS. Nalgonda vs Mandugula Suresh and others.	22 Dec 2023	Judgement	—
OS/589/2021	Canara Bank, Nalgonda vs Parvatham Anjamma	21 Dec 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1149/2023	P.S. Narketpally vs K. Imran Khan	21 Dec 2023	Judgement	—
OS/162/2016	Perala Sudhakar Rao vs N Srinivasa chary	20 Dec 2023	Judgement	—
OS/312/2020	Kasarla Vijaya @ Vijaya Reddy vs Kasarla Jayachandar Reddy and 9 Others	20 Dec 2023	Judgement	—
CC/201988/2016	SHO P.S Nalgonda II Town vs Gogikar Prakash rao	20 Dec 2023	Judgement	—
OS/168/2011	Nula Prashanthi vs Nula Kotaiah	19 Dec 2023	Judgement	—
OS/321/2023	Thirumaladas Sai Kiran vs District Collector, Nalgonda and another	15 Dec 2023	Judgement	—
OS/441/2020	Sk. Munira vs SK. Hari Baba	15 Dec 2023	Judgement	—
OS/222/2019	Bank of Indian, Nalgonda Branch vs Gundeboina Lingaiah	14 Dec 2023	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 297 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Mar 2024		34
Feb 2024		23
Jan 2024		34
Dec 2023		37
Sep 2023		4
Aug 2023		1
Jun 2023		11
Mar 2023		28
Feb 2023		18
Jan 2023		30
Dec 2022		14
Nov 2022		6

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has K Shreewani handled?

K Shreewani has handled 316 court orders since 2022 at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 13 orders per month.

What types of cases does K Shreewani hear?

Based on available records, K Shreewani primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is K Shreewani currently posted?

K Shreewani is posted as SPL. JFCM.EXCISE JUDGE, Nalgonda at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex, Nalgonda, Telangana.

Are judgments by K Shreewani available online?

Yes. 14 judgments by K Shreewani are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does K Shreewani dispose cases?

K Shreewani disposes approximately 13 cases per month, based on 316 orders handled over their tenure at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is K Shreewani serving?

K Shreewani has been serving at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex since 2022.

Case Types

CC 48%

OS 42%

PRC 9%

EP 1%

Posting History

Jun 2023 — Mar 2024

SPL. JFCM.EXCISE JUDGE, Nalgonda · 144 orders
Nov 2022 — Mar 2023

SPL. JFCM.EXCISE JUDGE, Nalgonda · 96 orders
Apr 2022 — Sep 2022

SPL. JFCM.EXCISE JUDGE, Nalgonda · 76 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 10

Other Judges at this Court

P.Vasanth

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, Nalgonda

2 orders

Ms. K. Kavitha

I ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, Nalgonda

50 orders

Kulkarni Vishwanath Dilip Rao

Fast Track Court for Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Nal...

42 orders

Smt. N Roja Ramani

SPL. Sessions Judge for SC/STs cum II Addl Distric...

149 orders

Mrs. Himabindhu Golla

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, Nalgonda

0 orders

Ms. Dara Sai Meghana

SPL. JFCM.EXCISE JUDGE, Nalgonda

123 orders

Sri K.Seran Teja

III Addl Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda

16 orders

Sri P.purushotham Rao

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NLG

122 orders

Smt Pramila Jain

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda

87 orders

Medak Kiran Mahi

Women Court -cum-IV Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge...

2 orders

← View all judges at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex