Sri Kondapalli Laxmi Narasimha Rao

INTHECOURTOFTHEDISTRICTJUDGE,ATADILABADBY4i

aeeetehince

Present:-|

rSriKondapalliLakshmiNarasimhaRao,B.A.,LL.M.,:

DISTRICTJUDGE,ADILABAD

WEDNESDAYTHE4THDAYOFMAY,20il

O.S.NO.4OF2007

Between:

JaiJalaramIndianOilService,N.H.No.7,Adilabad,rep., byitsProprietorSriKishoreKumarPatelS/oAmruthlal Patel,aged48years,Occ:Business,H.No.4-2-24/2, Kumarpet,Adilabad.हे >>Plaintiffres AND.t

I,KhanTransport,R/oH.No.2-5-286/9/3,AdilabadCC!road, nearIndianGas,badaTalab,Adilabad.

2.A.MujheedKhanS/oAbdulHamidKhan,aged46years,© Occ:PartnerC/oKhanTransport,2-5-286/9/3,Adilabad CCIroad,NearIndianGas,BadaTalab,Adilabad.

3.JaveedKhanS/oAbdulHamidKhan,aged45years, Occ:PartnerC/oKhanTransport,2-5-286/9/3,Adilabad CCIroad,NearIndianGas,BadaTalab,Adilabad.

4.TasmeenKhanW/oAbdulHamidKhan,aged60years, Occ:PartnerC/oKhanTransport,2-5-286/9/3,Adilabad CCIroad,NearIndianGas,BadaTalab;Adilabad.

5.SajidKhanS/oAbdulHamidKhan,aged35yearss, Occ:Business,C/oKhanTransport,2-5-286/9/3,Adilabad CCIroad,NearIndianGas,BadaTalab,Adilabad.

:...Defendants

Thisappealsuitiscoming-onforfinalhearingon23.3.202]inthe presenceofSriBipinKumarPatel,AdvocateforPlaintiffandofSriMd. Ghouse,AdvocateforD2toD5.andD-lremainedexparteandon hearingthematterhavingstoodoverforconsiderationtillthisday,this courtdeliveredthefollowing:

LUDGMENT

l)ThisisasuitfiledforrecoveryofRs.5,88,566/-bytheplaintiff againstthedefendantsIto5herein.

2)ItisthecaseofthePlaintiffthatthePlaintiffisaproprietory

oescarriedonthebusinessofsaleofDieselandPetroland

indianOilCorporationLimitedatAdilabadandthatthe

{No.2KhanTransportisrepresentedbythedefendants2to5

arehisregularcustomersandusedtopurchaseDieselandPetrolga

creditbasisandthatthedefendantsareowninglorriesbears

No.AP29T-5990,APIT-6797,APIT-6757,APIT-6897,KA-35-5385,

AP25U-2442,MH34M-747,MH26H-644,MH-30-C-260,KA-26-4224and

KA-26-4223.Itisclaimedthatfromtheyear200lto2006thefollowing purchaseofdieselwasmade:

SI.No.YearPurchasePayment

a200-2002Rs.4,69,338-39Rs.3,26,340-30

pa2002-2003Rs.38,09,88-99Rs.38,69,450-87 35५2003-2004Rs.73,8,470-54Rs.68,38,408-00

4.2004-2005Rs.99,24,79-08Rs.90,50,209-00 i2005-2006Rs.38,6,233-78Rs,36,65,678-58

Accordingtotheplaintiff,thedefendantshavetotallypurchased

DieselworthaboutRs.2,53,38,652-78fromtheyear200]to2006and paidanamountofRs.2,37,50,086-75andstilltherewasabalance amountofRs.5,88,566-03Ps.,whichisunpaidbythedefendantsand thatthedefendantsmadethepaymenton8..2006forasumof

Rs.45,038-58Ps.,andthusclaimedtheamount.Itisalsoassertedby theplaintiffthatanoticewasissuedon0.3.2007demandingthe amountfromthedefendants,buttheyfailedtogiveanyreplyorpaythe amountandtheplaintiffwasrequiredtofileasuitforrecoveryofthe amountfromthedefendants.

2;Defendantsfiledwrittenstatementcontendingthatthe description,agesandnamesofthedefendantsarenotcorrectandthat thedefendantsarenotthepartnersorlegalheirs.Thedefendantshave weap!purchaseofdieselfromtheplaintiffoncreditbasis.Itisclaimed

(rtwtdefendantshavenotpurchasedanydieselanddidnotpayany

केआ००/5contendedbytheplaintiffandthatthedefendantNo.2isthe

हैregistegowneroffourlorriesbearingNo.APlT-6897,MH-26-H-644,a

' a KA-26-4224andKA-26-4223andthedefendantNo.3istheownerofone lorrybearingNo.KA-35-5385anddeniedtheownershipoftherestofthe

Rrries,Itiscategoricallystatedinthewrittenstatementthatthe

defendants 2 to4have not purchasedthedieselfrom the plaintiffand theyarenotdueofanyamountof२5.३5,88,566/-35claimedbythe plaintiff.Theyalsostatedthattheyhavenotpaidanyamounton 8..2006muchlessRs.45,038.58ps.,anddeniedthewholetransaction.

Itisalsostatedthatthesuitisbarredbylimitationand theplaintiffhad createddocumentsandmadeafalseclaim.

4,DefendantNo.5alsofiledseparatewrittenजबटमहा!after

impleadmentdenyingthetransactionandadoptingthewritten statementfiledbyD2toD4.~Itiscategoricallydeniedthatthe defendantNo.5didnottransactanybusinesswiththeplaintiffandthat theplaintiffinfactdidnotmakeanyclaimagainstD5andtheclaim againstDefendantNo.5isbarredbylimitation.

5)Onthebasisoftheabovepleadings,thecourtframedthe followingissues:

3.Whetherthesuitisbadformisjoinderofcausesofaction anddefendants?:

2.Whetherthedefendants2to4arepartnersofthefirst defendantfirm?

3.Whetherthesuitisbarredbylimitation?

4.Whethertheplaintiffsupplieddieseloiltothe trucks/lorriesofdefendants2to4andreceivedpart paymentsasmentionedbyit?:

5.Whethertheplaintiffisentitledtothesumof 775.35,88,566/-asclaimedbyit?

6.Whethertheplaintiffisentitledtointerestandifsoat 24%p.a.,ontheamount07/#75.75,88,566/-2

7.Towhatrelief? Thefollowingadditionalissueisframedon2,8.2070after impledingdefendantNo.5. WhetherthesuitistimebarredagainstdefendantNo.5?

aTheplaintiffexaminedhimselfasPWIandhealsoexaminedhis

ountantasPW2andmarkedEx.AltoA-8.D2isexaminedas0५0,

ORIGINAL

4

Thesumandsubstanceofthecontentionoftheplaintiffisthatthe defendantNo.TransportCompany,whoishavingmorethan2lorries andthedefendants2to5aretheownersofthesaid2lorriesandthat theyusedtopurchasedieselandotheroilsoncreditbasisfromthe plaintifffromtheyear200lto2006andfoundthatasumof

Rs.5,88,566/-andoddwasduebythedefendants,forwhichalegal noticewasissuedon0.3.2007andthatthedefendantsdidnotgiveany replynorpaidanyamountinresponsetothesaidlegalnoticeand therebytheplaintiffwasdriventothenecessityoffilingasuitfor recoveryoftheamountfromthedefendants.

BeThelearnedcounselforthedefendantssubmittedthattheplaintiff failedtoproduceevenascratchofpapercontainingthesignatureofthe defendantsandnoagreementisfiledtoprovethatthedefendantshave madearequesttotheplaintifftosupplytheoiloncreditbasisandthe plaintifffailedtoproveastowhatistheamountduefromthedefendants

andbywhichdateandthatthesuitishopelesslybarredbylimitation,as

theplaintifffailedtoestablishastohowthedefendantshavepaidthe amounttotheplaintifffromtimetotimeandprayedfordismissalofthe suit.Ex.A-ltoA-l0aretheaccountsstatementsfortheyears200]to 2006,Ex.A-]isthebalancesheetfortheyear200lto2006and

Ex.A-2isthecopyofincometaxassessment.Ex.A-3toA-I6arethe

legalnoticeanditsreceipts,Ex.A-7isthecomplaintcopyfiledin

ConsumercourtandEx.A-l8isthememofiledforsettlementin

ConsumerCourt.

8)Issues4to6andAdditionalIssue:Issues4to4arethe

%Yattherewerebusinesstransactionsbetweentheplaintiffana

4sslgpontsinregardtosupplyofdieselandotheroilsfromtimeto

timebetweentheyears200]to2006.Theplaintiffisalsorequiredto establishthathereceivedpaymentsfromthedefendantsfromtimeto time.?७॥inthecrossexaminationstatedthatthedefendantNo.I

KhanTransportisaproprietoryconcernandthatitsproprietorSajid

Khanisnotapartyandhis brothers wereimpleadedandthathedoes notknowwhethertheageofD2is29yearsandnot46yearsandthat

D3isaged25yearsandthatD4isonly25yearsandthathedoesnot knowthehusband'snameofD4AbdulHamidKhanornotandthatthey weresupplyingdieseltothedefendantsfromtheyear2000andthereis nowrittenagreementforsupplyofdieseloncreditbasisbuttheyhave mentionedthelorrynumbers,dieselsupplyandthattheydonothave registrationextractofthevehiclesanddeniedthesuggestionthatthe defendantshavenotpaidRs.45,038/-on8.3.2006andthatthe defendantsdidnotobtainanydieseloncreditforhisshop.PW2isthe

॥Accountantof?२४४॥andhe‘deposedthatthedefendantsusedto

|purchasedieseloncreditbasisaetheplaintiff.Inthecross

examinationhedeposedthatthereisnowrittenagreementbetweenthe plaintiffandthedefendantsforsupplyofdieseloncreditandtheyhave notmentionedthenumberofvehiclesbutaccordingtotheindent given,theyhaveabout35vehiclesandthattheindentscontainthe signatureandstampofthedefendantNo.lCompanyandhecannotsay whetherthedefendantsarebeloworabove40yearsofage.Ex.A-lto 28-70aretheaccountssheets.OnEx.A-lalonethereissealofKhan

TransportCompanyandthisisaneccountfrom..2006to5,i.2006 andaccordingtothestatement,itiscontainingtwopagesandthefinal calculationwasnotmadethoughonthefirstpageitismentionedas continued.Ex.A-2isanaccountfrorn6..2006to3..2006andthese

7oedonotshowastowhatistheamountpaidandthemodeof

f\paymentbythedefendants

I-9.ItisthecaseoftheplaintiffthataccordingtoEx.A-ll balancesheet fortheyears200i-2002to2005-2006,theteSgali purchasewasRs.2,53,38,652-78Ps.,andthepaymentreceived bytheplaintiffwasshowntobeRs.2,37,50,086-75Ps.,The plaintiffdidnotproduceanyevidencetoshowastothemodeof paymentmadebythedefendantsfromtimetotimeinrespectof theabovecreditpurchaseandwhetherthedefendantshavepaid bycashorbychequeandifitisbywayofchequepayment,there wouldhavebeencertainlyrecordavailablewiththeplaintiffto

showthattheplaintiffhadreceivedtheamountsbywayofcheque

fromthedefendantsandthesamewascreditedintotheaccount oftheplaintiff.TheplaintiffdidnotfileanyBankstatementwith whichthedefendantswerehavingtransactions.Furtherthereis anadmissiononthepartoftheplaintiffthatthedefendantNo.2is aproprietoryconcernandthatitsproprietorisoneSajidKhan, whoisnotmadeasaparty.Therewillnotbeanypartnersand

showingthedefendants2to5aspartnersoftheproprietory

concernisunwarranted.Admittedlytheplaintiffisawareofthe

ProprietorSajidKhanbeingtheproprietorofKhanTransport companyandhecategoricallyadmittedinthecrossexamination thathedidnotmakeSajidKhanasapartyandthatheimpleaded hisbrothersandwhenitisaproprietoryconcern,howtheclaimis maintainableagainstD2toD-5,isnotexplainedbytheplaintiff.

TheplaintiffdidnotproduceevenascratchofPapercontaining thesignaturesofthedefendantsthattheyhaveenteredintoany agreementwiththeplaintiffforsupplyofdieselandotheroilson creditbasistotheirvehicles.Ifitisshownasarunningaccount,

केचलाbooksshouldcontainthesignaturesofthedefendants५०

¢

onae,

owthattheyweremakingpaymentstotheaccountey

ye ‘plaintifffromtimetotime.Furtherfromtheaccoulअर heist oa& 2!

7 thatthebalancepaymentwasduerightfrom200]to2002was

Rs.,42,998/-.Thesuitisfiledon25"April,2007.Thereforethis claimwouldbebarredbylimitation,asthesuitwasnotbrought within3yearsoflimitationfromthedateofdefault.Furtherfor theyear2003-2004thereisdueamountofRs.4,80,002/-whichis alsobarredbylimitation.Accordingtotheplaintiff,hereceived anamountofRs.45,038.58Ps.,on8..2006fromthedefendants, buthehasnotproducedanyevidenceastohowandthrough whichofthedefendantshehasreceivedthesaidamountand whetherthesaidamountwaspaidbythedefendantsbywayof chequeorbywayofcashandwhetherthedefendantshavemade anysignaturesintheaccountsheetoftheplaintiffornot.{tisnot explainedbytheplaintiff,aboutthepaymentdetailsmadebythe defendantstohisaccounts.

0)Thedocumentsfiledbytheplaintiffaresilentaboutsuchreceipt ofamounton8..2006.Thoughtheplaintiffhadfiledincometax

returnsfortheyear2006-2007showingsome.amountduefromKhan

TransportCompany,thesameisnotprovedanditdoesnotcontainany signatureoracknowledgmentfromthedefendants.Furtherthelegal noticeunderEx.A-3wasissuedtoD2andnottotheproprietor.The

noticewasnotgiventotheotherdefendantsandinfacttheplaintiffwas

notawareofthecorrectdescriptionofthedefendantsandbothPws.2 and2havestatedthatthereisnowrittenagreementforsupplyofdiesel oncreditbasistothedefendants.Thecomputerstatementsfiledunder

Ex.A-toA-I]areunilateralandtheyarenotsignedbythedefendants.

Theoriginalindentletterscontainingthesignaturesofthedefendantsif anyhavenotbeenfiledbytheplaintifftoestablishthefactumofsupply

ype“seenfrom

oncreditandthepaymentsreceivedfromtimetotime,As heavermentsmadeintheplaint,thetransactionsarefor

morethanRs.250lakhsandthepaymentsreceivedaremorethan238

lakhsandgthebalancewasshowntobeaboutRs.5.88andodd,which

wouldindicatethevoluminousbusiness,whichcannotbecarriedon withouttherebeinganywrittenproof.Pa

l.Untilandunlesstheplaintiffestablishesthathereceivedtheमर

paymentsfromthedefendantsbyaparticularmodeinproofofpayment madebythedefendants,wecannotsaddlethedefendantswiththe liabilitytopaythesuitclaim.D5wasimpleadedaspertheapplication madeinIANo.37/20l0,dated7.6.200aftercommencingoftrial.

Theplaintiffwasexaminedon29.3.200andtheapplicationfor impleadingD5wasfiledon.4.200andwasallowedon7.6.200and bythatdateofimpleadingD5,anyclaimmadeagainsthimiscertainlyक barredbylimitation.AdmittedlyD5istheexclusiveownerofDl a proprietoryconcernandhewasnotaskedanyamountbytheplaintiffat

anytimebetween200]and.4.2006.Thelegalnoticewasnotissued

toD5inhiscapacityasaproprietorofDlconcern.Asalreadystated,

D2toD4arethebrothersofD5andtheyhaveindependentownershipश् oftherespectivevehiclesandwithouttherebeinganywrittencontract,|

D2toD4cannotbesaddledfortheliabilityofDl.Theplaintiffcouldnot.

establishanynexusbetweenDiononehandandD2toD4ontheother.‘

ThoughD5:wasaddedasproprietorofD2Company,therewasnoclaim’

madebytheplaintiffagainstD5atanytimebetween200]to2.4.2006.4

ThelegalnoticeissuedunderEx.A-3wasalsonotgiventoD5inhis capacityaspropriotorofKhanTransport.Theplaintiffisawareofthea statusofDlbeingaproprietoryconcernandD5beingitssole proprietor,yettheplaintiffdidnotchoosetomakeanyclaimagainstD5 inthefirstinstance.Itisonlyinthecrossexaminationitwaselicited fromPW2astothestatusofDl,theplaintiffalertedhimselfandcame forwardwithanapplicationunderIANo.37/200seekingimpleadment

s“sD5asaparty.Thoughtheamendmentgoesbacktothedateoffiling

atpsuit,therightsifanyacxcruedto05underthelimitationAct,will

‘notbéakenawaybysuchamendment.Theplaintiffdidnotchooseto

k@ranyClaimagainstD5inhisCapacityasproprietorofDlconcernat anytimepriorto.4.200,thereforetheclaimagainstD5isapparently

andhopelesslybarredbylimication.Asalreadydiscussed,supra,the

Benurdidnotfileanyproofthathereceivedpaymentsfromthe

defendants2to4intheirindependentcapacityoronbehalfofD5,no signatureofD2toD4wasfoundonanypaperfiledbytheplaintiff showingthatD2toD4havetransactedanybusinesswiththeplaintiff andmadepaymentsinpursuancethereof.Theplaintiffmiserablyfailed toproduceanydocumentaryevidenceconnectingthedefendants2to4 withhissuitclaim.Theplaintiffalsofailed to proveastobywhomthe paymentdated8..2006wasreceivedby himandthemodeofsuch paymentinhisfavour.IftherelationshipbetweentheplaintiffandDi wassocordialtogivesupplyof diesel oncredit,theplaintiff didnot makeanydemandwhentherewasoverdueforaparticularperiod.Itis thecaseoftheplaintiffthatthestatementswerepreparedforevery5 daysandifthatbeingthecase,therewouldhavebeencertainly

demandforclaimingtheover dueamount,but‘nosuchevidenceis

placedbytheplaintiffdemandingforsuchpaymentatanytimefromthe defendantsto5.Takingintoconsiderationofalltheabovesaid circumstances,thiscourtisoftheviewthattheplaintiffhasmiserably failedtoestablishhiscasetoclaimtheamountfromthedefendants3to 5andaccordinglytheissuesto6areansweredhereasunder:

i)IssueNo.2:Thesuitisbadformisjoinderofcausesof actionanddefnednatsbecauseithasbeenadmittedbythe plaintiffthatDlisaproprietoryconcernandD5isitsproprietor, whowasimpleadedonlyon7.6.20l0after?७४॥wascross examined.Therefore thisissueisheldagainsttheplaintiffandin favourofthedefendants.

ataissueNo.2:Asalreadyansweredon issueNo.,Dlis

eeeVinabve

@proprietoryconcernand##efereD2toD4cannotbetermed as

thepartnersofDlconcern,astherewillnotbeanypartnersina

0

proprietoryconcernandasadmittedbyPWI,D5isthesole proprietorofDlconcern.ThereforeD2toD4arenotthepartners

9

ofDlconcernandaccordinglythisissueisheldagainstte plaintiffandinfavourofthedefendants2to4.

iii)IssueNo.3andAdditionalissue:Inrespectoflimitation,

3

asalreadyobservedsupra,thesuitisbarredbylimitationas againstD5astherewasnoclaimmadebytheplaintiffagainstD5i duringthependencyoftheproceedingsorbetween200ito 4.4.200,thesuitisthereforebarredbylimitationasagainstD5.} iv)IssueNo.4:Asalreadyobservedsupra,theplaintifffailedto showanyevidencethathesupplieddieseltoD2toD4and receivedpaymentsfromthemdirectly.Thereforethisissueis heldagainsttheplaintiffandinfavourofD2toD4.

v)Issues5and6:Inviewoftheaboveobservationsmadesupra, theplaintiffisnotentitledtoclaimRs.5,88,566/-fromthe defendantswithinterestthereon.Thereforethesuitisdismissed.

However,inthecircumstancesofthecasewithoutcosts.

2)Point_No.7:Intheresult,thesuitisdismissed.However,in thecircumstancesofthecasewithoutcosts.

DictatedtothePersonalAssistant,transcribedbyhimandafter

correctionpronouncedbymeinopencourtthisthe47dayofMay,20iI.

ceGE

ADILABAD

APPENDIXOFEVIDENCE

WITNESSESEXAMINED

~~FORRESPONDENT:

el:KishoreKumarPatel:DW-AbdulMujahidKhan

PW-p:Shankar *

aEXHIBITSMARKEDAvus

:Statementofaccount :StatementofAccount :CreditInvoice :CreditInvoice :CreditInvoice :Accountsstatementfrom@\-4- 2-00)to32.3.2002 :Accountsstatementfrom0.04.2002to3.3.2003 :Accountsstatementfrom0.04.2003to3.3.2004 :Accountsstatementfrom0.04.2004to3.3.2005 :Accountsstatementfrom0.04.2005to3.3.2006 :Balancesheetfortheyears200to2006 :IncomeTaxAssessment :Officecopyoflegalnotice : Postalreceipt :Certificateofposting : Postalacknowledgment :Complaintcopyfiledin Consumer'sCourt :MemofiledforsettlementinConsumer'sCourt.

heeeeJUDGE

ADILABAD

ORIGINAL5

न@

aDECREEVrwy

INTHECOURTOFTHEDISTRICTJUDGE,ATADILABAD

Present:- 'SriKondapalliLakshmiNarasimhaRao,B.A.,LL.M.,

DISTRICTJUDGE,ADILABAD

WEDNESDAYTHE4THDAYOFMAY,20i2

O.S.NO.4OF2007

Between:

JaiJalaramIndianOilService,N.H.No.7,Adilabad,rep., byitsProprietorSriKishoreKumarPatelS/oAmruthlal Patel,aged48years,Occ:Business,H.No.4-2-24/, Kumarpet,Adilabad. woPlaintiff

AND

3.KhanTransport,R/oH.No.2-5-286/9/3,AdilabadCCIroad, nearIndianGas,badaTalab,Adilabad.

pe

2.A.MujheedKhanS/oAbdulHamidKhan,aged46years, Occ:PartnerC/oKhanTransport,2-5-286/9/3,Adilabad CCIroad,NearIndianGas,BadaTalab,Adilabad.

3.JaveedKhanS/oAbdulHamidKhan,aged45years, Occ:PartnerC/oKhanTransport,2-5-286/9/3,Adilabad CCIroad,NearIndianGas,BadaTalab,Adilabad.

4.TasmeenKhanW/oAbdulHamidKhan,aged60years, Occ:PartnerC/oKhanTransport,2-5-286/9/3,Adilabad CCIroad,NearIndianGasBadaTala,Adilabad.

5.SajidKhanS/oAbdulHamidKhan,aged35yearss, Occ:Business,C/oKhanTransport,2-5-286/9/3,Adilabad CCIroad,NearIndianGasBada,Talab,Adilabad.

...Defendants

CLAIMFOR:ThissuitisfiledforrecoveryofRs.5,88,566/- bythePlaintiffagainstthedefendantsto5.

VALUATION:ACourtfeeofRs.8.326/-@ispaidunderSec.20x/we Sch.IIofAPCFandSVAct.

Petitionpresentedon:25-04-2007.

Petitionfiledon*25=04=2007.

=.20]inthepresenceofSriBipinKumarPatel,Advocatefor

Thisappealcomingonbeforemeforfinalhearingon iffandofSriMd.Ghouse,AdvocateforD2toD5and9-7 lainedexparteandthisCourtdothorderanddecreeasfollows:

ORIGINAL

.That,thesuitbeandherebyisdismissed.

Sa

2.That,theboththepartiesdobeartheirowncosts.

a

COSTSOFTHESUIT

FORPLAINTIFFAMOUNT|FORDEFENDANT|AMOUNThg

Stamponpetition|38,326-00|Stamponpower2-00

Stamponpower2-00Stamponexhibits[|--|

Stamponexhibits6-00Pleader’sFeePye

Pleader’sfee|wee,|Serviceofprocessपिला2

Serviceofprocess[235-00ProcesswritingLo

charges

chargesaoe

Processwriting

CommissionersFee|..|022055:Ses|

TOTAL:8,569-00TOTAL:ASPnee

-\SundermyhandandsealoftheCourtonthisthe47day

ADILABAD

ce

No[६:Thepartiesshouldapply855607aspossibleforthereturnof

allexhibits whichtheymaywisntopreserveastherecordwillbe

liabletobe destroyedafter3yearsorafter6yearsfrom thedate,

accordingtothenatureoftheexhibitsundertherulesforthe5

destructionofrecord.

ORIGINAL

st>)‘

pt

©:0 eae2 ‘a

INTHECOURTOFTHEDISTRICTJUDGE,ATADILABAD

ay:Present:-

SriKondapalliLakshmiNarasimhaRao,B.A.,LL.M.,

DISTRICTJUDGE,ADILABAD

TUESDAYTHE22NDDAYOFMARCH,2047

A.S.NO.9OF2040

Between:

,,BeerelChantaiah@ChantiS/oPoshanna,aged64years,

Occ:Retd.,SingareniEmployee,Bellampalli.

2.BeerelliKiranS/oChantaiah,aged26years,Occ: AutoDriver,R/oBellampalli.

..Appellants

AND

PuppireddyMallaReddy@MallaiahS/oMondaiah,aged 45years,Occ:GeneralMazdoor,SCCLimited, Q.No.280No.IIInclineBasthi,Bellampalli.

के...Respondent

-s

OnappealagainsttheJudgmentanddecreepassedbythelearned

SeniorCivilJudge,AsifabadinOSNo.78/2007,dated9.3.200.

Between:

P.MallaReddy

+Plaintiff

AND

3,BeerelliChantaiah

2.BeerelliKiran ipsDefendants

Thisappealsuitiscomingonforfinalhearingon9.3.linthe presenceofSriK.AjayKumar,AdvocateforappellantsandofSri B.Thirupathi,Advocateforrespondentandonhearingthematterhaving stoodoverforconsiderationtillthisday,thiscourtmadethefollowing:

JUDGMENT

l)Thisisanappealpreferredagainstthedefendantsland2 againstwhomthedecreewaspassec!on9.3.2020inOSNo.78of2007 onthefileofSeniorCivilJudgeCourt,Asifabad.

Thelearnedcounselfortheappellantssubmittedthatthetrialre

rt’didnotconsidertheevidenceintheproperperspectiveandthere

tesbetweentheplaintiffanddefendantsinregardto

M REKHA

I attest to the accuracy of this document 30-08-2025

See

ORIGINAL

iबे conclusionthatthedefendantNo.lexecutedaPronoteandthe defendantNo.2attesteditandthatthetrialcourtseemstohavegf inclinedblindlyinfavour of plaintiffandthattheevidenceof?४४was notconsideredbythetrialcourtandthedocumentswerenotsubjected to anyexpert’sopinionattheinstanceoftheplaintiff ordirectedthe defendantstoseekthesameandthussoughtforsettingasidethe judgmentunderappeal.

3.Ontheotherhand,thelearnedcounselfortherespondent/plaintiff submittedthatthetrialcourthadgivencogentreasonsandthereceipts andpronoteswereproved bytheplaintiffbyexaminingthescribeand theattestor,whoarePws.2 and.3andthescribe,whoisexaminedas

PW2wasnotcrossexaminedbythedefendants andnoattempthas beenmadeto recallhimbeforethetrialcourtandthatthedefendants ] and 2haveblindlydeniedthesignaturesandthumbimpressionsmade bythemevenontheirowndocumentsandthereforeprayedfor dismissaloftheappeal.

4,Thebrieffactsasnarratedbeforethetrialcourtarethatthe

PlaintiffandthedefendantNo.lareworkinginSingareniCollieries

CompanyLimitedandlivinginthesamelocalityandknowntoeach otherandthatthedefendantNo.lrequestedtheplaintiffforaloanof

Rs.2,00,000/-ondifferentoccasionstomeethisfamilynecessities

agreeingtorepaywithinterest@.5%permonth andthedefendant

No.borrowedanamountofRs.50,000/-on3.8.2004andon0.5.2005 forRs.i,00,000/-andRs.50,000/-on5.9.2005andexecutedthe

Pronoteson everyoccasion,asacollateralsecurityandthedefendant.

iheJa|OrRIGINAL

a andthatthedefendantNo.l retiredfromserviceoneandhalfmonths

१७०८८andtheplaintiffapproachedthedefendantNo.landenquired

aboutreceivinghisterminalbenefitsanddemandedtorepay thedue amounts.soonafterhisreceivingtheterminalbenefitsandthe defendantNo.lpromisedtopaybacktheloanamountsassoonashe receivedthesameinthecompanyandon0.7.2007theplaintiffagain approachedthedefendant॥0.andrequestedhimtopaybacktheloan amounts,butthedefendantNo.ldeniedthetransactionscompletely andrefusedtorepaytheamountsandthustheplaintifffiledasuitfor recoveryoftheamountstogetherwithinterestandclaimedasumof

Rs.2,8,750/-asbeingthesuitamotintrecoverablefromthedefendants.

SiDefendantNo.lfiledawrittenstatementadmittingthe acquaintancebetweenhimselfandtheplaintiffandabouttheirresiding inthesamelocalityandworkinginthesamecompany.Defendant६०.१ deniedtheloantransactionandheclaimedthatheneverapproached theplaintiffanddidnotobtainanyhandloanandthathedidnot executeanyPronoteinfavouroftheplaintiffand that hissonwasnot theguarantorandhecategoricallydeniedtheloantransactionson differentdatesandexecutionofPronotesandprayedfordismissalofthe suit.DefendantNo.2filedamemoadoptingthewrittenstatementof thedefendantNo.I,butitdoesnotcontainthesignatureofdefendant

No.landitisfiledthroughanAdvocate.Thetrialcourtframedthe followingissues:

2.WhetherthesuitPronoteistrue,validandbindingonthe

Defendants?

.Towhatrelief?

C५५

Dprovethecase,Pws.lto3areexaminedonbehalfofthe—

४है hdmarkedEx.A-ltoA3.Dws.lto4areexaminedonbehalfof

thi6@endantsandrelyingupontheevidenceadducedbytheplaintiff,

a

ORIGINAL

4 - thetrialcourtdecreedthesuitandaggrievedbythesame,thepresent

appeal.4

7)Onthebasisoftheabovecontentionsputforthbybothparties, thefollowingpointsthatariseforconsideration:

3.Whetherthesuittransactionsbetweentheplaintiff

andDefendantsisprovedandthedefendantsare

liabletopaythesuitamount?

2.Whethertheplaintifffailedtoestablishthesuit transactionfornotsendingthePronotesunder &2.4-3to4-3forexpertsopinion?

3.Whethertheappealistobeallowedandthe Judgmentofthetrialcourtistobesetaside as

contendedbythedefendants/appellants?

4.Towhatrelief?

8)7७istheplaintiff,whore-iteratedin evidenceaboutthelegal necessityofthedefendantNo.lforperformingthemarriageofhis daughterandapproachinghimforthesakeofloan ofRs.2,00,000/-and thedefendantNo.lborrowingthesuitamountsonthreeoccasionsi.e., on3.8.2004forRs.50,000/-,on0.5.2005forRs.,00,000/-andon 5.9.2005forRs.50,000/-andexecutionofPronoteson threedifferent occasionsandidentifiedEx.A-lto83asbeingthePronotesexecutedby thedefendantNo.andattestedbydefendantNo.2as the suretyand alsoassertedthatthedefendantsand2failedtorepaytheamountsin spiteofhisdemandsfromtimetotime.PW2is thescribeofEx.A-ltoA- 3andPW3istheAttestorofthePronotes.

9.Thelearnedcounselfortheappellantvehementlyarguedthatthe loantransactionshavebeendenieduponbythedefendantsand2in

~~termsandunlessEx.A-ItoA-3aresentforexpertopiniénfo.

mwiththeadmittedsignatures,andhandwritingand.-

MingessionsofthedefendantNo.l,obtainedbeforethe*tal

+ aa:—ORIGINAL :५, ५5के sendingEx.A-ltoA-3toanexpertopinion,thereismis-carriageof

‘usticeandprayedforsettingasidethejudgmentofthetrialcourt.

i0.Ontheotherhand,thelearnedcounselfortherespondent/plaintiff submittedthatPW2isthescribeofEx.A-ltoA-3andhecategorically statedabouthispresenceandwritingofEx.A-ltoA-3andalsostated thatitisdefendantNo.l,whoapproachedhimandtookhimtothe houseof2७४१wheretheloantransactionshavetakenplaceandthe paymentwasmadebytheplaintifftodefendant|४०.]inhispresence andthathescribedEx.A-ltoA-3.SurprisinglyPW2wasnotcross- -examinedbythedefendantsandmoattempthasbeenmadetorecall thesaidwitnessforthepurposeofcrossexaminationbeforethetrial courtbythedefendants.Asseenfromtherecord,PW2wasexamined

beforethetrialcourtandhefiledhisChiefAffidaviton8.7.2009and

appearedforcrossexaminationon2.8.2009andasthedefendantwas absentandtherebeingnorepresentation,thetrialcourtclosedthe crossexamination.SubsequenttotheexaminationofPW2'sevidence, theplaintiffalsoproducedtheevidenceofPW3,whoistheattestorand

hewasexaminedon7.9.2009.Thusbetween2.8.2009and

47.9.2009thoughtherewasampleopportunityforthedefendantsto recallPW2,noattempthasbeenmadetorecallhimforthepurposeof crossexamination.Furtherafterclosureoftheevidenceoftheplaintiff, thedefendantNo.lstartedhisevidenceon0..2009andexamined asmanyasfourwitnessesonhisbehalftill3.2.20l0andafter conclusionoftheevidenceofdefendantsand2also,defendantsand 2havenotmadeanyefforttorecallPW2forthepurposeofcross examination.ThustheevidenceofPW2asstatedbyhiminhischief \‘

2inhisevidencecategoricallystatedthathehimself,plaintiff

defendantsareknowntoeachotherandlivinginthesame:

ORIGINAL

ry re localityandthatthedefendantNo.lrequestedtheplaintifftolendthe

loanamountandthatthedefendantNo.lborrowedanamountof

Rs.2,00,000/-fromtheplaintiffondifferentoccasionsforhisfamily necessitiesagreeingtorepaywithinterest@.5%permonthandthat thedefendant४0.]cametothehouseoftheplaintiffon3.8.2004and obtainedloanofRs.50,000/-andagainon40.5.2005anamountof

Rs.,00,000/-wasobtained,andRs.50,000/-wasobtainedon5.9.2005 byexecutingpronotesondifferentoccasionstowardscollateralsecurity inthepresenceofwitnessesandthatthedefendantNo.2whoistheson

ofdefendantNo.lstoodasguarantorandthathescribedtheabovesaid

PronotesandthathealsoputhissignaturesonthesaidPronotesafter scribingthem.Theevidenceofthedefendantsistotaldenialofthe transactions.

2.PW3,whoistheAttestoralsodeposedthepresenceofDlandD2 andexecutionofEx.A-l to A-3bythedefendantsandobtainingloanin hispresence.DefendantNo.2,whoisnootherthanthesonof defendantNo.lsignedonthePronotesEx.A-ltoA-3anddeposedthat hewashavinggrudges withthebrother-in-lawoftheplaintiff,(२४४१) whofiledafalsesuitagainsthisfatherandhimselfwithfabricated documents.IntheevidenceofdefendantNo.2,thetrialcourtobserved thatthedefendantNo.2deniedhissignatureonthechiefaffidavitfiled byhimandthathissignaturesarealsoobtainedinthepresence ofthe courtwhenhisstatementwas recorded.Hestatedthat hedidnotfile hisVakalathandthathedidnotfileanywrittenstatementinthematter.

DW4isthewifeofdefendantNo.landshedeposedthatherhusband +wasnotrequiredanyloanatanytimeandthattheydidnotobtainany.

tt~:

हाand deniedthetransaction,DW3,whoisalsoexaminedtoprove

i

हेeagles

yy7SS

3.Thusinthiscaseitis tobeseenwhetherthePronotes Ex.A-l to

७-३arerequiredtobesendtoanexpertopinionornot.Inatransaction

wherethedocumentisattestedbythewitness,theexaminationofthe scribeandattestorwouldbesufficientto proveofthedocument.Ifthe evidenceofthescribeandtheattestorofEx.A-lto A-3istrustworthy, thentheycanberelieduponandfindingcanbearrived at basingupon thosedocuments.ThescribePW-2wasnotcrossexaminedin thiscase andtheattestor tothedocumentisexaminedasPW3alsosupported theexecutionofthedocumentsunderEx.A-toA-3inhispresence.The contentionofthedefendantsthatEx.A-toA-3cannotbereliedupon withoutsendingthemandsubjectingthemforexpertopinioncannotbe accepted.Oncetheplaintiffcouldestablishthatonaparticulardaythe loantransactionhastakenplaceandthedefendantsand2have affixedtheir signaturesinthepresenceoftheattestingwitnessesand thescribewasalsoexamined,whopreparedEx.A-toA-3, sendingthe documents toanexpertopinionisunwarranted.Thedefendantshave takenpleathatthedocumentsunderEx.A-ltoA-3areforgedand fabricatedbytheplaintiffforunlawfulgain.Meredenialofpronote transactionswillnotabsolvetheliabilityofthedefendantswhenthe plaintiffcouldsuccessfullyestablishtheloantransactionsbetween himselfand thedefendants.AsalreadystatedEx.A-ltoA-3arethe threePronotesexecutedbyDlandD2infavouroftheplaintiffinthe presenceofPws.2 and3andPW2isthescribeofthesePronotes,who wasnotcrossexaminedbythedefendantsandnoattempt hasbeen madetorecallhimbeforethetrialcourtduringthecourseoftrialwhich wentforaperiodofsixmonths.Thereforethiscourtholdsthatthe

<idenceofPW2remainedunchallenged,thathebeingscribedEx.A-2

toyS-3hastobereliedupon,andwasrightlyrelied upon bythetrial

ORIGINAL

8it#: ~ ed underEx.A-ltoA-3intokenofreceiptofmoneyundertheloan

transactions.Thetrialcourtrightlyrejectedthecontentionandthed

evidenceofD2and DW3andDW4asbeingnotsupportedbyany pleadingstothateffect.It isassertedbythedefendantsduringthelater courseoftrialthattheplaintiff'sbrother-in-lawwashavinggrudges againstthedefendantNo.2inrespectofAutoRikshawtransactions,a falsecasehasbeenfoisted andthesamecannotbereliedupon,asthe saidevidencehasnobasiswithoutanypleadingsofthedefendants.

Viewedfromany angle,theorderpassedbythetrialcourtdoesnot sufferfromanyillegalitiesorirreguiaritiesandthedefendantscould not makeoutanycaseforinterferingwiththesaidfindingarrived at bythe trialcourt.Accordinglytheabovepointsareheldagainstthe defendants/appellantsandtheappealisthereforedismissedwithcosts.

4)Intheresult,theappealisdismissedwithcostsandthejudgment ofthelowercourtin OS No.78/2(:07,dated9.3.200onthefileof saeSeniorCivilJudge,Asifabadisherebyconfirmed.

ictatedtothePersonalAssistant,transcribedbyhimandafter

pronouncedbyme inopencourtthisthe220dayofMarch,202.

eeorSfrserunas

90IGINAL

os)\

9we

DECREE

bsINTHECOURTOFTHEDISTRICTJUDGE,ATADILABAD

Present:- SriKondapalliLakshmiNarasimhaRao,B.A.,LL.M.,

DISTRICTJUDGE,ADILABAD

TUESDAYTHE22NDDAYOFMARCH,20374

A.S.NO.9OF200

Between:

.BeerelliChantaiah@ChantiS/oPoshanna,aged64years,

Occ: Retd., SingareniEmployee,Bellampalli.

2.BeerelliKiranS/oChantaiah,aged26years,Occ: AutoDriver,R/oBellampalli.

..Appellants

AND

PuppireddyMallaReddy@MallaiahS/oMondaiah,aged

45years,Occ:GeneralMazdoor,SCCLimited; Q.No.280No.IIInclineBasthi,Bellampalli.

..Respondent

OnappealagainsttheJudgmentanddecreepassedbythelearned

SeniorCivilJudge,AsifabadinOSNo.78/2007,dated9.3.200.

Between:

P.MallaReddy >>Plaintiff

AND

.BeerelliChantaiah

2.Beerelli Kiran BerDefendants

CLAIM FOR:Thisappealispreferredagainstthe

defendants3and2againstwhomthe

decreewaspassedon49.3.2040inOS

No.78of2007onthefileofSeniorCivil

JudgeCourt,Asifabad.

VALUATION: ACourtfeeofRs.5,226/-ispaidunder Sec.49ofAPCFandSsV.Act.

Petitionpresentedon:30-04-200.

fe

““etitionfiledon:30+04-2020.a.a

Thisappealcomingon beforemeforfinalhearingon9.3.74"| presenceofSriK.AjayKumar,Advocateforappellantsandofemis plhirupathi,AdvocateforrespondentandthisCourtdothorder

Bic

creeasfollows

ORIGINAL.

0

= l.That, theappealbeand herebyisdismissed with costsand

theJudgmentinOS.No.7&/2007,dated:9.03.200onthw

fileofSenior CivilJudge,Asifabadisherebyconfirmed

Pylesher7por)८6LeckosPS.

2.That,these’is-no-erderasto-costs.

COSTSOFTHEPETITION

FORAPPELLANTS|AMOUNT|FORAMOUNT

RESPONDENTS

Stamponpetition_|5,226-00|Stamponpower|3-00.|

Stamponpower2-00|Stamponexhibits|--|

Stamponexhibits[|--|Pleader’sFee[mee

Pleader’sfeeN.C.Serviceofprocess|--|

Serviceofprocess36-00|Processwritingpee

charges

ProcesswritingeeaaeLoaa

charges

Commissioner'sFee>>अलeee]

TOTAL:5,264-00TOTAL:|Seen|

Givenundermyhand andsealoftheCourt onthisthe 22”dayofMarch,20i2

oeAESTRICTJUbe

?>_ADILABAD

begThepartiesshouldapplyassoonaspossibleforthereturnof

hibitswhichtheymaywishtopreserveastherecordwillbe

“Tidletobedestroyedafter3yzarsorafter6 yearsfromthedate,

_accordingtothenatureoftheexhibitsundertherulesforthe destructionofrecord.

M REKHA

I attest to the accuracy of this document 30-08-2025

२:earORIGINAL

INTHECOURTOFTHEDISTRICTJUDGE,ADILABAD

@Present:-

SriKondapalliLakshmiNarasimhaRao,

DISTRICTJUDGE,ADILABAD.

FRIDAYTHE227DAYOFNOVEMBER200

OSNO:3OF2004

Between:

l)Smt.K.RatnammaW/O.lateSriK.V.NarsingRao,agedabout72years,0०८ household,R/O.Thimmapurvillage,R/M:Khanapur,Adilabaddistrict(died)her LRsplaintiffNo.3

2)K.AnandRaoS/O.lateK.V.NarsingRao,agedabout49years,agricultureR/O. Thimmapurvillage,KhanapurMandal,AdilabaddistrictthroughCourtguardian ChikyalaKondalRaoS/O,LaxmanRao,aged about60years,agriculturist,R/O. Raghavapet,MallapurMandal,Karimnagardistrict wo)KonduruSujathaDeviW/O.SudershanRao,age:50years,Household,R/O. Jennepallivillage,NavipetMandal,Nizamabaddistrict

PLAINTIFFS

/AND /

])K.VenkateshwarRaoS/O.lateK.KamalakarRao,aged39years,Occ:business, R/O.Thimmapurvillage,KhanapurMandal,Adilabaddistrict,presentlyresidingat H.No.2-2-46/20/3,Tilaknagar,NewNallakunta,Hyderabad-44throughGPA HolderM.RamKishanRao$/O.M.KamalakarRao,aged 50years,Business,R/O. I-2-382/2,IIIFloor,ManasaApartments,CircleNMo.3nearGaganMahal, Hyderabad,

2)Smt.K.PrabhavathiDeviW/O.lateK.KamalakarRao,aged about59years,Occ: Household,R/O.Thimmapurvillage,KhanapurMandal,Adilabaddistrictpresently residingatH.No.2-2-]!46/20/3,Tilaknagar,NewNallakunta,Hyderabad

3)Smt.M.Rama DeviW/O.RamakrishnaRao, 44 years,HouseholdR/O.H.No.I-2- 333/A/30,],SurabhiCristalApartment,Domalguda,Hyderabad

4)Smt.HarithaW/O.DayakarRao,agedabout43years,Occ:Household,R/O. Thimmapurvillage,KhanapurMandal,Adilabaddistrict,presentlyresidingat H.No.2-2-46/20/3,Tilaknagar,NewNallakunta,HyderabadthroughGPAHolder Smt.K.PrabhavathiDeviW/O.lateK.Kamalakar Rao, agedabout59 years,Occ: Household,R/O.Thimmapurvillage,KhanapurMandal,Adilabaddistrictpresently residingat H.No.2-2-!46/20/3,Tilaknagar,NewNallakunta,Hyderabad

5)K.SrinivasRaoS/O.lateK.JagannathRao,agedabout29years,Privatework,R/O. Thimmapurvillage,KhanapurMandal,Adilabaddistrictpresentlyresidingat H.No.2-2-46/20/4,lilaknagar,NewNallakunta,Hyderabad

6)Smt.K.RamaDeviW/O.lateK.JagannathRao,agedabout52years,Occ: Household,R/O.Thimmapurvillage,KhanapurMandal,Adilabaddistrict, presentlyresidingatH.No.2-2-46/20/4,Tilaknagar,NewNallakunta,Hyderabad

7)Smt.M. HariniDeviW/O.MularajPraveenKumar,aged32years,Occ:Household, R/O.Thimmapurvillage,KhanapurMandal,Adilabaddistrict,presentlyresidingat H.No.2-2-46/20/4,Tilaknagar,NewNallakunta,Hyderabad,throughGPA HolderSmt.K.RamaDeviW/C.lateK.JagannathRao,agedabout52years Household,R/O.Thimmapurvillage,KhanapurMandal,Adilabaddistrict presently

aX,at H.No.2-2-46/20/4,Tilaknagar,NewNallakunta,Hyderabadwa

Gy‘DEFENDANTS.

esuitcomingonforrecordingcompromiseofthepartieson andSriGoliTirupathi,Advocatesfordefendants2and3andSriNarendraR.CIdary, Advocatefordefendants5to7andafterrecordingthecompromiseenteredbythe‘parties andonhearingbothsidesthiscourtmadethefollowing:

JUDGMENT

4)PlaintiffNo.2representedbySriKondalRao,plaintiffNo.3Smt.K.SujathaDevi,the powerofattorneyofDefendantno.I,Defendants2and3,powerofattorneyofdefendant no.4whoisdefendantno.2herein,Defendants5and6andthedefendantno.7throughher powerofattorneydefendantno.6hereinarepresent.

2)Afterdueconciliationbetweenthepartiesasettlementhasbeenreachedbetween themwhereunderandwherebythepartiesresolvedtosettletheirdisputesamicably.lthas beenagreedbythepartiesthattheyhavebeenenjoyingthepropertiesaspersettlement deeddated27.05.995enteredbetweentheinandtherearesomeminormis-understandings resultinginfilingapartitionsuitbythepartiesandallthepartieshaveagreedthattheywill liveinpeaceandtheyhavenofurtherdisputesinthematterandtheminordisputesareto besettledbetweenthemamicablyasperthunderstandingreachedbeforethiscourttoday andthefollowingpointsshallbetakennotebyboththeparties,whicharegenerally intendedtoberesolvedandfollowedbetweentheparties,

3)Accordingtothesettlementreached,thehousepropertyatTilaknagar,Hyderabadis consistingfourmulgiesandonitsSouth-Eastsidethereisacommonandjointstaircase.It isagreedbetweenthepartiesthatthejointspaceforthestaircaseistobemeasuredafresh andhalfportionistobetakenbydefendants2and6equallyanddefendantno.6hasagreed togivethehalfportionstaircaseareaontheNorthernsideofherportionattachingtothe portion“B’shopsontheNorthernsidetodefendantno.2anddefendantno.2shallconstruct aseparatestaircaseinthesaidareaonherownafterobtainingnecessarypermissionswithin aperiodofsixmonthsfromthedateofthedeliveryofopenspaceontheNorthernsideby defendantno.6.Aftergiving,thestaircaseareaontheNorthernsidethedefendantno.6

जी50९theabsoluteownerofthestaircaseexisting.

peas\

notherstaircaseinbetweenthetwohouseportionsontheNorthernside

opeareashallbeequallysiiaredbydefendants2and’,Thestaircaseisto

22४।

Aeगमवaean

ve=a

>LON‘taIGINAL

&dismantledwithina periodofsixmonthsandtheareacomingoutofitshallbesharedby defendants2and6equallyandconstructहcommonwallinthesaidareaanditsexpenses shallbebornebythemequally.

5)ThepartieshaveagreedthatthedrainagecanalexistingontheWesternsideofthe shopsistoberemovedbydefendantno.2anddefendantno.2shallmakeherown arrangementsforopeningadraintotheNorthernsideoftheroadofhermulgiesandshall removethesameandshallutilizethesamewithouttherebeinganyinconvenienceto defendantno.6infuture.Onaccountofthisarrangementdefendantno.2shallhave separatedrainontheNorthernsideandthisarrangementshallbecarriedonbydefendant no.2withinaperiodofsixmonthsfromthedateofcompromise.

6)Itisfurtheragreedthattherespectivepartiesshalltakeawaythewaterpipelinesand electricitylinesandconfinetherespectiveconnectionsonlyintheirrespectiveareaswithout encroachingintothepropertyofothers.Boththedefendants2and6haveagreedtoremove suchwaterconnectionsandclectricalconnectionswithinaperiodofsixmonthsfromthe dateofcompromise.

7)ItisalsoagreedbyboththepartiesthatinrespectofKhanapurhousethecommon drainageistoberemovedimmediatelyandeachpartyshallhaveseparatedrainage connectionwithinaperiodofthreemonthsfromtoday.

8)ThepartieshavealsoagreedthatacommonwallistobeconstructedontheEastern sidewhichisbacksideoftheKhanapurhousejointlywiththejointandequalexpenditureof boththedefendants2and6.

9)Thepartieshavealsoagreedthatthesuitfiledbythetenantofdefendantno.6inOS 3752of2005onthefileofXIXJuniorCivilJudge,CityCivilCourt,Hyderabadshallbe arogagainstdefendantno.2anddefendantno.6shalltakeeffectivestepsfor करताofthesaidsuitforremovingthenuisancetodefendantno.2onaccount-ot ee:

4itigatinbefore30..200.

ha

begofthehouseatTilaknagar,HyderabadthereisopensiteontheWestern

ie? om({Sia&Shownas‘A’and‘B’anddefendants2and6shallmakearrangementsforconstruction

Joan——

ORIGINAL

न4

ofa commoncompoundwallpartitioningtherespectiveareasandtheexpenditure+be borneoutbybothofthemequally.

l)ItistheunderstandingofthepartiesthatsomelandbearingNo.l0-2]situatedat

PadmavathiNagar,KhanapurnearJuniorCollegeistakenpossessionbytheGram

Panchayathandnowthesaidlandisbeingusedasclubarea.Butthepartieshavestated thatthesaidareaisbeingmisusedforantisocialpurposesandin order to keeptheprestige ofthefamilyoftheparties,boththepartieshaveresolved togivethesaidland to theJunior

CollegeLibrary andtheGramPanchayathshallutilizethesameeitherforeducational purposesorhealthpurposesandnopartiestothiscompromiseshallhave anyrightto alienatethesameandmakemoneyouto!itand the areashouldbe namedinthe nameof lateK.KamalakarRaoandK.JagannadhaRaobythevillagecommittee.

I2)Thepartieshaveenteredintoacompromise,whichisreducedinwritinginseparate, andithasbeenagreed thatthe respective»artiesshallenjoythepropertiesas ismentioned inthesaidcompromisedeed andinrespect ofthepropertiesallottedtoplaintiffno.2Sri

AnandRaoandplaintiffNO.!Ratnammatheyshallbeenjoyedbytheplaintiffno.2during hislifetimeandafterthedeathofplaintiffno.2AnandRaothosepropertiesshallbeequally sharedamongstthedefendants2and6anutheirlegalheirs.

3)ThepartieshavefurtheragreedthatthewelfareofSriAnandRaoplaintiff no.2shall belookedafter bydefendants2and6andhisnecessaryexpenditureshallbeborne by defendants2and 6equallyfromtime totimeifthe amountisnotsufficientfromthe fixed depositsincome.

4)Itisagreedthattheguardianof plaintiffno.2SriKondalRaoshallkeep the parties informedabout thehealthconditionofSriAnandRaofromtimetotimeandin caseofany emergencyhealthconditions,heshouldinformdefendants2and6andalsoSriK.

arRaoandSriAshokRaowhoareresiding,infrontoftheirhouse.Theguardian neeeto inform this courtforevery fourmonthsbyfilingstatementofaccountas

Hae,

ehditureincurredforthemaintenanceandwelfareofSriAnandRaofromtimeto dad58anyfurtherdirectionsarerequiredonbehalfoftheplaintiffno.2heisatity /

We

OrIGINAL

हीtoapproachthiscourtfortakinginstructionsforthewelfareofSriAnandRaoand suchinstructionsshallbebindingonallthepartiesherein,asthecompromiseisinthe welfareofSriAnandRaoasagreedbytheparties.

5)Itisagreedthattheplaintiffno.2AnandRaoorhisguardianshallnothaveanyright ofalienationofthepropertieswithoutseekingpermissionofthiscourt.

l6)Therestofthetermsofcompromiseshallbebindingonallpartiestothe compromise.

7)tisagreedbetweenthepartiesthatnopropertywasleasedoutbydefendantno.6in favourofNaimishaEducationalSociety.

8)Theplaintiffno.3hasintroducedaWILLclaimingtheshareofplaintiffno.andby thesaidWILLsheshallnothaveanyrightoverthepropertiesandtheWILL,willbetreated asnullandvoidforallpracticalpurposesinview of the compromisebetweentheparties.

Plaintiffno.3alsoagreedforthe same notclaiminganyrightoutofthesaidwilland subscribedhersignature.

9)Thepartiesafterunderstandingthe termsofthecompromisehavesubscribedtheir signaturesandthey shallapplyfor afinaldecreeintermsoftheabovecompromiseand depositnecessaryNonJudicialstampsforengrossingfinaldecree.

20)InviewofthepresenceoftheguardianSriCh.KondalRaoandthecompromise being in favourofplaintiffno.2Sri K. AnandRaoandhisinteresthavingbeenprotectedby allthepartiesandthecourthavingfeltthatthe compromiseisforthe benefitofplaintiff no.2thepartiesarepermittedtogoaheadwiththecompromiseandtheguardianSri

Raoispermittedonbehalfofplaintiffno.2toenterintothecompromiseand

कोsignatureonbehalfofplaintitfno.2.

e

j

225४,cedbymeinopencourtunderdictation tothepersonalassistant,on

tayofNovember200.

KisWwalba2ihbatRawrADILABAD

we[ennuaeaDYbyl”’Payaot

e

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE , FAMILY COURT -CUM-ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS COURT, ADILABAD

Present:

~~

LakshmiNarasimhaRao, Sri Kondapalli

Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad

SessionsJudge,Adilabad

Family Court-Cum-Addl. FAC: Judge,

DAY OF APRIL, 2011 FRIDAY THE 15™

CRL.A.NO.15OF 2009

Crl.A.No.15 Of 2009

in CriminalAppeal: Judgment is:Asst. SessionsJudge, From what court the appeal Adilabad. Preferred

$.C.No.281 / 2008

Number ofthe case in that court:

:Crl.A.No.15 Of 2009 Numberof the appeal

Name and description of

Appellant / Accused

: Manker Tukaram, S/o. Marothi, Al Caste : Kumbi, Occ: Agriculture, Age : 28 years, Village,Mandal:Bela,Dist. Adilabad. R/o. Sangdi

The sentenceand law under Which it was imposed in the Lower court Al, A2 and A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishableU/s. The accused acquittedu/s. 235 (1) Cr.P.C.The 307 r/w 34 IPC and they are accordingly bail bonds of A2 & A4 shall stand cancelled.

No.1 is found guilty for the offence punishableu/s. 324 IPC and he The accused He is sentencedto undergo is accordinglyconvictedu/s. 235(2) Cr.P.C. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- rigorousimprisonment to suffer simple imprisonmentfor one Five Hundredonly) in default (Rupees period from 9.01.2007to 2.2.2007 shall be set off u/s. 428 month.The remand be destroyedafterappealtimeis over. Cr.P.C. MO1 shall

Whether confirmed, revised

And if modified.

The Appeal is modified as under :

againstthe accused/appellantfrom The sentenceof imprisonmentimposed modifiedtothreemonthssimple oneyearrigorousimprisonmentis of Rs.500/- (RupeesFive Hundred only) is imprisonmentand the fine amount Five Thousandonly)fortheoffenceunder enhancedtoRs. 5000/-(Rupees of fine the accused/appellantshall section324 IPC and in defaultof payment for a period of anotherthreemonths.Out of the suffer simple imprisonment a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousandonly) is awarded as fine so collected periodifanyundergone_by compensationtoPW-2.Theremand section428C.r.P.C.MO1 shallbe accused/appellantshallbesetoffunder

destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Notice |BailBond |HearingOrder. |.

Filing

17/02/2009 | 18/02/2010=31/03/2011 | » 15/04/11

2;

This Criminal Appeal coming on beforeme for final hearing on 31/03/2011in the presence ofSri A. Amarender Reddy,advocatefor the

JUDGMENT

T.This is an appeal preferredagainstthe judgment

dated06/02/2009

in S.C. No.281/2008on the file of Asst. Sessions

Judge,Adilabad,whereunder

the accused/appellantherein who was Al before the trial court was convicted

and

sentencedto undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-(RupeesFive Hundred only) for the offenceunder section324 IPC andin defaultof payment of fine toundergo simple imprisonmentfor a period of one month.

ziThe Learned Counsel for the Accused/Appellant submittedthat the trialcourtdid not considertheevidencein theproper perspectiveandrelied upontheevidenceof PWs 1 to5, whoare interestedwitnessesandwere belonging to the same political Party, It is stated that the accused/appellant is belongingto TeluguDeshamParty. PW-1 and otherwitnesses examinedby the Prosecutionare fromcongressparty and theirevidenceis full of contradictions and improvementsand the same cannotbe takeninto consideration, as the evidenceof PWs1 to 5is partisan. It is furthercontendedthat thereis Contradictoryversionbetween PW-1,PW-2,PW-3 andPW-4 about theplaceof incidentandthussought for settingasidetheconviction recordedagainst Al/Appellant.

a:On the otherhandtheLearned

AdditionalPublicProsecutor

contendedthat, the trial court had considered the evidenceand gave cogent reasonsforarrivingatthe conclusionandallthecontentions raisedby the

AEX CUMA

have been advertedto by the trial court and the sentence imposed for at

Sothe

<off

PS)inder section324 IPC against Aetheaccused/appellantherein:¢annot- ape

Be stated a5'

rsh warranting interferenceby this court and prayed for'dismissar :

ae@ the aPpEAEY|he

whether the sentence imposed against the appellant needs ;

'

to be interferedwith?

PW-1 and PW-2 are brothersand of the case are that The brief facts 45: at about 9.00 a.m. to their on a bullock cart on 24/12/2006 were proceeding one auto trolleyparkedinfront way they found Village.On their fieldsat Sangdi be removedfor wasaskedto whenthe ‘autotrolley shopof PW-3 and of the othersdid not herein and three giving way to the bullock cart, the appellant PW-2 andtheappellant abusedPW-1 and andin theprocess removethesame PW-2 on his headcausing sicklein his handbeat who washoldingthe herein personswhowere kill themandalsothe threatenedto bleedinginjuryand present.

andEx.P1 to PWs 1 to7 wereexamined thetrial court,

6.Before of offenceusedin the sickle, the weapon apartfromMO1 a Ex.P5 weremarked, | in thiscasedeposed defactocomplainant PW-2.PW-1 who is the caseagainst and the obstructioncausedby on the bullockcart himselfandPW-2 going about of PW-3 and PW-4 and others. othersin presence hereinand three the appellant appellanthereincausing aboutthe accused consistentlyspoken PWs1 to 4 have officerwho examined PW-6 is themedical injury to PW-2 with a sickle. bleeding | sustainedby PW-2 certifyingtheinjuries themedicalcertificate PW-2 andgave like MO1 with the be causedby meansof sickle injurywhichcan as a simple | MO1 sickle was seized.The in whosepresence portion.PW-5 is a witness blunt at length, and the probabilities of the case trial court had discussedthe evidence againsttheaccused section307 IPC charged theoffenceunder andfoundthat available, and that the incident would have was not made out from the evidence : thespurofmoment. verbalexchangeat of spontaneous beentheresult available on record that from the evidence However, the trial court concluded | theappellantherein 324 IPC is madeoutagainst only an offenceundersection not guilty.The prosecution let off holdingthem and the remainingaccusedwere of the trial court acquitting the any appeal against the finding has not preferred

|

herein for the offence under and for sentencingthe appellant remaining accused, | 307 IPC for whichhe was offenceundersection |324IPC insteadof the section \on the date it is establishedthat of PW-1 and PW-2, . From the evidence — cartand were obstructé goingon the bullock

1. andPW-2 were

riven by A4and A1,A2 were also present and there was some” *

TSN:

and’ caused

4

thebleedingInjury to PW-2. It hasbeenobserved by thetrialcourt thatthe incidenttookplace neartheshopof PW-3 whoalso corroboratedwiththe evidenceof PW-1 and PW-2, PW-4 is an independent witnessand not having any enmitywiththe accused,whohad Supportedtheversion of PW-1 andPW-2. Thus from the above evidence, the trialcourt came to a conclusion that the incident was as a result of emotions arising on the spur of the moment, and there was no pre-meditation on the partof the appellant to causesuch injury to PW-2. Thetrialcourt haddiscussedthe evidenceat lengthandalsoall the contradictionsand improvements that ware found and pointed by the defence in its judgment. Thus the evidenceadduced before the trial court goes to establish thatthe appellant hereinhad caused bleedinginjury to PW-2 on his head. PW-6 certifiedthatthe injury was a lacerated injuryand scalp deep overthe mid scalp of 2” x %" size and that he was admittedon 22/12/2006 and dischargedon 30/12/2006andthatEx.P3 is the medicalCertificate issuedby him.There is no delayin lodgingthe complaint. Thuskeepingin view of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and also the evidence of PW-6 the finding recordedby the trial court thattheappellant hereinhad committed the offenceunder section324IPC is quite justified.

ifThe learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aged28 yearsand havingold aged parentsand familywho are small children and prayedfor taking a lenient view. Keeping in view of the relations in the village, and also taking into consideration the above submission, this court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment recorded against the accused for one yearrigorous imprisonmentcanbe reduced to threemonths, While enhancing thefinetoRs.5000/- (RupeesFive Thousand only).Outof which a sumof Rs.2000/-(RupeesTwo Thousand only) is awardedas compensation to PW-2, and accordinglywith the above modification the appealis ordered elieos \ the result,the sentence of imprisonment impgsed agains the

ent for one year rigorous imprisonment is modified td three

eres" ‘oa Uy}

ie3°*.

)

for a period of another three shall suffer simple imprisonment accused/appellant é (RupeesTwo Thousand ofof the fine so collected a sum of Rs.2000/-

nakns. “Dut

compensation toPW-2. The remand period if any under gone

Zoomis awardee

shall besetoff under section 428 C.r.P.C. MO1 shall be

byaccusedrappelait

of appeal time. The appellant is directed to serve out

destroyed after spesipry

:fig

“the modifiedsence

by her and after correction personal assistant,transcribed

open courtthis the 15" day of April, 2011.

ADILABAD

Chief Admipisirati

Ch urt—Cu -Addl, Family iy0.8459+}Q aaeet

Sa

:a

wait} Neiae te

8 evissitainiba f9id3

neeGolneie ‘id

%

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT-CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS COURT: ADILABAD.

Present: Sri. Kondapalli Laxmi Narasimha Rao Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad. FAC: Judge, Family Court-Cum-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Friday the 30th day of September, 2011

OP 16/2011

Between:-

1)Smt.Tirmanwar Mamatha and another Address - Age 32 years, Occ.Housewife, R/o.Vidyanagar colony, Adilabad.

2)Tirmanwar Pranav Aged 9 years, Occ.Student Minor UG. of his mother … Petitioners // And //

1) Tirmanwar Mahender Rao Address - Aged 34 years, Occ.Agriculture and Business, Ro. Gokunda village, Tq.Kinwat, Dist.Nanded. M.S.

.…Respondent

This Petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri. N. Nagesh, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri., Advocate for respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court made the following:

ORDER

Petitioners are called absent. No representation. Advocate is called absent. No evidence is adduced. Hence petition is dismissed.

Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of September, 2011.

FAC: Judge, Family Court-Cum-IV Addl.

District and Sessions Judge,

Adilabad.