Sri Kalangi Venkateswara Rao

1

OS 8-2012 dt.10.04.2023

PSCJ/KVR

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KOVVUR.

Present:-K.Venkateswara Rao Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur.

Monday, this the 10th day of April 2023

O.S No.8/2012

Between:-

1. Smt. Kasinada Bhagya Lakshmi, W/o.Satyanarayana, aged 52 Years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.13-12-119/3, Ward No.13, Street No.1, Indira Nagar, Nidadavole, West Godavari District.

2. Sri Kasinada Satyanarayana @ Peda Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Satyam, aged 60 years, Hindu, Carpenter, D.No.13-12-119/3, Ward No.13, Street No.1, Indiranagar, Nidadavole, West Godavari District.

...Plaintiffs

And:

1. Smt. Barlanki Seetharatnam (DIED on 09.02.2014)

2. Smt. Musinada Ramalakshmi, W/o.Late Premanandam, Hindu, aged 55 years, Housewife, C/o.Barlanki Seetharatnam, Near Ramalayam, Basireddypeta, Nidadavole, West Godavari District.

3. Sri Velpukonda Bhadra Rao, S/o.Late Veeraju, aged 33 years, Hindu, Private Employee, Near Arts College, Opposite Allu RamalingayyaHomeopathyhospital,Subbaraopeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

4. Smt. Velpukonda Nagamani, W/o.Bhadra Rao, aged 30 years, Hindu, Housewife, Near Arts College, Opposite Allu Ramalingayya Homeopathy Hospital, Subbarao peta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. [The 1st defendant died on 09.02.2014 and it was noted as per orders in IA No.682/2022 dated 19.01.2023]

... Defendants

This suit has come before me for hearing in the presence of Sri O.S.Nageswara Rao and Sri T.Suresh Kumar, Advocates for the plaintiffs and Sri G.U.V.B Raju and Smt. G.Nagamani, Advocates for the defendants 2 to 4 and the 1st defendant died. Upon perusing the material on record and upon having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendants 1 to 4 praying this to declare them as absolute owners of the plaint schedule property based on partition took place about 25 years ago with the 1st defendant and for consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their henchmen and followers who ever 2

OS 8-2012 dt.10.04.2023

PSCJ/KVR interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the 1st plaintiff was adopted by the 1st defendant and her husband Late Gurumurthy when she was aged about 5 years by performing Dattahoma on 02.10.1959 and the father name of 1st plaintiff was noted as Gurumurthy in school records. The said Gurumurthy died in the year 1971, later the 1st defendant performed the marriage of the 1st plaintiff with the 2nd plaintiff in the year 1971 and all of them used to reside in tiled house purchased by late Gurumurthy. Out of the earnings of the 2nd plaintiff through carpentry works, they purchased vacant site of 208 square yards situated at Indiranagar, Nidadavole through registered sale deed dated 24.07.1982 in the name of 1st defendant. Subsequently, the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant partitioned family properties in the year 1985 and in the said partition, the vacant site covered under registered sale deed dated 24.07.1982 was fallen to the share of 1st plaintiff and the two tiled houses were fallen to the share of 1st defendant. The plaintiffs constructed thatched house in the said site and started to reside in the said house which is plaint schedule property. As the partition deed was not registered, the electrical service connection and municipal tap connection were remained in the name of 1st defendant and they are paying all the taxes for the last 25 years.

3. The 2nd defendant who is the daughter of one Ammaji i.e., co- sister of 1st defendant, her son-in-law i.e., 3rd defendant and her daughter i.e., 4th defendant conspired together and influenced the 1st defendant due to which in the first week of September 2011, the 1st defendant demanded the plaintiffs to vacate the plaint schedule property and to deliver the possession to her for which the plaintiffs refused. On that the defendants approached the Station House officer,

Nidadavole police station and the police ordered the plaintiffs to vacate the plaint schedule property on or before 26.01.2012. Hence, the suit.

4. On receipt of summons, the 1st defendant filed written 3

OS 8-2012 dt.10.04.2023

PSCJ/KVR statement. The defendants 2 to 4 filed memo adopting the written statement of the 1st defendant.

The 1st defendant denied all material averments of the plaint and contended that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file this suit and the alleged Dattahoma is a created fact. She contended that the 1st plaintiff is Muslim by community and she is an orphan and was brought up by many people and little close to her. She contended that the plaint schedule property is her exclusive stridhana property and she has another house also. As such the plaintiffs took the plaint schedule property for rent of Rs.1,000/- about 8 years ago and they committed default in paying rent and started canvasing that the said house belongs to them. She contended that during 2011, the plaintiffs and their son committed theft of original title deeds and other documents when she is suffering from ailment and visiting hospitals, on that she gave police report also and on 22.10.2011, the 2nd plaintiff gave an undertaking letter to elders stating that they would vacate the premises by 21.01.2012, but they cleverly filed this suit to grab the property and finally prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. During pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died on 09.02.2014 and the same was noted as per orders in IA No.682/2022

dated 19.01.2023.

6. Based on the pleadings and documents, the following issues were settled for trial by my Predecessor of this Court:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are tenants of the schedule property under the 1st defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties?

3. If so, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of injunction?

4. To what relief.

7. During trial of the suit, the 1st plaintiff filed her examination in chief-affidavit as P.W.1. Exs.A1 to A7 documents were marked. After closure of the evidence of plaintiffs, the 2nd defendant filed her examination in chief-affidavit as D.W.1. Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

The defendants produced D.W.2.

8. Heard the arguments of both sides.

4

OS 8-2012 dt.10.04.2023

PSCJ/KVR The learned counsel for the plaintiffs filed written arguments stating that the 1st plaintiff is the adopted daughter of the 1st defendant and her husband. He further argued that the husband of 1st plaintiff i.e., the 2nd plaintiff has learnt carpentry work under the adoptive father of 1st plaintiff namely Gurumurthy and gained confidence and in the meantime, the said Gurumurthy died in the year 1971. He argued that later the 1st defendant performed the marriage of the 1st plaintiff with the 2nd plaintiff and all of them used to reside under one roof. He further argued that the 2nd plaintiff earned money by doing carpentry work and purchased vacant site an extent of 208 square yards through registered sale deed dated 24.07.1982 in the name of 1st defendant. He further argued that subsequently the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant partitioned their family properties orally in the year 1985, in which the 1st plaintiff got the vacant site purchased through Ex.A1 registered sale deed dated 24.07.1982 and the 1st defendant got two tiled houses towards her share. He further argued that Ex.A1 registered sale deed dated 24.07.1982 was also given to the 1st plaintiff and thereafter, the plaintiffs raised thatched house in the vacant site and since then they have been residing in it by paying all taxes. He further argued that subsequently the defendants 2 to 4 conspired together and colluded with the 1st defendant and started to demand the plaintiffs to vacate the plaint schedule house and as such they filed the present suit seeking declaration of their right and consequential injunction. He further argued that the plaintiffs filed Ex.A3 to Ex.A7 tax receipts and municipal proceedings to show their enjoyment and finally prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

The learned counsel for the defendants 2 to 4 also filed written arguments stating that the entire burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish their case and that they cannot depend upon the weakness of case of defendants. He invited the attention of this Court to go through the cross of P.W.1 stating that P.W.1 categorically admitted that there is no documentary evidence to show that she was adopted by the 1st defendant and that she admitted that she had no source of 5

OS 8-2012 dt.10.04.2023

PSCJ/KVR income. He further argued that P.W.1 further admitted about execution of registered Will and also admitted that she is tenant of 1st defendant and that the 1st defendant demanded her to pay the rent and that she has given undertaking before the police to vacate the premises. He further argued that P.W.1 herself admitted that she is not the adoptive daughter of the 1st defendant and that she joined in the plaint schedule property as a tenant only, as such the question of declaration of her right over the property does not arise. He further argued that Ex.A3 to Ex.A6 tax receipts are showing the name of 1st defendant only and if really the plaintiffs constructed the house in the plaint schedule property, there is no explanation that why they paid tax in the name of 1st defendant. He further argued that P.W.1 specifically admitted that the 1st defendant was fell sick and was admitted in the hospital in the year 2011 prior to filing of this suit. He further argued that P.W.1 further admitted that the 1st defendant

Seetharathnam gave report to the police that her son Siva Babu committed theft of her title documents when she was admitted in hospital. He further argued that Ex.A1 registered document shows the title of 1st defendant only and that the son of plaintiffs committed theft of that document along with Exs.A3 to A6 receipts and filed this suit to gain wrongfully. He further argued that the 1st defendant executed Will

dated 28.01.2012 in favour of 1st defendant and subsequently she

died on 09.02.2014 which is admitted by P.W.1 also. He further argued that the defendants filed Ex.B1 registered Will executed by the 1st defendant and also produced D.W.2 who is one of the attestor of said document to prove the execution of the same. He further argued that the 2nd defendant became owner of plaint schedule in pursuance of

Ex.B1 Will and finally prayed to dismiss the suit.

9. After considering the pleadings of both parties, evidence on record and arguments of respective counsels, this court decides the above issues as under:

Issue No. 1:

Whether the plaintiffs are tenants of the schedule property under the 1st defendant?

6

OS 8-2012 dt.10.04.2023

PSCJ/KVR

10. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed their examination in chief-affidavits as P.Ws.1 and 2 by reiterating the entire contents of the plaint. They stated that they purchased vacant site of 208 square yards through

Ex.A1 registered sale deed dated 24.07.1982 in the name of 1st defendant with the earnings of 2ndplaintiff as Carpenter.

Subsequently, the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant partitioned their family properties in which the said vacant site covered under Ex.A1 document was allotted towards the share of 1st plaintiff, on that they constructed thatched house in the plaint schedule property and obtained electricity connection and municipal tap connection for it.

11. Coming to the evidence of defendants, the 2nd defendant filed her examination in chief-affidavit as D.W.1, denying the contention of plaintiffs. She stated that the plaint schedule property is exclusive stridhana property of the 1st defendant. She further stated that the plaintiffs took the plaint schedule house for rent at the rate of

Rs.1,000/- per month. Further during the year 2011, the plaintiffs and their son committed theft of original title deed document and other documents of the 1st defendant while she was suffering from ill-health and she gave report to the police also. She further stated that the 2nd plaintiff gave undertaking letter dated 22.10.2011 to vacate the premises by 21.01.2012 and requested the 1st defendant not to proceed with the police report, as such the plaintiffs are only tenants.

12. Coming to the cross of P.W.1, she deposed that she is not the fostered daughter of 1st defendant Seetharathnam and that she pleaded the same for the sake of suit only. She further admitted that she is the tenant of schedule property since the year 2004. She further admitted that the 1st defendant Seetharathnam raised dispute as she did not pay the rent to her. She further admitted that the said

Seetharathnam was admitted in the hospital in the year 2011 due to ill-health. She further admitted that she does not know the details of properties owned or possessed by the 1st defendant Seetharathnam.

She further admitted that the said Seetharathnam gave report to the police against them stating that herself and her son are committed theft of title documents of schedule property while she was in 7

OS 8-2012 dt.10.04.2023

PSCJ/KVR hospital. She further admitted that her husband gave undertaking

dated 21.10.2012 before the police that they will vacate the house

within short time. The admission of P.W.1 that she is not the fostered daughter of the 1st defendant and that she is only tenant of schedule property is sufficient to say that the plaintiffs are only tenants of schedule property since admitted facts need not be proved in view of section 58 of Indian Evidence Act. When the 1st plaintiff herself admitted in her evidence that she is tenant of schedule property since the year 2004 and that the 1st defendant raised dispute as she did not pay the rent to her and that her husband also executed undertaking letter dated 21.10.2012 stating that they will vacate the house within short period, no more other evidence is required to prove the said fact

before the Court. On the other hand, Ex.A1 original registered sale

deed as well as Exs.A3 to A6 electricity and property tax receipts are also showing the name of 1st defendant Seetharathnam only and not the names of plaintiffs. It clearly shows that the plaintiffs are only tenants of schedule property of 1st defendant Seetharathnam.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of 1st defendant as against the plaintiffs.

13. As the issues 2 and 3 are co-related with each other, this

Court intends to discuss both the issues together to avoid repetition of facts and for brevity of the case.

Issues 2 and 3:

2. Whether the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties?

3. If so, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of injunction?

14. The 1st plaintiff stated in her chief-examination that the 1st defendant and her husband Gurumurthy adopted her by performing

Dattahoma on 12.10.1959. Thereafter, the 2nd plaintiff has learnt carpentry work under the said Gurumurthy. Subsequently, the said

Gurumurthy died in the year 1971. Thereafter, the 1st defendant performed her marriage with the 2nd plaintiff in the year 1971. She further stated that all of them jointly resided under one roof and they purchased vacant site of 208 square yards through Ex.A1 registered 8

OS 8-2012 dt.10.04.2023

PSCJ/KVR sale deed dated 24.07.1982 in the name of 1st defendant with the earnings of 2nd plaintiff. But subsequently herself and the 1st defendant partitioned their joint family properties in the year 1985 in which she was allotted the vacant site covered under Ex.A1 document.

Thereafter, she raised thatched house and obtained electricity service connection and municipal tap connection. P.W.2 who is her husband also stated the same version through his examination in chief- affidavit. The defendants specifically denied the contention of the plaintiffs and D.W.1 stated that the plaintiffs joined in the plaint schedule house as tenants only and that they committed theft of documents of 1st defendant and filed this suit to gain wrongfully. She further stated that the 1st defendant executed Ex.B1 registered Will in her name in a sound disposing state of mind bequeathing plaint schedule property in her favour. She produced D.W.2 stating that she is one of the attestor of Ex.B1 document

15. Coming to the cross of P.W.1, she deposed that she cannot say the names of her natural parents and that she is not having any documentary evidence to show that she was adopted by the 1st defendant Seetharathnam. She further admitted that she is not fostered daughter of 1st defendant. She further deposed that she does not know about details of property owned or possessed by 1st defendant Seetharathnam. She admitted that she joined as a tenant of plaint schedule property in the year 2004 and that the 1st defendant raised dispute as she did not pay rent to her. She further admitted that the said Seetharathnam was admitted in the hospital in the year 2011 due to ill-health. She further admitted that the said

Seetharathnam gave report to the police against them stating that herself and her son committed theft of title documents of schedule property while she was in hospital. She further admitted that her husband gave undertaking dated 21.10.2012 before the police that they will vacate the house within short time. The admission of P.W.1 that she is not the fostered daughter of the 1st defendant and that she is only tenant of schedule property is sufficient to say that the plaintiffs are only tenants of schedule property since admitted facts 9

OS 8-2012 dt.10.04.2023

PSCJ/KVR need not be proved.

16. Further, there is no explanation from P.W.1 that why her husband executed undertaking on 21.10.2012 to vacate the house within short period if really she is the owner of plaint schedule house.

On one hand, the plaintiffs pleaded and gave evidence stating that they constructed thatched house in the vacant site after allotment of share to the 1st plaintiff in the partition happened in the year 1985. If such is the case, there is no explanation from the plaintiffs that why they took electricity service connection and municipal tax connection in the name of 1st defendant when already their properties partitioned and other two tiled houses were allotted to the share of 1st defendant.

The admission of P.W.1 in her cross-examination about giving of report to the police by the 1st defendant against herself and her son stating that they committed theft of her title documents and other document and filing of Ex.A1 registered sale deed and Exs.A3 o A6 electricity and property tax payment receipts before Court which stood in the name of 1st defendant supports the version of the 1st defendant to some extent. If really the property was partitioned and thereafter the plaintiffs constructed thatched house, no prudent person will take electricity connection and water tap connection in the name of 1st defendant who has already separated from them. Though the plaintiff filed Ex.A2 study certificate, P.W.1 herself admitted that there is no document to show that the 1st defendant adopted her and the person who issued Ex.A2 is also not examined to prove the contents. She further admitted in her cross-examination specifically that she is not fostered daughter of Seetharathnam and that she pleaded the same for the sake of this suit only. She further admitted that she is the tenant of schedule property since the year 2004. Further, Ex.A1 registered document filed by the plaintiffs is showing ownership of the 1st defendant over the plaint schedule property and the defendants filed Ex.B1 registered Will dated 28.01.2012 executed by 1st defendant bequeathing the plaint schedule property in favour of 2nd defendant.

Further, the 2nd defendant produced D.W.3 stating that he is the one of the attestor of Ex.B1 registered Will. D.W.3 deposed that the 1st 10

OS 8-2012 dt.10.04.2023

PSCJ/KVR defendant executed Ex.B1 Will in favour of 2nd defendant in a sound disposing state of mind by giving instructions and bequeathed the plaint schedule property in favour of 2nd defendant. As seen from

Ex.B1 registered Will, it is signed by two attestors. It clearly shows that the 2nd defendant proved the execution of Ex.B1 registered Will by the 1st defendant by complying the mandatory provisions of Sec.63 of

Indian Succession Act and Sec.68 of Indian Evidence also by producing one of the attestor of Ex.B1 registered Will. However, irrespective of proof of case of defendants, the burden lies on the plaintiffs only to establish their own case. But there is no evidence at all from the side of plaintiffs to show that the 1st plaintiff is the adopted daughter of 1st defendant and her husband or to show that the plaint schedule house site covered under Ex.A1 document was allotted to the 1st plaintiff in any such partition. As such the question of declaration of right of plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties as owners does not arise.

Accordingly, the 2nd issue is answered against the plaintiffs.

17. Coming to the granting of consequential relief of injunction, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the defendants also admitted about possession of plaintiffs in plaint schedule property irrespective of fact whether as tenants or owners and requested the

Court to protect their possession by granting permanent injunction. In fact, it is settled law that the title follows possession. Even assuming for a moment that the plaintiffs are staying in the plaint schedule house as tenants, there is no explanation from the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that how the plaintiffs are entitled to get permanent injunction to stay there forever even without paying rent also since

P.W.1 admitted that the 1st defendant Seetharathnam raised dispute as she did not pay rent to her. It is not the case of the plaintiffs in their pleading that they joined in the house as tenants and that the defendants are forcing them to get vacate the premises even though they are paying rent properly. In fact, the relief of injunction is equitable relief and the party who approached the Court seeking equitable relief must do equity. On one hand, the plaintiffs claimed title over the plaint schedule property through the plaint and in the 11

OS 8-2012 dt.10.04.2023

PSCJ/KVR cross-examination of P.W.1, she admitted that she is the tenant of the plaint schedule house since the year 2004 and the 1st defendant raised dispute as she did not pay the rent also. It clearly shows that even without paying rent also, the plaintiffs filed this suit by claiming title without any document and continued in the possession till today under the guise of filing this suit in the year 2012. When there is fault on the part of plaintiffs in paying rent also, as admitted by the plaintiffs and also they admitted about execution of undertaking letter in the year 2012 to vacate the house within short time, this Court cannot extend helping hand to the plaintiffs who are defaulters in paying rent also to continue in the premises illegally by way of granting permanent injunction. As such, this Court feels that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the consequential relief of permanent injunction also. Accordingly, issue No.3 is also answered against the plaintiffs.

18. In view of findings given by this Court for issues 1 to 3, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief from the Court and the suit is liable to dismissed with costs.

19. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Grade-I Stenographer on laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 10th day of April 2023.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kovvur.

Appendix of Evidence

Oral Evidence

For Plaintiffs For Defendants

P.W.1: K.Bhagya LakshmiD.W.1: M.Ramalakshmi D.W.2: V.Sujatha

Documentary Evidence

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: Registered sale deed ated 24.07.1982 for the plaint schedule property stainding in the name of 1st defendant Ex.A2: Study certificate dated 22.12.2011 belonging to 1st plaintiff by Hindu aided Elementary School, Nidadavole Ex.A3: Receipt dated 22.10.2011 of electricity consumption charges for plaint schedule property 12

OS 8-2012 dt.10.04.2023

PSCJ/KVR Ex.A4: Property tax receipt dated 12.04.2011 for the plaint schedule property issued by Nidadavole Municipality Ex.A5: Property tax receipt dated 30.08.2007 for the plaint schedule property issued by Nidadavole Municipality Ex.A6: Property tax receipt dated 14.07.2008 for the plaint schedule property issued by Nidadavole Municipality Ex.A7: Proceedings of Commissioner, Municipality, Nidadavole sanctioing water tap dated 29.10.2004

For Defendants

Ex.B1: Registered Will dated 28.01.2012 executed by 1st defendant Ex.B2: Death certificate of 1st defendant obtained through mee seva center.

PSCJ/KVR.

1O.S.No.42/2003(FTC)[03.1.2020] ASCJ/KVR.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE 

KOVVUR (FTC)

Present:­K.Venkateswara Rao,

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur

FAC::Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur (FTC)

Friday, this the 3rd day of January 2020. 

O.S.No.42/2003

Between:

1. Smt. Chandravathi (Died), W/o.Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged 45 years, Coolie, Vemuluru, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. 

2. Sri Dasari Venkata Rao, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged 25 years, Coolie, Vemuluru, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. 

3. Sri Dasari Prasad, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged 11 years, Mother’s protection, Vemuluru, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. 

4. Smt. Bendamuri Chandra Kumari @ Kumari, W/o.Venkata Ramana, Hindu, aged 22 years, Husband’s protection, Anaparthi, West Godavari District. 

5. Smt. Dasari Rama Mani, D/o.Venkata Ramana, Hindu, aged 13 years, Mother’s Protection, Vemuluru, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. [The plaintiffs 3 and 5 being minors represented by their guardian 1st plaintiff Dasari Chandravathi.]

..... Plaintiffs

AND

1. Smt. Dasari Suramma (Died), W/o.Veera Venkanna, Hindu, aged 65 years, Son’s protection, Bandapuram, West Godavari District.

2. Sri Dasari Appa Rao, S/o.Veera Venkanna, Hindu, aged 40 years, Cultivation, Bandapuram, West Godavari District. 

3. Smt. Penubothula Mangayamma, W/o.Late Satyam, Hindu, aged 45 years, Cultivation, Bandapuram, West Godavari District.

4. Smt. Garapati Krishnamma (Died), W/o.Somanna, Hindu, aged 40 years, Cultivation, Chagallu village and Mandal, West Godavari District.

5. Smt. Nakka Sriranga, W/o.Chandra Rao, Hindu, aged 35 years, Husband’s protection, Vemuluru, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District.

6. Sri Vumngarala Veerabhadra Rao, S/o.Kedareswardu, Hindu, aged 30 years, Railway Employee, Vemuluru village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District.

7. Smt. Chitturi Suryakantham (Died), W/o.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 50 years, Cultivation, Vemuluru village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. 

8. Sri Attuluri Rama Rao (Died), S/o.Rattayya, Hindu, aged 60 years, Railway Employee, Vemuluru village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District.

9. Smt. Alla Bharathi, W/o.Tata Rao, Hindu, aged 30 years, Housewife, Vemuluru, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. 

10. Sri Chitturi Chandra Rao, S/o.Late Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 54 years, Cultivation, D.No.3­147, Ramalayam street, Vemuluru village, Kovvur 2O.S.No.42/2003(FTC)[03.1.2020] ASCJ/KVR.

Mandal, West Godavari District.

11. Sri Chitturi Srinivas, S/o.Late Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 50 years, Cultivation, D.No.3­210, Thotavari Street, Vemuluru village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District.

12. Sri Chitturi Krishna, S/o.Late Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 44 years, Cultivation, D.No.3­153, Thotavari Street, Vemuluru village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District.

13. Sri Chitturi Rambabu, S/o.Late Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 42 years, Cultivation, D.No.3­153, Ramalayam Street, Vemuluru village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District.

14. Smt. Attuluri Ramayamma, W/o.Rama Rao, Hindu, aged 70 years, Properties, D.No.3­149, Thotavari Street, Vemuluru village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District.

15. Sri Attuluri Surya Rao @ Surrao, S/o.Rama Rao, Hindu, aged 50 years, Cultivation, D.No.3­149, Thotavari Street, Vemuluru village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District.

16. Sri Attuluri Ramababu, S/o.Rama Rao, Hindu, aged 45 years, Cultivation, D.No.3­149, Thotavari Street, Vemuluru village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. [Defendants 2, 3, 5 are recognized as legal representatives of deceased 1st defendant as per memo dated 30.04.2001] [9th defendant is added as per orders in IA No.879/2005 dated 22.01.2007] [Defendants 10 to 13 are added as L.Rs of the deceased 7th defendant as per

IA No.50/2015 dated 30.10.2017]

[Defendants 14 to 16 are added as L.Rs of the deceased 8th defendant as per I.A No.53/2015 dated 30.10.2017]

...Defendants

This suit has come before me on 16.12.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Suryanarayana, Advocate for plaintiffs and since the defendants 1, 4, 7 and 8 died, the defendants 2, 3, and 14 to 16 having remained exparte and the suit against the defendants 5, 6 and 9 to 13 was dismissed as withdrawn by the plaintiffs asper order dated 16.12.2019 passed in IA No.11/2019. Upon perusing the material on record and upon having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs praying this Court for the following reliefs:

 that the plaintiffs be allowed to file this suit in forma paupers  that the defendants 3 to 7 be directed to deliver vacant possession of plaint A and B schedule properties  that the defendants be directed to pay the Rs.6000/­ towards past profits for three years prior to the suit  that future profits on the plaint A schedule, B schedule properties from 3O.S.No.42/2003(FTC)[03.1.2020] ASCJ/KVR.

the date of plaint till delivery be order to be ascertained and paid to the plaintiffs by the defendants on a separate petition to be filed under Order

XX Rule 12 of CPC  that the defendants be ordered to pay the costs of the plaint

2. The brief facts of the plaint are that one Dasari Veera Venkanna had two sons namely Venkateswara Rao and Appa Rao owning ancestral immovable properties as described in schedule annexed to the plaint along with other immovable properties. Prior to 1978, the said Venkanna and his two sons orally partitioned all their coparcenary properties into three shares, in which on such share of immovable properties fell to the share of Venkateswara Rao, who is the husband of the 1st plaintiff­Lakshmi and father of the other plaintiffs. Later, in the year 1978, the said partition was reduced into writing and partition lists were prepared and signed by late Veera Venkanna and his two sons.

3. From the time of said partition, the husband of the 1st plaintiff and the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule immovable properties and later, the husband of the 1st plaintiff died intestate on 21.05.1980 and the plaint schedule properties are devolved on the plaintiffs and they have been enjoying the same with their exclusive rights.

4. The B schedule immovable property was purchased in the name of late

Dasari Veera Venkanna with the Stridhana money of the 1st plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the same without dividing the same in the above said partition. The said D.Veera Venkanna and his two sons executed a conveyance in favour of the 1st plaintiff for the plaint B schedule property.

5. The 1st plaintiff being a widow, she leased out the plaint A and B schedule properties to one Chithiri Nageswara Rao in the month of July 1983 for an annual rent of Rs.1250/­ payable to her regularly in advance. On 24.05.1984 the said Dasari Veera Venkanna died intestate. In the 1st week of July 1984, the plaintiffs constructed a thatched shed in Item No.2 for which, an altercation was occurred and the 2nd defendant hit the 2nd plaintiff with a knife on his neck and a criminal case was also registered under Sec.307 of Indian Penal code to that effect. Thereupon, the 2nd defendant and his father Veera Venkanna and the 1st defendant conceived evil idea to grab the A and B schedule properties and 4O.S.No.42/2003(FTC)[03.1.2020] ASCJ/KVR.

concocted a Will dated 18.08.1983 describing the A and B properties as self­ acquired properties of Veera Venkanna and bequeathing them to the 1st defendant and it was brought into existence to deprive the rights of the plaintiffs.

Then, the plaintiffs got issued registered notice dated 20.04.1984 to late Veera

Venkanna, the defendants 1 and 2 claiming certain rights over the plaint A and B schedule properties and the 2nd defendant received the said notice on 01.05.1984 and others refused to receive the same and it did not evoke any response. 

6. On 24.06.1984 when the 1st plaintiff was in her land, the 1st defendant, her daughter and the 3rd defendant came to her and interfered with her possession with a demand to deliver A and B schedule properties to them for which she refused. Then, they grew wild upon the 1st plaintiff and attacked on her head and went away for which a criminal case was registered against the 1st defendant. As the 1st plaintiff filed criminal case, the 1st defendant grew wild upon her, filed frivolous suit in OS No.365/1984 on the file of I Additional

District Munisif Court, Kovvur for permanent injunction over A and B schedule properties and obtained exparte temporary injunction vide IA No.1068/1984.

Basing on which, the 1st defendant trespassed into the plaint A and B schedule properties by dispossessing the plaintiffs and their tenant Ch.Nageswara Rao.

Then, they filed written statement and also counter in the said suit and I Addl.

District Munisif Court dismissed the temporary injunction petition with costs and vacated the exparte temporary injunction. Then, the 1st defendant filed CMA

No.17/1984 in Sub Court, Kovvur and obtained exparte temporary injunction in

IA no.769/1984 and on contest the CMA was allowed partly. Thereupon, the

plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed CRP on the file of Hon’ble High Court and it was allowed by dismissing the temporary injunction. 

7. The defendants 1 and 2 prevailed upon late Veera Venkanna to execute the registered settlement deed 18.08.1983 in favour of the 3rd defendant in respect of Ac.0.50 cents in R.S No.171/1 of Vemuluru village described in Item

No.1 of plaint A schedule property and it is void as late Veera Venkanna has no title or possession over it. The 1st defendant executed a registered sale deed

dated 04.06.1986 in favour of 4th defendant in respect of Ac.0.86 cents in R.S

No.171/2 and Ac.0.21 cents in R.S No.170/10 making total of Ac.1.07 cents and it is void in law as it really belongs to the plaintiffs. Similarly, the 1st defendant 5O.S.No.42/2003(FTC)[03.1.2020] ASCJ/KVR.

executed a registered settlement deed dated 15.09.1986 in favour of the 5th defendant in respect of tiled house and site bearing assessment No.343 of

Vemuluru in item No.3 of plaint A schedule and it is void as the 1st defendant had no title or possession over it. The defendants 1 and 2 executed a registered sale deed dated 23.01.1989 in favour of 6th defendant in respect of Ac.0.15 cents in R.S No.171/4 of Vemuluru village including Item No.2 of plaint A schedule and it is also void in law. The defendants 1 and 2 executed a registered sale deed

dated 30.01.1986 in favour of the 7th defendant who is no other than the wife of

Ch.Nageswara Rao, tenant of the plaintiffs in respect of Ac.0.33 cents in R.S

No.171/1 of Vemuluru including the plaint B schedule property and it is void and they have no title or legal possession over it. Similarly, an extent of Ac.0.05 cents of site belonging to the plaintiffs was sold away to the 8th defendant under a registered sale deed which is not binding on the plaintiffs. Later, the defendants 1 and 2 migrated to Bandapuram about 14 miles from Vemuluru. The above said sale deeds and settlement deeds are also hit by doctrine of lis pendence because of absconding of 1st defendant who is the 1st plaintiff in OS No.365/1984 from the court and got the suit dismissed for default on 13.10.1988. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for above mentioned reliefs.

8. The defendants 4, 6, 9 and 13 filed their respective written statements separately. 

The 4th defendant filed her written statement denying the contention of the plaintiffs. She further stated that she purchased Item No.1 of plaint A schedule through a registered sale deed dated 04.06.1986 and thereafter, she enjoyed the same till 22.05.1996 and again she sold the said property in favour of Alla Tata

Rao through a registered sale deed.

The defendants 5 and 6 also filed written statement denying the contention of the plaintiffs. They also stated that they are the bonafide purchasers of Item

No.2 and 3 of plaint A schedule. 

Subsequently, the 9th defendant was impleaded as per orders dated 22.01.2007 passed in IA No.879/2005. She also filed written statement stating that her husband Alla Tata Rao purchased the item No.1 of plaint A schedule property from the 4th defendant in the year 1996 and subsequently, he executed the settlement deed in her favour. She also stated that her husband is bofanide 6O.S.No.42/2003(FTC)[03.1.2020] ASCJ/KVR.

purchaser of said property. 

Thereafter, the defendants 10 to 13 were impleaded as legal heirs of 7th defendant. They contended that the 7th defendant purchased Item No.1 of plaint

A schedule property by paying consideration and that the plaintiffs are no way concerned with the said property.

9. Since the 1st defendant died, plaintiffs 1 to 5 and the 2nd defendant are recognized as legal representatives of the 1st defendant vide orders in IA

No.879/2005 dated 22.01.2007. Since the 4th defendant died, 9th defendant was impleaded as legal heir of the deceased 4th defendant as per orders in IA

No.879/2005 dated 22.01.2007. Since the 7th defendant died, defendants 10 to 13 were impleaded as her legal heirs as per orders in IA No.50/2015 dated 30.10.2017. Since the 8th defendant died, the defendants 14 to 16 were impleaded as his legal heirs as per orders in IA No.53/2015 dated 30.10.2017.

10. Basing on the pleadings, my Predecessor had framed the following issues for trial.

1. Whether Dasari Veera Venkanna and his sons had ancestral properties and they partitioned properties prior to 1978?

2. Whether the plaint B schedule was purchased with ‘Sthridhana’ of the 1st plaintiff?

3. Whether the Will dated 18.08.1983 pleaded by the defendants is true?

4. Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the pliant schedule properties at any time?

5. Whether there is cause of action?

6. Whether the suit is bad for non­joinder of necessary parties?

7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover vacant possession of plaint A and B schedule properties?

9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to past profits as prayed for?

10.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to future profits?

11.To what relief?

11. During trial of the suit, the 1st plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1. The 4th plaintiff examined herself as P.W.2. The plaintiffs examined P.W.3. Ex.A1 to

Ex.A6 documents were marked. Later, after closure of the evidence of the plaintiffs, the 9th defendant examined herself as D.W.1. Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 documents were marked. The 5th defendant examined herself as D.W.2.

12. Heard arguments of counsel for the plaintiffs. At that stage, the 7O.S.No.42/2003(FTC)[03.1.2020] ASCJ/KVR.

plaintiffs filed IA No.11/2019 with a request to permit them to withdraw and abandon the claim against the defendants 5, 6 and 9 to 13 and the said petition was allowed by this Court on 16.12.2019. Accordingly, the suit against the defendants 5, 6 and 9 to 13 was dismissed and the plaintiffs abandoned their claim against them. But the plaintiffs continued the proceedings against the defendants who were set exparte. However, they reported no further evidence.

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the present suit is filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of Item No.1 to 3 of A schedule and also

Item No.1 of B schedule from the defendants. During the course of trial, some of the defendants i.e., D5, D6 and D9 to D13 entered into compromise with the plaintiffs by paying the amount of Rs.5,60,000/­. As such, the plaintiffs have abandoned their claim against those defendants including their properties. He argued that the other defendants did not come forward to contest the matter. As such, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the properties from the other defendants and finally prayed to decree the suit partly against the uncontested defendants.

13. The issues are framed basing the pleadings of the contesting defendants but subsequently, the plaintiffs have withdrawn their claim against the contesting defendants who filed written statements and the petition filed by the plaintiffs vide IA No.11/2019 is allowed by this Court on 16.12.2019. Accordingly, the suit against the contesting defendants i.e., 5, 6 and 9 to 13 was dismissed as per request of the plaintiffs. As such, there is no need to answer those issues since the suit was dismissed against them as withdrawn by the plaintiffs.

14. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get recovery of possession of any other properties from other defen1sts, excluding the properties claimed by the defendant No.5, 6 and 9 to 13?

15. In fact, the plaintiffs filed the suit stating that the 1st defendant sold the

Item No.1 of plaint A schedule in favour of the 4th defendant, Item No.3 of plaint

A schedule in favour of the 5th defendant. Likewise, the defendants 1 and 2 sold the Item No.2 of plaint A schedule in favour of the 6th defendant without having any right. Similarly, they sold away Item No.1 of plaint A schedule property in favour of the 7th defendant. Further, an extent of Ac.0.05 cents of house site which belongs to the plaintiffs were also sold away to the 8th defendant through 8O.S.No.42/2003(FTC)[03.1.2020] ASCJ/KVR.

a registered sale deed without having any right. They stated that plaint A schedule properties fell to the share of Dasari Venkateswara Rao, who is the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father the other plaintiffs. They further stated that plaint B schedule property was purchased with sthreedhana of the 1st plaintiff. After death of said Venkateswara Rao, the plaintiffs became owners of all those properties which are shown as plaint A and B schedules. But the defendants 1 and 2 without having any right sold away the same through the registered sale deed as stated supra and that they are in possession and enjoyment over those properties illegally. As such, the filed the present suit for possession of those properties. 

16. The 4th defendant filed her written statement denying the contention of the plaintiffs. She stated that she purchased Item No.1 of plaint A schedule through a registered sale deed dated 04.06.1986 and thereafter, she enjoyed the same till 22.05.1996 and inturn she sold the said property in favour of Alla Tata

Rao through a registered sale deed.

17. The defendants 5 and 6 also filed written statement denying the contention of the defendants. They also stated that they are the bonafide purchasers of Item No.2 and 3 of plaint A schedule. Subsequently, the 9th defendant was impleaded as per orders dated 22.01.2007 passed in IA

No.879/2005. She also filed written statement stating that her husband Alla Tata

Rao purchased the item No.1 of plaint A schedule property from the 4th defendant in the year 1996 and subsequently, he executed the settlement deed in her favour. She also stated that her husband is the bofanide purchaser of said property. Thereafter, the defendants 10 to 13 were impleaded as legal heirs of 7th defendant. They contended that the 7th defendant purchased Item No.1 of plaint

B schedule property by paying consideration and that the plaintiffs are no way concerned with the said property. In fact, the plaintiffs have not shown the alleged Ac.0.05 cents of house site said to have been sold in favour of the 8th defendant specifically at any where in the plaint schedule for the reasons best known to them. The plaintiffs have got knowledge that the 9th defendant is claiming Item 1 of plaint A schedule. Further, they got knowledge that the 5th defendant is claiming Item No.3 of plaint A schedule. Likewise, they got knowledge that the 6th defendant is claiming Item No.2 of plaint A schedule 9O.S.No.42/2003(FTC)[03.1.2020] ASCJ/KVR.

property and the defendants 10 to 13 being legal heirs of the deceased 7th defendant are claiming Item No.1 of plaint B schedule. They entered into compromise with all the above defendants and filed IA No.11/2019 stating that they are abandoned their claim against the defendants 5, 6 and 9 to 13 and also against their properties which are in their possession out of the properties described in the plaint schedule properties. When all the items shown in the plaint schedule properties are claimed by the defendants 5, 6 and 9 to 13 through their written statements and the plaintiffs also admitted their claim and abandoned their right by receiving the amount of Rs.5,60,000/­ from them, there is no explanation from the plaintiffs that what are the other properties remained for them to continue the present suit. In fact, when the plaintiffs have withdrawn the suit against the defendants 5, 6 and 9 to 13 including the properties which are in their possession and enjoyment, no other property is remained out of plaint schedule properties to continue this suit by the plaintiffs against other defendants. As such, the question of considering the claim of the plaintiffs against the other defendants does not arise since no other property is remained for them as they have specifically abandoned their claim against the defendants 5, 6 and 9 to 13. In those circumstances, this Court feels that the plaintiffs are not at all entitled to claim any reliefs against the other defendants, who had chosen to set exparte. 

18. As seen from the record, the plaintiffs filed this suit as Pauper suit by obtaining permission seeking exemption to pay the Court fee. But as per the record, the plaintiffs received an amount of Rs.5,60,000/­ from the contesting defendants by entering into the compromise with them. As such, it is their liability to pay the Court fee within stipulated period. Hence, the plaintiffs are directed to pay the Court fee of Rs.3526/­ within one month into the Court Fee account and failing which, the Office is directed to intimate the same to the

District Collector to recover the same by following due process of law.

19. In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs against the defendants 2, 3, 14 to 16. Already the suit was dismissed against the defendants 5, 6 and 9 to 13 in view of orders passed by this Court in IA No.11/2019 dated 06.12.2019 as the plaintiffs have abandoned their claim against those defendants and their properties also. 

10O.S.No.42/2003(FTC)[03.1.2020] ASCJ/KVR.

As seen from the record, the plaintiffs filed this suit as Pauper suit by obtaining permission through the orders dated 10.02.2003 seeking exemption from paying the Court fee. Now, as per the record, the plaintiffs received an amount of Rs.5,60,000/­ from the contesting defendants 5, 6 and 9 to 13 by entering into compromise and abandoned their claim against them. As such, it is the liability of the plaintiffs to pay the Court fee within stipulated period. Hence, the plaintiffs are directed to pay the Court fee of Rs.3,526/­ within one month into the Court Fee Account and failing which, the Office is directed to intimate the same to the District Collector to recover the same by following due process of law.

Dictated to Stenographer­Grade­II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 3rd day of January 2020.

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur

FAC/Additional Senior Civil Judge(FTC), Kovvur.

Appendix of Evidence

Oral Evidence

For Plaintiff For Defendants P.W.1: D.Chandravathi(Died)D.W.1 : A.Vijaya Bharathi P.W.2: B.Chandra Kumari D.W.2 : N. Sriranga P.W.3: P.Lakshmi

Documentary Evidence

For Plaintiffs Ex.A1: Certified copy of order dated 02.08.1988 in IA No.1068/1984 in OS No.365/1984 on the file of I Addl. Dist. Munisif Court, Kovvur Ex.A2: Registration extract dated 18.08.1883 of settlement deed in favour of D3 Ex.A3: Registration extract dated 04.06.1886 of sale deed Ex.A4: Registration extract dated 17.09.1886 of settlement deed Ex.A5: Registration extract dated 30.01.1886 of sale deed Ex.A6: Certified coy of judgment in OS No.365/1984 on the file of I Addl. District Munisif Court, Kovvur.

For Defendants

Ex.B1: Certified copy of Will dated 18.08.1983 Ex.B2: Original settlement deed dated 18.08.1983

P.S.C.J/Kvr. FAC/A.S.C.J. (FTC)/Kvr.

1 OS No.165/2016 [18.04.2023] PSCJ/KVR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

at KOVVUR.

Present : K.Venkateswara Rao

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur.

Tuesday, this the 18th day of April 2023.

O.S No.165/2016

Between:-

Sri Malladi Venkata Sita Rama Rao, S/o.Late Surya Vardhanam, Hindu, 60 years, Advocate, Resident of Vadapalli, Now at D.No.15-4-1, Bapuji Nagar, Kovvur, Kovvur mandal, West Godavari District.

…. ...Plaintiff.

And:

Sri Kakarla Satyanarayana, S/o.Venkata Rao, Hindu, aged 46 years, Contractor, D.No.3- 22, Vadapalli, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. … . Defendant.

This suit has come before me on 12.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.V.G.S.Sastry, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri P.V.Ravi, Advocate for the defendant. Upon perusing the material on record and upon having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of total amount of

Rs.4,16,482/- based on two promissory notes dated 28.09.2004 each for Rs.63,500/- said to have been executed by the defendant with interest at 24% per annum and costs thereon.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that on 28.09.2004, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.63,500/- for construction of house and for agricultural expenses, he executed promissory note with his own hand writing at Vadapalli and assured to repay the same with compound interest at 24% per annum. Later, inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant made some part payments i.e.,

Rs.10,000/- on 22.09.2007, Rs.1,000/- on 10.09.2010 and Rs.1,000/- on 22.08.2013 and endorsed all the part payments on the back side of 1st promissory note dated 28.09.2004.

3. It is further averred that again on the same day, the defendant borrowed another sum of Rs.63,500/- for construction of house and for agricultural purpose and he executed another promissory note and assured to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Later, inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant made 2 OS No.165/2016 [18.04.2023] PSCJ/KVR.

some part payments i.e., Rs.10,000/- on 22.09.2007, Rs.1,000/- on 10.09.2010 and

Rs.1,000/- on 22.08.2013 and endorsed all the part payments on the back side of 2nd promissory note dated 28.09.2004.

4. It is further averred that despite several demands for the balance due amount under above two promissory notes after deducting the above said part payments, the defendant failed to discharge the balance debts, as such he got issued legal notice dated 22.06.2016 demanding the balance debts, having received the said notice, the defendant failed to discharge the balance debts under two promissory notes. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of Rs.4,16,482/- under two promissory notes.

5. On receipt of summons, at first the defendant had chosen to set exparte and exparte judgment was also pronounced on 16.02.2017. Later, the defendant filed IA

No.366/2017 and it was allowed by setting aside the exparte judgment dated 16.02.2017 by receiving the written statement of the defendant.

6. The defendant denied all the material averments of the plaint. He contended that he is an agriculturist and eking his lively hood by doing cultivation and the plaintiff filed this suit by suppressing the said fact and finally prayed to dismiss the suit.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for tail.

1.Whether the two suit promissory notes dated 28.09.2004 are true, valid and supported by consideration?

2.Whether the part payment endorsements dated 22.09.2007 made on the back side of both the promissory notes are genuine endorsements?

3.Whether the part payment endorsements dated 10.09.2010 made on the back side of both the promissory notes are genuine endorsements?

4.Whether the part payment endorsements dated 22.08.2013 made on the back side of both the promissory notes are genuine endorsements?

5.Whether the defendant is only an agriculturist and if so, whether he is entitled to get scale down the rate of interest?

6.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

7.To what relief?

8. During trail, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1. Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 documents were marked. The counsel for the defendant reported no evidence for defendant.

9. Heard both sides. Perused the record

The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff not only for agriculture and also for the purpose of construction of house and as such the defendant is not entitled to scale down the rate of interest. He further argued that though the defendant filed written statement denying part payment 3 OS No.165/2016 [18.04.2023] PSCJ/KVR.

endorsements, the defendant did not come into witness box to deny the same. He further argued that the learned counsel for the defendant also never gave any suggestion either to P.W.1 denying the execution of suit promissory notes or denying the part payment endorsements and as such, the plaintiff is entitled to get decree as prayed for.

The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant has taken specific plea stating that he is an agriculturist and that the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff @ 24% per annum is an excessive interest and finally prayed to scale down the rate of interest.

10. Basing on pleadings of both the parties, evidence available on record and arguments of both counsels, this Court decides the above issues as under.

11 As the issues 1 to 4 are co-related to each other, this Court intends to take up those issues together for discussion to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence and brevity of facts.

Issues 1 to 4 :

1.Whether the two suit promissory notes dated 28.09.2004 are true, valid and supported by consideration?

2.Whether the part payment endorsements dated 22.09.2007 made on the back side of both the promissory notes are genuine endorsements?

3.Whether the part payment endorsements dated 10.09.2010 made on the back side of both the promissory notes are genuine endorsements?

4.Whether the part payment endorsements dated 22.08.2013 made on the back side of both the promissory notes are genuine endorsements??

12. The plaintiff filed his examination in chief-affidavit as P.w.1 by reiterating the entire contents of his plaint. He stated that the defendant initially borrowed Rs.63,500/- on 28.09.2004 by agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed Ex.A1 promissory note. He stated that later inspite of his demands, he made three part payments i.e., Rs.10,000/- on 22.09.2007, Rs.1,000/- on 10.09.2010 and

Rs.1,000/- on 22.08.2013 and made endorsements as in Exs.A2 to A4 on the backside of

Ex.A1 promissory note respectively. He further stated that the defendant also borrowed

Rs.63,500/- on the same day i.e., on 28.09.2004 by executing Ex.A5 another promissory note and agreed to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. He stated that later inspite of his demands, he made three part payments i.e., Rs.10,000/- on 22.09.2007,

Rs.1,000/- on 10.09.2010 and Rs.1,000/- on 22.08.2013 and made endorsements as in

Exs.A6 to A8 on the backside of Ex.A5 promissory note respectively. Subsequently, the defendant failed to repay the balance amount inspite of repeated demands, as such he got issued Ex.A9 office copy of legal notice dated 22.06.2016, but the defendant failed to 4 OS No.165/2016 [18.04.2023] PSCJ/KVR.

discharge the balance amount, as such he filed the present suit.

13. Coming to the cross of P.W.1, the learned counsel for the defendant gave suggestion stating that the defendant is exclusively depending upon agriculture only and

P.W.1 while admitting the same, he added that the defendant is doing sand business also.

Except giving said suggestion, the learned counsel for the defendant never denied the execution of Exs.A1 and A5 promissory notes by the defendant or the part payment endorsements of Exs.A2 to A4 and Exs.A6 to A8 on those promissory notes respectively.

Further, the learned counsel for the defendant never gave any suggestion to P.W.1 denying the receipt of consideration covered under Exs.A1 and A5 promissory notes.

Further, the defendant did not come into witness box also as witness. As such, the evidence of P.W.1 is remained as unchallenged in respect of borrowing of amount by the plaintiff from him by executing Exs.A1 and A5 promissory notes on 28.09.2004. When the plaintiff filed Exs.A1 and A5 promissory notes dated 28.09.2004 before the Court and gave evidence as P.W.1, certainly the plaintiff discharges his initial burden since the defendant also never denied the same by giving any suggestion also to P.W.1 through his counsel. As such this Court feels that there is ample evidence from the side of plaintiff that Exs.A1 and A5 suit promissory notes dated 29.09.2004 are true, valid and supported by consideration. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiff.

14. Coming to the part payment endorsement of Exs.A2 to A4 made on the backside of Ex.A1 promissory note and the part payment endorsements of Exs.A6 to A8 made on the backside of Ex.A5 promissory note were also not denied by the defendant by giving any suggestion to P.W.1 through his counsel in the cross-examination. Further, the defendant also did not come into witness box to deny those part payments. As such when Exs.A2 to A4 and Exs.A6 to A8 part payment endorsements are taken into consideration, the evidence of P.W.1 is remained as unchallenged in that aspect also, as such there is ample evidence from the side of plaintiff to say that the part payment endorsements of Exs.A2 to A4 and Exs.A6 to A8 are genuine endorsements.

Accordingly, the issue No.2 to issue No.4 are also answered in favour of plaintiff.

Issue No.5:

Whether the defendant is only an agriculturist and if so, whether he is entitled to get scale down the rate of interest?

15. The defendant has taken specific plea that stating that he is only an agriculturist and that the plaintiff cannot claim interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

The plaintiff added in this cross-examination that the defendant is doing sand business 5 OS No.165/2016 [18.04.2023] PSCJ/KVR.

also, apart from doing agriculture. In fact, to do any sand business, a license is required but no such evidence is produced by the plaintiff to show that the defendant is doing sand business also having license for it. Further, the purpose of borrowing amount is mentioned in Exs.A1 and A5 promissory notes that the defendant borrowed amounts for construction of house and for agricultural expenses and not mentioned that he borrowed amounts for any business purpose. It clearly supports the version of defendant that he is an agriculturist.

16. However, the defendant has taken specific pleading that he is entitled to get scale down the rate of interest as he is an agriculturist. Regarding that aspect, in a case between

Indian Bank, Alamuru represented by the Regional Manager, Vijayawada Vrs. Muddana

Krishnamurthy and another reported in AIR 1983 page 347 their Lordship held in para

No.18 that the interest which has been stipulated as payable by the defendants with quarterly rests is inherently vicious and is hit by the Usurious Loans Act as amended by the Tamil Nadu

Act No.8 of 1937 which is applicable to the state of Andhra Pradesh also. The Usurious Loans

Act authorises the Court to relieve an agriculturist from the load of debt liability. Thus, the compound interest by paying excessive and substantially unfair. Their Lordship scale down the rate of interest to 12% per annum in the said case. In these circumstances, this Court feels that in view of the above decision, the defendant is entitled to get scale down the rate of interest from 24% per annum to 12% per annum. Accordingly, issue No.5 is answered in favour of the defendant.

Issue No.6:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for??

17. In view of the finding given by this Court for Issues 1 to 4, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the principal amounts covered under Exs.A1 and A5 promissory notes after deducting the part payments covered under Exs.A2 to A4 and Exs.A6 to A8 respectively, but in view of finding given by this Court for issue No.5, the plaintiff is entitled to get only simple interest at 12% per annum from the date of execution of

Exs.A1 and A5 promissory notes till the date of decree and thereafter, the plaintiff is entitled to get interest at 6% per annum on the remaining amount till the date of realization. The plaintiff is entitled to get costs also proportionately. Accordingly, issue

No.6 is answered partly in favour of plaintiff.

Issue No.8 and Result ::

18. In the result, the suit is partly decreed with proportionate costs directing the defendant to pay principal amount of Rs.63,500/- covered under Ex.A1 promissory note and another principal amount of Rs.63,500/- also covered under Ex.A5 promissory note 6 OS No.165/2016 [18.04.2023] PSCJ/KVR.

with interest @12% per annum from the date of execution of those promissory notes till the date of decree after deducting the part payments covered under Exs.A2 to A4 and

Exs.A6 to A8 respectively and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the remaining amount.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Grade-I on laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 18th day of April 2023.

Principal Senior Civil Judge

Kovvur.

Appendix of Evidence

Oral Evidence

For Plaintiff For Defendant None P.W.1: M.V.S.Rama Rao

Documentary Evidence

For Plaintiff Ex.A1: Promissory note dated 28.09.2004 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff Ex.A2: Part payment endorsement dated 22.09.2007 executed by the defendant on the promissory note dated 28.09.2004 for Rs.10,000/- Ex.A3: Part payment endorsement dated 10.09.2010 executed by the defendant on the promissory note dated 28.09.2004 for Rs.1,000/- Ex.A4: Part payment endorsement dated 22.08.2013 executed by the defendant on the promissory note dated 28.09.2004 for Rs.1,000/- Ex.A5: Promissory note dated 28.09.2004 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff Ex.A6: Part payment endorsement dated 22.09.2007 executed by the defendant on the promissory note dated 28.09.2004 for Rs.10,000/- Ex.A7: Part payment endorsement dated 10.09.2010 executed by the defendant on the promissory note dated 28.09.2004 for Rs.1,000/- Ex.A8: Part payment endorsement dated 22.08.2013 executed by the defendant on the promissory note dated 28.09.2004 for Rs.1,000/- Ex.A9: Office copy of legal notice dated 22.06.2016 Ex.A10: Postal receipt

For Defendant - Nil -

PSCJ/KVR

1 O.S.No.19/2020[13.04.2023] PSCJ/KVR.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KOVVUR

Present:-Sri.K.Venkateswara Rao Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur.

Thursday, this the 13th day of April 2023

O.S No.19/2020

Between:-

1. Konakalla Nageswara Guptha, S/o.Rambabu, Hindu, aged 22 years, Cultivation, D.No.3-17/1, Bank of India Street, Dharbhagudem village, Zeelugumilli mandal, West Godavari District.

2. Konakalla Rambabu, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 57 years, Cultivatio, D.no.3-17/1, Bank of India Street, Dharbhagudem village, Zeelugumilli mandal, West Godavari District

3. Konakalla Sudhakar, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 46 years, Cultivatio, D.no.3-17/1, Bank of India Street, Dharbhagudem village, Zeelugumilli mandal, West Godavari District

...Plaintiffs

And:

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District.

3. The Special Tahasildar-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Unit No.IV, Jangareddigudem, Jangareddigudem Mandal, West Godavari District.

...Defendants.

This suit has come before me on 17.03.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.S.S.V.G.V.R.Murthy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and the defendants had chosen to set exparte. Upon perusing the material on record and upon having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiffs filed this suit praying this Court to partition the plaint schedule property into 21 (twenty-one) equal shares and to allot one share each to the plaintiffs and to deliver possession of their respective share within the stipulated period apart from mesne profits and costs thereof.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the 1st plaintiff is the son and 3rd plaintiff is brother of the 2nd plaintiff. The plaint schedule property an extent of Ac.2.06 cents is the property of the defendants, situated in R.S No.545/3 of Jangareddigudem out of which, the 1st plaintiff purchased an extent of Ac.0.10 cents site undivided and unspecified in the Court open auction held on 23.04.2018 in EP

No.22/2004 in LAOP No.58/1987 on the file of this Court, filed against 2 O.S.No.19/2020[13.04.2023] PSCJ/KVR.

the 3rd defendant for valuable consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- and the sale was confirmed on 29.06.2018 vide sale certificate No.2/2018

dated 29.06.2018 and it was registered with Sub Registrar Office,

Jangareddigudem under L.No.167/2019 dated 11.03.2019 through process of Court and the 1st plaintiff is bonafide purchaser of Ac.0.10 cents site out of the plaint schedule property.

3. It is further averred that the 2nd plaintiff purchased an extent of

Ac.0.10 cents of site undivided and unspecified in the Court open auction held on 23.04.2018 in EP No.26/2004 in LAOP No.111/1987 on the file of this Court, filed against the 3rd defendant for valuable consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- and the sale was confirmed on 29.06.2018 vide sale certificate No.1/2018 dated 29.06.2018 and it was registered with Sub Registrar Office, Jangareddigudem under

L.No.168/2019 dated 11.03.2019 through process of Court and he is bonafide purchaser of Ac.0.10 cents site out of the plaint schedule property.

4. It is further averred that the 3rd plaintiff purchased an extent of Ac.0.10 cents of site undivided and unspecified in the Court open auction held on 23.04.2018 in EP No.29/2004 in LAOP No.57/1987 on the file of this Court, filed against the 3rd defendant for valuable consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- and the sale was confirmed on 29.06.2018 vide sale certificate No.3/2018 dated 29.06.2018 and it was registered with Sub Registrar Office, Jangareddigudem under

L.No.169/2019 dated 11.03.2019 through process of Court and he is bonafide purchaser of Ac.0.10 cents site out of the plaint schedule property.

5. It is further averred that inspite of repeated demands from the plaintiffs, the defendants failed to comply the sale held in favour of the plaintiffs and failed to give separate possession of the respective share of extent of lands as mentioned in sale certificates and the plaintiffs also made written representation dated 30.06.2019, but there is no response from the defendants. Hence, this suit.

3 O.S.No.19/2020[13.04.2023] PSCJ/KVR.

4. As seen from the record, on receipt of summons, the defendants had chosen to set exparte.

5. During trial of the suit, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed their respective examination in chief-affidavits as P.Ws.1 to 3. Exs.A1 to A5 documents were marked.

Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled in seeking partition of the suit schedule property and to get allot 1/21 share each to the plaintiffs with specific boundaries apart from mesne profits?

6. As seen from the record, during trial of the suit, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed their respective examinations in chief-affidavits as P.Ws.1 to 3 and they reiterated the contents of the plaint. Exs.A1 to A3 documents were marked through P.W.1. Ex.A4 is marked through P.W.2 and Ex.A5 is marked through P.W.3. The defendants had chosen to set exparte. The plaintiffs deposed that the plaint schedule property an extent of Ac.2.06 cents is the property of the defendants, situated in

R.S No.545/3 of Jangareddigudem. P.W.1 deposed that out of the plaint schedule property, he purchased an extent of Ac.0.10 cents site undivided and unspecified in the Court open auction held on 23.04.2018 in EP No.22/2004 in LAOP No.58/1987 on the file of this

Court, filed against the 3rd defendant for valuable consideration of

Rs.16,00,000/- and the sale was confirmed on 29.06.2018 vide Ex.A1 certified copy of sale certificate No.2/2018 dated 29.06.2018 and it was registered with Sub Registrar Office, Jangareddigudem under

L.No.167/2019 dated 11.03.2019 through process of Court and that he is bonafide auction purchaser of the said site. P.W.2 deposed that he purchased an extent of Ac.0.10 cents of site undivided and unspecified in the Court open auction held on 23.04.2018 in EP

No.26/2004 in LAOP No.111/1987 on the file of this Court, filed against the 3rd defendant for valuable consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- and the sale was confirmed on 29.06.2018 vide Ex.A4 certified copy of sale certificate No.1/2018 dated 29.06.2018 and it was registered with Sub

Registrar Office, Jangareddigudem under L.No.168/2019 dated 4 O.S.No.19/2020[13.04.2023] PSCJ/KVR.

11.03.2019 through process of Court and that he is bonafide purchaser of said site. P.W.3 deposed that he purchased an extent of

Ac.0.10 cents of site undivided and unspecified in the Court open auction held on 23.04.2018 in EP No.29/2004 in LAOP No.57/1987 on the file of this Court, filed against the 3rd defendant for valuable consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- and the sale was confirmed on 29.06.2018 vide Ex.A5 certified copy of sale certificate No.3/2018

dated 29.06.2018 and it was registered with Sub Registrar Office,

Jangareddigudem under L.No.169/2019 dated 11.03.2019 through process of Court and that he is bonafide auction purchaser of said site.

P.W.1 further deposed that despite repeated demands, the defendants failed to comply the above sale and hence, they got issued written representation through their counsel and Ex.A2 is the office copy of written representation notice dated 30.06.2019 and Ex.A3 is its postal acknowledgments of the defendants 1 and 2.

7. Now, considering the pleadings of the plaintiffs and the evidence on record, this Court has to examine whether the plaintiffs are entitled in seeking partition of the suit schedule property and allotment of 1/21st shares each to them apart from mesne profits. The defendants did not come forward to deny the contention of the plaintiffs regarding the purchase of extent of Ac.0.10 cents each by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the Court auction out of Ac.2.06 cents of plaint schedule property by paying valuable consideration. Further, to support their contention the plaintiffs filed Ex.A1 certified copy of sale certificate issued in favour of the 1st plaintiff, Ex.A4 certified copy of sale certificate issued in favour of the 2nd plaintiff and Ex.A5 certified copy of sale certificate issued in favour of the 3rd plaintiff and those certificates are clearly revealing that they are entitled to get Ac.0.10 cents of land each in the undivided plaint schedule property an extent of Ac.2.06 cents in R.S No.545/3 of Jangareddigudem.

8. The defendants did not come forward to deny the genuineness of those sale certificates or to deny the conducting of auction by this 5 O.S.No.19/2020[13.04.2023] PSCJ/KVR.

Court in the execution proceedings in EP No.22/2004, EP No.26/2004 and EP No.29/2004 respectively. As such certainly the plaintiffs are entitled to get partition of plaint schedule property into 21 (twenty- one) equal shares and to get allot one share each to the plaintiffs.

Further, they are entitled to get mesne profits also over their respective shares from the date of filing of this suit to till delivery of possession of their respective shares by way of filing separate application to get ascertain the same. Accordingly, this point is answered.

9. In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs directing the defendants to partition the plaint schedule property into 21 (Twenty-one)equal shares and to get allot one share each to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are also entitled to get mesne profits over their respective shares from the date of filing of this suit to till delivery of possession of their respective shares by way of filing separate application to get ascertain the same.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Grade-I on laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13th day of April 2023.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kovvur.

Appendix of Evidence

Oral Evidence

For Plaintiffs For Defendants P.W.1: K.Nageswara RaoNone P.W.2: K.Rambabu P.W.3: K.Sudhakar

Documentary Evidence

For Plaintiffs Ex.A1:Certified copy of registered sale certificate dated 29.06.2019 issued by this Court in EP No.22/2004 Ex.A2: Office copy of written representation notice dated 30.06.2019 got issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgments of defendants 1 and 2 Ex.A4: Certified copy of registered sale certificate dated 29.06.2019 issued by this Court in EP No.26/2004 Ex.A5: Certified copy of registered sale certificate dated 29.06.2019 issued by this Court in EP No.29/2004 For Defendants - Nil -

PSCJ/KVR.

1 S.C.No.68/2017[11.04.2023] PASJ/KVR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

KOVVUR.

Present: K.Venkateswara Rao, Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kovvur.

Tuesday, this the 11th day of April, 2023.

SESSIONS CASE No.168/2022

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gopalapuram police station, West Godavari District. … Complainant.

And

1. Yeleti Ratnaji (DIED, case against him was abated on 12.11.2021)

2. Madicherla Venkata Rajeswari, W/o.Veera Venkata Rao, aged 40 years, Rajaka, BC Colony, Gopalapuram Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. … Accused.

This case has come before on 04.04.2023 for hearing in the presence of Smt. B.Bharathi, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Prosecution and of Sri D.Saibaba, Advocate for the accused. Upon perused the material on record and upon having stood over the matter till this day, this Court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gopalapuram

Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 in

Cr.No.88/2016 for the offecnes punishable under Sec.307, 498 and Sec.497 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the case or prosecution are that the marriage between L.W.1 Madicharla Veera Venkata Rao and the 2nd accused was performed about 28 years back and they were blessed with one son and one daughter. For about 2 or 3 years, the accused 1 and 2 got illicit intimacy and on knowing the same, L.W.1 Venkata Rao placed the matter

before elders and reprimanded the accused 1 and 2 for several times. But

they did not change their attitude, meanwhile on 16.06.2016 the 1st accused took the 2nd accused to somewhere without permission of L.W.1

Venkata Rao and he did not inform the incident to anybody due to disgrace and on 30.06.2016 at about 9.30 PM, the accused 1 and 2 have proceeded on a motorcycle to rented house of 1st accused bearing D.No.8-173 and went inside and closed the doors. On that L.W.1 Venkata Rao observed and 2 S.C.No.68/2017[11.04.2023] PASJ/KVR.

followed them knocked the doors, then the 1st accused opened the doors, when the 2nd accused tried to hide herself in a wooden box, L.W.1 Venkata

Rao questioned and then both the accused got angry, altercated with him, attempted to kill him and the 2nd accused pressed his testis and the 1st accused beat him and caused injuries stating that if L.W.1 Venkata Rao would die, no one can question them. On that due to fear L.w.1 Venkata Rao came out and raised cries, both the accused tried to catch him for some distance. Basing on report of L.W.1 Venkata Rao, Police registered a case in

Cr.88/2016 under Sec.307, 498 and Sec.497 of Indian Penal Code and that during further investigation, the investigating officer examined material witnesses, the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene and that on 01.07.2016, he arrested both the accused and on completion of investigation in all respects, he filed charge sheet against both the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.307, 498 and 497 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvur had taken cognizance for the offences under Sec.497 of Indian Penal Code against the 1st accused and Sec.307 and Sec.498 of Indian Penal Code against the accused 1 and 2. Among the said offences, sec.307 Indian Penal

Code is exclusively tribal by Court of Sessions, hence the case was committed to the Hon'ble Principal District & Sessions Court, Eluru under

Sec.209 (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure after serving copies of the case to the accused as required under Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Subsequently, the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Eluru registered it as Sessions Case No.68/2017 and made over the case to this

Court for trial. Thereafter, the 1st accused died and on filing death certificate, the case against 1st accused was abated by this Court.

4. Later, on hearing both sides, the charge was framed for the offence under Sec.307 of Indian Penal Code against the 2nd accused, read over and explained to her in Telugu. The 2nd accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the trial of the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P9.

6. After closer of prosecution evidence, the 2nd accused was examined under Sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the 3 S.C.No.68/2017[11.04.2023] PASJ/KVR.

incriminating evidence available on record in Telugu. She denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the counsel for the prosecution i.e., Additional Public

Prosecutor and the Counsel for the 2nd accused.

Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could establish the guilty of the 2nd accused for offence under Sec.307 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?.

8. The prosecution examined P.W.1 who is the injured-cum-defacto complainant in this case. He deposed that his marriage with the 2nd accused was performed in the year 1988 and that they were blessed with two children. He further deposed that about 6 or 7 years ago, on one day he fell down from his bike and sustained injuries and was admitted in hospital where the doctors obtained Ex.P1 his signature appearing on report dated 30.06.2016, but he does not know its contents. P.W.2 who is the son of 2nd accused and P.W.1 did not support the case of prosecution and he stated that his parents i.e., the 2nd accused and P.w.1 are residing together happily.

He further deposed that his father has no disputes with the 1st accused.

P.W.3 also turned hostile from the case of prosecution. P.W.4 who is the investigating officer deposed about his chronological events done by him during course of investigation.

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross examined Pws. 1 to 3 with the permission of the court by declaring them as hostile and gave suggestions to them stating that the 1st accused developed illicit intimacy with the wife of P.W.1 i.e., 2nd accused and both the accused harassed P.W.1 in several ways and caused injuries with an intention to kill P.W.1. But P.Ws.

1 to 3 denied those suggestions and nothing is elicited through them in support of case of prosecution except marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P2 to P4 respectively. Further the evidence of P.W.4 who is the investigating officer is also circumstantial evidence. When P.W.1 who is the injured, P.W.2 son of injured and P.W.3 who is the alleged eye witness also have not supported the case of prosecution, their evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution.

10. In the above circumstances there is no any evidence from the side of prosecution to say that the 2nd accused caused injuries to P.W.1 with an intention to kill him. When no witness deposed before the court including alleged injured also that the 2nd accused made an attempt to kill P.W.1, 4 S.C.No.68/2017[11.04.2023] PASJ/KVR.

certainly there is no evidence to prove the charge for offence under

Sec.307 of Indian Penal Code. As such the 2nd accused is entitled to get acquittal. Accordingly this point is answered.

11. In the result, the 2nd accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.307 of Indian Penal Code; and as such, she is acquitted under

Sec.235 of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as per the provisions of Sec.437-A of

Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 11th day of April, 2023.

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Kovvur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Oral Evidence

Prosecution Accused P.W.1: M.V.Venkata RaoNone. P.W.2: M.Aravind P.W.3: G.Nageswara Rao P.W.4: U.Lakshminarayana, I.O

Documentary Evidence

Prosecution Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 appearing on the report Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.5: Report dated 30.06.2016 Ex.P.6: First information report Ex.P.7: Rough sketch Ex.P.8: Scene observation report Ex.P.9: Wound certificate of P.W.1

Accused :: -Nil -

Material Objects: Nil.

Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge Kovvur.