Sri K. Yuva Raja

1 of 16 OS No. 64 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT : KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT:SRI K. YUVA RAJA,

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR

Friday, this the 31st day of March, 2023

O.S.No. 64 of 2016

Between:-

1.Modampalli Bondaiah (died),

2.Modumpelly Narsaiah, S/o. Late Bondaiah, aged 60 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3.Modumpelly Kanukaiah, S/o. Late Bondaiah, aged 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4.Nyathari @ Modumpelly Anjavva, W/o. Nyathari Ramulu, D/o. Modumpelly Bondaiah, aged 52 years, Occ: Household,

5.Ankamalla @ Modumpelly Lachavva, W/o. Ankamalla Rajaiah, D/o. Late Bondaiah, aged 43 years, Occ: Household, All are R/o. Arnakonda V/o. Choppadandi M/o. Karimnagar District.

(The plaintiff nos. 2 to 5 are brought on record as LRs of plaintiff no.1 as per orders passed vide in IA No. 216/2021, dt. 12.04.2022 ).

….Plaintiffs.

And

1.Modampalli Mankaiah (died),

2.Modumpelly Narayana, S/o. Late Lachaiah, aged 46 years, Occ: Agriculture & Labour,

3.Modumpelly Anjaiah, S/o. Late Hanmaiah, aged 50 years, Occ: Agriculture & Labour,

4.Modumpelly Devaiah, S/o. Late Hanmaiah, aged 30 years, Occ: Agriculture & Labour, 2 of 16 OS No. 64 of 2016

5.Chunthala Rajanandam, S/o. Late Rama Lachaiah, aged 42 years, Occ: Agriculture & Welding Business,

6.Basam Rajaiah, S/o. Late Pochaiah, aged 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,

7.Modumpelly Sathish, S/o. Late Mankaiah, aged 35 years, Occ: Agriculture,

8.Modumpelly Anil, S/o. Late Mankaiah, aged 30 years, Occ: Agriculture,

9.Modumpelly Ram, S/o. Late Mankaiah, aged 27 years, Occ: Agriculture,

10.Modumpelly Laxman, S/o. Late Mankaiah, aged 22 years, Occ: Agriculture, All the defendant nos. 2 to 10 are R/o. Arnakonda V/o. Choppadandi M/o. Karimnagar District.

(The defendant nos.7 to 10 are brought on record as LRs of defendant no.1 as per orders passed vide in IA No. 233/2021, dt. 12.04.2022) ….Defendants.

This Suit is coming before me on 27-03-2023 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri. G. Srihari, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri. G. Malla Reddy, Advocate for the defendant nos. 1 to 3, 5 & 6 and the defendant no.4 remained exparte and the right of the defendant nos. 7 to 10 to file written statement was forfeited, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day,the Court delivered the following-

:: JUDGMENT ::

1. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs for preliminary decree for partition of the suit schedule property and to allot ½ share in the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs and to declare the registered sale deed bearing document no. 2049/1974, dt. 08.07.1974 on 3 of 16 OS No. 64 of 2016 the file of Sub-Registrar office, Karimnagar as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and to award costs of the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant nos. 1 to 4 are the legal heirs. The plaintiff no.1 submit that late Modampally Karre Pochaiah, S/o.

Late Rajaiah of Arnakonda village of Choppadandi mandal was the paternal grand- father of the plaintiff no.1 and paternal grad-father of the defendant nos. 1 to 4 constituting Hindu joint family. The plaintiff no.1 submitted that he and the defendant nos. 1 to 4 are joint owners and possessors of dry land measuring Ac.3.06gts in Sy.no.

611/A to C situated at Arnakonda village and which is the suit schedule property herein and which is the ancestral property of Late Modampally Karre Pochaiah who is the grand-father of the plaintiff and great grand-father of the defendant nos. 1 to 4. The said late Modampally Karre pochaiah died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 to 4 as his legal heirs for the suit schedule property. The father of the plaintiff Modampally Narsaiah and the grand-father of the defendant nos. 1 to 4 late

Modampally Mankaiah are own brothers and are having ½ share in the suit land and the remaining ½ share has to be divided into equal shares among the fathers of the defendant nos. 1 to 4 namely M. Lachaiah and M. Hanumaiah. The fathers of the defendant nos. 1 to 4 will get Ac.0.31 ½ gts each out of Ac.1.23 gts out of their respective share of the suit land. The defendant nos. 1 & 2 will get ½ share I.e, Ac.0-15 4 of 16 OS No. 64 of 2016 ¾ gts each out of the share of their father to an extent of Ac.0-31 ½ gts and the defendant nos. 3 & 4 will get ½ share of Ac.0-15 ¾ gts each out of the share of their father to an extent of Ac.0-31 ½ gts in respect of the suit land. That the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 to 4 are owners and joint possessors of suit land and as this being their ancestral property and they are enjoying.

3.The plaintiff further submitted that the suit land is more fertile land and due to enemical terms in between the plaintiff and the defendants and denying the legitimate share of the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 to 4 are trying to sell away the suit property to third parties by grabbing his legitimate half i.e., Ac.1.23 gts of the plaintiff and since this being the ancestral joint family property of the defendant nos. 1 to 4 and they have no right or authority to sell away the property since the suit land is subject matter of partition in between the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 to 4. The defendant nos. 5 & 6 who were strangers to the suit land have colluded with the defendant nos. 1 to 4 and claimed the part of the suit land and colluded with the revenue officials have tampered and manipulated the records without any documentary proof and orders of competent authority and created documents claiming the suit land as such the defendant nos. 5 & 6 were made as parties to the suit. The father of the defendant nos. 3 & 4 by name Modampally Hanmaiah even before partition with his brothers had created a fictitious sale deed dt. 08.07.1974 bearing document no. 2049/1974 on the file of Sub- 5 of 16 OS No. 64 of 2016

Registrar office, Karimnagar for Ac.3.06gts of suit land bearing in Sy.No. 611/A to C without delivering the possession of the suit land and without any rights to alienate the same in favour of the father of the defendant no.5. Hence, the plaintiff claims that the alleged fictitious sale deed executed by the late father of defendant nos. 3 & 4 in favour of father of defendant no. 5 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant nos. 5 & 6 are not in actual possession of any part of suit land except in the revenue records. The plaintiff further submits that in view of the bad intention of the defendant nos. 1 to 4, the plaintiff concludes that it is no more sale for them to keep joint family properties without partition. The plaintiff asked the defendant nos. 1 to 4 personally in the month of February, 2016 and also through mediators, elders for partition of joint family undivided property and also separate possession of the plaintiff half share i.e., Ac.1.23 gts of suit land but the defendant nos. 1 to 4 are not coming forward for partition. Hence, the suit for partition of the joint family of property of the suit land into two equal shares and for allotment of half share from the suit land to the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed the suit.

4.The defendant no.4 remained exparte, the defendant nos. 1 to 3, 5 & 6 filed the common written statement and the defendant nos. 7 to 10 are failed to file the written statement within the statutory period as such their right to file written statement is forfeited. The defendant nos. 1 to 3, 5 & 6 denied that the plaintiff and the defendant 6 of 16 OS No. 64 of 2016 nos. 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of one Karre Pochaiah. In fact the plaintiff not concerned with the suit land and the suit land is exclusive land of the defendant no.6 who is Basam

Rajaiah. That the Basam Rajaiah and his family is different that the defendant nos. 1 to 4 and the plaintiff belongs to one surname family. Hence, the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 to 4 are not at all having any rights over the suit land. That the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 4 are concerned they are agnates but the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 to 4 are not concerned with defendant nos. 5 & 6.

Originally, the defendant no.6/Basam Rajaiah was the owner and possessor of Sy.no.

611/A measuring Ac.2.04 gts and he has sold away Ac.1.00 gts land to the father of defendant no. 5 in Sy.No.611/A. The father fo the defendant no. 5 by name Rama

Lachaiah has later purchased Ac.0.20gts in Sy.no. 611/B from defendant nos. 1 to 4 ancestors i.e., from Modampally Hanmaiah thus, the father of the defendant no. 5

Chinthala Ramlachaiah has became owner and possessor of Ac.1.00 gts land in Sy.No.

611/A and Ac.0.20gts of land in Sy.no. 611/B total to an extent of Ac.1.20 gts. That the plaintiff has no rights in the land of Chinthala Ramlachaiah particularly Ac.1.00 gts land in Sy.No. 611/A and Ac.0.20gts of land in Sy.no. 611/B.

5.The defendant nos. 1 to 3, 5 & 6 further denied that one Karre Pochaiah is the owner and possessor of Sy.No. 611/A, B & C. In fact the family pedigree shown in the plaint is also wrong. The land in Sy.no. 611/B also belongs to only exclusive land of 7 of 16 OS No. 64 of 2016 one Modampally Hanmaiah i.e., father of defendant no. 3 & 4. That the said Hanmaiah has also not acquired the said land from his father. Hence, sharing of Sy.No. 611/B is not at all joint family land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no right to file partition suit against the defendants. The suit land was never in joint possession and enjoyment of either plaintiff or his father at any time for the last more than 50 years. That the suit land in Sy.no. 611/A is exclusively belongs to the defendant no. 6 and the Sy.no. 611/B belongs to father of defendant no. 3 & 4. That the plaintiff has no rights in Sy.no. 611/A and 611/B i.e., Ac.1.20gts of land. That the remaining land in Sy.no. 611/B & 611/C was also long back divided by the defendant nos. 1 to 4. That the plaintiff has no right in Sy.No. 611/A measuring Ac.1.00 gts and Sy.no. 611/B measuring Ac.0.20 gts. Now the defendant nos. 5 & 6 have developed the suit land. Hence the plaintiff has developed a coveted eye on the suit land and illegally filed this suit with false allegations that the plaintiff father and father of the defendant nos. 1 to 4 were never in the joint possession of the suit land for the last more than 50 years. Further they denied that the defendant nos. 1 to 4 are trying to sell away the suit property to the third parties by grabbing the plaintiffs legitimate share of land and also the defendant nos. 1 to 4 and defendant no. 5 & 6 have colluded including revenue officials and tampered and manipulated the records and created without any documentary proof from the competent authority. In fact the revenue authorities have also enquired in the year 1995 and issued Rythu passbooks to the father of defendant no. 5 & 6. So, neither the 8 of 16 OS No. 64 of 2016 plaintiff nor defendant nos. 1 to 4 have rights in the Sy.no. 611/A measuring Ac.1.00 gts and 611/B measuring Ac.0.20gts. Further they denied that the father of defendant nos.

3 & 4 by name Modampally Hanmaiah had created a fictitious sale deed on 18.07.1974 bearing document no. 2049/1974 on the file of Sub-Registrar office, Karimnagar and the revenue authorities have also enquired thoroughly the registered sale deeds and amended deeds more than 20 years back and rectified in the year 1995 only. The plaintiff has no right to file this suit after 21 years and the defendant nos. 5 & 6 are in the possession and enjoyment of the suit land and the defendant no.5 is in possession and enjoyment particularly Ac.1.00 gts in Sy.no. 611/A and Ac.0.20gts in Sy.No. 611/B and the defendant no. 6 is in possession of Ac.1.04gts in Sy.no. 611/A so, the plaintiff has no right in the suit land and prayed to dismiss the suit.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

1. Whether the suit properties are joint family properties, liable to be partitioned ?

2. Whether the registered sale deed vide document no. 2049/1974 is declared to be null and void ?

3. To what relief ?

7.During the course of trial, the plaintiff no.1 examined himself by filing his chief- affidavit in lieu of his evidence in chief as Pw.1 and Exs.A1 to A22 are marked and 9 of 16 OS No. 64 of 2016 plaintiff no.2 himself examined as Pw.4 and two more witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff as Pws.2 & 3. For the defendants, the defendant no.5 examined himself as Dw.1 and he got marked the Exs.B1 to B14 and the defendant no.2 himself examined as Dw.3 and one more witness examined as Dw.2 who is the son of the defendant no.6.

8.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendant nos. 1 to 3, 5 & 6.

9.Issue No.1:-

First of all the plaintiffs has to prove that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. So, in order to prove their case the plaintiff no.1 himself examined as

Pw.1 and filed her chief-affidavit in lieu of regarding of her chief-examination and it is the replica of the contents of the plaint and got marked the Exs.A1 to A22 out of which the Exs.A1 to A21 are the true copies of the pahanies for the years 1954-55, 1964-65, 1968-69, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1974-75, 1977-78, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1998-99, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-2007 and remaining Ex.A22 is the certified copy of the sale deed vide document no. 1049/1974, dt. 08.07.1974.

10 of 16 OS No. 64 of 2016

10.Pw.1 was cross-examined at length and during the cross-examination it was elicited that one Karre Pochaiah is his paternal grand-father and he has not filed any documentary evidence regarding partition in between his paternal grand-father and his brother who is Modampally Karre Rajaiah and further elicited that the suit schedule property is in Sy.no. 611 and denied the suggestion that one Basam Rajaiah is the owner of the land in Sy.no. 611/A and total land is Ac.2.04 gts and he sold away Ac.1.00 gts to

Chinthala Ramalaxmaiah and the remaining land in possession of said Basam Rajaiah.

Further the Pw.1 denied the suggestion that the Exs.A1 to A20 documents filed by him there is no his father name or his grand-father name reflected for the land in Sy.no.

611/A, 611/B and 611/C and in the said documents showing the name of defendant no.6 and his father for the land in Sy.no. 611/A and witness again deposed that they manipulated the said documents. This court gone through the ExsA1 to A20 documents and all those documents as alleged by the learned counsel for the defendants that the name of the father of the plaintiff and grand-father of the plaintiff are not reflecting and which are showing the name of the defendant no. 6 and his father. The plaintiff in the present case no single document filed by him to show that the suit schedule property is standing on the name of his paternal grand-father by name Modampally Karre pochaiah and further during cross-examination the Pw.1 categorically admitted that he has not filed any appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer or Joint Collector stating that the defendant no. 6 manipulated Exs.A1 to A20 documents. So, when the Pw.1 not 11 of 16 OS No. 64 of 2016 challenged the mutation of the name of father of defendant no. 6 and the name of defendant no. 6 in the revenue records i.e., Exs.A1 to A20 documents and mere allegation that the defendant no. 6 manipulated the Exs.A1 to A20 cannot be taken into consideration and not acceptable.

11.Coming to the evidence of Pw.3 and he deposed in the chief-affidavit that he know the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 to 4 and they are his agnates and he know the suit land bearing Sy.no. 611/ABC measuring Ac.3.06 ½ gts and the name of the father of the plaintiff late Modampally Narsaiah and grand-father name Late

Modampally Pochaiah. The late Modampally Pochaiah had two sons likewise the Pw.3 deposed the same version as deposed by Pw.1 with regard to the relationship between the parties and during the cross-examination it was elicited that the total land in sy.no.

611/A is Ac.3.00 gts and odd, the land in Sy.No. 611/B is Ac.3.00gts and the land in

Sy.No. 611/C is Ac.3.06 gts and the land in Sy.no. 611/A standing in the name of plaintiff since for the last 20 years in the revenue records but there is no single document filed by the plaintiffs to prove the same and from the cross-examination of

Pw.3 it was elicited that the Pw.3 do not know about how much extent of the land contained in Sy.no. 611/A, B, C so, the evidence of Pw.3 is also noway useful to the plaintiff and not proving that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiff no.1 and defendant nos. 1 to 4.

12 of 16 OS No. 64 of 2016

12.Coming to the evidence of Pw.4 and his evidence also the reiteration of the plaint averments with regard to the relationship between the parties and he is the elder son of the deceased plaintiff no. The Pw.4 was cross-examined and during the cross- examination it was elicited that they never made an application to the Tahsildhar to mutate their names in the revenue records for the suit land and even not filed the appeal

before the RDO to record their names in the revenue records and the remaining cross-

examination is the denying of the suggestions that they are not having any land in the

Sy.Nos. 611/A, B & C. So, in the present suit even though the plaintiff pleaded that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and joint family properties but no single document is filed by the plaintiffs showing the name of his paternal grand-father

Modampally Karre pochaiah as pattadhar and possessor of land in Sy.No. 611/A, B &

C.

13.Coming to the evidence on defendants side, the defendant no. 5 filed the chief- affidavit and examined as Dw.1 and which is the reiteration of the written statement and got marked Exs.B1 to B14 and all the documents showing that the lands in Sy.No.

611/A, B & C belongs to defendant no. 6 to some extent and father of the Dw.1 and the pahanie pathrikas are also showing their names. The Dw.1 was cross-examined at length but nothing was elicited to disbelieve the evidence of Dw.1 and to prove that the suit schedule property is joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 to 4 13 of 16 OS No. 64 of 2016 and on behalf of the defendants two more witnesses were examined who are the Dws. 2 & 3 out of which the Dw.2 is the son of defendant no.6 and his evidence in chief also the reiteration of the contents of the written statement and during the cross-examination it was elicited that the land in Sy.no. 611/A to an extent of Ac.2.04 gts belongs to his great grand-father by name Basam Rajaiah and he did not file any document showing the same. So, from the cross-examination of the Dw.2 also nothing was elicited from the plaintiffs counsel that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties.

14.Coming to the evidence of Dw.3 and his evidence is also the reiteration of the contents of the written statement and during the cross-examination nothing was elicited from the Dw.3 to disbelieve the evidence of Dw.3 and to prove that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. On careful scrutiny of the documents filed by the plaintiffs, no single document showing the name of the ancestors of the deceased plaintiff no.1 are having the land in Sy.No. 611/A, B & C and when the plaintiffs failed to prove the same with sufficient documentary evidence and basing on the oral evidence the plaintiffs cannot prove that the suit schedule properties are their joint family properties hence, this court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are their joint family properties and as such, which are not liable to be partitioned. Hence, the issue no.1 is answered against the plaintiffs.

14 of 16 OS No. 64 of 2016

15.Issue No.2:-

In view of the findings given in issue no.1, when the plaintiffs failed to prove the suti schedule property is their joint family property. Hence, this court cannot declare that the registered sale deed vide document no. 2049/1974 as null and void. Hence, this issue is answered against the plaintiffs.

16.Issue No.3:-

In view of findings given in issue nos.1 & 2, In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31 st day of March, 2023.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1Modampalli BondaiahDW1Chintala Rajanandam

PW2Modampalli Devaiah (eschewed)DW2Basam Mallesham

PW3Modampalli MallaiahDW3Modampally Narayana

PW4Modampalli Narsaiah 15 of 16 OS No. 64 of 2016

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 1954-55 ( two pages)

Ex.A2 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 1964-65

Ex.A3 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 1968-69 ( two pages)

Ex.A4 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 1970-71 ( two pages)

Ex.A5 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 1971-72 ( two pages)

Ex.A6 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 1974-75

Ex.A7 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 1977-78

Ex.A8 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 1991-92

Ex.A9 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 1992-93 ( two pages)

Ex.A10 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 1993-94

Ex.A11 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 1994-95

Ex.A12 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 1995-96

Ex.A13 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 1996-97

Ex.A14 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 1998-99

Ex.A15 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 2000-01

Ex.A16 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 2001-02

Ex.A17 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 2002-03 (two pages)

Ex.A18 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 2003-04 (two pages)

Ex.A19 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 2004-05

Ex.A20 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 2005-06

Ex.A21 is the true copy of adangal pahani for the year 2006-07

Ex.A22 is the CC of sale deed doc.no.1049/1974 dt 8-7-1974 16 of 16 OS No. 64 of 2016

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1Rythu pass book/Title deed of father of Dw.1

Ex.B2Original pattadar passbook of defendant no.6

Ex.B3Order issued by MRO, Choppadandi

Ex.B4Form No. VII Register

Ex.B5Notice issued by recorded authority

Ex.B6Certified copy of pahani patrikas for the year 2000-2001

Ex.B7Certified copy of pahani patrikas for the year 2001-2002

Ex.B8Certified copy of pahani patrikas for the year 1990-1991

Ex.B9Certified copy of pahani patrikas for the year 1995-1996

Ex.B10 Certified copy of pahani patrikas for the year 1963-1964

Ex.B11 Certified copy of pahani patrikas for the year 1986-1987

Ex.B12 Certified copy of pahani patrikas for the year 1974-1975

Ex.B13 B-Namuna of Dw.1 (defendant no.5) (ROR)

Ex.B14 1-B Namuna of defendant no.6

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

1 of 15 OS No. 21 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT : KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT:SRI K. YUVA RAJA,

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR

Friday, this the 31st day of March, 2023

O.S.No. 21 of 2016

Between:-

Jakkula Tanush, S/o. Late Raj Kumar, aged 8 months (minor), R/by his mother and natural guardian Jakkula Prathyusha, W/o. Late Raj Kumar, aged: 25 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 2-1-5/14/H-1, Surabhi Colony, Peddapally of Karimnagar District. ….Plaintiff.

And

1.Jakkula Kanakaiah, S/o. Kondaiah, aged 65 years, Occ: Rtd. Govt. Employee, R/o. H.No. 2-10-872/1, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar.

2.Chityala Radha @ Radhika, W/o. Ch. Ravi, aged 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Devunipally village of Peddapally Mandal of Karimnagar District.

3.Chindam Sujatha, W/o. Ch. Thirupathi, aged 38 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Nagunoor village of Karimnagar mandal and district.

4.Seenapathi Vanaja @ Vani, W/o. S. Srinivas, aged 30 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Flat No. 302, Nirwana Meadows, Pragathinagar, Opp: JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ….Defendants.

This Suit is coming before me on 28-03-2023 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri.M. Anil Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. B. Srinivas, Advocate for the defendant nos. 1, 3 & 4 and the defendant no.2 remained exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following- 2 of 15 OS No. 21 of 2016

:: JUDGMENT ::

1. This suit is filed by the minor plaintiff through his natural guardian who is his mother against the defendants nos. 1 to 4 seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties schedule-A to C into five equal shares and allotment of one share to the minor plaintiff.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant no.1 is his grand-father. Late Raj

Kumar is his father and the defendant nos. 2 to 4 are the children of his grand father who is defendant no.1. The father of the minor plaintiff namely Raj Kumar was passed away on 10.09.2015 at Hyderabad under suspicious circumstances and the complicity of the defendant no. 1 and others was suspected by the mother of the plaintiff. The next friend of the minor who is his mother namely Jakkula Prathyusha the legally wedded wife of the said Raj Kumar and he is survived by the minor plaintiff and the mother of the minor herein.

3.Originally the defendant no.1 belonged to Deshrajpally village and he got several landed properties from his ancestors and during the course he has alienated them to third parties and purchased the suit properties with the said sale proceeds and also with the contribution of the father of the minor plaintiff who is late Raj Kumar. Thus, the joint family has acquired totally an extent of Ac.2.26 ½ gts i.e., Ac.0.32 gts in Sy.No.

689/F, Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No. 689, Ac.0.38 gts in Sy.No. 697/C and Ac. 0.16 ½ gts in 3 of 15 OS No. 21 of 2016

Sy.No. 690/B an extent of 243.14 Sq.yards in Sy.No. 1116/B situated in Chaitanyapuri,

Karimnagar and an extent of 60.77 Sq.yards in Sy.No. 1288/B situated at

Chaitanyapuri, Karimnagar. The said lands are the suit schedule properties from A to C herein and they are shown in the schedules annexed to this plaint and the said properties are the undivided joint family properties and are in the joint possession of the parties to the suit. As a matter of fact, the defendant no.1 has constructed a house bearing No.

2-10-872/1 on the schedule-B land, but obtained permission for schedule-C property with the financial assistance of father of the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 also clearly stated this fact in his statement recorded by the police in connection with death of Raj

Kumar that his son Raj Kumar became indebted and subjected to frustration he committed suicide. But the mother of the plaintiff lodged the report with the police suspecting the defendant No.1 and other defendants are responsible for death of her husband Raj Kumar and the said case is pending. That immediately after the death of

Raj Kumar, disputes arose between family members and the defendants who developed grudge on the mother of the plaintiff have hatched up a plan to sell away the suit schedule properties to third parties to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties. On suspecting the same, the elders of plaintiff have interfered and requested the defendants on 23-12-2015 to effect partition of the suit schedule properties and to allot 1/5th share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties to 4 of 15 OS No. 21 of 2016 which, Raj Kumar would have got if he was alive, but the defendants refused to do so, hence the plaintiff is constrained to file this present suit.

4.The suit schedule properties A to C have been purchased nominally on the name of defendant no 1 with the sale proceeds of the lands at Deshrajpally and with the contributions of Raj Kumar sent in the years 2011 and 2014 respectively under registered sale deeds and the said properties are in the joint possession of the parties to the suit. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for a share in the said properties.

5.The defendants no. 1 filed the written statement and the same was adopted by the defendant nos. 3 & 4 and the defendant no.2 was remained exparte. The relationship between the parties is admitted but denied the remaining averments. It is pleaded that the defendant no. 1 did not succeed any ancestral properties situated at

Deshrajpalle village and the defendant no.1 worked in the Singareni Colleries and he retired in the year 2009 and he received about Rs.13,00,000/- towards his retirement benefits and with the said amount the defendant no.1 and one Chindam Lachaiah S/o.

Mallaiah R/o. Nagunoor have jointly purchased the properties shown in Schedule-A, and they have sold away the Schedule-A properties to Smt. Balla Harisha, Smt. Polu

Shamini, Theegala Leekesh Chandra Karthik and Pittala Aliveni and Smt. Lakshmi

Dasharatham Pakala through a Registered Sale Deeds 30-07-2015 bearing Doc.Nos.

7439/2015, 7438/2015, 7436/2015 & 7437/2015 respectively. The suit Schedule-A 5 of 15 OS No. 21 of 2016 properties have been acquired by the defendant no.1 and one Chindam Lachaiah with their self-earning and alienated the same therefore the plaintiff cannot claim any share in the Schedule-A properties. The defendant no. 1 has also purchased land in

Sy.No.1116/B (schedule-B) and constructed a house bearing No.2-10-872/1, situated at

Jyothinagar locality of Karimnagar and he also acquired the suit schedule-C property with the amount received towards retirement benefits. The son of defendant no.1 who is late Raj Kumar did not contribute any amount in purchasing or constructing the said house. Therefore the plaintiff and the defendant nos.2 to 4 shall not have any share in the suit properties. The defendant no.1 is due an amount of Rs.32,00,000/- to his creditors as he has taken the said amount in acquiring the suit properties and also for the construction of house shown in schedule-B. The defendant no.1 has already sold away the house bearing No.2-10-1304/1, situated at Jyothinagar locality of Karimnagar for a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- to one Peechu Anandamma W/o. Hanmantha Reddy and defendant no.1 has received the entire sale consideration from the purchaser and the purchaser is in possession of the said house and she has to obtain a registered Sale

Deed. The plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts and he has filed the false suit to harass the defendants therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

1. Whether the suit schedule properties are joint family properties ?

6 of 15 OS No. 21 of 2016

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the preliminary decree as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

7.During the course of trial, the mother of the plaintiff who is natural guardian of the plaintiff examined herself as Pw.1 by filing her chief-affidavit in lieu of her evidence in chief-examination and got marked Exs.A1 & A2 and no supporting witness was examined by the plaintiff. For the defendants, the defendant no.1 examined himself as Dw.1 and he got marked the Exs.B1 to B3 and also got examined the Dw.2.

8.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4 and perused the entire evidence brought on to record of both oral and documentary.

9.Before dealing with the each issue, it would be beneficial to refer to the admitted case of both parties. The plaintiff herein is the grand-son of the defendant no. 1, the defendant nos.2 to 4 and father of the plaintiff and the children of the defendant no.1 and the next friend of the plaintiff is the wife of the father of plaintiff.

10.Issue No.1:-

The plaintiff has to prove that suit schedule properties are joint family properties.

The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that the suit schedule properties are purchased by the defendant no.1 with the sale proceeds of the ancestral properties which was sold away by the defendant no.1 situated at Deshrajpalle. So, the plaintiff has to prove that the suit 7 of 15 OS No. 21 of 2016 schedule properties A to C properties are purchased out of sale proceeds derived from ancestral properties and so which are joint family properties. In order to prove the same the natural guardian of the plaintiff who is the mother of the minor plaintiff examined herself as Pw.1 and filed her chief-affidavit in lieu of regarding of her chief- examination and it is the replica of the contents of the plaint and got marked the Exs.A1 & A2 which are certified copies of the registered sale deeds.

11.Pw.1 was cross-examined at length and during the cross-examination it was elicited that on 22-06-2014 her marriage performed with Raj kumar and the minor plaintiff was born on 03-05-2015 and her husband was died on 10-09-2015. The occupation of defendant No.1 is mentioned as a Government employee but he is not a

Government employee. The Pw.1 further admitted that after death of her husband they enquired that the defendant No.1 is not a government employee and admitted that she is not re-married and denied the suggestion that the Pw.1 got re-marriage with the person by name Baskari Anil, S/o Rajaiah, R/o Gollapally in the year of 2018 or 2019 and also they gave birth to one female child on 26-02-2021 at Ganesh Hospital, Paddapalli.

Further the Pw.1 admitted that her son age is 7 years at present her son is along with her and further again deposed that she gave adoption of her son to one Japathi Ravi and

Japathi Swapna and they filed the suit for adoption and the said adoption O.P was compromised in Lok Adalat. Further the Pw.1 denied the suggestion that she is not having right to gave evidence as the said Japathi Ravi and Swapna are the parents to the 8 of 15 OS No. 21 of 2016 plaintiff after the adoption and further denied the suggestion that prior to her marriage the suit schedule proprieties purchased by her father-in-law i.e., defendant no.1. The

Pw.1 categorically admitted that she did not file the documents to show that her husband and her father-in-law purchased suit scheduled properties from their income and the witness deposed that she has Bank statements and IT returns but she did not file the same. Further, the Pw.1 deposed that she filed the documents to show that her father-in-law acquired property from his father and his forefathers but on perusal of entire record no such documents are filed and got marked by the plaintiff. Further, the

Pw.1 deposed that after death of her husband she lodged complaint against the family members of her husband at Hyderabad and the witness voluntarily deposed that her husband also invested amounts to purchase the suit schedule properties. Further the

Pw.1 denied the suggestion that the defendant No.1 worked in Singareni collories and he retired from his service in the year of 2009 and from his retirement benefits he purchased the suit schedule property. Further it was elicited that the house at

Jyothinagar stands on the name of defendant No.1 and she deposed in the chief affidavit that during the life time of her husband he transferred the amount of Rs.7,99,101/- (Rupees seven lakhs ninety nine thousand one hundred and one only) from City Bank on 09-03-2015 but she did not file the proof to that extent. So, the plaintiff failed to prove her pleadings by filing sufficient documentary evidence if really the husband of

Pw.1 transferred the amount from City Bank definitely she will file the statement of 9 of 15 OS No. 21 of 2016 accounts of her husband but she failed to do so. Further the Pw.1 denied the suggestion that during the life time of her husband he spent expenses for her luxury life and also treatment of her mother so that he never sent the amounts as per her chief affidavit to defendant No.1.

12.So from the Pw.1 evidence it came to light that even though in the chief- examination deposed that the defendant no.1 purchased the suit schedule properties with the sale consideration received after selling away the ancestral properties situated at Deshrajpalle but no single piece of document filed by the plaintiff to prove that the defendant no.1 succeeded or inherited the ancestral properties and which were sold by the defendant no.1 and with the sale consideration only he purchased the suit schedule properties. The Exs.A1 & A2 documents filed by plaintiff reflected that defendant no.1 purchased above properties for third parties then those properties will be self acquired properties of her father-in-law defendant no.1. Further the plaintiff averred in the plaint that the amounts which was sent by her husband to the defendant no.1, he constructed the house in the suit schedule-B property but no bank statement or any other document filed by the plaintiff in order to strengthen her pleadings and also no supporting witness was examined by the plaintiff. Further it has to be noted that during the cross- examination the plaintiff categorically admitted that at present the plaintiff was given in adoption to one Japathi Ravi and Japathi Swapna in the adoption O.P and it was settled in Lok-Adalath so, when the Pw.1 herself admitted that her son was given in adoption 10 of 15 OS No. 21 of 2016 so the Pw.1 is not having any locus-standi to file this suit on behalf of the plaintiff herein and the parents of the plaintiff are Japathi Ravi and Swapna but not the plaintiff herein. So, the evidence of Pw.1 is not proving that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and further this court opined that the plaintiff is not having any locus standi to file this suit on behalf of the plaintiff representing that she is the natural guardian of the plaintiff.

13.Coming to the evidence on the defendant side the defendant no.1 filed the chief- affidavit and examined as Dw.1 and his chief-affidavit is the replica of the written statement and got marked the Exs.B1 to B3 out of which the Ex.B1 is the certified copy of the plaint in OS No. 159/2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of Lok-Adalath award passed in OS No. 159/2020 on the file of

Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli and Ex.B3 is the birth certificate of female baby issued by Ganesh Hospital, Peddapalli.

14.Dw.1 was cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the plaintiff during the cross-examination it was elicited that his son studied up to Degree and did soft ware job from 2010 to 2012 and further deposed that from the year 2012 till his death he did not do any work and denied the suggestion that his son did the software job from 2009 to till his death. Further elicited that his son was drawn the salary of Rs.40,000/- per month during the period when he did the job and further elicited that in the year 2014 11 of 15 OS No. 21 of 2016 he performed the marriage of his son with Prathyusha who is the natural guardian of the plaintiff herein and denied the suggestion that the parents of his daughter-in-law gave

Rs.2,50,000/- as dowry and remaining cross-examination is only denial of the suggestions and it was elicited that his son transferred an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 05.07.2013 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 12.06.2013 to his account and denied the suggestion that the said amount was transferred for the purpose of the purchasing the plot.

15.Further Dw.1 denied the suggestion that his son borrowed an amount of

Rs.7,99,100/- from his friend by name Naresh to clear of his debts so the said Naresh transferred the above amount to the account of his son and later he withdrawn the said amount and handed over to the Dw.1 and clear off the debts. Further denied the suggestion that he was having Ac.02-20 gts of the agricultural land at Deshrajpalle prior to 2009. Further it was elicited that he did not plead in the written statement that his daughter-in-law Prathyusha got married one Bhaskari Ali in the year 2018 and she had given the plaintiff in adoption to one Japathi Ravi and Swapna and presently the plaintiff is living with the said adopted parents. So, from the cross-examination of

Dw.1 nothing was elicited to prove that suit schedule properties are joint family properties and with the amount sent by his son he constructed the house in the suit schedule-B property

16.Further the defendants got examined Dw.2 who is another independent witness and he deposed in the chief-affidavit that the defendant nos. 2 to 4 are the daughters and 12 of 15 OS No. 21 of 2016 the deceased Raj Kumar is the son of the defendant no.1. The marriage of the Raj

Kumar was performed with Prathyusha in the year 2014 and they lived at Hyderabad and blessed a son by name Jakkula Tanush i.e., the plaintiff and on 10.09.2015 the son of the defendant no.1 by name Raj Kumar was died under suspicious circumstances.

Further the Dw.2 deposed that the suit schedule-A property purchased by the defendant no.1 through his self earnings and the suit schedule-B property purchased by the defendant no.1 through his self earnings and schedule-C property also purchased by the defendant no.1 through his self earnings and since the date of purchase the defendant no.1 was in physical possession of the suit schedule-A to C properties and that the suit schedule properties are not joint family properties. Further after the death of the son of the defendant no.1 the daughter-in-law of the defendant no.1 was married with another person by name Bhaskari Anil in the year 2019 and she had given her minor son i.e., the plaintiff to adoption to one Japathi Ravi and Swapna and the minor plaintiff living with his adoptive parents and the Prathyusha and Anil are living within one roof and blessed one female on 26.02.2021. Further the Dw.2 deposed that the defendant no.1 borrowed loans from friends and relatives to construct the house and for repayment he was sold the the suit schedule-A & C properties to clear off the debts. The daughter-in- law Prathyusha is living with her second husband and the grand-son of the defendant no.1 i.e., the plaintiff in the custody of his adopted parents and he is not in the custody of the daughter-in-law of the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 performed the 13 of 15 OS No. 21 of 2016 marriages of his daughters i.e., the defendant nos. 2 to 4 long back and he has given sufficient dowry towards Pasupu Kumkalu and they are living with their husbands and that the suit schedule properties are self acquired as such the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 2 to 4 are not entitled to seek partition of the suit schedule properties.

17.The Dw.2 was cross-examined and during the cross-examination it was elicited that the defendant no.1 is not having land at Deshrajpalli village and further denied the suggestions that the suit Schedule properties are purchased by the defendant no.1 with the amounts sent by the deceased Raj kumar and with the sale consideration amount received after selling away the ancestral properties at Deshrajpalle. So, on careful scrutiny of both oral and documentary evidence of Pw.1 there is no evidence in the present suit to prove that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. Even though new things are introduced during the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was received from the friend of the deceased Raj Kumar by name Naresh to clear off the debts of defendant no.1 but in the plaint there is no such averments and the said Naresh was also not examined by the plaintiff to prove the same. So, mere pleadings are not sufficient to prove the case without any evidence. In the present case as per the documents filed by the defendants i.e., Ex.B3 document which is the birth certificate showing that the Pw.1 who is mother of the plaintiff blessed with one female child and in which it was recorded the name of the mother as Bhaskari Prathyusha the Pw.1 simply denied the suggestion and even 14 of 15 OS No. 21 of 2016 failed to adduce rebuttal evidence after the closure of defendants evidence disproving the Ex.B3 document and certified copy of the Lok-Adalath award which was marked as

Ex.B2 document and which is showing that the plaintiff was given in adoption to one

Japathi Ravi and Swapna. So which itself is clear that Pw.1 is no more guardian to the plaintiff and now the parents of the plaintiff are Japathi Ravi and Swapna. So, the plaintiff is not having any right to claim any share over the suit schedule properties because which are not joint family properties. So, in the present suit the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties hence the issue no.1 is answered against the plaintiff.

18.Issue No.2:-

In view of the findings given in the issue no.1, when the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties so the plaintiff is not having any right to claim share in the properties and he is not entitled for preliminary decree.

Hence this issue no.2 is answered against the plaintiff.

19.Issue No.3:-

In view of the findings given in issued nos.1 & 2, In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on

this the 31 st day of March, 2023.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

15 of 15 OS No. 21 of 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1Jakkula PrathyushaDW1Jakkula Kanakaiah

DW2Madavaram Venkateswar Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the CC of sale deed vide doc.No.2446/2011, Dt:19.05.2011 executed by Jakkula Laxmi in favour of Jakkula Kanakaiah i.e., defendant no.1.

Ex.A2 is the CC of sale deed vide doc.No.242/2014, Dt:08.01.2014 executed by

Pokala Nagaraju GPA holder of Ch. Shankaraiah in favour of defendant no.1.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1 is the CC of plaint in OS No. 159/2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli.

Ex.B2 is the CC of Lok-Adalath award passed in OS No. 159/2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli.

Ex.B3 is the birth certificate of female baby issued by Ganesh hospital, Peddapalli.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

1 of 15 OS No. 40 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT : KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT:SRI K. YUVA RAJA,

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR

Friday, this the 31st day of March, 2023

O.S.No. 40 of 2022

( Old No. O.S.No. 69 of 2014)

Between:-

1.Thipparapu Mondaiah, S/o. Late Mallaiah, aged 56 years,

2.Thipparapu Anjaiah, S/o. Late Mallaiah, aged 53 years,

3.Thipparapu Shankar, S/o. Late Mallaiah, aged 49 years,

4.Thipparapu Ravinder, S/o. Late Mallaiah, aged 36 years, All are R/o. Himmathnagar V/o. Gangadhara Mandal. ….Plaintiff nos. 1 to 4.

And

1.The Collector, Karimnagar district,

2.The Tahsildhar, Gangadhara Mandal,

3.Pothuri Laxmi @ Lachavva, D/o. Bhumaiah, aged 42 years, R/o. Himmathnagar V/o. Gangadhara Mandal.

4.M/s. Sunshine Granites Limited, Represtented by its Director Nayeem Javedkhan, S/o. Javeed Khan, aged 33 years, R/o. H.No. 3-1-374, Christian Colony, Karimnagar.

5.T. Eshwaraiah, S/o. Not known, aged 50 years, Occ: Previously Tahsildhar of Gangadhara Mandal, presently working as Tahsildhar of Kahagaznagar Mandal of Adilabad District.

6.Asthpuram Komuraiah, S/o. Not known, aged 40 years, Occ: Previously worked as Village Revenue Officer of Gattubhuthkur V/o. Gangadhar Mandal, presently working as Village Revenue Officer of Kasimpet V/o. Bejjanki Mandal of Karimnagar district. ….Defendants.

2 of 15 OS No. 40 of 2022

This Suit is coming before me on 28-03-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. V. Anjaiah, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri. Government Pleader for the defendant nos. 1 & 2, Sri. L. Rajesham, Advocate for the defendant no. 3, Sri. S. K. Chary, Advocate for the defendant no.4 and Sri. D. Sanjeeva Reddy, Advocate for the defendant nos. 5 & 6, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following-

:: JUDGMENT ::

1. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs nos. 1 to 4 seeking for the declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners to the suit schedule property and also to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant nos. 3 & 4 from interfering over the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and to declare Sri. Thipparapu Rajaiah, S/o.

Venkaiah, R/o. Himmathnagar of Gangadhara Mandal as presumed to be dead and declare the registered sale deed vide document no. 3228/2013, dt. 28.12.2013 of Sub-

Registrar office, Gangadhara as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit Sy.No. 196 of Gattubhuthkur village of

Gangadhara mandal totally measuring Ac.2.02 gts in which an extent of Ac.0.18 gts is belongs to Late Thipparapub Rajaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, R/o. Himmathnagar of

Gangadhara and the wife of said Thipparapu Rajaiah by name Smt. Kashamma is also dead about 25 years back and they have no children. Thereafter, the said Thipparapu

Rajaiah is missing for the last 10 years and his whereabouts are not known and not seen by anyone including the plaintiffs who are the sons of his deceased only elder brother

Mallaiah. The plaintiffs have looked after the said Thipparapu Rajaiah while stayed 3 of 15 OS No. 40 of 2022 with plaintiffs and he left 10 years back without informing to anyone. Thus, the said

Thipparapu Rajaiah is presumed to be dead under law since he is not seen anybody for the last 10 years and during the life time of said Thipparapu Rajaiah, the plaintiffs have maintained him and cultivated the suit schedule property and continues to do so and they are in possession of it. The plaintiffs who are the sons of brother of Sri.

Thipparapu Rajaiah have succeeded his estate as class-II legal heirs under Hindu

Succession Act including the suit land and are in possession of it to the knowledge of all. The plaintiffs further submitted that the father of the defendant no.3 namely Pothuri

Bheemaiah is notorious, pairavikar, manipulator and won over the defendant no.6, the then Village Revenue Officer and the defendant no.5 the then Mandal Tahsildhar, by using both of them fraudulently in a deceitful manner got entered the name of his daughter i.e., the defendant no.3 in the pahani columns for the years 1423 fasli, (2011- 2012) in active connivance of the defendant no. 5 & 6 who have abused their position without following law and procedure and made such entries in the revenue records and tampered over night in most suspicious manner, facilitating the defendant no.3 to execute a fictitious sale deed no. 3228/2013, dt. 28.11.2013 in favour of the defendant no. 4 in respect of the suit schedule property to usurf the said property in illegal manner, to deprive the plaintiffs. Therefore, the defendant nos. 5 & 6 are made as party to the proceedings to explain the mischievous conduct, making them personally accountable for disciplinary proceedings so as to deter them in future not to indulge in such 4 of 15 OS No. 40 of 2022 malpractice attitudes. The copy of pahanies for the years 1960-61, 1970-71, 1975-76, 1985-86, 1980-81, 1996-97, 2001-02, 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2009-10 reveals that patta and possession of said Thipparapu Rajaiah to whom the plaintiffs have succeeded.

3.The plaintiffs came to know the said mischiefs caused by defendant nos. 6 & 7 therefore, issued notices to the defendant nos. 1 & 2 under Section 80 of the Civil

Procedure Code to correct such wrong entries but, the defendant nos. 1 & 2 have neither acted on the said notice to rectify such mistakes nor gave any reply, however the defendant no. 3 through her Advocate Sri. L. Rajesham replied dt. 30.12.2013 vaguely asserting that the deceased Thipparapu Rajaiah sold said property to Pothuri Bheemaiah and he delivered possession to his daughter Pothuri Laxmi and on his consent mutation is effected in the name of said Pothuri Laxmi and the said Pothuri Laxmi is the defendant no. 3 herein in turn executed registered sale deed vide document no.

3228/2013 and transferred into defendant no. 4 and this was happened her without any substance by creating cock and bull story and nothing but a plan to assert the suit schedule property of the plaintiffs. The defendant nos. 3 & 4 interfered into the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property through the above sale deed on 15.12.2013, however the plaintiffs have resisted their illegal acts but still they have not given up their stance and planning to occupy the suit land.

5 of 15 OS No. 40 of 2022

4.The defendant nos. 1 & 2 are failed to file the written statement within a period of 90 days as such, their right to file written statement was forfeited. Written statement filed by the defendant no. 3 opposing the claim of the plaintiffs and submitted that the father of the plaintiffs by name Mallaiah and Thipparapu Rajaiah are own brothers and the suit schedule property was their ancestral property and in partition among them the suit schedule property fell to the share of the said Thipparapu Rajaiah, agnate of the plaintiffs which he had sold to the defendant no. 3 through simple sale deed for valid consideration and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant no. 3 in the year 1992 and after purchase the defendant no. 3 is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and her name has been recorded as the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property in the revenue records and also the

ROR proceedings have been granted in favor of the defendant no. 3. The vendor of the defendant no. 3 i.e., Thipparapu Rajaiah had wife by name Kashamma who predeceased her husband and their only son Mallesham has left the village and now living at

Chimalakuntapalli of Bejjanki Mandal of Karimnagar district. Having been in rightful possession for long time, the defendant no. 3 for her legal necessities had sold the suit land to the defendant no. 4 through the registered sale deed vide document no.

3228/2013 and took the defendant no. 4 in possession of the same. Thus, the defendant no. 4 became the rightful and lawful owner of the suit land. Thus, it could be seen that the defendant no. 3 has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land 6 of 15 OS No. 40 of 2022 from 1992 to 2013 and having purchased the suit land the defendant no. 4 became the rightful owner of the suit land. Thus, the plaintiffs are prevented from questioning the flow of title of the suit land as they are out of possession of the suit land from the period of their father. Their father Mallaiah had also sold out his share of land to Kummari people of village and they cannot interfere therefore, question of the lawful possession of the defendant no. 3 and through her the defendant no. 4.

5.Likewise, the defendant no. 4 filed the written statement and submitted that the defendant no. 4 purchased the suit schedule property from the defendant no. 3 through registered sale deed bearing no. 3228/2013, dt. 28.11.2013, since the purchase of the land the defendant no. 4 has been in continuous peaceful possession over the suit schedule property and the defendant no. 4 made an application before the Revenue authorities for mutation of the above said land in his name and which is pending and prayed to dismiss the suit. The defendant nos. 5 & 6 are failed to file the written statements within the statutory period as such, their right to file written statement is forfeited.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as the owners of the suit land ?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the perpetual injunction against the defendant nos. 3 & 4 ?

7 of 15 OS No. 40 of 2022 3.Whether the Thipparapu Rajaiah is presumed to be dead ?

4. Whether the registered sale deed vide document no. 3228/2013 is liable to be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?

5. To what relief ?

7.During the course of trial, the plaintiff no. 1 himself examined as Pw.1 and got marked the Exs.A1 to A20 and further Pw. 2 is examined in support of the case of the plaintiffs. For the defendants, the defendant no.3 examined herself as Dw.1 and she got marked the Exs.B1 & B2 and even though chief-affidavits of Dws. 2 & 3 filed by the defendants but later, they filed the memo stating that the Dws. 2 & 3 are not supporting to prosecute the case as such their evidence are eschewed.

8.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendant no.3 and the defendant nos. 4 to 6 and the learned Government Pleader failed to submit the arguments. As such the arguments of defendant no. 4 to 6 and

Government Pleader as treated as heard.

9.Issue No.1:-

The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property belongs to Thipparapu

Rajaiah and the plaintiffs herein are the sons of his only elder brother and the said

Thipparapu Rajaiah not blessed with any issues and his wife was also died long back 8 of 15 OS No. 40 of 2022 and the said Thipparapu Rajaiah was look after by the plaintiffs herein about his welfare but the said Thipparapu Rajaiah was left the village without informing to anyone and as such being the class-II legal heirs they are entitled to the estate of the said Thipparapu

Rajaiah and they are entitled for the declaration of the ownership over the suit schedule property.

10.In order to prove the same, the plaintiff no.1 himself examined as Pw.1 and filed the chief-affidavit which is the replica of the contents of the plaint and got marked the

Exs.A1 to A20 and the Pw.1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defendant no. 3 and during the cross-examination it was elicited that his paternal grand father name is Thipparapu Venkaiah and he has three sons namely Veeraiah, Mallaiah and Rajaiah out of which Veeraiah and Mallaiah were died and the presently the whereabouts of the Rajaiah are not known. The said Veeraiah and his wife died issue less and he do not know the name of wife of said Veeraiah and the said Rajaiah has also had no issues and again witness adds that the said Rajaiah married one Kashamma who was already having a son through her first husband and the name of the son of

Kashamma is Mallesham and he was brought up by Rajaiah only. It was further elicited that during the partition they secured the ancestral agricultural lands at four places out of which the two places they are dry lands and at another place it is dry land and remaining place is also a dry land adjoining to the village and the said Survey numbers are 196 and he do not know the remaining survey numbers and there was only 9 of 15 OS No. 40 of 2022 one ancestral house of their joint family. The plaintiff no. 2 purchased the land covered under the dismantled old house. They already sold out the above said four lands long back and again deposed that they only sold out two lands and he do not know their survey numbers. Out of the land in Sy.No. 196 fell to the share of his father to the extent of Ac/0.20 gts they exchanged the said land with one Domakonda Narayana who inturn gave his land of Ac.0.10 gts adjoining to the village and beside their existing land and they also paid Rs.10,000/- to the said Domakonda Narayana and they are never in possession of the said Ac.0.20 gts of the land fell to the share of his father in Sy.no. 196.

Further the Pw.1 denied the suggestion that his junior paternal uncle by name Rajaiah sold out the suit land to the father of the defendant no. 3 namely Pothuri Bheemaiah and he has been in peaceful possession of the said land and remaining cross-examination is denial of formal suggestions.

11.Further in support of the case of the plaintiffs Pw.2 was examined and he deposed that he know the plaintiff and the defendants and the suit survey number is 196 and the land is to an extent of Ac.1.18 gts of Gattubhuthkur village and the said land is previously held by Thipparapu Rajaiah, S/o. Venkaiah and his natural father is Lade

Narsaiah of Kishtampeta village and after his death his mother Kashavva came to

Himmathnagar village along with him and when he was in childhood the said Kashavva who is his mother married the said Thipparapu Rajaiah and he was grown up by their father as their son and his mother was died about 20 years back and thereafter himself 10 of 15 OS No. 40 of 2022 and the said Thipparapu Rajaiah lived together as father and son and the said

Thipparapu Rajaiah left the village to anyone about 15 years back including him and the plaintiffs and they made efforts but his whereabouts are not known and thus, they all presume that he died. The suit land is in joint possession of the plaintiffs as heirs of said Thipparapu Rajaiah. The said Thipparapu Rajaiah never sold any lands to defendant no. 3 and the said suit land is in joint possession of the plaintiffs and himself as he was brought up and lived with him as son recognized by him. The Pw.2 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defendant no. 3 and during the cross- examination nothing was elicited from the Pw.2 to prove that his father sold away the suit schedule property to the father of the defendant no. 3.

12.Coming to the evidence of the Dw.1 who is the defendant no. 3 herein and she filed the chief-affidavit which is the replica of the written statement and got marked

Exs.B1 & B2 which are title deed and pattedar and passbook and the Dw.1 was cross- examined during the cross-examination it was elicited that the plaintiffs nos. 1 to 4 are the sons of late Mallaiah and his brother Rajaiah not having any issues and his wife also no more and plaintiffs nos. 1 to 4 are used to look after and maintain the Rajaiah till his disappearance and she do not know the whereabouts of the said Rajaiah and they all are presuming that he was died. Surprisingly, the Dw.1 admitted that she do not know the survey number and extent fo the suit schedule property and even she do not know whether the suit schedule property was purchased by her father from Thipparapu 11 of 15 OS No. 40 of 2022

Rajaiah on her name. Further the Dw.1 admitted that without the knowledge of the plaintiffs the suit schedule property got mutated on her name by influencing the revenue officials and got created the pattadhar passbook and title deeds and the Dw.1 clearly admitted that those documents are created one and which are not valid and she is not in possession of the suit schedule property and she do not know whether the suit schedule property was sold to the defendant no. 4 and the plaintiffs nos. 1 to 4 are in the possession of the suit schedule property. So, the evidence of Dw.1 is totally contradictory to the chief-affidavit and the written statement filed by her. So, from the evidence of Dw.1 it is clear that the documents which are field by the Dw.1 are not valid and which are created one. Further this court opined that the evidence of the Pws. 1 & 2 coupled with the Exs.A1 to A20 clearly proving that the Thipparapu Rajaiah is the original owner of the suit schedule property and he had no issues and as admitted by the pw.2 also and further his whereabouts are not known so, the plaintiffs nos. 1 to 4 being the class-II legal heirs of the Thipparapu Rajaiah they are entitled for the declaration of title over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

13.Issue No.2;-

In view of the findings given in issue no.1, the defendant nos. 3 & 4 are perpetually restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of 12 of 15 OS No. 40 of 2022 the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

14. Issue No.3;-

With regard to the declaration of Sri. Thipparapu Rajaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, R/o.

Himmathnagar village of Gangadhara Mandal as dead but even though all the witnesses including the Dw.1 deposed that the said Thipparapu Rajaiah was left the village 15 years ago and they do not know his whereabouts and they are presuming that he is dead but, this court opined that the plaintiffs failed to file a police report stating that the said

Thipparapu Rajaiah was missing since 15 years and further there is no cogent evidence to declare that the said Thipparapu Rajaiah is presumed to be declared as dead.

Hjence, this issue is answered against the plaintiffs and this court cannot declare the said Sri. Thipparapu Rajaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, R/o. Himmathnagar village of

Gangadhara Mandal presumed as dead.

15.Issue no. 4:-

When the plaintiffs nos. 1 to 4 are declared as the owners to the suit schedule property and hence as a consequal the registered sale deed vide document no.

3228/2013, dt. 28.11.2013 of Sub-Registrar office, Gangadhara is hereby declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

13 of 15 OS No. 40 of 2022

16.Issue no. 5:-

In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs declaring that the plaintiffs nos. 1 to 4 are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and granted perpetual injunction restraining the defendant nos. 3 & 4 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and as a consequal the registered sale deed vide document no.

3228/2013, dt. 28.11.2013 on the file of Sub-Registrar office, Gangadhara is hereby declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff nos. 1 to 4 and this court dismissed the relief with regard to Sri. Thipparapu Rajaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, R/o.

Himmathnagar village of Gangadhara Mandal be declared to be dead. In the circumstances of this case, there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictatation to the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31 st day of March, 2023.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1Thipparapu MondaiahDW1Pothuri Laxmi @ Lachavva

PW2Thipparapu Mallaiah 14 of 15 OS No. 40 of 2022

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1960-61 issued by Dy. Tahsildhar, Gangadhara Mandal.

Ex.A2is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1970-61 issued by Dy. Tahsildhar, Gangadhara Mandal.

Ex.A3is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1975-76 issued by Dy. Tahsildhar, Gangadhara Mandal.

Ex.A4is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1980-81 issued by Dy. Tahsildhar, Gangadhara Mandal.

Ex.A5is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1985-86 issued by Dy. Tahsildhar, Gangadhara Mandal.

Ex.A6is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1996-97 issued by Dy. Tahsildhar, Gangadhara Mandal.

Ex.A7is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-02 issued by Dy. Tahsildhar, Gangadhara Mandal.

Ex.A8is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2005-06 issued by Dy. Tahsildhar, Gangadhara Mandal.

Ex.A9is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08 issued by Dy. Tahsildhar, Gangadhara Mandal.

Ex.A10 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-10 issued by Dy. Tahsildhar, Gangadhara Mandal.

Ex.A11 is the copy of pahani for the Fasli year 1423 obtained from Mee-seva.

Ex.A12 is the certified copy of registered sale deed vide document no. 3228/2013, dt. 28.11.2013.

Ex.A13 is the office copy of legal notice dt. 20.12.2013 issued to the defendant nos. 1 to 4.

Ex.A14 is the postal acknowledgment served on defendant no.1.

Ex.A15 is the postal acknowledgment served on defendant no.2.

Ex.A16 is the postal acknowledgment served on defendant no.3.

Ex.A17 is the postal acknowledgment served on defendant no.4.

Ex.A18 is the returned postal envelop sent to the defendant no.4.

15 of 15 OS No. 40 of 2022

Ex.A19 is the postal acknowledgment served on Sub-Registrar, Gangadhara.

Ex.A20 is the reply notice of defendant no.4 issued through his Advocate, dt. 30.12.2013.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1Is the title deed

Ex.B2Is the pattadar passbook

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

1 of 6 SC.No. 209 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :

AT: KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI K. YUVA RAJA,

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of April, 2023

SESSIONS CASE NO. 209 of 2022

(On committal made by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar vide PRC No. 21 of 2022)

Name of the Complainant:The State through, Inspector of Police, Karimnagar-Rural, PS in Cr.No. 394 of 2020. Name of the Accused :A1: Gunda Ajay, S/o.Ramesh, Age:21 Years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occ:Cook, R/o. Peddasamudrala V/o.Koheda Mandal, Siddipet District, now at Vidhyaranyapuri, Road No.2, Theegalaguttapalli, Karimnagar. Charges:U/Sec.307, 324 of IPC against the accused No.1.

Plea of the Accused:“ Not Guilty”

Finding of the Court:“ Not Guilty”

Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 307, 324 of IPC as such he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. The case property deposited in this Court which was marked as M.O.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri G. Laxman, Addl.P.P.,

Accused defended bySri. B.Mahender Reddy, Counsel for the accused No.1 2 of 6 SC.No. 209 of 2022

This case is came before me on 26.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Laxman, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri. B.Mahender Reddy, Counsel for the accused No.1, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Inspector of police, P.S. Karimnagar-Rural filed charge sheet in

Cr.No. 394 of 2020 for the offences punishable U/Secs.307, 324 of Indian Penal

Code (in short IPC) against the sole accused.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused No.1 is the native of Pedda Samudrala of Siddipet Dist. and now residing in a rented house owned by one Kothakonda Raju at Vidyranyapuri Road No.2. About 13 years back the defacto-complainant performed the mariage of his daughter who is

PW.2 with one Mallesham R/o.Atmakoor and they blessed with one daughter aged about 9 years. After one year of their marriage due to some differences the

PW.2 obtained divorce from her husband and residing along with her daughter in a rented house at Kothirampur of Karimnagar and eking lively hood as coolie and cook. In the circumstances, the accused No.1 and PW.2 are in the same profession and the accused got acquaintance with the PW.2 and subsequently in the month of March 2020 the accused No.1 tied thali to the PW.2 at her house.

But about two months back, some differences arose between them, so the PW.2 3 of 6 SC.No. 209 of 2022 approached the woman police station. The PW.2 demanding Rs.3,50,000/- from the accused alleging that he had taking the amount as hand loan but the accused agreed to give Rs.1,50,000/- in the presence of elders. On 22.12.2020 at 8.00 hours the PW.2 along with his mother PW.3 went to the house of the accused to ask the money whatever he agreed to pay, on seeing them, the accused No.1 quarreled with them beat with stick, further brought one knife from the house and stabbed the PW.2 indiscriminately with an intention to kill her. The PW.3 who is the mother of the PW.2 received the injuries when she tried to rescue the

PW.2. Further the investigating oficer after completion of investigating filed the charge sheet against Accused No.1 only by deleting the accused No.2 to 4 with the proceedings obtained from the Asst. Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar.

3.The case was taken on file U/Sec.307, 324 of IPC against accused No.1 by the learned II-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar vide PRC

No. 22 of 2022 and on appearance of the accused No.1, the copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. and as the offences U/Sec. 307, 324 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, the case was committed to the Honourable Court of Sessions,

Karimnagar U/sec. 209 Cr.P.C and subsequently, the case was made over to this

Court for disposal according to law.

4 of 6 SC.No. 209 of 2022

4.Charge U/Sec.307, 324 of IPC against accused No.1 is framed, and the contents of charge is read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which, he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs. P1 to P13 and also marked Material Object No.1 to 3. Learned

Addl. PP given up the evidences of Lw.4/Gadam Aruna, LW.5/Manthani Sharad,

LW.6/Nerella Srinivas, LW.7/Gadam Vijaya, LW.8/Alakunta Kumaraswamy,

Lw.9/Mula Ravinder Reddy, LW.10/Gadam Rajashekar, LW.11/Devarakonda

Venkanna, LW.12/Thallapelli Rajesham, LW.13/Panga Sagar, LW.14/Davu

Santhoshkumar,LW.15/DavuDeepak,LW.16/Dr.S.Ravinder,

LW.17/Smt.S.Chandana and LW.18/Srinivas Rao Tula as the Pws 1 to 3 who are the material witnesses not supported the case of the prosecution.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, to answer the incriminating material found against him in the prosecution witnesses for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

Hence, defence evidence closed.

7. Heard the arguments on both sides.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the case against the accused for

the offences punishable U/Sec.307, 324 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

5 of 6 SC.No. 209 of 2022

POINT:

9.The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 beat the PW.2 and 3 with a stick and attacked the PW.2 with knife but whereas the evidence adduced

before this court is contrary to the version of the prosecution case and the

defacto-complainant who filed the police report deposed before this court that he do not know anything about this case and the accused did not commit any offence. Further PW.2 and 3 are the injured persons and they also deposed that they do not know anything about this case. The remaining evidence is the

Investigating Officer and his evidence is with regard to the procedure of investigation. So, basing on the sole testimony of the Investigating Officer evidence it not safe to held that the accused committed the charged offence.

Hence, the benefit of doubt is extended to the accused.

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

U/Sec. 307, 324 of IPC as such he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. The case property deposited in this Court which was marked as M.O.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to dictation to the typist on the computer directly, typed by her and after corrections, pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 26 th day of April, 2023.

ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

6 of 6 SC.No. 209 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1- Shivarathri Mallaiah -NIL- PW2- Shivarathiri Kavitha, PW3- Shivarathri Dhanamma, PW4- P.Vignan Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Signature of Pw.1 on the police report. Ex.P2Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C statement of Pw.1. Ex.P3Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C statement of Pw.2. Ex.P4Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C statement of Pw.3. Ex.P5First information Report Ex.P6Search and seizure memo Ex.P7Crime Detail Form Ex.P8Confession panchanama of accused No.1 Ex.P9Confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P10RFSL report Ex.P11Injury certificate of PW.2 Ex.P12Injury certificate of PW.3 Ex.P13Permission memo from the ACP, Karimnagar

FOR DEFENCE: --Nil--

Material Objects Marked:

M.O.1:Blood stained wheat colour top with pink and green colour design

M.O.2:Pink colour legging

M.O.3:Knife

ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

1 of 5 SC.No. 324 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :

AT: KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI K. YUVA RAJA,

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

Monday, this the 24th day of April, 2023

SESSIONS CASE NO. 324 of 2021

(On committal made by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar vide PRC No. 43 of 2017)

Name of the Complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karimnagar-I town PS in Cr.No. 372 of 2017.

Name of the Accused :Lingampalli Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Jagga Reddy, aged 42 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ: ARPC 2690, R/o. Kachapur V/o. Shankarapatnam Mandal.

Charges:U/Sec.307 of IPC against the sole accused.

Plea of the Accused:“ Not Guilty”

Finding of the Court:“ Not Guilty”

Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 307 of IPC as such he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. The case property deposited in this Court which was marked as M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri G. Laxman, Addl.P.P.,

Accused defended bySri. Ashadapu Srinivas, Legal Aid Counsel for sole accused.

2 of 5 SC.No. 324 of 2021

This case is coming before me on 24.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Laxman, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri. Ashadapu Srinivas, Legal Aid Counsel for sole accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Karimnagar-I town filed charge sheet in Cr.No. 372 of 2017 for the offence punishable U/Sec.307 of Indian Penal

Code (in short IPC) against the sole accused.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant is the resident of Doragaripally village of Mancherial Mandal and district and his sister is residing at Kothirampoor, Karimnagar. On 30.07.2017, the defacto- complainant came to his sister house and after completion of his work, he left from his sister house and reached to Karimnagar Restaurant and at that time at about 09.00 P.M the accused who is the AR Police Constable No. 2690 (under suspension) came to the defacto-complainant and abused him in filthy language that why he was stayed here and the accused with an intention to kill the complainant picked up stone which is available nearby spot and beat with the stone on back side head of the complainant due to which he sustained bleeding injury to his head.

3.The case was taken on file U/Sec.307 of IPC against accused by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 3 of 5 SC.No. 324 of 2021

First Class, Karimnagar vide PRC No. 43 of 2017 and on appearance of the

accused, the copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated

U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. and as the offence U/Sec. 307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Honourable Court of Sessions, Karimnagar U/sec. 209 Cr.P.C and subsequently, the case was made over to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.Charge U/Sec.307 of IPC against accused is framed, and the contents of charge is read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which, he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 & 2 and got marked Exs. P1 to P5 and also marked Material Object No.1. Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of Lw.2/Kasarla Anvesh

Reddy, Lw.3/Bindla Buchaiah, Lw.4/Sirigiri Madhav, Lw.5/Bollaveni Srilatha,

Lw.6/Uppula Ramesh, Lw.7/Mohammad Avez and Lw.8/Dr.V. Archana as Pw.1.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, to answer the incriminating material found against him in the prosecution witnesses for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

Hence, defence evidence closed.

7. Heard the arguments on both sides.

4 of 5 SC.No. 324 of 2021

8. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the case against the accused for the

offence punishable U/Sec.307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

9.The case of the prosecution is that the accused beat the defacto- complainant with a stone but whereas the evidence adduced before this court is contrary to the version of the prosecution case and the defacto-complainant who is the injured himself deposed before this court that he do not know anything about this case and the accused did not commit any offence. The remaining evidence is the Investigating Officer and his evidence is with regard to the procedure of investigation. So, basing on the sole testimony of the Investigating

Officer evidence it not safe to held that the accused committed the charged offence. Hence, the benefit of doubt is extended to the accused.

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 307 of IPC as such he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. The case property deposited in this Court which was marked as M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by her and after corrections,

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 24 th day of April, 2023.

ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

5 of 5 SC.No. 324 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1- Ponavegi Kumar -NIL- PW2- P. Srinivas Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Signature of Pw.1 on the police report. Ex.P2Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C statement of Pw.1. Ex.P3First information report Ex.P4Crime detail form Ex.P5Injury certificate of Pw.1

FOR DEFENCE: --Nil--

Material Objects Marked: M.O.1:Stone attached with cement.

ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.