Smt M.Babitha

BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE :: SRIKAKULAM.

Present: Smt. M.BABITHA.

Principal Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 16 th DAY OF JUNE, 2020.

SESSIONS CASE No.15/2020

(PRC No.7/2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda arising out of Crime No. 91/2019 of Veeeraghattam P.S.)

Between:­

State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, Palakonda Circle.

... Complainant.

And:

Cherukubilli @ Cherukapalli Balaraju, S/o late Ramulu, Aged 43 years, Caste Nakkala, Kaspa street, Veeragyhattam village/Mandal. … Accused.

Prosecution was conducted by:Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, Ld.Public Prosecutor, Srikakulam.

Accused was defended by:Sri P. Papa Rao, Ld.Advocate­Legal Aid Counsel, Srikakulam.

Offence charged:Section 302, I.P.C.

Date of offence:31.05.2019 night

Date of report or complaint:01.06.2019 (FIR) 26.12.2019 (Filing of charge sheet)

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge:Accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 302, IPC.

Sentence or order:The accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/­ (Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine he shallundergosimple imprisonment for a period one ­ 2 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam month for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The period of detention already undergone by the accused from 03.06.2019 till today shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

The non­valuable unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over on confirming that no appeal is pending.

The accused is informed that he can prefer an appeal against the judgment before the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh at Amaravathi and he can approach the Legal Services Authority of the Hon’ble High Court or the District Legal Services Authority, Srikakulam District for Legal Aid, if necessary.

This case was committed to the Court of the Sessions under Section 209, Cr.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Palakonda, as per order dt.10.01.2020 in P.R.C.No.7/2019.

JUDGMENT

01.The accused was charged with the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.91/2019 of Veeraghattam police station with the following allegations: 

02. The brief averments of the charge sheet are:

Golusu Thavudu (LW.1) is the defacto­complainant and brother of the deceased Cherukubilli Sarojini. The deceased got married to one

Uma of Veeraghattam about 25 years ago. After two years of their marriage, the couple developed differences and parted away.

­ 3 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

Subsequently she joined with the accused for 8 years, who is also a married person who has given divorce to his wife. The accused used to subject the deceased frequently in intoxicated state by suspecting her fidelity. The local people reprimanded him so many times. The deceased also conveyed the harassment with injuries to Golusu

Thavudu (LW.1) and other relatives. On 31.05.2019 night at about 9.30

PM., the accused raised dispute with the deceased and beat her indiscriminately. Golusu Thavudu (LW.1) and other locality people kept quiet as it is usual. At about 10.00 PM., the accused during the quarrel, pushed down the deceased from the upstairs of the constructed house and on hearing shouting from the rear side of their house, PW.1 to PW.11 and others visited the spot and noticed the deceased fell down and became unconscious. The accused was on the upstairs of their under construction house. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Primary Health Center of Veeraghattam for treatment.

PW.12 the Medical Officer rendered first aid to her and referred to Area

Hospital, Palakonda for better treatment. At about 12.00 midnight on the same day, the deceased died while undergoing treatment in Area

Hospital, Palakonda.

Golusu Thavudu (LW.1) presented a report before Veeraghattam police station. PW.17­G.Apparao the then Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.91/2019 for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. PW.18­G.Srinivasu the then Inspector of

Police took up the investigation and observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators LW.15/Ponnada Venkata Raghukumar and ­ 4 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

PW.13­Lingala Santhosh kumar and got drafted the scene observation report and prepared rough sketch and got photographed the scene of offence with the help of PW.15­Thangudu Avataram, private photographer, he got conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars LW.15/Ponnada Venkata

Raghukumar, LW.18/ Botcha Chinababu, LW.19/Cherukubilli Suresh,

PW.13 and PW.16 and forwarded the corpse to Area hospital, Palakonda for autopsy and examined the witnesses and recorded Section 161

Cr.P.C statements and forwarded Viscera to Forensic Science

Laboratory, Hyderabad for chemical analysis and report, he arrested the accused and sent him for judicial custody on 03.06.2019. After receipt of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory report and Postmortem report,

PW.19­S.Adam, the then Inspector of Police, Palakonda filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code.

03.The learned Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Palakonda

before whom the charge sheet is filed has taken cognizance for the

offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and numbered the same as PRC No. 7/2019. 

04.On appearance of the accused, the learned Judicial

Magistrate of 1st Class, Palakonda furnished copies of documents to the

accused as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., and committed the case to the Principal Sessions Court, Srikakulam under section 209 (a) of Cr.P.C., and this case was registered by this court on 22.01.2020.

­ 5 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

05.The accused has been in judicial custody since 03.06.2019 i.e., from the date of his arrest and he is being tried as Under Trial

Prisoner. 

06.Upon appearance of the accused and on hearing both sides and considering the material available on record, charge for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused and the contents of the said charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried. 

07.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 were marked. Exs.D.1 to D.5 contradictions are marked during the cross­examination of PWs. 9, 10 and 11 by the learned defence counsel.

08.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., upon the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against him, for which he denied to be false and reported no defence evidence. 

09.Arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused are heard. 

10.Now, the point for consideration is; “Whether the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is proved beyond all reasonable doubt?” 

11.POINT:

­ 6 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

The case of prosecution that the accused subjected the deceased

Cherukubilli Sarojini to harassment in intoxication state by suspecting her fidelity thereby he used to beat and abuse her in filthy language.

On 31.05.2019 at about 9.30 PM, the accused raised a dispute with the deceased, beat her indiscriminately and pushed from the terrace and thereby she succumbed to injuries while taking treatment in the hospital.

12.The elder brother of the deceased by name Golusu Thavudu (LW.1) who lodged Ex.P.8 report with the police, died. PW.1 is the sister­ in­law of the deceased and wife of Golusu Thavudu (LW.1). PW.2, 3, 5 and 6 are the neighbours of the deceased and accused. PW.4 is resident of next street of the accused and the deceased. PW.7 is the sister of the deceased. PW.8 is the niece of the accused. PW.9 is the sister of the accused by courtesy. PW.10 is the nephew of the deceased.

PW.11 is the nephew of the accused by courtesy. PW.12 is Civil

Asst.Surgeon, Primary Health Center, Veeraghattam and he gave first aid to the deceased and he referred the deceased to Palakonda Govt.

Hospital. PW.13 is the Village Revenue Assistant of Veeraghattam and he is witness to the scene observation and inquestdar at the time of inquest over the dead body of deceased. PW.14 is the Civil Asst.

Surgeon, Area Hospital, Palakonda who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.7

Postmortem report. PW.15 is the Photographer who took the photographs of the scene of offence and the dead body of the deceased.

PW.16 is one of the Inquestdars. PW.17 is the then Sub Inspector of ­ 7 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

Police, Veeraghattam who set the law into motion basing on Ex.P.8 report given by Golusu Thavudu (LW.1). PW.18 is the Investigating

Officer who conducted entire investigation and PW.19 is the successor to PW.18 and he filed charge sheet. 

13.PW.16 who is the inquestdar stated that in his presence, in the presence of LW.19­Cherukubilli Suresh, Village Revenue Assistant and Village Revenue Officer and in the presence of the blood relatives of the deceased, the inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and it was opined that the accused is suspecting the fidelity of the deceased in intoxicated state. He used to harass her and the accused has pushed the deceased from the terrace and thereby the deceased succumbed to the injuries.

As per Ex P.7 postmortem report the cause of death of deceased is cardio respiratory arrest due to left pneumothorax due to left side Vth rib fracture and left lung injury.

On perusal of inquest report Ex P.5 and Ex P.7 postmortem report the death of deceased is homicidal but not suicidal or accidental.

14.The contents of Ex.P.8 report are that Golusu Thavudu used to reside along with his family at New Bridge, which leads to Kottu

Gummada and to his western side her sister deceased­Sarojini along with her husband/accused are residing. The accused used to come to home in intoxicated state everyday and used to abuse her and made her to run in the street and beat her and the accused used to attribute illicit relationship with the persons the deceased used to talk and thereby he ­ 8 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam used to dispute with her. The deceased used to show the injuries made by the accused/husband to himself and his wife and they felt sad. On 31.05.2019 Friday at about 9.30 PM, the accused and the deceased disputed with each other on the newly constructed daba and they thought it is regular dispute and thus they did not interfere. At about 10.00 PM in the night, he heard loud voice from his backyard. Then himself, his wife/PW.1­Golusu Padma and PW.9­Nagavamsam

Mangamm, her daughter, PW.8­Cherukubilli Sravani and some others went over there and saw that the deceased was fallen in the back side of the house on the ground floor to the side of her body. At that time, the accused stood on the terrace. The deceased is in unconscious state and she did not respond even they called number of times. Then himself and some others brought trolley and shifted her to Veeraghattam Govt.

hospital. The doctor has attended her and for better treatment he suggested to shift to Palakonda Area hospital. He did not go to

Palakonda hospital. His deceased sister while taking treatment at area hospital on 31.05.2019 in the mid night at 12 clock died. PW.9

Nagavamsapu Mangamma who went to Palakonda hospital informed the same through phone. The deceased died as the accused has suspected her fidelity and disputed and thereby beat her and pushed her from the terrace due to which she suffered injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 

15. PW.17 is the then Sub Inspector of Police of Veeraghattam police station and registered the crime in this case. In the cross­ examination, PW.17 admits that there is delay of 7.30 hours from the ­ 9 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam occurrence of the offence and reporting the same. He denied the suggestion that in the column No.8 it was mentioned intentionally that no delay. The incident has occurred at about 10.00PM in Kaspa street and from there initially the deceased was shifted to the Govt. Hospital,

Veeraghattam and from there she was shifted to Govt. Area Hospital,

Palakonda where she died at 12.00mid night and later on the same was reported to the police. So, the question of delay does not arise that too intentionally after the death of the deceased at Palakonda hospital on reaching the information the relatives of the deceased will be in sorrow and in pathetic condition as to the incident. Hence, the question of not reporting immediately does not come under the delay and it is not fatal to the case of prosecution.

16.As per the evidence of PW.1, first husband of the deceased

Sarojini is one Ramamurty and he died. The accused is also married and he is having two children and later he left his wife and children and married the deceased Sarojini and they used to reside in Kaspa street of

Veeraghattam village and there is one house i.e., PW.9’s house in between her house and the house of the accused. So, on perusal of the evidence of PW.1 to PW.11, all of them used to reside in the same Kaspa street except PW.3 and PW.4 who stated that the accused and the deceased used to reside in the next street. PW.1, PW.7 to PW.11 are related to the deceased and the accused. PW.3 to PW.6 are neighbours of the deceased. PW.1 to PW.11 in one voice stated that the accused used to subject the deceased to harassment in intoxicated state by ­ 10 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam suspecting her fidelity. Further, PW.10 and PW.11 stated that the accused used to chase the deceased on the roads by beating her. 

17.The learned counsel for the accused argued that all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and further he argued that how can a person suspect the fidelity of a wife by attributing each and every person to whom she talks and as such the evidence of prosecution witnesses is concocted.

18.PW.1 to PW.11 are the neighbours of the accused and deceased and relatives of the deceased and some of the witnesses are related to the accused. They have consistently deposed that the accused in intoxicated state used to abuse and beat the deceased and frequently they used to dispute with each other. So far as the defence highlighted that the witnesses are interested witnesses. As per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they are residing nearby and are related. In case of harassment against woman, there is every possibility of the relatives of the woman knowing about the harassment made by the husband and at the same time, the accused is disputing with the deceased frequently in intoxicated state. Even there is every chance for the neighbours to know about the disputes. PW.10 and PW.11 deposed even to the extent that the accused used to chase the deceased on the road. So from their evidence it shows that the dispute even has not been taken place within the four walls of their house. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses/PWs.1 to 11, it shows that there were frequent quarrels in between the accused and the deceased and that the ­ 11 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam accused used to abuse and beat the deceased in intoxicated state by suspecting her fidelity.

19.PW.3 to PW.5 and PW.9 deposed that number of times, they have advised the accused not to behave in such a manner but he did not heed them and there is no change in his attitude. In the cross­ examination of PW.1, the learned defence counsel have asked her that they have never reported to the police about the harassment made by the accused for which she answered they have never reported to the police but she adds that the deceased went to the police station for 2 or 3 times and she is unable to say the details of the report. She denied the suggestion that the deceased never reported to the police against the accused and that the disputes in between the accused and the deceased were never placed before the elders. In all cases of harassment generally in our tradition women are not interested to report to the police. So far as P.W.1 stated that the deceased went to the police station but there is no material placed before the court whether there is any report made by the deceased or not with regard to the harassment made by her husband/accused. 

20.With regard to the incident on 31.05.2019, PW.1 deposed that the dispute has taken place in between the accused and the deceased on the terrace (daba) and at about 10.00 PM she heard loud sound that the deceased fell down from the terrace to the ground floor of the house of the accused and the deceased was severely injured on her head and at that time the accused stood on the terrace. She states that initially she thought it is regular dispute. In the cross­ ­ 12 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam examination of PW.1, she stated that the accused and the deceased disputed with each other in the house and thereafter they went to upstairs by taking food items. The disputes used to take place in the thatched house and thereafter the deceased used to take the food items to the terrace and after the accused went over to the terrace. Everyday the accused and the deceased used to consume food on the terrace and thereafter they used to sleep over there. She further states that the accused has called the deceased from the terrace and thereby the deceased has taken the food items in the utensils to the terrace as they left to the terrace their family has slept in their house. Further the learned defence counsel has put a question that she does not know as they slept whether the accused and deceased consumed the food or they slept, for which she answered in positive. The said question is immaterial as to whether they consumed food or slept. It shall not be considered as immediately after they have heard the sound, went there and found the deceased fell on the floor. 

P.W.2 Dusi Rajesh who is neighbour to the deceased and the accused deposed that on 31.05.2019 the deceased died and on the said day both the deceased and the accused disputed with each other by shouting loudly and he thought that it is regular dispute and thereafter they have slept. He further deposed that on the next day morning he came to know that the accused has pushed the deceased on the terrace and thereby she fell down and succumbed to the injuries. PW.2 resiled from his earlier statement given to the police in part. The learned

Public Prosecutor sought permission and cross­examined the witness ­ 13 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam but could not elicit anything. So far as the evidence of the hostile witness cannot be rejected in toto. The evidence which is favourable to the prosecution can be relied. So, the evidence of this witness so far as the earlier disputes in between the accused and the deceased in intoxicated state by suspecting the fidelity and also on the date of incident the accused and the deceased disputed with each other and he thought it is a regular dispute, can be taken into consideration. In the cross­examination of this witness, it was elicited that no panchayat was taken place before him with regard to the disputes between the accused and deceased. He states that he used to question the accused why he is unnecessarily disputing with the deceased but he used to pay deaf ear

P.W.3 Kalinga Janardhana who is resident of next street of the deceased and accused deposed that at about 9.30 or 10.00 PM, by hearing the cries of the people, he went to the house of the deceased and he has seen the deceased fell on the floor with her last breath and the accused stood on the terrace. 

P.W.4 Kondala Bujji who is resident of next street of the deceased and accused deposed that the accused and deceased used to frequently dispute with each other and the accused used to beat her in intoxicated state by suspecting her fidelity. He states that he heard loud cries at about 10.00 PM and then himself and all the street people went over there and saw that the deceased was fell on the floor and she is injured and she is in unconscious state and at that time the accused stood on the terrace. PW.4 stated that the accused never suspected the deceased ­ 14 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam by attributing illicit intimacy with a particular person. He volunteers that he used to attribute illicit contact with all the persons.

 P.W.5 Kondala Dhanunjaya who is the neighbour to the deceased and the accused stated that on 31.05.2019 the deceased was fell on the floor from the terrace and by hearing the cries of the street people, he went over there and saw that the deceased was found with bleeding injuries on her head and also on ribs and she is in unconscious state and accused stood on the terrace. 

PW.6­Boddana Guruvulu who is the neighbour to the deceased and the accused deposed that at about 10.00 PM in the night, he heard the dispute between the deceased and accused from the terrace of the deceased. He thought it is regular dispute and he went inside the house and he heard loud sound from outside and thereby he went near the house of the deceased and saw that she fell on the ground from the terrace and at that time she was with her last breath and she is injured and the accused stood on the terrace at that time and thereafter he escaped from that place. In the cross­examination of this witness, it was elicited that if one shouts from the house of the deceased, it was not audible to his house. The distance between his house and the house of PW.5 is about 100 yards and further he admitted that if one shouts from the house of deceased, it is not audible to the houses of

PW.2 to PW.5. So far as audibility, the defence did not put question to any of the witness except PW.6 In view of Ex.P.4 scene observation report and Ex.P.10 rough sketch the houses are situated one after another and are located nearby and even all the witnesses stated in one ­ 15 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam voice about the hearings of the sound from the house of the deceased i.e., open terrace. So far the evidence of PW.6 that it is not possible to hear sound from the house of the deceased cannot be believed. 

PW.7­Nimmaka Kamalamma who is the elder sister of the deceased deposed that the accused has lifted the deceased and thereby pushed her from the terrace and she fell on the ground and she has seen the deceased with full of injuries on her body. In the cross­ examination of this witness, it was elicited that she has seen the deceased at her house where she has fell down and by the time she went over there the deceased was kept on a trolley.

PW.8­Cherukubilli Sravani who is the sister of the accused by courtesy deposed that her parents used to reside beside the house of the deceased, herself and her husband used to reside in her maternal house and the accused and the deceased used to reside together beside her maternal house. She further deposed that the accused always used to beat the deceased in intoxicated state by suspecting her fidelity and at about 10.00 PM they heard loud sounds and came outside and saw that the deceased was fell on the ground with bleeding injuries on her abdomen and her nose is bleeding and the accused stood on the terrace. 

P.W.9 Nagavamsapu Mangamma, who is the mother of PW.8 and sister of the accused by courtesy deposed that she is residing beside the house of the accused and at about 10.00 PM, she heard loud sound from outside, then herself, Nagavamsapu Adi (LW.12/PW.11) and PW.8 ­ 16 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam came outside and saw the deceased fell on one side of the body on the ground from the terrace and at that time the deceased was on terrace.

As to the relation of PW.9, in the cross­examination of PW.1 it was elicited that she is the step sister of the accused.

PW.10­Golusu Madhu who is related to the deceased and the accused deposed that at about 10.00 PM, he heard loud sound from outside, then he came outside and saw the deceased fell on the ground near her house with bleeding injuries and the accused stood on the terrace at that time. 

PW.11­Nagavamsapu Adi who is related to the deceased and accused deposed that at about 10.00 PM he heard loud sound from outside and then himself and all their family members went outside and saw the dead body of the deceased on the ground near her house and he saw that the deceased was injured on her head with bleeding nose and at that time the accused was present on the terrace.

21.From the prosecution witnesses/PW.1 to PW.11 it is evident that on the date of incident i.e., on 31.05.2019 both the accused and the deceased disputed with each other on the terrace of the newly constructed house. All the witnesses thought it is a regular dispute and they did not interfere and later at about 10.00 PM, they heard loud sound and they came outside and found the deceased fell on the ground floor from the terrace and at that time the accused stood on the terrace.

It can be clearly inferred that the deceased has pushed the deceased ­ 17 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam and thereby killed her as there is no other person at that time and also no enmity by other person with the deceased.

22.The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no motive in the present case and that the deceased is suffering from ailments especially epilepsy and she has fell down because of epilepsy.

23.It is not necessary in all cases that motive should be in specific. Here, frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased that attributing the illicit contacts with other persons and abusing and beating her in intoxicated state and driving around the roads and further on the date of incident the accused disputed with the deceased.

All the prosecution witnesses have stated about the same.

24.From the cross­examination of PW.1, it was elicited that the first husband left the deceased as the deceased used to suffer from epilepsy Further, in the cross­examination of PW.8, PW.9 and PW.11 a suggestion was put to them that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy, which was denied by them. Further a suggestion was put to

P.W.9 that the deceased is suffering from epilepsy and she accidentally fell down from the terrace due to the said epilepsy which is also denied by PW.9. To PW.10 a suggestion was put by the defence that the deceased is suffering from ailments because of that her husband has left. The said suggestion was denied by PW.10. To PW.1 a suggestion was put that the deceased was fell from the terrace accidentally but the accused never pushed from the terrace. Another suggestion was put to

PW.1 and other witnesses that herself, her husband/LW.11 and PW.9 ­ 18 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam has falsely reported against the accused to the police and if he goes to jail in order to grab the house of the deceased. The same suggestion was put to PW.4, PW.5, PW.9, PW.10 and PW.11 and it was denied by them. PW.10 was also suggested that himself and the accused have disputes with regard to the house property of the deceased. PW.8 denied the suggestion that the deceased used to fell because of epilepsy.

PW.18/Investigating Officer, admitted that there was no parapet wall and no side wall to the terrace and also no side walls to the steps leading to the terrace were available. He denied the suggestion that there is possibility of the deceased accidentally fell down from the terrace. He denied further suggestion that the accused has intention to kill the deceased as per his investigation.

25. A suggestion was put to PW.1 that they did not like the deceased to get married with the accused. PW.1 admitted that without their consent, the deceased married the accused and that prior to the marriage of the deceased, she (PW.1), her husband used to look after the welfare of the deceased. When the deceased married the accused without their consent, the question of PW.1 and her family liking or disliking, after 18 years of the marriage of the accused and the deceased does not arise as the deceased and the accused lived together for about 18 years.

26.The plea of the defence is not consistent as one time because of epilepsy the deceased has accidentally fell down from the terrace and at another time in order to grab the house of the deceased, the witnesses have falsely implicated the accused. The defence is not ­ 19 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam consistent and stray sentence as it was elicited from the mouth of PW.1 by putting own answer by the defence that her first husband has left her as she is suffering from epilepsy. Except PW.1, none of them stated that the deceased is suffering from epilepsy. Even one of the sister of the deceased/PW.7 stated that herself, her deceased sister and her brother/ Golusu Thavudu (LW.1) are suffering from ailments. Even

PW.7 stated that her brother Golusu Thavudu (LW.1) died because of

Tuberculoses and she denied the suggestion that her deceased sister is suffering from epilepsy. The said fact is not necessary as to what disease Golusu Thavudu (LW.1) is suffering from. PW.3 stated that prior to marrying Balaraju/accused the deceased fostered her sister’s daughter.

27.A suggestion put by the learned defence counsel as to the deceased is suffering from epilepsy or she accidentally fell down from the terrace as there is no parapet wall and at another time he has put a suggestion to some other witnesses that the accused was implicated in this case in order to grab the property of the deceased and they do not hold good in view of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 

28.After the deceased severely injured, PW.1, PW.8 PW.9,

PW.10 and Golusu Thavudu (LW.1) went to the place where the deceased fell down and at that time the deceased was in unconscious state and then they have taken the deceased to the Govt. hospital,

Veeraghattam in a trolley rickshaw and on the advice of the doctor, the deceased was shifted to Govt. hospital, Palakonda and while taking treatment at 12 mid night, the deceased died. PW.9 has taken the ­ 20 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam deceased to the Government hospital, Palakonda as per the evidence of

PW.1. PW.1, PW.4 and PW.5 have stated in specific that PW.9 has shifted the deceased to Palakonda hospital from Veeraghattam hospital.

29.The contradictions marked through PW.9 that immediately her relatives and the street people have taken her sister­in­ law/deceased in a trolley rickshaw for treatment, marked as Ex.D.1 and while the accused abused in filthy language to his sister­in­law marked as Ex.D.2. As to Ex.D.1 it is not a major contradiction as the death of the deceased and also shifting of the deceased to the hospital, is not denied. Even Ex.D.2 as to the accused abused in filthy language to the deceased is also not a major contradiction as the frequent quarrels in between the accused and the deceased, cannot be denied. Ex.D.3 and

Ex.D.4 contradictions were marked through PW.10. Ex.D.3 is that himself, his father and some others together have taken his paternal aunt in a trolley to Veeraghattam government hospital. Ex.D.4 is that the accused used to dispute with him when he tried to resist him while disputing. Both Exs. D.3 and D.4 do not throw the prosecution case.

PW.11 did not state before the police that himself, his relatives and his street people have taken the deceased in trolley rickshaw for her treatment the same is marked as Ex D.5. Ex D5 is not major contradiction as to how the deceased (trolley rickshaw) was shifted is not important.

30. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the deceased has two houses. One house is thatched house and another is slabbed house which is under construction. The scene of offence is slabbed ­ 21 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam house which is under construction. The learned counsel for the accused highlighted that the police did not seize the utensils on the terrace of the slabbed house which is under construction. With regard to the scene observation, PW.13­Village Revenue Assistant was examined. He stated that the scene of offence is a slabbed house which is under construction. After the scene of offence was observed in his presence, in the presence of another mediator/LW.15­ Ponnada

Venkata Raghu Kumar­Village Revenue Officer and the Inspector of

Police, the the scene observation report was (Ex.P.4) was prepared.

Even inquest (Ex.P.5) is conducted in the presence of PW.13 and other panchayatdars and at that time the blood relatives of the deceased were also present. It was opined that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased, thereby beat and abused her and while disputing the accused has pushed the deceased from the terrace and thereby she succumbed to the injuries.

31.As to non­seizure of the utensils available on the terrace when material objects are observed by P.W.18 Inspector of Police, who has observed the scene of offence, the non­seizure of utensils from the scene of offence is not fatal to the case of prosecution as the commission of offence has not taken place with the material objects available from the terrace. 

32.PW.13 who is the mediator/Village Revenue Assistant in whose presence the accused confessed his guilt, stated that on 03.06.2019 at about 5.00 AM in the early houses, when himself, another mediator LW.15­ Ponnada Venkata Raghu Kumar­Village ­ 22 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

Revenue Officer, PW.18 Inspector of Police, Sub Inspector of Police and constables went to Kottu Gummada village, near Kaspa street police have caught hold of one person at that time, the person is hesitating when questioned him, then the accused confessed his guilt and his confession (Ex.P.6) was prepared and then himself along with Inspector of Police and the accused have endorsed their signatures on the confession. PW.13 who is cross­examined elaborately as to when and what time they have inspected the scene of offence and about the confession of the accused. The confession before the police officer is not admissible as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act unless it is made in the immediate presence of Magistrate as per Section 26 of the

Evidence Act. So, there is no sanctity in the confession made by the accused in the presence of the police.

33.The learned defence counsel argued that the accused has shifted the deceased to Veeraghattam hospital immediately after she fell down from the terrace. PW.1 in her cross­examination stated that the deceased was shifted on the trolley and at that time the accused stood on the terrace and he ran away from that place. PW.1 stated that she has no knowledge whether the accused has shifted the deceased to the hospital at Palakonda. Even PW.1 admitted that there is no parapet wall to the terrace and the steps annexed to the terrace, there is no wall is constructed. All the witnesses stated that the accused is on the terrace at that time the deceased was found on the ground floor. Except putting question to PW.1, no record was put forth that the accused himself has shifted the deceased to Veeraghattam hospital. 

­ 23 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

34.In the cross­examination of PW.1, she stated that by the time herself, her husband–Golusu Thavudu (LW.1) went near the deceased, PW.9, PW.8 and PW.10 were present and they are lifting the deceased body and after they reached they have placed the deceased body on the trolley and at that time the accused got down from the terrace and he ran away from the place. PW.18­Investigating Officer admitted that none of the witnesses have seen that the accused pushed the deceased from the terrace and so also the accused beat the deceased at about 9.30 PM on the date of incident. He did not secure

Veeraghattam PHC or Palakonda Area hospital records with regard to the treatment of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he has suppressed the medical record of both the hospitals as if the same is produced the fact of accused joined the deceased in the hospital would be revealed. He denied the suggestion that as there were no eye witnesses he has purposefully mentioned in the record that the accused stood on the terrace at the time of incident. He denied the suggestion that immediately after the report, he has arrested the accused. He volunteered that the accused absconded and he caught hold the accused while he is running over the bridge. None of the witnesses have stated that the accused accompanied them while shifting the deceased to Veeraghattam hospital and even PW.1 confirmed that while they were shifting the deceased, the accused has absconded. The conduct of the accused as to his abscondence immediately after the incident shows that he was directly involved as to pushing of the deceased from the terrace.

­ 24 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

35.PW.14 is the Doctor of Government Area Hospital,

Palakonda who has conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 01.06.2019 at 03.00PM and found the following injuries: (1) A contusion of size 3 x 3 cms over the right cheek and temporal region. There are no injuries to the internal parts of head and neck. Chest left side Vth rib fractured with penetration into left lung diaphragm pneumothorax. Heart and pericardia in diastole, large blood vessels filled with blood. Internal parts of the abdomen are congested. Even spinal column and spinal cord are congested. The viscera was preserved and sent for analysis to the Forensic Laboratory,

Hyderabad. It was opined that the cause of death is due to cardio respiratory arrest due to left pneumothorax due to left side Vth rib fracture and left lung injury. He issued Ex.P.7 postmortem certificate.

In the cross­examination PW.14 states that he did not conduct any treatment on the body of the deceased. He admits that if one person falls from height, there is possibility of the injuries mentioned in the postmortem certificate. 

36.On the date of incident, the presence of the accused on the terrace and the quarrel in between the accused and the deceased is established by all the prosecution witnesses. Further, there are previous disputes between the accused and the deceased and the accused used to harass the deceased in intoxicated state. The presence of accused on the terrace while the deceased was fell on the floor and later the accused has absconded as to conduct of his abscondence is the subsequent event. All the circumstances linked together along with ­ 25 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam medical evidence corroborates to the case of prosecution to hold that the accused committed the offence of murder of his wife.

37.This court relied that Meena Devi was living with her brother­in­law/accused along with her children. If Meena Devi was so missing, the natural conduct of the accused was to inform the police and also Anant Ram (PW­3). But that was not done. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, burden is cast upon the accused, being the inmate of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how Meena Devi died. No reasonable explanation is forthcoming from the accused as to why he had neither lodged the complaint nor informed the police about the missing of Meena Devi. The respondent­accused being inmate of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation. This is a strong mitigating circumstance against the respondent indicating that he might be responsible for the commission of the offence.

The motive attributed against the accused is that he had frequently quarreled with the deceased and also assaulted her. A dispute is also suggested pertaining to the land of one Swami who wanted to give his property solely to the deceased Meena Devi which was not acceptable to the accused. Yet another motive attributed to the accused was his greed for the fixed deposit of Rs.1,20,000/­ which had become due payable to the deceased, which was spoken by PW.15, as held in “State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar reported in 2018 (1)ALD (Crl.) 561 (SC)” ­ 26 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

The principle in the above citation is squarely applicable to the present case as to the motive that the accused used frequently to dispute with the deceased and assaulting in intoxicated state which was clearly spoken by all the prosecution witnesses. Further the conduct of the accused in not reporting to the police or not taking the deceased to the hospital and also his non­explanation as to the death of the deceased as both of them used to live under one roof and he failed to offer explanation which is a strong mitigating circumstance against him. In Section 313, Cr.PC examination also, the accused simply denied the evidence of incriminating circumstances put to him and he simply pleaded his innocence and he is having only his mother and deceased wife. A feeble attempt was made by the defence that the deceased died due to epilepsy. There is no infirmity pointed in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Their evidence is truthful and also no enmity is attributed to the witnesses as to the evidence given by them against the accused.

In the present case all the circumstances in chain linked together and there is no gap. The circumstance as to the motive the previous disputes between the accused and the deceased and the dispute on the date of the incident, presence of the accused on the terrace while the deceased was floor with injuries, conduct of the accused in not taking the deceased to the hospital nor reporting to the police and the absence of explanation from the accused as to death of the deceased as both of them lived together under one roof. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved by cogent and reliable evidence. 

­ 27 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

38.In view of the above discussion, this court considers that the prosecution has successfully established its case that the accused committed murder of his wife and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

39.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he is convicted of the said charge under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 16th day of June, 2020.

Sd/­M. BABITHA,

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

SRIKAKULAM.

40.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is not entitled to benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

When the accused is questioned regarding quantum of sentence, he pleaded that he is having mother aged 70 years old and she is depending on him and he has to look after her welfare. There are no grounds to take a lenient view in this case as the accused committed murder of his wife. 

Hence the accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/­ (Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period one month for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code.

­ 28 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

The period of detention already undergone by the accused from 03.06.2019 till today shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

The non­valuable unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over on confirming that no appeal is pending.

The accused is informed that he can prefer an appeal against the judgment before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Amaravathi and he can approach the Legal Services Authority of the

Hon’ble High Court or the District Legal Services Authority, Srikakulam

District for Legal Aid, if necessary.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 16th day of June, 2020.

Sd/­.M. BABITHA,

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

SRIKAKULAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: NONE

P.W.1:Golusu Padma 

P.W.2:Dusi Rajesh 

P.W.3:Kalinga Janardhana

P.W.4:Kondala Bujji 

P.W.5:Kondala Dhanunjaya

P.W.6:Boddana Guruvulu

P.W.7:Nimmaka Kamalamma

P.W.8:Cherukubilli Sravani ­ 29 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

P.W.9:Nagavamsapu Mangamma

P.W.10: Golusu Madhu

P.W.11: Nagavamsapu Adi

P.W.12: Dr.Visesh Kumar, Civil Assistant Surgeon

P.W.13: Lingala Santhosh Kumar, Village Revenue Assistant.

P.W.14: Dr.Ch.Raghuram Murthy, Civil Assistant Surgeon 

P.W.15: Tangudu Avataram, Photographer

P.W.16: Cherukubilli Sarojini 

P.W.17: G.Apparao, Sub Inspector of Police

P.W.18: G.Srinivas, Inspector of Police 

P.W.19: S.Adam, Inspector of Police 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: 

Ex.P.1/­Photos 8 in number along with C.D., 

Ex.P.2/01.06.2019 Marked portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 

Ex.P.3/01.06.2019 Marked portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 

Ex.P.4/01.06.2019 Scene Observation Report

Ex.P.5/01.06.2019 Inquest Report 

Ex.P.6/03.06.2019 Signature of PW.13 on the confession report of accused

Ex.P.7/01.06.2019 Postmortem Certificate of deceased Sarojini 

Ex.P.8/01.06.2019 Report submitted by LW.1 Golusu Thavudu to PW.17/Sub Inspector of Police, Veeraghattam PS.

Ex.P.9/01.06.2019 First Information Report in Cr.No.91/2019 of Veeraghattam police station sent to the Court.

Ex.P.10/01.06.2019 Rough Sketch 

Ex.P.11/14.06.2019 Letter of advice

Ex.P.12/06.06.2019 Forensic Science Laboratory report 

For Defence : 

Ex.D.1/01.06.2019 Marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.9

Ex.D.2/01.06.2019 Marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.9

Ex.D.3/01.06.2019 Marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.10

Ex.D.4/01.06.2019 Marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.10

Ex.D.5/01.06.2019 Marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.11 ­ 30 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Sd/­M. BABITHA,

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

SRIKAKULAM.

//true copy//

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

SRIKAKULAM.

­ 31 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

CALENDAR

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

Present: Smt. M.BABITHA,

Principal Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 16 th DAY OF JUNE, 2020.

SESSIONS CASE No.15/2020

(PRC No.7/2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda arising out of Crime No. 91/2019 of Veeeraghattam P.S.)

Between:­

State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, Palakonda Circle.

... Complainant.

And:

Cherukubilli @ Cherukapalli Balaraju, S/o late Ramulu, Aged 43 years, Caste Nakkala, Kaspa street, Veeragyhattam village/Mandal. 

… Accused.

Prosecution was conducted by:Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, Ld.Public Prosecutor, Srikakulam.

Accused was defended by:Sri P. Papa Rao, Ld.Advocate­Legal Aid Counsel, Srikakulam.

Offence charged:Section 302, I.P.C.

Date of offence:31.05.2019 night

Date of report or complaint:01.06.2019 (FIR) 26.12.2019 (Filing of charge sheet)

Date of appearance of accused:05.02.2020

Date of commencement of trial::25.02.2020

Date of close of trial:20.03.2020

Date of sentence or order:16.06.2020 ­ 32 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge:Accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 302, IPC.

Sentence or order:The accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/­ (Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine he shallundergosimple imprisonment for a period one month for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The period of detention already undergone by the accused from 03.06.2019 till today shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

The non­valuable unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over on confirming that no appeal is pending. The accused is informed that he can prefer an appeal against the judgment before the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh at Amaravathi and he can approach the Legal Services Authority of the Hon’ble High Court or the District Legal Services Authority, Srikakulam District for Legal Aid, if necessary.

Explanation for the delay:

In the committal court: (Vide separate docket extract of the lower court) In this Court:

The Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Palakonda committed PRC No.7/2019 to the Sessions Division, as per committal order dated 10.01.2020. After receipt of record, this case was registered as SC No. 15/2020 on 22.01.2020 and posted to 05.02.2020 and on ­ 33 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam 05.02.2020 the accused is produced from Central Jail, Visakhapatnam. On 14.02.2020, the accused is examined under Section 228 Cr.PC and a charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC is framed. The charge is read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and schedule is given for commencement of trial from 25.02.2020. On 25.02.2020 PW.1 and PW.2; on 26.02.2020 PW.3 to PW.5, on 27.02.2020 PW.6 to PW. 8; on 28.02.2020 PW.9 to PW.11, on 03.03.2020 PW.12 to PW.14, on 04.03.2020 PW.15 and PW.16, on 05.03.2020 PW.17 and on 16.03.2020 PW.18 and PW.19 were examined and prosecution side evidence is closed. On 20.03.2020 the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and the accused reported no evidence and hence trial closed. Meanwhile, Covid­ 19 was intervened and through video conferencing the accused was present. On 08.06.2020 arguments are heard and on 16.06.2020 judgment is pronounced.

Sd/­M. BABITHA,

Principal Sessions Judge,

 Srikakulam.

Note: The accused has not paid the fine amount of Rs.2000/­. 

 Copy of calendar and judgment furnished to the accused at free of cost today i.e., on 16.06.2020.

 //true copy//

Principal Sessions Judge,

 Srikakulam.

­ 34 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam ­ 35 ­ SC No. 15/2020, Dt. 16.06.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

1

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS DIVISION, -SRIKAKULAM.

Before the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act,

1989-cum-Addl.District and Sessions Judge At Srikakulam

Present: Smt. M.Babitha, Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. FAC: Special Judge for trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act- cum-Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam.

MONDAY, THE 24th DAY OF JUNE, 2019

SESSIONS CASE No. 26 OF 2016

( arose out of crime No. 102/2016 of Srikakulam rural

police station )

BetweenState represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC /ST Cell, Srikakulam. And :1.Mamidi Siva Prasad, son of late Sugreevudu, aged about 44 years, Caste/T.Kapu, Kanugulavanipeta village and panchayat, Srikakulam rural mandal.

2. Mamidi Srinivasa Rao son of late Sugreevudu, aged about 50 years, Caste/T.Kapu, Kanugulavanipeta village and panchayat, Srikakulam rural mandal.

3) Mamidi Ravi son of late Sugreevudu, aged about 40 years, Caste/T.Kapu, Kanugulavanipeta village and panchayat, Srikakulam rural mandal.

4) Ippili Bharath @ Bhaskara Rao, son of Adinarayana, aged 35 years,

Caste/T.Kapu, Kanugulavanipeta village and

panchayat, Srikakulam rural mandal.

Accused...

Prosecution conducted Sri M.Malleswara Rao, Special Public Prosecutor by

Accused was defended Sri T.Radhakrishna, Advocate for the accused No.1 to 4. by Offence:Accused No.1 : under sections 3(1) (s) and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act and Sections 307, 324, 323 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code. Accused No.2 : Under Section 3 (1)(s) and Sec.3(2)(va) of SC & ST (PoA) Act and Sections 307, 324, 326 and 506(ii) of Indian penal Code

Accused No.3 and 4 : under sections 3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC 2

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

& ST (PoA) Act and Sections 307, 324 and 506(ii) of Indian penal Code Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty to the above mentioned charges framed against the accused. Finding of the JudgeNOT GUILTY Sentence or Order In the result, accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)

(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Sections 307, 324, 323 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Sections 307, 324, 326 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, accused No.3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Sections 307, 324 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, and accused No.1 to 4 are acquitted under section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 shall stands dismissed after appeal time is over. The MO 1(four sticks) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. 

This case coming on 19.6.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Malleswara Rao, Special Public Prosecutor for State/Complainant and of Sri T.Radha Krishna, Advocate for the accused No.1 to 4 and upon hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, the court delivered the following judgment.

J U D G M E N T

01. The State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

SC/ST Cell, Srikakulam filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under sections 307,326,324,506 read with 34 of

Indian penal Code and Sec.3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)(v) and (va) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 in crime No.102/2016 of Srikakulam rural police station. 

02.The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet :­ 3

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

PW1/Savalapurapu Krishna Veni is the native of

Thangivanipeta village and she belongs to Scheduled caste/Madiga and she is working as District Secretary, Progressive Women cell, Srikakulam. Her organization works on issues relating to women, suppressed castes and poor farmers. Initial complainant/PW2/Sadhu Prabha is native of

Sadhupeta village and the accused No.1 is native of Kanugulavanipeta village of Srikakulam rural mandal. PW5/Sadhu Satyanarayana has pattadar pass book and title deed No.358 in his name and as per his patta, he has lands to an extent of Ac.1.48 cents in different survey numbers i.e.,

1) 47/8 an extent of Ac.0­09 cents 2) 87/1 in an extent of Ac.0­11 cents. 3) 87/2 an extent of Ac.0­12 cents, 4) 87/3 an extent of Ac.0­08 cents, 5) 87/4 an extent of Ac.0­09 cents, 6) 50/10 an extent of Ac.0­16 cents 7) 50/13 an extent of Ac.0­12 cents, 8) 45/1 an extent of Ac.0­14 cents, 9) 45/3 an extent of Ac.0­08 cents, 10 ) 47/6 an extent of Ac.0­10 cents, 11) 47/5 an extent of Ac.0­09 cents, 12) 46/9 an extent of Ac.0­03 cents, 13) 46/13 an extent of Ac.0­03 cents 14) 57/2 an extent of Ac.0­19 cents , 15) 14/16 an extent of Ac.0­05 cents and the said lands are dry lands and now there is standing crop of casaurina tope. 

During the year 2006, PW5 had leased out Ac.0­50 cents of land to the accused No.1 for a period of five years for an amount of

Rs.35,000/­ and the same is expired in the year 2011. As per the lease agreement within five years the accused No.1 raised casuarina tope in the land of PW2 and PW5 and took the yield of it and consequently the lease period was not extended. Immediately PW5 demanded the accused No.1 to 4

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

hand over his land to him, but the accused No.1 again raised casuarina tope in the said land without handing over it to PW5 and without extending the lease agreement several times, on that PW2 and PW5 requested the accused

No.1 to leave their land, but the accused No.1 did not leave their land. 

PW2 and PW5 approached PW1 and told her that accused

No.1 wrongfully occupied their land without extending lease agreement, assaulting them on questioning, not heeding the words of village elders and requested PW1 to settle the dispute with accused No.1 by appraising the facts of their dispute. 

In the month of September, 2015 PW1 along with PW2,PW5 and PW6/Bora Koteswara Rao approached the accused No.1 and PW1 introduced herself as she is a leader of Scheduled caste people and requested the accused No.1 to hand over( return) the land of PW2 and

PW5 , but accused No.1 denied to do so, PW1 also followed PW2 and PW5 to the panchayats held by village elders, but accused No.1 paid deaf ear to their words. 

While so, on 27.4.2016 at about 11 a.m PW1 followed by PW2 and PW5 at their request to the casuarina tope of Sadhupeta ( the site in dispute) , PW3/Naviri Dalayya, PW4/Thanni Appala Raju, PW6 and

LW8/Bagu China Appanna also visited to the tope of PW2 for cutting the yield of casuarina trees along with others. But the accused No.1 to 4 way laid, attacked them and beat them indiscriminately with casuarina sticks.

On seeing the PW1, accused No.1 uttered that “ due to her intervention, the disputes were arose “ ఈమదగలలజకతరనవదలదద , కటటలడర" by so saying 5

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

beat PW1 on her head, fore arm and knees with a casuarina stick, as a result PW1 sustained multiple injuries on her head, knees and fore arm.

Accused No.2 beat her on her knees with a casuarina stick, accused No.3 beat on her forearms with a casuarina stick, accused No.4 beat her on her thighs with a casurina stick , accused No.1 also kicked her on her back with legs, PW1 sustained multiple bleeding injuries on her head, knees and fore arms. 

Accused No.1 also beat PW2 with a casurina stick on her head and caused grievous injuries , accused No.2 beat PW2 with a stick on left fore arm and caused injuries, accused No.3 beat PW3 with stick on right thigh with a casuarina stick on his right side of the back and caused bleeding injury, accused No.4 beat PW3 with a casuarina stick on his left shoulder and caused swelling injury. Accused No.1 beat PW4 /Thanni

Appalaraju with a stick on her head and caused bleeding injury, accused

No.2 PW4 with a casuarina stick on her left hand and caused swelling injury, accused No.3 beat PW4 with a casuarina stick on her left hand finger and caused swelling injury, accused No.4 beat PW4 with a casuarina stick on her head and caused bleeding injury. Accused No.1 beat PW6 on his head and caused bleeding injury, accused No.2 and 3 beat him with a stick on his both legs and caused swelling injury, accused NO.4 beat him with a stick on his hands and all the accused beat PW2 to PW4 and PW6 and caused multiple injuries 

 Basing on the statement of PW2, PW13/K.Yerramnaidu, Head constable­1135 registered a case in crime No.102/2016 under sections 6

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

326,324,506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code on 27.4.2016 at about 16.00 hours. On 29.4.2016 PW1 gave a statement to

PW14/M.Madhusudhana Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, for taking action against the accused with the ingredients under Scheduled caste and scheduled tribes (PoA) Act, 1989. basing on the statement of PW1, PW14 filed a memo under section 326,324,506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Secs.3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)(va) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 before the

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam. PW16/Ch.Penta Rao,

Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC /ST Cell, Srikakulam investigated the case on the instructions of Superintendent of police, Srikakulam vied his proceedings in C.No.1953/C­3/DCRB/SKL/2016 dt.7.5.2016 , he then visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements . On 13.5.2016 PW16 arrested all the accused and forwarded them to judicial custody on 14.5.2016. 

PW11/S.Sudha Sagar, Tahsildar issued caste certificates in respect of PW1 to PW3 certifying that PW1 belongs to scheduled caste/madiga , PW2 belongs to BC­D P.Velama by caste, PW3 belongs to scheduled caste/madiga, whereas accused NO.1 to 4 belongs to BC­D

Toorpu kapu by caste. PW12/Smt. R.Anuradha, medical officer, treated

PW1 to PW4 and PW6 and issued wound certificates and opined that the injuries on the person of PW1 are simple in nature, the injuries on the person of PW2 are grievous in nature, the injuries on the person of PW3 are grievous in nature, the injuries on the person of PW4 are simple in nature, the injuries on the person of PW6 are simple in nature.

7

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

Thus, all the accused assaulted PW1 to PW4 and PW6 with casuarina clubs at the casuarina tope near Sadhupeta village with such intention and knowledge that if PW1 to PW4 and PW6 had died, the accused would have been guilty of offence under section 302 of Indian

Penal Code, thereby committed an offence punishable under section 307 of

Indian penal Code. After completion of investigation and after receipt of wound certificates, the PW16 filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under sections 307, 326,324,506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)(v) and (va) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989. 

 03) On appearance of the accused No.1 to 4 before this court, copies of documents were supplied to them as required under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. This case was taken on file under sections 307, 326,324, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(s) 3(s) (v) and (va) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 2016. On hearing the Special

Public prosecutor and counsel for the accused No.1 to 4 on charges, charges under sections 3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 and Sections 307, 324,323 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code have been framed against accused No.1. charges under section 3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2) (va) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 and Sections 307, 324,326 and 506(ii) of

Indian Penal Code have been framed against accused No.2, charges under section 3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 and Sections 307, 324, and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code have been framed against accused No.3 and 4 , read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 4 in 8

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

Telugu, for which accused No.1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 , the prosecution examined PW1 to PW16 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 and

MO1 on its behalf. 

05. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused

No.1 to 4 were examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure informing them about the incriminating evidence available on record against them , for which they stated the same is false and no oral evidence is adduced on their behalf, but Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 which are relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW2,PW5 and PW9 are marked on their behalf. 

06.Heard the Special Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and heard the learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 4 .

07)Now the point for consideration, 

1. Whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused

No.1 for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(s) and

Sec.3(2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 and Sections 307, 324,323 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) Whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused No.2 for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)

(s) and Sec.3(2)(va) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 and Sec.

9

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

307, 324,326 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

3) Whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused

No. 3 and 4 for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 and Sections 307, 324 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt? 

08) The case of the prosecution is that, when PW1 along with

PW2 and PW5 approached the accused No.1 with regard to return back the land of PW2 and PW5 which was retained by accused No.1 even after completion of the lease period. When PW1 to PW4 and PW6 along with others visited the disputed site, accused No.1 to 4 beat PW1 to PW3 and

PW5 indiscriminately and also abused PW1 and PW3 by touching their caste.

Initially a case was registered basing on the statement of PW2 which was recorded in the hospital for the offences under sections 326,324,506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

In the statement it was mentioned that, they have leased out their land of Ac.0­50 cents in the year 2006 for a sum of Rs.35,000/­ to accused for a period of five years for cultivating the same, and accused

No.1 is resident of Kanugulavanipeta village. When accused No.1 has planted casuarina tope and even they have raised casuarina tope in the nearby land which belongs to them. After the expiry of the lease period , they questioned the accused No.1 to vacate the land, without vacating the 10

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

land the accused No.1 cut the casuarina wood and again planted casuarina in their land, since then there were disputes between the accused and themselves. They went to police station twice or thrice. 

On 27.4.2016 at about 11 a.m PW2 along with coolies i.e.,

PW1,PW5,PW3,LW6­Guruvu Polamma and PW6 and others visited their own land in order to cut the crop, by that time, accused No.1 to 4 were present at the tope along with two others with sticks and beat them , accused No.1 beat her with a stick and she got bleeding injuries, accused

No.2 beat her on left elbow , accused No.3 beat on her thighs with a stick and all the accused uttered that “ వర అలదరన చలపపలడర మనక చడ వరగడ అవతలద, మర భభమ పపక ఎవరభ రర" and all the accused beat

PW2,PW3,PW5 and PW6 and five other persons also sustained injuries on their hands, legs . Then all the accused tried to kill her husband/PW5 and

LW6/Polamma and that PW5 and Polamma ran away from that place and the villagers gathered there and rescued them.

09)During the course of investigation, PW14 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 29.4.2016 the injured person by name Savalapurapu Krishnaveni/PW1 who belongs to scheduled caste/Madiga community narrated that the accused knew her caste i.e., she is a member of a scheduled caste person and during beating accused No.1 abused her in the name of her caste name as “ దనవలల గడవల పరగనయ, మదగ లలజకతరన వదలదద కటటలడర" . Then a memo is filed before the Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,Srikakulam to add the offence under Sections

3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)(va) of SC & ST(PoA) Amendment Act,2015 and also 11

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

requested to transfer the original first information report to the court of

Special Judge for trial of cases under SC & ST (PoA) Act cum IV Addl.

District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam as contemplated under section 4(e) of SC & ST (PoA),2015.

On perusal of the evidence of PW1 basing on whose statement the offences were added under Sections of SC & ST (PoA) Act. She states that she is working as Secretary of Pragathiseela Mahila Sangham, their organization works on issues relating to women and also scheduled caste people and also poor farmers, she belongs to Maadiga community. She states that PW2/Sadhu Prabha and her husband approached her in the year 2­015 and informed that they are having land problems and asked her to settle the same. PW2 informed to her that they have leased out land to an extent of Ac.0­50 cents by mortgaging the same in the year 2006 and mortgage is of Rs.35,000/­ and period fixed is for five years. Even though the time is completed, accused No.1 did not return the land to her and accused No.1 tried to encroach the said land and requested her to come to the village to pacify the matter. She further stated that she accompanied with PW2 and PW5 in the month of September, 2015 to the house of accused No.1. Accused No.1 questioned on their arrival and she informed that she is an elder in scheduled caste community and when she questioned the land dispute of PW2 , accused No.1 retaliated and commented that she is no way concerned with the dispute and replied arrogantly. She further stated about the dispute has taken place and accused No.1 to 4 beat herself,

PW2 and others.

12

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

Here one thing has to be observed that initially in Ex.P1 statement, PW1 was shown as a cooli along with other coolies and they did not mention as to abuse made by the accused No.1 against PW1 by touching her caste name. Basing on the statement of PW1 at the time of investigation the offences under sections 3(1)(s) and Sec. 3(2)(va) of SC &

ST (PoA) Amendment Act,2015 were added and the case was transmitted to this court. PW1 in her evidence failed to state that accused No.1 abused her in filthy language by touching her caste name. 

The learned special Public Prosecutor failed to cross examine the witness/PW1 by seeking permission of the court to put adverse question which the defence will put when PW1 failed to depose as to abusing her in the name of caste. 

10) The learned counsel for the defence argued that, as per the

Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act, the Sub Divisional Police

Officer has to enquire into the case. But here, head constable has done the entire investigation which is in contravention of statutory provisions”.

In this regard he has relied as per rule 7 of the SC & ST (PoA) Rules, 1995, “ the investigation to be done by an officer specifically appointed by the State Government. In the instant case trial court held that the prosecution had not proved that PW11, the Sub Divisional Police officer who investigated the case was specifically appointed by the State

Government. No legal infirmity in the trial court recording acquittal” as held in Public Prosecutor , High Court of Andhra Pradesh vs. Kusuma

Mallaiah and others , reported in 2005(3) ALT (Crl.) 501( A.P.). 

13

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

The learned counsel for the defence further relied on “ it would appear in this case that the Sub Divisional Police has not even examined and recorded the statements of eye witnesses of the occurrence. There is nothing to show what exactly the Sub Divisional Police Officer has done by way of investigation into the offence. It is however true that during investigation, the investigating officer may be required to be assisted by the other police officers . The mere fact that some other officer has assisted the investigating officer does not detract from the fact that investigation was done by the officer concerned. But, in this case, the Sub Inspector­LW8 is not stated to have merely assisted the Sub Divisional Police Officer in his investigation but the very categoric assertion is that LW8­the Sub Inspector conducted the investigation himself. “ Verification of Investigation” and lending his signature to the charge­sheet by the Sub­Divisional Police

Officer does not satisfy the statutory requirement under Rule that offences under the Act shall be investigated by a specifically appointed officer not below the rank of Sub Divisional Police Officer”, as held in E.Seshaiah vs.

State of A.P. and another, reported in 2000(2) ALT ( Crl.) 91 (A.P.) .

On perusal of the material on record and the evidence of

PW16/the Sub Divisional Police Officer in his cross examination he admitted that prior to his investigation, his subordinates have investigated into the matter and they have examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence and prepared scene observation report and seized material objects.

Prior to his initiating investigation his subordinates had started the 14

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

investigation. Proceedings were issued in his name vide C.No.1953/C3­

DCRB­SKL/2016 on 7.5.2016.

In this connection , it is necessary to refer Rule 7 of SC & ST (PoA) Rules, 1995 that …

Investigating Officer.­ (1) An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of

Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the State

Government, Director­General of Police, Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time.

(2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub­rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director­General of Police of the State Government.

(3) The Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the State

Government, Director of Prosecution the officer­in­charge of

Prosecution and the Director­General of Police shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all investigations done by the investigating officer.

15

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

On perusal of the material on record, initially the Head Constable and Sub Inspector of police has recorded the statements of some of the witnesses and later the Deputy Superintendent of police recorded the evidence of witnesses. Here the investigation is commenced by the Head constable and Sub Inspector of police and later the Sub Divisional Police

Officer recorded some of the statements of witnesses. So, they have deviated the rule 7 of the SC & ST (PoA) Rules, 1985 which is an infirmity. 

11)On perusal of the scene observation report/Ex.P2, the place of occurrence is mentioned as Srikakulam rural mandal, Sadhupeta village, near mud road of Sadhu Satyanarayana casuarina tope.

12)PW1/Savalapurapu Krishnaveni states that on 27.4.2016 at about 11 a.m she along with Sadhu Prabha/PW2 and her husband/PW5,

T.Appalaraju and N.Dalayya proceeded to the disputed site, they did not entered there in the disputed site. PW2 and her husband/PW5 and others tried to cut the yield of casuarina trees in their own site but not disputed site. Both the disputed site and own site are situated at same area but situated at some distance. The distance in between Sadhupeta and disputed site is situated at about 10 square yards. She further states on that day no trees were cut down when they tried to cut the trees, the incident was happened.

12)PW2/Sadhu Prabha states that at about 1 ½ year or two years ago, they went to their land at about 10.30 or 11 a.m herself, her 16

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

husband/PW5, Bora Koteswara Rao/PW6, PW1, PW3 and PW4 and

Polamma and some other coolies went to their land. She states that herself and PW1 were at the bund, her husband and coolies entered into the land.

13)PW3/Naviri Dalayya states that, by the time he was at the tank bed along with PW2,PW4 and PW6 and they were proceeding to attend the coolie work, at that time accused No.1 came along with three others i.e., accused No.2 to 4 and accused No.1 beat PW2 with a stick on her head.

PW4/T.Appalaraju, states that, he along with PW1 to PW3 and others proceeded to the survey garden of Satyanarayana for doing coolie work, himself and PW3 and others are ready to proceed to attend work. At that time accused No.1 to 4 abused PW1 in filthy language by touching her caste name and beat them. PW5/Sadhu Satyanarayana states that on 27.4.2016 at about 11 a.m himself, his wife/PW2, LW6/Polamma, PW6,

PW3 and PW4 along with coolies went to another land. He entered into the land with coolies to show the same to them. His wife and others are at the tank bund. He further states that accused No.1 beat PW2 with a stick on her head and accused No.2 also beat PW2 on her left hand with stick and accused No.1 abused PW1 . PW6/Bora Koteswara Rao states that on 26.4.2016 at about 10.30 or 11 a.m , himself, PW2,PW1,PW4 and PW5 along with coolies went to the other garden of PW2 and PW5 took some coolies and shown the boundaries. At that time, accused No.1 raised cries along with survey sticks. Accused No.1 beat PW2 with a stick on her head.

14)PW10./Sadhu Lakshminarayana, who is one of the mediator for the scene observation report, he did not state where the scene of offence 17

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

is located. In the cross examination, he stated that MO1 is there on the northern side of the road. The scene of offence when compared with scene observation report and the evidence of prosecution witnesses and mediator for the scene observation report are different from one to the other, that one says that it is a disputed land and other says that it is a tank bed, and other says it is a tank bund. So, there is no clarity as to the exactly where the scene of offence is situated..

PW1 in her evidence states that, she did not enter into the disputed land. When PW2 and her husband./PW5 try to cut the yield of casuarina trees in their own site, but not in the disputed site. Then accused

No.1 to 4 attacked PW2 with sticks. Accused No.1 beat PW2 with a stick on her head, accused No.1 also attacked her on her head with a stick.

Accused NO.3 joined and accused NO.1 attacked her on her both legs with stick, accused No.2 beat her with a stick on her right hand, accused No.4 beat her with a stick on her left thigh and accused No.1 kicked on her back with his legs and accused No.1 to 4 also attacked PW2,PWPW3,PW4 and

PW6 and all of them received bleeding injuries. 

PW2 states that accused No.1 attacked her with a stick.

Accused NO.2 attacked her on her left hand with a casurina stick, accused

NO.3 beat her with a casuarina stick on her left leg thigh, accused NO.4 beat her with a casuarina stick on her back, when PW1 tried to came to her rescue, then accused No.1 shouted in filthy language by touching her caste name and accused NO.1 beat PW1 with a casuarina stick on her head, accused NO.2 to 4 surrounded PW1 and beat PW1 with a casuarina stick.

18

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

PW4 tried to came to their rescue, Accused No.1 beat him on his head with a casuarina stick, accused No.1 also beat PW6 and PW3 with same casuarina sticks on their head. The other accused also beat them indiscriminately. Here PW1 failed to state that she came there to rescue

PW2 and further PW4 has tried to rescue both of them and also PW1 failed to state as to accused abusing her in filthy language by touching her caste name. 

PW3 states that, accused No.1 beat PW2 with a stick on her head. The other accused beat him and also PW4 . He was beaten by accused No.1 on his head with a stick, accused No.2 and 4 beat him with a stick on his left hand , accused No.3 beat him with a stick on his back. But he did not state about the injuries of PW1 and abusing of PW1 and also as to the other injuries mentioned by PW2. PW4 states that, at first , accused

No.1 beat PW2, the remaining accused No.2 to 4 beat PW2 with stick. At that time PW1 was present and all the accused abused her by touching her caste name in filthy language . All the accused beat PW1 with sticks indiscriminately. Accused NO.1 beat him with a stick on his head, accused

No.2 and 3 beat him with sticks on his left hand fingers , accused No.4 beat him with a stick on his head. All the accused beat PW3 and also PW6. 

PW5 stated that he along with his wife and others went to the another land and he entered into the land with coolies to show the same to them, . By the time he was showing the land to them, he heard that “ కటటలడర" , then he rushed there and noticed accused No.1 and others beat

PW2, and when PW1 raised cries as “ కటటసస ననర" , accused abused PW1 in 19

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

filthy langauge by touching her caste, thereby accused No.1 beat PW1 with a stick on her head, accused No.2 beat PW1 on her both legs with stick, accused No.1 beat PW4 with stick on his head, accused No.1 beat PW3 with stick on his head, accused NO.3 beat PW3 with a stick on his hands , accused No.1 also beat PW6 with a stick on his head, and accused NO.2 beat PW6 with sticks on his legs, accused No.1 to 4 rounded PW6 and beat him. 

PW6 states that, all the accused abused PW1 in filthy language by touching her caste name and accused No.1 beat PW2 with a stick on her head, accused NO.2 to 4 attacked PW2 with casuarina sticks indiscriminately. Accused No.1 attacked PW1 with stick on her head, accused No.2 to 4 beat PW1 with sticks indiscriminately. 

 No doubt PW1 to PW6 stated the injuries on their person were made by the accused. They all stated in a different way as to who beat the other. It is not necessary that all the witnesses i.e, PW1 to PW6 should be consistent as to beating. But here PW1 failed to state about the abuse made against her by touching her caste name. The other aspect there is no clarity of the scene of offence where the incident has taken place. One from the other prosecution witnesses deposed in a different manner as to the exact occurrence of the incident, with regard to the scene of offence. PW7 is the attestor of the agreement to sell between accused No.1 and PW5. He stated that, he advised PW5 to alienate the said land as accused No.1 is not paying the amount, for which he informed accused No.1 through cell phone and he also stated that he has no objection . Later he came to know about 20

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

beating of PW1 to PW6 by accused NO.1 to 4. PW8 /Mukalla Rama Rao states that , PW5 demanded additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/­, on that accused No.1 agreed that he will pay money after a couple of days. Further

PW5 informed that accused No.1 did not repaid the amount. Later he came to know about the incident happened at agricultural land. He had witnessed PW6 at the center with injuries. PW9/Gangu Narendra Kumar, stated that even though the time is expired, but accused No.1 did not deliver the property. When PW5 informed that he is in need of money that he has to conduct a function of his daughter, they telephoned to accused

No.1 but accused No.1 did not respond. After 15 or 20 days the accused

NO.1 came and he advised accused No.1 to pay the money or redeliver the land. But accused No.1 replied the land is not required to him. They fixed the rate for one cent is Rs.13,500/­ Accused No.1 promised that he will pay money on Wednesday. Later accused No.1 did not shown his face and did not respond for his phone call. Further accused No.1 did not respond and they expressed their inability to PW5. Ex.D3 is marked through this witness that accused No.1 and 2 stated that they will purchase cent at Rs.50000/­ and within two or three days they will pay Rs.2,00,000/­”. The evidence of

PW7 and PW8 is a hearsay evidence as they came to know about the incident and they were not present at the time of incident. 

PW11/S.Sudha Sagar, Tahisldar, who issued caste certificates of PW1 to PW3 stating that, PW1 belongs to scheduled caste/madiga , PW2 belongs to Velama by caste, PW3 belongs to schedule caste/Madiga.

Accused No.1 to 4 belongs to Turpu Kapu by caste. 

21

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

PW12/R.Anuradha, medical officer, RIMS hospital, Srikakulam who examined PW1 and found the following injuries 

i) contusion of size 7 x ½ x ½ cm over left frontal parietal region of scalp with irregular margin red in colour. 

ii) Diffuse swelling over right fore arm. 

Iii) Linear contusion over right knee and left knee red in colour.

X.Ray taken. As per Radiologist opinion above said injuries are simple in nature. Ex.P10 is the wound certificate of PW1 issued by her. 

On the same day, she also examined Sadhu Prabha/PW2 and found the following injuries..

I) Contused laceration of 5x ½ x ½ cm over right parietal region of scalp with irregular margin red in colour. 

ii) another laceration 4 x1/2 x ½ cm over vertex region.

Iii) Diffuse swelling over left fore arm. 

As per radiologist opinion, injury No.3 is grievous in nature and injuries 1 and 2 are simple in nature. Ex.P11 is the wound certificate of

PW2 issued by her. 

On the same day, she examined PW3/Dalayya and found the following injuries.

i)contused laceration of 4 x ½ x ½ cm over right parietal region of scalp with irregular margin red in colour.

ii) Deformity present at left arm. 

22

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

As per radiologist opinion, injury No.2 is grievous in nature and injuri

No.1 is simple in nature. Ex.P12 is the wound certificate of PW3 issued by her. 

On the same day, she also examined PW4/Appalaraju and found the following injuries, 

i)contused laceration of 5 x ½ x ½ cm over left parietal region of scalp with irregular margin red in colour.

City scan of brain was taken. As per the Radiologist opinion, the above injury is simple in nature. Ex.P13 is the wound certificate of PW4 issued by her. 

On the same day, sh also examined PW6/Koteswara Rao and found the following injuries…

i)contused laceration of 5 x ½ x ½ cm on vertex region red in colour.

ii) a diffused swelling over right knee and right hand.

As per radiologist opinion the above injuries are simple in nature.

The age of the injury is one day. Ex.P14 is the wound certificate of PW6 issued by her. 

As per the Doctor the incident was happened at Sadhupeta village due to violence . The age and duration of the injury is less than one day. 

15)The learned counsel for the defence relied that, Few minutes thereafter accused NO.1 to 4 armed with knives came to PW1’s house in a drunken state and stabbed PW1. When deceased tried to rescue, accused

No.1 stabbed her with a knife. She succumbed while PW1 sustained 23

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

bleeding injuries. Motive part of the case looks incredulous. Even if accused No.1 assumed had any motive , accused NO.2 to 4 would not go to extent of attacking PW1 and deceased. No sufficient motive . Herein express FIR received by Magistrate after about 12 hours subsequent to its registration in police station. Gives rise to suspension that it was ante­ timed, more so because no explanation for such delay by prosecution. One more dent is, blood stained clothes not produced. Opinion of Doctor probablises defence theory, that deceased would have accidentally fallen on a bamboo stick and sustained fatal injury. PW2 is son of PW1. Their evidence is interested and not trustworthy. Evidence of PW5 is hearsay and that of PW4 not fully reliable. Evidence of PW6, another eye witness, does not inspire confidence.

, When it is the case of the prosecution that the occurrence has taken place within the residential premises of P.W.1 and the deceased under a temporary shed (pendal/pandiri) it completely defies any reason or logic that the deceased who was allegedly stabbed with a knife on her neck will be taken outside her house and placed on a cot in the street when it was raining and electrical lights were off. No explanation whatsoever has been forthcoming from the prosecution to explain this unnatural conduct.

When a person was stabbed and has received grave injury, it is the natural course of human conduct that the nearest kith and kin will at the first instance attend to the person at the same place where he has received injuries, more so when such place happens to be his own house and shift him to a nearby hospital without any loss of time. P.W.1 and all his family members being the villagers, and in the absence of any Doctor, it is not possible to believe that they have concluded on their own that the deceased has died out of injuries without even trying to provide her with first aid by rushing her to a nearby 24

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

hospital. Without taking these measures, nobody is expected to leave a seriously injured person to her fate by placing her on a cot on the street like an orphan. Consequently, since appellants/accused Nos.2 to 4 have already undergone imprisonment and they are at large, appellant/accused No.1 alone shall be set at liberty forthwith, as held in

Narasapuram Balaiah vs. State of A.P. represented by its Public prosecutor reported in 2016(2) ALT Criminal 449 (D.B.) ( A.P.)

The learned counsel for the defence further relied that,

Generally in the criminal cases, discrepancies in the evidence of witness is bound to happen because there would be considerable gap between the date of incident and the time of deposing evidence before the Court. , but if these contradictions create such a serious doubt in the mind of the Court about the truthfulness of the witnesses and it appears to the Court that there is clear improvement, then it is not safe to rely on such evidence. In the case on hand, the evidence of eye witnesses is only consistent on the aspect of injuries inflicted on the deceased but on all other factors there are lot of contradictions which go to the root of the matter, as held in

Krishnegowda and others vs. State of Karnataka by Arkalgud police reported in 2017 SAR ( Criminal) 540. 

The learned counsel for the defence further relied that ,

Whether scene of offence shifted. Injuries on deceased whether possible with MO1 knife. Importance of FIR. Prompt first information eliminates chances of embellishment and false implication of deceased.

Delay may result in disbelieving the version of witnesses. Delay may defeat justice. Evidence showing that FIR was not at all prepared at the time of alleged by prosecution i.e., at about 1.30 a.m In the case, the FIR was not 25

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

the basis for investigation as it should be. FIR is hit by section 162 Cr.P.C.

Since the earliest version is suppressed the only conclusion that can be drawn is that after due deliberations, FIR brought into existence to suit prosecution case. Only after consulting PW6 and PW7, FIR was brought into existence” as held in Thummala Lovaraju v. State of A.P. reported in 2009(2) ALT ( Crl.) 135 ( DB) A.P.. 

16)When the police observed the scene there was no blood stains at the scene of offence and nothing was mentioned in the scene observation report . By relying on the above citations as the scene of offence was not correctly established, as there is a discrepancy in the evidence of one witness to the other witness as to the exact scene of offence and also not stated the motive of visiting the private land belonging to PW2 and PW5.

Further there is initially one FIR was made out on the statement of PW2 and later after recording the statement of PW1, the same was altered and

PW1 failed to state as to abusing her on the name of her caste and also there is a discrepancy of beating with sticks by accused No.1 to 4 to PW1 to

PW6. As per criminal law, it is a settled principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Merely the Doctor was examined and issued wound certificates and there are injuries on the body of PW1 to PW6 that itself is not sufficient and there is no responsibility of the accused to explain about the injuries . There is no proof of injuries beyond reasonable doubt, that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is contradictory and there were lot of discrepancies and at the time of recording of statement by the police and altering the first 26

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

information report are the lacunaes in the investigation process. So, it creates a doubt as to beating of the accused and the case of the prosecution failed on all these grounds. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 for the charges levelled against them beyond all reasonable doubt. .

17)In the result, accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Sections 307, 324, 323 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Sections 307, 324, 326 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, accused No.3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)

(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Sections 307, 324 and 506(ii) of

Indian Penal Code, and accused No.1 to 4 are acquitted under section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences.

The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 shall stands dismissed after appeal time is over. 

The MO 1(four sticks) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. 

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24th day of June, 2019. 

Sd/M.Babitha Prl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC: Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989­Cum­

Additional District Judge,

Srikakulam 27

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

 PROSECUTION : 

PW1 : Savalapurapu Krishna Veni

PW2 : Sadhu Prabha

PW3 : Naviri Dalayya

PW4 :T.Appalaraju

PW5 : Sadhu Satyanarayana

PW6:Bora Koteswara Rao

PW7 :Mukkalla Venkata Appala Lakshmi 

PW8 :Mukalla Rama Rao. 

PW9 : Gangu Narendra Kumar. 

PW10: Sadhu Laxminarayana.

PW11 :S.Sudha Sagar, Tahsildar.

PW12 :R.Anuradha, Medical officer, RIMS hospital, Srikakulam.

PW13:B.Yerramnaidu, head Constable. 

PW14:M.Madhusudhana Rao, Sub Inspector of police, Srikakulam I town Pollice station. 

PW15 : T.Usha Kumari, Radiologist, RIMS hospital, Srikakulam.

PW16 : Ch.Penta Rao, Deputy Superintendent of police, Srikakulam. 

FOR DEFENCE : 

NONE 

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Statement of PW2. 

28

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

Ex.P2 : Scene observation report. 

ExP3 : Caste certificate of accused No.1

Ex.P4 : Caste certificate of accused No.2

Ex.P5 : Caste certificate of accused No.3

Ex.P6 :Caste certificate of accused No.4

Ex.P7 : Caste certificate of PW1.

Ex.P8 : Caste certificate of PW2

Ex.P9 : Caste certificate of PW3

Ex.P10 : Wound certificate of PW1

Ex.P11: Wound certificate of PW2. 

Ex.P12 : Wound certificate of PW3.

Ex.P13 : Wound certificate of PW4. 

Ex.P14 : Wound certificate of PW6. 

Ex.P 15 : First Information report in Cr.No.102/106

Ex.P16 : Rough sketch.

Ex.P17 : Alteration memo .

Ex.P18 and Ex.P19 : X.Rays two in number relating to PW2.

Ex.P20 : X.Ray of PW3

Ex.P21 :Proceedings of the Superintendent of police, Srikakulam.

DEFENCE : 

Ex.D1 : Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

Ex.D2 : Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5.

Ex.D3 : Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW9.

29

SC 26/2016

Dt. 24.06.2019

Material Objects Marked:

MO 1 : Four sticks.

Sd/M.Babitha Prl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC: Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989­Cum­

Additional District Judge,

Srikakulam //by order // //true copy//

Chief Admn. Officer 

Copy to 

The District Collector, Srikakulam. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam. The Special Public Prosecutor, Srikakulam.

30

SC 26/2016

Dt.

Dis No. /

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS DIVISION, -SRIKAKULAM.

Before the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act,

1989-cum-Addl.District and Sessions Judge At Srikakulam

Present: Smt. M.Babitha, Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. FAC: Special Judge for trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act- cum-Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam.

Monday, THE 24th DAY OF JUNE, 2019

SESSIONS CASE No. 26 OF 2016

( arose out of crime No. 102/2016 of Srikakulam rural

police station )

Name of the ComplainantState represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC /ST Cell, Srikakulam.

Name of the Accused1.Mamidi Siva Prasad, son of late Sugreevudu, aged about 44 years, Caste/T.Kapu,Kanugulavanipeta village and panchayat, Srikakulam rural mandal.

2. Mamidi Srinivasa Rao son of late Sugreevudu, aged about 50 years, Caste/T.Kapu,Kanugulavanipeta village and panchayat, Srikakulam rural mandal.

3) Mamidi Ravi son of late Sugreevudu, aged about 40 years, Caste/T.Kapu,Kanugulavanipeta village and panchayat, Srikakulam rural mandal.

4) Ippili Bharath @ Bhaskara Rao, son of Adinarayana, aged 35 years, Caste/T.Kapu,Kanugulavanipeta village and panchayat, Srikakulam rural mandal.

31

SC 26/2016

Dt.

OffenceAccused No.1 : under sections 3(1) (s) and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act and Sections 307, 324, 323 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code.

Accused No.2 : under sections 3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)(va) of SC & ST (PoA) Act and Sections 307, , 326 , 324 and 506(ii) of Indian penal Code Accused No.3 and 4 : under sections 3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act and Sections 307, 324 and 506(ii) of Indian penal Code Date and place of Offence 27.4.2016 at about 11 a.m at Casurina tope of Sadhupeta village of Srikakulam rural mandal.

Date of apprehension of accused13-05-2016

Explanation for delay On appearance of the accused No.1 to 4 before this court, charges have been framed against the accused on 6.4.2017, on 12.7.2017 PW`1 examined in Chief in part . On 20.12.2017 PW1 examined and MO1 marked. On 10.1.2018 PW2 examined and Ex.P1 was marked. On 15.3.2018 PW3 and PW4 were examined. On 13.6.2018 PW5 examined in chief . On 25.7.2018 PW5 was cross examined and Ex.XD2 marked. On 31.7.2018 PW6 examined . On 9.10.2018 PW7 examined in chief . On 23.10.2018 PW7 was cross examined. On 8.11.2018 PW8 examined, PW9 examined and and Ex.D3 is marked. On 4.12.2018 PW10 examined and Ex.P2 marked. On 18.12.2018 PW11 examined, Ex.P3 to Ex.P9 marked. PW12 examined, Ex.P10 to Ex.P14 marked, on 8.1.2019 PW13 examined and Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 marked. On 26.2.2019 PW14 examined and Ex.P17 marked. On 13.5.2019 as per orders in

Crl.M.P.76/2019 , PW15 was

summoned and examined and Ex.P18 to Ex.P20 were marked. On 6.6.2019 PW16 examined and Ex.P21 was marked. Prosecution 32

SC 26/2016

Dt.

side evidence was closed. On 18.6.2019 the accused No.1 to 4 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and and on 19.6.2019 arguments of both sides were heard and posted to 24.6.2019 for judgment. On 24.6.2019 the judgment was pronounced. In the result, accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)

(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and

SENTENCE ORDER ORDER

Sections 307, 324, 323 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Sections 307, 324, 326 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, accused No.3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(s) and Sec.3(2)

(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Sections 307, 324 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, and accused No.1 to 4 are acquitted under section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 shall stands dismissed after appeal time is over. The MO 1(four sticks) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. 

Sd/M.Babitha Prl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC: Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989­Cum­

Additional District Judge,

Srikakulam //by Order//

Chief Admn. Officer

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE::

SRIKAKULAM.

Present: Smt.M.Babitha,

Principal District Judge. 

THURSDAY, THIS THE 28 th DAY OF MAY, 2020

O.S. No. 19/2017

Between:

Potnuru Dharma Raju, S/o late Appalasuryanarayana, Hindu, aged 47 years, business, residing at Door No.7­250, Jayalaxmi Nagar­II, Narasannapeta Town and mandal, Srikakulam district. 

...Plaintiff. 

And:

1. Korada Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged about 60 years, business, resident of Door No.23­45, Maruthi Nagar­I, Y.S.R Junction, Narasannapeta town, Srikakulam district.

2. Korada Venkata Dhruva Kishore, S/o Korada Bhaskara Rao, Hindu, aged about 36 years, Proprietor of Dream Rare Collections, residing at door No.11­12­47/12, near Mutyalamma temple, Kaki veedhi, Srikakulam town, mandal and Srikakulam district.

3. Sana Sirisha, wife of Sana Jagadeeswara Rao alias Babu, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Housewife, resident of Door No.15­ 3­8, Kapu veedhi, Patha Post Office Road, Palasa town and mandal, Srikakulam district.

4. Ladi Santhakumari, W/o Ladi Ramu, Hindu, aged about 32 years, residing at Door No.10­26­54, Etcherla Veedhi, near Boddemma temple, Patha Bus Stand, Srikakulam town, mandal and district.

...Defendants.

This suit coming on 12.02.2020 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Murali Mohana Rao, learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri D.V.Ramana Murty and Sri D. Neelannaidu, learned Advocates for the Defendant No.1, Sri.J.Thirupati Rao, learned Advocate for the Defendant No.2 and the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 having been called absent and set exparte; and having heard both sides and stood over till this day for consideration due to intervention of COVID ­19, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

2OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

01.This suit is filed by the plaintiff to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants to direct the defendants to execute valid sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property after receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.20,00,000/­ (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) from him; if the defendants fails to execute valid sale deed in favour of plaintiff, this Court may be pleased to register the valid sale deed in favour of plaintiff on behalf of defendants after receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.20,00,000/­ from the plaintiff or in the alternative direct the 1st defendant to pay the advance sale consideration amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ together with interest @ 24% per annum from 30.04.2014 till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are that the 2nd defendant is son, 3rd and 4th defendants are daughters of the 1st defendant. 1St defendant approached the plaintiff agreeing to sell the terraced shop bearing Door No.23­470 situated to the western side of G.T.Road (old

NH­5 road), in old bus stand, Narasannapeta town and panchayathi, for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/­(Rupees thirty lakhs only) for the purpose of his family expenses and discharging of sundry debts for which the 1st defendant executed an agreement of sale on 30.04.2014 in favour of plaintiff in the presence of attesters and scribe. At the time of execution of the said agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff, he has paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ (Rupees five lakhs only) as 3OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam advance in the presence of attestors and scribe and the 1st defendant has got mentioned in the said agreement of sale that he has got the schedule mentioned property through partition among his brothers and that there are no disputes about the same. The condition stipulated as mentioned in the agreement of sale dated 30.04.2014 is that the 1st defendant agreed to register the schedule mentioned property within 6 months i.e., before 29.10.2014 after receiving the balance sale consideration amount from the plaintiff. Subsequent to the execution of the said agreement of sale, the plaintiff personally and through elders approached the 1st defendant by expressing his readiness and willingness that he is ready to pay the balance sale consideration amount to the schedule mentioned property and requested the 1st defendant to register the valid sale deed in favour of the plaintiff but the 1st defendant postpone the same on some pretext or other while admitting his liability.

That while so on 08.05.2014 and 26.04.2014 the 2nd defendant at the instance of 1st defendant in collusion with him with malafide intention got issued notices through his advocate Sri

P.Ramanjaneyulu, Srikakulam mentioned that he and the 1st defendant got right under a registered partition deed dated 11.10.1982 which content is suppressed by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff at the time of execution of said agreement of sale in his favour. The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the 1st defendant believing his version that he has got exclusive right and title over the schedule mentioned property. After receipt of the said 4OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam notices from 2nd defendant, he informed about the same to the 1st defendant for which he told the plaintiff that he agreed to register the schedule mentioned property in favour of plaintiff along with the said

Korada Dhruva Kishore (2nd defendant) and his legal heirs i.e., daughters (defendants 3 and 4) after receiving the entire balance sale consideration amount from the plaintiff.

That while so, at the request of 1st defendant on 19.08.2014, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.40,000/­ as advance and an amount of

Rs.4,60,000/­ as further advance on 13.10.2014 on which date the 1st defendant made an endorsement on the reverse side of the said agreement of sale for the said two payments i.e., Rs.5,00,000/­ in the presence of attesters and scribe. Thus the plaintiff paid the total sum of Rs.10,00,000/­ under the said agreement of sale dated 30.04.2014 towards advance. Subsequently, the plaintiff approached the 1st defendant personally and through elders by expressing his ready and willingness to perform his part of contract of sale, and requested the 1st defendant to bring the said Korada Dhruva Kishore (2nd defendant) and his legal heirs i.e., daughters (3rd and 4th defendants ) for registration of valid sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the schedule mentioned property for which the plaintiff will bear the stamp duty and registration expenses etc., as the 1st defendant agreed to take responsibility to bring the defendants 2 to 4 to the Registrar’s office at the time of execution of the valid sale deed in favour of plaintiff and further the 1st defendant agreed to fix the date about the same by informing to the plaintiff but the 1st defendant postpone the 5OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam same on some pretext or other while admitting his liability. So the plaintiff got issued notice dated 13.12.2014 which was registered on 15.12.2014 to the 1st defendant requesting him to execute valid sale deed by bringing his son Korada Druva Kishore (2nd defendant) and his legal heirs/ defendant Nos. 3 and4. On 02.02.2015, the 1st defendant gave false reply notice then the plaintiff approached the 1st defendant and questioned him about his false reply for which the 1st defendant stated that it is only a formal one and he agreed to register the sale deed in favour of plaintiff by bringing his son Korada Druva

Kishore and his legal heirs i.e., defendants 3 & 4. Subsequently, the plaintiff approached number of times to the 1st defendant personally and through elders to execute valid sale deed in favour of plaintiff but the 1st defendant failed to do so. Hence, the suit.

03.The 1st defendant filed his written statement denying the contents of the plaint as untrue and incorrect. The plaintiff is as tenant of 1st defendant to the suit schedule property since several years by doing his business on a monthly rent of Rs.1000/­ in it and used to save the same to the 1st defendant and it is increasing from time to time and accordingly now the monthly rent is paying an amount of Rs.3000/­ to the schedule property . At the time of handed over the schedule property, the 1st defendant along with 2nd defendant jointly executed a rent deed with the plaintiff. Thereafter some disputes arose in between the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant in respect of properties of 1st defendant. The plaintiff has known fully well about the said disputes.

6OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

The schedule property exclusively belongs to the 1st defendant which was devolved on him under a registered partition deed dated 11.10.1982 along with his brother and the said fact known to the plaintiff, while so the 1st defendant wants to sell the schedule property for his necessities to discharge sundry debts and also for his family expenses for which the plaintiff agreed to purchase the schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/­. After pursuing the partition deed entered into the contract by the plaintiff.

Accordingly the 1st defendant executed an agreement of sale infavour of plaintiff on 30.04.2014 after receiving an amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ as advance sale consideration subsequent and the time for stipulation contracts for six months positively to the said agreement, the 1st defendant personally requested the plaintiff that he is ready and willing to execute the registered sale deed in terms of agreement several times and the plaintiff dragon the same saying that there is lot of time for performance of contract. 

The plaintiff without having money entered into the agreement with the 1st defendant and hence whenever demanded by the 1st defendant postpone the same from time to time and did not get ready to fulfill his part of contract. While so the plaintiff colluded with the 2nd defendant by taking advantage that the rent deed was executed by defendants 1 and 2 and disputes between them in business even though knows fully well the suit schedule property exclusively belongs to the 1st defendant got issued notices to him through 2nd defendant. The said fact did not disclose to the 1st defendant and 7OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam paid Rs.40,000/­ on 19.08.2014 and Rs.4,60,000/­ to the 1st defendant and obtained endorsements on the agreement of sale whenever the 1st defendant demanded the plaintiff to take sale deed after paying the balance amount. The plaintiff assured and promised that he will pay the entire balance within the stipulated time i.e., on or before 29.10.2014. So saying postponed the issue and procrastinate his part of performance of contract. Surprisingly after laps of stipulation time the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 13.12.2014 informing that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract and demanded the 1st defendant to execute sale deed along with his legal heirs as the 2nd defendant issued notices to him that he got share in the schedule property even though the plaintiff knows very well that the schedule property exclusively belongs to the 1st defendant with an evil idea to avoid his liability to perform his part of contract and also cover up his lacunas. The 1st defendant sent a reply that he never denied the execution of registered sale deed in terms of agreement of sale and he is ready to execute the sale deed and informed that the suit schedule property exclusively belongs to him and there is no need to bring his son as he is not party to the agreement and no one has got right and title under law. After receipt of reply the plaintiff kept quite till date of filing of his suit and filed the same to cover up his lacunas on the before date of limitation. So it is clear that he never ready and willing to perform his part of contract. If really the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract what prevented him to file suit after receipt of reply. The 8OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam intention of 1st defendant to sell his schedule property to discharge debts due by him to avoid from paying interest but the plaintiff intentionally created the 1st defendant and caused mental agony.

More so the 1st defendant paid interest to a tune of Rs.5,00,000/­ so far. The plaintiff avoid to pay the rent to the schedule property since the date of agreement till date and the plaintiff also liable to pay damages of Rs.2,00,000/­ in causing mental agony which cannot be compensated by way of any more. The suit is frivolers and versions one as such the plaintiff is liable to pay exemplary costs under section 35 (B) of CPC., further this defendant reserves his right to file

additional costs if necessary. Hence pays for dismissal of suit with

compensatory costs.

04.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement denying the contents of the plaint as untrue and incorrect. On 07.07.2009 the father of the 2nd defendant and this defendant gave a schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff on a lease deed for a period of 3 years per month rent of Rs.100/­ and security deposit for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ and thereby this 2nd defendant also signed on the lease deed. Accordingly the plaintiff is doing the business and subsequently this 2nd defendant came to know as he is residing at

Srikakulam town along with his family members including the parents of this defendant. The plaintiff paid the enhanced rent of

Rs.3000/­ after completion of the lease period to the 1st defendant and the same security deposit as already given. In the meanwhile 9OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam there is some family disputes between the 2nd defendant and his parents in the year 2011 later on wards and thereby the 2nd defendant father trying to sell away or alienate all properties to the 3rd parties, then the 2nd defendant gave a legal notice on 13.05.2014 and also paper publication in Eenadu in respect of the suit schedule property against the parents of this defendant and also the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property as the things stands thus the parents of the 2nd defendant is harassing in different methods and ways to the 2nd defendant then the 2nd defendant raised several disputes between the caste and other elders even though the 1st defendant did not cared to anybody and thereby the 2nd defendant on the advice of the elders filed a partition suit in OS 287 / 2015 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Srikakulam for partition in respect of the suit schedule property. In the said suit the plaintiff also party to the proceedings. The plaintiff very well knows about the family disputes of the 1st and 2nd defendants.

On 11.10.1982 the father of the 1st defendant while partition the properties this schedule mentioned property of the plaintiff given share to this defendant and also to the 1st defendant and thereby the 1st defendant has no legal right to sell away or given to lease without the consent of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff’ has no legal right over the schedule motioned property even after expiry of the lease deed

dated 7.7.2019. The 1st defendant used to collect the rent from the

plaintiff as 1st defendant is residing at Srikakulam town what is the transaction taken place between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff 10OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam not known to this defendant, that itself shows the plaintiff and the 1st defendant with the collusion of the 3rd and 4th defendants filed this false and vexatious suit against the 2nd defendant to grab the suit schedule property and the suit is barred by limitation thereby no bonafide grounds. The suit is bad for mis­joinder and non­joinder of necessary parties. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

05.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial. 

1.Whether the plaintiff performed p0on his part of contract and shown his readiness and if so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 30. 04.2014 as prayed for ?

2.Whether the 1st defendant got exclusive right to execute the agreement of sale infavour of the plaintiff ?

3.Whether the agreement of sale entered by the plaintiff with the 1st defendant is valid ?

4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the advance amount of Rs. 10,00,000­00 from the defendants with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum on the advance amount from the date of sale agreement dated 30.04.2014 till the date of realization ?

5.Whether defendants 2 to 4 are necessary parties to the suit ?

6.To what relief ?

06.After settlement of issues, on behalf of the plaintiff, he got examined himself as PW.1 and examined one of the attestor as PW.2 and also examined one Beavara Ramu as PW.3 and got marked as

Ex.A.1 agreement of sale dated 30.04.2014 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff.Ex.A.2 is the legal notice dated 11OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam 08.05.2014 issued by the 2nd defendant through his advocate to the plaintiff. Ex.A.3 is the another legal notice dated 26.05.2014 issued by the 2nd defendant through his counsel to the plaintiff. Ex.A.4 is the office copy of registered legal notice dated 13.12.2014 issued by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant through his counsel. Ex.A.5 is the reply legal notice dt.02.02.2015 issued by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff through his counsel. Ex.A.6 is the certified Photostat copy of plaint in O.S 287 of 2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Srikakulam filed by the 2nd defendant against the plaintiff and others which is marked subject to objection.

7.After completion of the plaintiff evidence, the 1st defendant got examined himself as DW.1, the wife of 1st defendant is examined as DW.2 and the father in­law of 1st defendant examined as

DW.3. On behalf of the 2nd defendant, he himself got examined as

DW.4 and got marked partition deed dated 11.10.1982 as Ex.B.1 and further he got marked certified copy of registered lease deed dated 07.07.2019 executed by the plaintiff in favour of Defendant No.1 as

Ex.B.2. Eenadu paper publication notice dated 25.05.2014 is marked as Ex.B.3. Canara bank loan amount of Rs.2 lakhs issued to defendant No.2 is marked as Ex.B.4. Canara bank loan amount of

Rs.6 lakhs issued to the defendant No.2 is marked as Ex.B.5. LIC loan list annexed document marked as Ex.B.6. Margadarshi Chit and

Finance statement marked as Ex.B.7.

08.The case of the plaintiff is that 1st defendant has executed

Ex.A.1 agreement of sale with regard to the terrace shop bearing Door 12OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

No. 23­470 situated to the western side of GT Road (old NH.5) road,

Gottipalli revenue group of Narasannapeta Mandal for consideration of Rs.30,00,000/­, that on the date of execution i.e. 30.04.2014

Rs.5,00,000/­ was paid as advance sale consideration and the stipulation period is 6 months i.e., before 29.10.2014 and after receiving the balance sale consideration from the plaintiff, regular sale deed has to be executed. It is his further case that he has paid an amount of Rs.40,000/­ on 19.08.2014 and Rs.4,60,000/­ on 13.10.2014 and thus in total he paid Rs.10,00,000/­ to the 1st defendant and that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract and in the meanwhile on 08.05.2014 and 26.05.2014 he received notices from 2nd defendant who is the son of 1st defendant and that he is also having share in the ancestral joint property even though the said notice was issued to the 1st defendant/his father. So far as to the execution of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale dated 30.04.2014 it was admitted by the 1st defendant as to agreement of sale and also receipt of advance sale consideration i.e., Rs.5,00,000/­ on the date of execution and further advance of Rs.5,00,000/­ subsequent to that.

But the 1st defendant alleged that after some time, the plaintiff has insisted to bring his children for registration of the valid sale deed, but nobody asked him to confer for registration including D.2 and D.3 and that it is his self acquired property which was purchased by himself and his brothers through registered sale deed and partition deed.

13OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

09.On the other hand 2nd defendant/DW.4 who is the son of D.W.1 contends that he is having share along with his father that initially the plaint schedule shop was leased out to the plaintiff and he was also one of the attestor at that time.

10. In support of his contention, the plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 agreement of sale dated 30.04.2014 and notices issued by the 2nd defendant to himself and 1st defendant as Exs.A.2 and A.3. Ex.A.4 is the notice dated 13.10.2014 issued by him to the 1st defendant. Ex.A.5 is the reply notice issued to him by 1st defendant and his counsel Ex.A.6 is marked subject to objection which is the Photostat copy of plaint in OS No.287/2015 on the file of

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam filed by the 2nd defendant

against the plaintiff, 1st defendant and others. The plaintiff has suppressed about the lease of the plaint schedule property prior to entering into agreement of sale dated 30.04.2014. But in the cross­ examination, he admitted as to the lease agreement in respect of the plaint schedule property. Further, he stated that believing the words of the 1st defendant, he entered into the said lease and the 2nd defendant has signed as attestor. Neither the plaintiff nor the 1st defendant filed the lease deed in between them. D.W.4/2nd defendant admits he endorsed his signature on Ex.B.2 lease deed. He adds that he endorsed his signature as attestor on Ex.B.2 as the plaintiff insisted his signature otherwise he will not pay Rs.1,50,000/­ to his father. PW.4 admits that it was mentioned in Ex.B.2 that a shop at

Narasannapeta/plaint schedule property is in right, title, possession 14OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam and enjoyment of his father/1st defendant. As per the evidence of

D.W.1 initially the rent of the plaint schedule property is Rs.100/­ and subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.1000/­ and after two years it was enhanced to Rs.3000/­. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has put some suggestions to DW.1 with regard to the enhancement of the rent as to Rs.100/­ to Rs.500/­, from Rs.500/­ to Rs.1,000/­ but the same was denied. D.W.1 admitted as to that Rs.1,50,000/­ as security deposit was received by him and that he denied the suggestion that it was not returned. So far as to whether the plaint schedule property is leased out to the plaintiff or not is immaterial one but the only suggestion put to D.W.1 is that his son did not raise objection that he will endorse his signature as he is also having a share in the plaint schedule property and it was admitted by D.W.1 that is relevant. 

11.ISSUE No.2:

Whether the 1st defendant has got exclusive right to execute the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff?

The contention of the 1st defendant is that it is his self acquired property purchased by himself and his brothers and the same was partitioned among himself and his brothers. Whereas on the other hand, 2nd defendant/D.W.4 states that it is the ancestral property and he has filed a suit in OS No. 287/2015 on the file of Principal Senior

Civil Judge, Srikakulam against his father, mother and sisters. The

plaintiff contended that he has entered into the agreement of sale in respect of the plaint schedule property believing the words of the 1st defendant and he is the owner of the schedule property. In support of 15OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam his contention, 2nd defendant/D.W.4 got marked the partition deed as

Ex.B.1. On perusal of Ex.B.1 partition deed dated 11.10.1982 it was executed in between one Satyanarayana, his sons Govinda Rao and

Rama Rao as first party and 1st defendant, 2nd defendant who is minor represented by the 1st defendant as 2nd party. In which the “B” schedule property fell to the share of the 1st and 2nd defendants which includes the plaint schedule property. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property as such the property is devolved as a share on himself and his son/2nd defendant.

D.W.2­wife of D.W.1, D.W.3 father­in­law of D.W.1 also admitted as to registered partition deed dated 11.10.1982 (Ex.B.1) executed in between his father and 1st defendant and it is also admitted as to “B” schedule property therein was devolved on D.W.1 and 2nd defendant.

So, there is no evidence placed that the plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of the 1st defendant. D.W.3 in his evidence states that he has endorsed his signature on Ex.B.1 as attestor. But on perusal of Ex.B.1, there is no such signature available. 

12.As per the evidence of D.W.1 it shows that, 2nd defendant has shifted his residence to Srikakulam in 1991 and that both of them have no disputes for a period of 10 years. D.W.1 states in his cross­ examination that in the year 2011 or 2012 partition has been taken place between himself and his son. He volunteers that it was orally done which is prior to 2 or 3 years of entering into sale agreement

dated 30.04.2014 and that there is no document in writing in

between himself and his son. In the said oral partition, he got the 16OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam properties at Narasannapeta including the plaint schedule property and his son got the property at Srikakulam. The oral partition has taken place in the presence of his maternal uncle and brother­in­law.

As per the evidence of D.W.1 to DW.4 it shows that initially, D.W.1 and D.W.4 and his wife used to reside jointly at Narasannapeta and later D.W.4 and his wife were shifted to Srikakulam. Though D.W.1 stated that in the presence of his maternal uncle and another oral partition has taken place, but he failed to examine the said persons.

There is no other evidence on record to show that in view of the oral partition D.W.4 has taken property at Srikakulam and D.W.1/1st defendant has got the property at Narasannapeta along with the plaint schedule property. At the same time, there is no pleading as to oral partition by the 1st defendant between himself and his son.

Without there being any pleading the positive assertion of certain fact, in the evidence cannot be considered and at the same time when

Ex.B.1 is available, it shows that D.W.4 is having half share in the plaint schedule property.

 In view of the partition deed (Ex.B.1), which prevails over the oral evidence that there was no partition in between father and the sons of the 1st defendant and that a share was devolved on D.W.1 and 2nd defendant which is the plaint schedule property. So, the plaint schedule property is not the self acquired property of 1st defendant. 

17OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

12. ISSUE No.3: 

Whether the agreement of sale entered by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant is valid? 

The agreement of sale dated 30.04.2014 (Ex.A.1) was entered in between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and part advance sale consideration was paid on the date of agreement of sale. Further on 19.08.2014 an amount of Rs.40,000/­ was paid as part advance sale consideration which was endorsed on the reverse side of Ex.A.1 i.e., 2nd page. Another amount of Rs.4,60,000/­ was paid to the 1st defendant on 13.10.2014 and the same was endorsed on the reverse side of 1st page. D.W.4 got filed Eenadu paper publication dated 25.05.2014. On perusal of the said publication it was mentioned that 2nd defendant is having share in the plaint schedule property and that his relatives are trying to encroach the same. In the cross­ examination of D.W.4, the plaintiff counsel has elicited that prior to paper publication his father/1st defendant has executed Ex.A.1 agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and he admits that in paper publication it was not mentioned that Ex.A.1 agreement of sale is not valid. Further, he admitted that in the paper publication his father name was not specifically mentioned. He stated that the paper publication was made after he knows Ex.A.1 executed. He does not know about Rs.5,00,000/­ paid by the plaintiff after the paper publication. 

So from the above said endorsements and the admissions made by D.W.1 subsequent to the publication made by D.W.4, the advance part sale consideration of Rs.40,000/­ and Rs.4,60,000/­, in total 18OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

Rs.5,00,000/­ was paid. Though D.W.1 admitted as to the paper publication issued by the 2nd defendant he states that he has objected the same through notice to his son by way of reply, but he failed to file the same. Admittedly, in the said notices Exs.A.2 and A.3, it was mentioned only that 2nd defendant is having a share in the property but no further details as to Ex.B.1 partition deed or about the non­ validity of Ex.A.1 is mentioned and also about the knowledge of the execution of Ex.A.1 so far as to whether Ex.A.1 is valid or not. In view of the earlier discussion and on perusal of partition deed (Ex.B.1), the 2nd defendant is also having a share in the plaint schedule property. So, it shows that he is having half share in the property and that it is an admitted fact that 2nd defendant has filed suit in OS No. 287/2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Srikakulam against D.W.1, D.W.2 and the plaintiff. 

So after the notice was issued by the 2nd defendant i.e., Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 to the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, the plaintiff has filed suit against the 2nd defendant, daughters of 1st defendant i.e., 3rd and 4th defendants and even after issuance of Exs.A.2 and A.3 notices and also Ex.B.3 paper publication, the advance part sale consideration of

Rs.40,000/­ plus Rs.4,.60,000/­ was received by the 1st defendant for which the plaintiff in his cross­examination states that the 1st defendant has assured to bring his son and other legal heirs i.e., 2nd and 3rd defendant at the time of registration, so he has paid part consideration amount. 

19OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

So far the validity of Ex.A.1 is concerned out rightly Exs.A.1 cannot be denied as it was admitted by D.W.1/1st defendant as to its execution. But with regard to the enforceability of the specific performance of contracts as 2nd defendant is also having half share and the 1st defendant is having half share, so it cannot be considered on its face that Ex.A.1 is not valid as both D.1 and D.2 are having half share each. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

13.ISSUE No.5

Whether the defendants No.2 to 4 are necessary parties to the suit?

In a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, the persons who are parties to the agreement are necessary parties. But here 2nd defendant who is the son and 3rd and 4th defendants who are the daughters of 1st defendant are not parties to the agreement sale but they were shown as parties to the suit. The claim of the 2nd defendant is that he is having share in the property by way of Ex.B.1 partition deed. At the time execution of Ex.B.1, he was minor. In view of the notice issued to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has shown him as 2nd defendant to the suit. Further as 3rd and 4th defendants/ daughters of the 1st defendant are the legal heirs. Even he has shown them as parties and also as per his evidence he insisted that defendant Nos.2 to 4 were brought at the time of registration of regular sale deed and subsequently he has paid Rs.5,00,000/­ as advance sale consideration after receipt of notice from the 2nd defendant. In the cross­examination of D.W.1 by the plaintiff, he stated that his sisters 20OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam were not given any immovable property and at the time of the marriage 25 tolas of gold was given each. So, though defendant Nos.2 to 4 are not parties to the specific performance of the contract as 2nd defendant has claimed share and prior to entering into agreement of sale and he has issued notice, there is nothing wrong in showing the 2nd defendant as party. At the same time out of fear the plaintiff has insisted even the appearance of 3rd and 4th defendants at the time of registration. So, even he has shown them as parties but 3rd and 4th defendants are exparte and they did not contest. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

14.ISSUE Nos.1 & 4:

1.Whether the plaintiff performed on his part of contract and shown his readiness and if so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 30.04.2014 as prayed for?

4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the advance amount of Rs.10,00,000­00 from the defendants with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum on the advance amount from the date of sale agreement dated 30.04.2014 till the date of realization?

PW.1 in his cross­examination stated that he did not deposit the balance amount before the court and also not kept the same under the custody of any elders. It shows that the plaintiff is not ready with the amount nor deposited the same before the court nor kept with any bank or kept with any person. The only suggestion put to PW.1 that as he violated the terms and conditions of the agreement on the ground by insisting the 1st defendant to bring his children for execution of the regular sale deed, 1st defendant is not liable to repay 21OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam the advance amount under Ex.A.1. In view of the earlier discussion in Issue No.3, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of the specific performance of the agreement sale dated 30.04.2014. On perusal of

Ex.B.1 partition deed, the 2nd defendant is also having share with the 1st defendant and also partition suit is also pending. Further, the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness by depositing the amount. At best the plaintiff is entitled for part of his share and the same can be performed. When there is no readiness on behalf of the plaintiff even the part performance cannot be made out. Having admitted the sale agreement by the plaintiff and 1st defendant and admittedly the 1st defendant received part consideration of Rs.10,00,000/­ on different occasions from the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled for refund of the said amount from the 1st defendant. 

15.This court relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court that “Though the respondent­plaintiff has alleged that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the Court ought to have examined first whether the respondent­plaintiff was able to show his capacity to pay the balance money. The respondent­plaintiff could have placed on record his Accounts Book, Pass Book or the Statement of

Accounts or any other negotiable instrument to establish that he had the money with him at the relevant point of time to perform his part of the contract” held in Vij ay Kumar vs Om Praksh reported in AIR 2018 SC 5098” 22OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

The case facts of the above citation are squarely applicable to the case facts on hand. 

16.In view of the above discussion and citation, this court is of the view that the plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness on his part and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. As Ex.A.1 agreement of sale is admitted, this court finds that it is necessary to refund the plaintiff an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/­ paid by him to the 1st defendant as advance sale consideration as on the date of agreement of sale with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization.

Accordingly, these issues are answered.

17,ISSUE No.6:

In the result, the suit is dismissed in respect of relief of the specific performance of agreement of sale dated 30.04.2014 but the suit is decreed for refund of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ (Rupees ten lakh only) from the 1st defendant with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

The suit against the defendant Nos.2 to 4 is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of May, 2020. 

Sd/­ M.Babitha,

Principal District Judge,

Srikakulam.

23OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

APPENDIX OF EVIDECE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: Potnuru Dharma RajuD.W.1:Korada Baskara Rao

P.W.2: Panga Janardhana D.W.2:Korada Nagaveni

P.W.3: Bevara Ramu D.W.3:Potnuru Satyanarayana

D.W.4:Korada Venkata Dhruva Kishore

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A.1/30.04.2014:Agreement of sale dt. 30.04.2014 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A.2/08.05.2014:Notice dated 08.05.2014 issued by the 2nd defendant through his advocate in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A.3/26.05.2014Notice dated 26.05.2014 issued by the 2nd defendant through plaintiff advocate in favour of plaintiff Ex.A.4/13.12.2014:Office copy of registered legal notice dated 13.12.2014 issued by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant through his counsel. Ex.A.5/ :Reply legal notice issued by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff through his counsel. Ex.A.6/Served Xerox plaint copy in O.S 287 of 2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam filed by the 2nd defendant against the plaintiff and others served in favour of plaintiff

FOR DEFENDANTS

Ex.B.1/Partition deed dated 11.10.1982

Ex.B.2/Certified copy of registered lease deed 07.07.2019.

Ex.B.3/Eenadu paper public notice dated 25.05.2014

Ex.B.4/Canara Bank loan of Rs.2,00,000/­ to K.V.D Kishore (2nd defendant )

Ex.B.5/Canara bank loan of Rs.6,00,000/­ to K.V.D Kishore (2nd defendant )

Ex.B.6/LIC loan list annexed document 

Ex.B.7/Margadarsi chits and finance statement.

 Sd/­ M.Babitha,

Principal District Judge,

Srikakulam.

24OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam 25OS No.19/2017, Dt.28.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE::

SRIKAKULAM.

Present: Smt.M.Babitha,

Principal District Judge. 

FRIDAY, THIS THE 29 th DAY OF MAY, 2020

O.S. No. 18/2014

Between:

1. Sasanapuri Srinivasa Rao, S/o Rama Mohana Rao, Hindu, aged, about 37 years, Business, residing at Door No.114­3, Pathapatnam town, mandalam and Srikakulam district.

2. Devarasetty Venkata Ramana, son of Bhaskara Rao,Hindu,aged about 42 years, Business, residing at Door No.121­4, Pathapatnam town, mandalam and Srikakulam district.

3. Yerukola Chandrashekhar @ Chandrasekhar Rao, son of Kameswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 40 years, business, residing at Door No.112­3, Pathapatnam town, mandalam and Srikakulam district.

4. Labala Prabhakara Rao, son of Koteswara Rao,Hindu, aged about 52 years, business, residing at Door No.181­2, Pathapatnam town, mandalam and Srikakulam district. 

...Plaintiffs. 

And:

1. Potnuru Kasturi Bhai, Wife of Surya Rao,Hindu,aged about 63 years, Household duties, C/o Potnuru Ramakrishna, Surya Jewelers, Residing at Door No.2­2­15, Market Square, Parlakhemundi, Gajapathi District, Orissa State.

2. Potnuru Ashok Kumar, son of Surya Rao, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Jewellery business, residing at Door No.3­1­16, Arogya Street, Parlakhemundi, Gajapathi District, Orissa State.

3. Potnuru Ramakrishna, son of Surya Rao,Hindu, aged about 42 years, Business, Surya Jewelers, Residing at Door No.2­2­15, Market Square, Parlakhemundi, Gajapathi District, Orissa State. 

4. Boyina Ramesh, son of Kesava Rao,Hindu, aged 35 years, business, residing at Door No.184­1, Pathapatnam Town, mandalam in Srikakulam district. 

...Defendants.

2OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

This suit coming on 12.02.2020 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.V.Seshagiri Rao and Sri B.Sudarsna Rao, learned Advocates for the plaintiffs and Sri P.Santhi Swaroop, learned Advocate for the Defendant Nos.1 and3,Sri T.Mohana Rao and Sri S.Rudra Sekhara Rao learned Advocates for the Defendant No.2,Sri D.Rajkumar and Sri H.Ramakrishna, learned Advocates for the defendant No.4 and having heard both sides and stood over till this day for consideration due to intervention of COVID 19, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs to pass a decree in their favour and defendant No.4 and against the defendant Nos.1 to 3, directing them for specific performance of suit agreement of sale dated 13.12.2010 by directing the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to execute a regular sale deed on a proper stamp and registered the same in their favour and 4th defendant in respect of plaint schedule property for

Rs.1,22,00,000­00 (Rupees One crore twenty two lakhs only) after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000­00 (Rupees one crore only) and deliver the possession of the plaint schedule property to them or in default executed a sale deed in their favour and defendant No.4 in respect of the plaint schedule property, after depositing the balance sale consideration by them and 4th defendant into court and put them and defendant No.4 in possession of the plaint schedule property.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaint schedule property purchased by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 under a registered sale deed dated 20.02.1990 from Kalivarapu Chandra

Bushana Rao and others. The defendants 1 to 3 have intend to sell 3OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam away the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendant No.4 for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,22,00,000­00 and the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.4 have agreed to purchase the same and accordingly they have paid an amount of

Rs.22,00,000/­ as an advance sale price to the defendants 1 to 3 on 13.12.2010 and after receipt of the said advance amount the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have jointly executed a non possessory agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.4 on 13.12.2010 before the attestors and the time fixed for registration of sale deed is one month from the date of execution of the agreement of sale i.e., on 13.12.2010 at their own costs. Immediately after one month from the date of agreement for sale, they along with defendant

No.4 approached the defendants 1 to 3 for registration of sale deed of the plaint schedule property with the remaining balance sale consideration as per the terms of sale agreement dated 13.12.2010, by expressing their willingness and readiness for compliance of their remaining part of contract, however the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are procrastinating the registration of sale deed on some pretext or other.

Finally they have raised a dispute before the attestors of the said sale agreement and elders, at that time the defendants 1 to 3 requested time for execution of sale deed, as per the sale agreement dated 13.12.2010. Even after that time also the defendants 1to 3 failed to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs as per sale agreement

dated 13.12.2010 inspite of their repeated demands and requests.

4OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

Every time when they and defendant No.4 approached the defendant Nos.1 to 3 along with balance sale consideration, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are procrastinating the registration of sale deed.

The defendants 1 to 3 have failed to execute the sale deed as per their promise made before the elders. The plaintiffs and defendant No.4 got issued legal notice dated 14.08.2013 to the defendants 1 to 3 calling them to execute the sale deed as per sale agreement dated 13.12.2010 and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 received the said notice and the defendant No.3 got issued reply notice dated 18.09. 2019 with all false allegations by admitting their execution of sale agreement, but the defendant Nos.1 and 2 neither execute the sale deed nor gave any reply. The plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 are always ready to pay the balance of sale consideration and also ready to purchase the stamps for execution of registration of sale deed. The defendants 1 to 3 are willfully avoiding the registration of sale deed with an intention to cause loss and inconvenience. Hence, this suit.

03.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the defendant Nos.1 and 3 filed memo and adopted the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant. 2nd defendant denied the contents of the plaint as untrue and incorrect. The defendants could not give reply to the notice dated 18.09.2013 as it was misplaced and could not be traced out despite best endeavors. The agreement for sale stood terminated due to efflux of time by the date the said legal notice issued by the plaintiffs and defendant No.4. The defendants jointly received the sale advance amount of Rs.22,00,000­00 from the 5OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam plaintiffs and Defendant No.4 upon executing an agreement dated 13.12.2010 for sale of suit property for Rs.1,22,00,000­00 with a specific covenant under the said contract for sale, that the parties should complete the sale transaction in respect of the suit property within one month time from the date of agreement i.e., on or before

dated 13.01.2011. In lieu of this stipulation the parties had expressed

their intention agreeing that the time should be the essence of the contract. The plaintiffs had failed to perform their part of contract by tendering the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/­ within the time stipulated i.e., on or before dated 13.01.2011. So the agreement stood terminated after the said specified date. The plaintiffs are ready and willing to obtain the sale deed within the specified time of one month i.e., on or before dated 13.01.2011 by performing their part of contract and if the defendants did not come forward to complete the transaction, they ought to have issued notice expressing their readiness and willingness in writing to the defendants 1 to 3 to execute a registered sale deed. But the plaintiffs had not served any notice to the defendants 1 to 3 within one month time specified in the agreement demanding them to come forward for execution and registration of the sale deed with an intimation that they were ready with requisite balance sale amount including the costs and expenses required for purchase of stamps etc., The plaintiffs and defendant No.4 issued legal notice on 14.08.2013 after lapse of two years and seven months from the date of termination of agreement dated 13.12.2010. The plaintiffs and defendant No.4 had 6OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam not purchased the non­judicial stamps required for preparing sale deed within one month time specified in agreement and they did not also prepare the sale deed in support of their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract. In lieu of these facts, the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 committed breach of the contract, so they have forfeited the earnest money of Rs.22,00,000­00 and they were not entitled to recover the same. It is pertinent to note that the agreement for sale does not contain any clause to refund the earnest money with interest. The interest as claimed by the plaintiffs @ 24% per annum from 13.12.2010 till the date of payment is contrary to law, principles of Natural Justice and Equity and also public policy cum guidelines of Reserve Bank of India.

The defendant Nos.1 and 2 went to the Sub­Registrar

Office with prior intimation to the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 on the day before expiry of the agreement and waited till the closing time and returned as the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 did not turn up to perform their part of contract. The conduct and intention of the plaintiffs as afore said clearly depicts that they were never ready with balance sale amount and willing to perform their part of contract.

The delay committed by the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 had caused great prejudice to the interest of this defendant and others. The plaintiffs and defendant No.4 had intentionally and deliberately committed breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement and failed to perform their obligation without extending cooperation and support to this defendant and others to complete the sale transaction.

7OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

The defendants 1, 2 and 3 in dire need of money not only to provide expertise medical treatment to P.Surya Rao (father of defendants 2 and 3 and husband of defendant No.1) who was suffering with cancer, but also to clear the existing debts already incurred for his treatment prior to the execution of the agreement for sale. The defendants failed to receive balance sale consideration, meanwhile the ailment of the father of the D.2 and D.3 and husband of D.1 was escalated. In the mean while the market value of the suit property was escalated in the vicinity due to passage of time. At this juncture the plaintiff and defendant No.4 in order to take undue advantage of the situation, served a notice through their counsel upon defendant

Nos.1 to 3 on 14.08.2013 after laps of two years and seven months from the date of termination of agreement with all false allegations, expressing that they were ready to perform their part of contract. The plaintiffs even did not assign any sufficient reason while defendant

No.4 has not supported their cause and claim. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs and the Defendant No.2 reserves his right to file additional written statement. 

04. The 4th defendant filed his written statement denying the contents of the plaint as untrue and incorrect. The plaintiffs 1 to 4 always ready to pay the balance of sale consideration and also ready to purchase stamps for execution of sale deed and this defendant is not coming forward to file this present suit against the defendants 1 to 3. In fact this defendant always along with the plaintiffs 1 to 4 ready to cooperate in all aspects with regard to get registration of sale 8OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam deed in his favour along with other plaintiffs. The plaintiffs 1 to 4 and 4th defendant are in possession in the respective sale agreement property, at the time of sale agreement, but the 2nd plaintiff by name

Devarasetty Venkata Ramana was not in possession as on the date of sale agreement. The 2nd plaintiff is running shop to the southern side of this defendant which is not included in the sale agreement property and the said shop is no way connected with the sale agreement property. This defendant is also one of the agreement holders along with the plaintiffs and in the sale agreement dated 13.12.2010 and he along with the other plaintiffs got issued legal notice to the defendants

dated 14.08.2013 and this defendant has demanded the defendants 1

to 3 to perform the sale deed along with plaintiffs. This defendant surprised as he was shown as defendant No.4 instead of one of the plaintiffs in the suit for the best reasons known to them only. After receiving balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/­ (rupees one crore only) and register the sale agreement property and deliver the possession of the same to this defendant along with the plaintiffs.

Hence, prays to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 4 along with him and against the defendants 1 to 3 with costs. 

05.After hearing both sides and perused the material on record, this court has settled the following issues for trial. 

1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 13.12.2010?

2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for refund of the advance amount of Rs.22,00,000­00 as prayed for ?

3.Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

9OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

4.To what relief?

06.During the course of trial, the 1st plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined PW.2 and PW.3 and got marked Ex.A.1 original sale agreement dated 13.12.2010 executed by the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of plaintiffs and defendant

No.4, Ex.A.2 office copy of registered legal notice dated 14.08.2013 issued to the defendants 1 to 3 by the plaintiffs, Ex.A.3 postal acknowledgement of defendant No.1, Ex.A.4 postal acknowledgment of defendant No.2, Ex.A.5 reply notice dated 18.09.2013, Ex.A.6 certified copy of registered sale deed dated 13.06.1990 and Ex.A.7 certified copy of registered sale deed dated 13.06.1990 .

On behalf of the defendants, 2nddefendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 registered sale deed

dated 03.03.1990.

07.Heard both sides.

08.ISSUE No.3:

Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

In a suit for specific performance, the limitation is three years from the date fixed for the performance. In the present suit, Ex.A.1 sale agreement dated 13.12.2010 and the condition stipulated is that within one month the balance sale consideration has to be paid by the plaintiffs and 4th defendant and get the sale deed registered by bearing the stamp duty and registration fee. After issuance of notice, 10OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam the suit is filed on 11.12.2013. Even if one month stipulation period is completed, there will be limitation to file the suit till 13.01.2014.

Since the suit is filed on 11.12.2013, the suit filed is within period of limitation and hence the suit is not barred by limitation. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

09.ISSUE Nos.1 and 2:

The case of the plaintiffs is that defendant Nos.1 to 3 intended to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and 4th defendant and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have executed Ex.A.1 agreement of sale dated13.12.2010 for valuable consideration of

Rs.1,22,00,000/­ out of which an advance amount of Rs.22,00,000/­ was paid on the date of execution on the condition to execute the regular sale deed within one month and later inspite of several demands made by the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and the 4th defendant, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 simply avoided registration of regular sale deed and as the 4th defendant did not come forward, the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 have filed the suit against the defendant Nos.1 to 3.

10.On the other hand, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 contended that the plaintiffs have failed to show their readiness and willingness within stipulated time and even the defendant Nos.1 to 3 went to the

Sub Registrar Office with prior intimation to the plaintiffs and 4th 11OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam defendant, they failed to appear and so the contract automatically will be terminated.

11.To prove the execution of the sale agreement dated 13.12.2010, the 1st plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and examined 3rd and 4th attestors of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale as P.W.2 and PW.3. So far execution of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale, PW.1 stated that they have paid an amount of Rs.22,00,000/­ to the defendant

Nos.1 to 3 equally. From the cross­examination of PW.2 it was elicited that 10 days prior to the transaction, the 2nd and 3rd defendants informed him about the transaction to be taken place and also the consideration was fixed at Rs.1,22,00,000/­ and the said property was purchased by them from one Kalivarapu

Chandrabushana Rao in the year 1990 and that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 called him at the time of sale agreement and he went to the house of 2nd defendant­Ashok Kumar. So far, the execution of Ex.A.1 sale agreement is established by PW.1 to PW.3 and 4th defendant.

12.2nd defendant examined himself as D.W.1. 1st defendant is his mother and 3rd defendant is his younger brother. D.W.1/2nd defendant admitted that in Ex.A.1 agreement it was mentioned that part of sale consideration was received by himself and 3rd defendant.

In the written statement itself, he states that he and other defendants 1 and 3 jointly received the sale advance amount of Rs.22 lakhs from the plaintiffs and 4th defendant upon executing an agreement dated 13.12.2010 for sale of suit property for Rs.1,22,00,000/­. He states that himself and his brother/D.3 endorsed their signatures on Ex.A.1 12OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam agreement as the vendees have insisted and compelled to sign. He admits that his father Surya Rao has endorsed as second attestor in

Ex.A.1 agreement. He denied the suggestion that himself and his brother/3rd defendant joined as parties as the vendees insisted and compelled and the same was not mentioned in the written statement.

So far as insisting and compelling them by the vendees was not mentioned either in Ex.A.1 or in the written statement and also about the dates, signing on Ex.A.1. On perusal of Ex.A.1 sale agreement, on first 2 pages the signature of 1st defendant is available and in the last page after signature of the 1st defendant, on the right side the signatures of 2nd defendant is available and beneath the signature of 1st defendant, the signature of the 3rd defendant is available and their thumb impressions are also available on the last/3rd page. 

13.Another aspect which came into light in the cross­ examination of PW.1 that in the plaint schedule property four (4) shops are situated at KC road, Pathapatnam and length and width of the each shop is 10 feet and 12 feet and on the rear side appurtenant vacant site is situated and so also all the shops are in the same measurements with respective appurtenant vacant site. On perusal of the plaint schedule it was mentioned that RCC roof terraced shops with appurtenant site bearing Assessment Nos.2138 to 2142 are situated towards eastern row of K.C.Road of Pathapatnam in

Survey No.228/2 which is measuring East to West 165 feet and North to South 40 feet. In the 3rd para of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale, the agreement property details are mentioned as the property is situated 13OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam in Srikakulam district, Pathapatnam Sub Registrar, Pathapatnam mandal, Pathapatnam panchayat village, KC road, eastern row in

Survey No.228/2, present measurements of the property East – West 165 feet and North­South 40 feet Western side of total sites, towards eastern row of KC road East­West 17 feet and North­South 40 feet measurements Zerayati RCC Daba shop. The boundaries are mentioned as East: Kanakala Atcheyya and others vacant site, South:

Tangudu Viswanadham’s RCC daba, West: KC Road and North:

Dasari Kalidhas RCC daba and vacant site. PW.1 admits that the plaint schedule boundaries are not shown separately. In support of

PW.1, PW.2 states that the sale agreement property is vacant site along with four shops. Even PW.3 states that the plaint schedule property is four shops with vacant site and 4 shops are situated on the western side of KC road and the vacant site is situated towards eastern side and each shop is in length of 18 to 20 feet and the width is 10 feet. PW.1 states that he did not personally peruse the title deeds of his vendor and the document writer has read over the contents of title deeds pertaining to his vendor and informed about their rights and the document writer informed him that the plaint schedule property was in the name of three persons and he also informed him that from whom the property was purchased individually by his vendors. He did not retain the link document to show whether it is sale deed, will or partition deed. PW.2 states that he did not peruse the title deeds and he has seen the Encumbrance

Certificates in the name of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 after the 14OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam agreement and before registration. So also PW.3 states that the document writer has seen the document. PW.1 states that the document writer prepared Ex.A.1 on perusal of the documents relating to his vendors and after execution of Ex.A.1, the document writer has read over the contents of Ex.A.1 to them. He further admits that in Ex.A.1 it was not mentioned that the schedule is not mentioned as four shops with appurtenant vacant site on its rear side and that each shop is having own assessment.

14.D.W.1 denied the suggestion that Ex.A.1 property was purchased from Kalivarapu Chandrabhushana Rao which includes the property of himself, 1st and 2nd defendant. On perusal of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale, it was mentioned that the property was devolved on three of them, through registered sale deeds dated 22.02.1990.

D.W.1 has filed Ex.B.1 certified copy of registered sale deed in the name of the 1st defendant/mother of 2nd and 3rd defendants. The schedule is mentioned as Survey No.228/2 in East­West 17 feet and

North­South 165 feet or 200 square yards vacant site in which RCC shop was situated measuring East­West 17 feet and North­South 30 feet. So, on perusal of Ex.B.1 the said document is only in the name of 1st defendant but not all the defendants/D.1 to D.3. PW.1 was put a suggestion that whether it was mentioned in the pleadings that

Ex.A.1 was scribed as per the dictation of the vendors/defendant

Nos.1 to 3 that the property was devolved on the defendant Nos.1 to 3 by way of single document from Kalivarapu Chandrabhushana Rao, for which PW.1 stated that Ex.A.1 was executed by defendant Nos.1 15OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam to 3 in hurry and accordingly it was mentioned by the defendant Nos.

1 to 3. Further, the plaintiffs have filed certified copy of Ex.A.6 and

Ex.A.7 which are in the name of D.2 and D.3. Ex.A.6 is shown as vacant site in an extent of 264½ square yards in which a shop is situated measuring East­West 30 feet and North­South 14 feet.

Ex.A.7 is in respect of vacant site in Survey No.228/2 in an extent of 209 square yards measuring East­West 188 feet and North­South 10 feet. DW.1 admitted in his cross­examination that 3rd defendant has filed a partition suit against him and his mother/1st defendant at

Parlakhimidi court including the plaint schedule property and later he preferred a revision before the Honourable High Court and obtained stay and the said partition suit is still pending before Parlakhimidi court and he did not inform about the pending suit at Parlakhimidi.

So, from the pleadings and on perusal of evidence on either side, it was admitted as to execution of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale and while in the cross­examination PW.1 put forth that plaint schedule property is consisting of 4 shops annexed with vacant sites on the rear side of each shop. Whereas, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 contend that it is not four shops but it is one shop. At the time of filing of written statement, no such plea is taken whether the plaint schedule property does not include 4 shops or how many shops as in the plaint schedule it was shown as shops. Having admitted the execution of the agreement of sale, which is joint statement of both the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 and the defendants 1 to 3 now the defendants 1 to 3 cannot resile or turn back that they have executed the agreement 16OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam of sale for some other description of the property but not as shown in

Ex.A.1 agreement. The defendants are estopped from taking such pleas at the time of adducing evidence.

15.The defendants 1 to 3 contend that the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and the defendant No.4 did not perform their part of contract within the stipulated time and they are not ready and willing to perform their part of contract to obtain the regular sale deed within the stipulated period of one month time and further after long period of 2 years and 7 months they have issued notice and that the plaintiffs and the 4th defendant failed to prove that they have cash for execution of regular sale deeds. The reason stated by the plaintiffs is that the scribe prepared Ex.A.1 basing on the information given by the defendants and even in the pleadings, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 contended that they went to the Registrar Office on the completion of the date of stipulation. Having initially admitted Ex.A.1 agreement of sale without filing the original documents and without entering into the witness box by 1st defendant and 3rd defendant and even the plaintiffs have given the notice under Order 12 Rule 8 of CPC for cause production of the sale deed and defendants failed to produce the documents but the plaintiffs have produced the documents/Ex.A.6 and A.7 which are in the name of the 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant.

Whether any demand is made after entering into Ex.A.1 agreement has to be looked into. So from the cross­examination of PW.1, it came into light that initially the paternal grand mother of D.W.1/2nd defendant died and after few days his father died. In the cross­ 17OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam examination of PW.1 it was elicited that within one month from stipulated period, PW.1 went to the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to pay the balance sale consideration. Further, he volunteers that at that time the grand mother of 2nd defendant died and as it will take 15 days for rituals and to visit Kasi they asked him to come after 15 days. He admits that immediately after Ex.A.1, he went to the defendant Nos.1 to 3 house as mentioned in the plaint. After 15 days he went along with the cash and elders to the house of defendant Nos.1 to 3. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that Income Tax Department raid has taken place after execution of Ex.A.1 agreement against himself and his brother’s property. He states that in the year 1995 Income Tax

Authorities have raided against his properties i.e., prior to Ex.A.1 agreement.

16.D.W.1 admits that he did not file original of Ex.B.1 as the said property belongs to his mother and she is in possession of the suit document. He denied the suggestion that Ex.B.1 original document was filed in partition suit filed by 3rd defendant against himself, his wife­Swarna Latha and his mother/1st defendant. He states that his mother/1st defendant cannot come to the court and depose as her health condition is not good and she is an aged person.

No medical certificate is filed to show that his mother is not hale and healthy. Further, he/DW1 volunteers that his mother’s Advocate is different. D.W.1 denied that the plaintiffs and 4th defendant have approached the defendants after the death of father of the 1st and 3rd defendant and their grand mother and they postponed the 18OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam registration as they were busy with obsequies of their father and grand mother. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that even the plaintiffs made visits, they have also postponed because of Income Tax disputes and also court disputes.PW.1 is unable to state the date when they have approached along with elders and attestors to the house of defendant Nos.1 to 3. He simply stated that after 2 or 3 months after execution of Ex.A.1, again he has taken the elders to the house of defendant Nos.1 to 3. PW.2 states that in the year 2011 January, the matter was placed when the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are postponing for registration of the sale deed and then he questioned but he did not mention the same in his chief­affidavit. PW.3 states that plaintiffs and 4th defendant informed that they have approached the defendant

Nos.1 to 3 on 08.01.2011 to question about the execution of the regular sale deed.

17.There is no notice issued within stipulated period by the plaintiffs to the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to execute the regular sale deed.

It is an admitted fact that father and maternal grand mother of the 1st and 3rd defendants died after Ex.A.1 agreement of sale. But they denied due to which, they have dragged the registration of the sale deed and even with regard to Income Tax raid, there is no proof filed by the plaintiffs. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 stated that the Income Tax raid has taken place prior to Ex.A.1. The plaintiffs and 4th defendant got issued legal notice through their Advocate on 14.08.2013. It is after lapse of 2 years and 7 months and meanwhile no notice was issued, for which reply notice was issued by the 3rd defendant in 19OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam which he has admitted as to the execution of Ex.A.1 sale agreement and stated that the plaintiffs have paid Rs.22,00,000/­ cash to the 2nd defendant who retained the same to himself promising that the same shall be adjusted towards payment of the share of 3rd defendant and share of 1st defendant at the time of payment of balance sale consideration. Even D.W.1 admitted that in Ex.A.1 sale agreement it was mentioned that part of sale consideration was received by himself and 3rd defendant. PW.1 admits that he did not enclose any D.D. for balance sale consideration to the plaint. He denied the suggest that to show his bonafides he did not file any permission petition for depositing the balance sale consideration. He volunteers that he is ready to pay or deposit the balance sale consideration. The plaintiffs failed to show their readiness by depositing the amount before the court to show that the amount is lying in their bank account and further after lapse of 2 years and 7 months they simply issued notice to the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to execute the regular sale deed. When the plaintiffs are not ready, their willingness cannot be considered as condition stipulated is within one month they could not fulfill the same. At the same time, the time lapsed is also very long. The plaintiffs who sought equity did not perform their contract in time as such they are not entitled for specific performance of the contract. 

18.This court relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court that “Though the respondent­plaintiff has alleged that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the Court ought to have examined first whether the respondent­plaintiff was able to show his 20OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam capacity to pay the balance money. The respondent­plaintiff could have placed on record his Accounts Book, Pass Book or the Statement of

Accounts or any other negotiable instrument to establish that he had the money with him at the relevant point of time to perform his part of the contract” held inVij ay  Kumar vs Om Parkash reported in AIR 2018 SC 5098”

The case facts of the above citation are squarely applicable to the case facts on hand. In this case the plaintiffs and 4th defendant have not shown their capacity to pay the huge balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/­ (One crore). The plaintiffs and 4th defendant could not produce any document to show that they had the said amount of balance sale consideration with them on the relevant date nor they could have placed on record their Pass Book or the

Statement of Accounts or any other negotiable instrument to establish that they had the money with then at the relevant point of time to perform their part of the contract. Simply after lapse of 2 years and 7 months the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 4th defendant issued notice to the defendant Nos.1 to 3, Therefore, in view of the above citation, the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and 4th defendant have not been able to prove their readiness and willingness and hence they are not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance.

19.The defendant Nos.1 to 3 have admitted execution of

Ex.A.1 agreement of sale and reply notice was also issued by 3rd defendant that 2nd defendant has taken the amount and the plaintiffs 21OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam have to pay the remaining balance which has to be adjusted to the shares of the 1st and 3rd defendant. But there is no proof who has received the amount. The aspect to be considered is having admitted

Ex.A.1 agreement that after receipt of the advance consideration of

Rs.22,00,000/­ they have executed the agreement and so the said amount was received by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the same has to be refunded to the plaintiffs and the 4th defendant as already 4th defendant who is one of the vendee was shown as 4th defendant in view of his non­joining along with the plaintiffs. So, even 4th defendant is also entitled for refund of the amount along with the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4. Accordingly, these issues are answered.

20.ISSUE No.4

In the result, the suit is dismissed in respect of relief of the specific performance of agreement of sale dated 13.12.2010 but the suit is decreed for refund of an amount of Rs.22,00,000/­(Rupees twenty two lakhs) from the defendants 1 to 3 to the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 and 4th defendant with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 29th day of May, 2020. 

Sd/­M.Babitha

Principal District Judge,

Srikakulam.

22OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

APPENDIX OF EVIDECE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:FOR DEFENDANTS:

 P.W.1: Sasanapuri Srinivasa Rao D.W.1:Potnuru Ashok Kumar

P.W.2: Devarasetty Sai Ram

P.W.3: Boyina Someswara Rao 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A.1/13.12.2010:Original Sale agreement dt.13.12.2010 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiffs and Defendant No.4. Ex.A.2/14.08.2013:Office copy of registered legal notice got issued to the defendant Nos.1 to 3 by the plaintiffs. Ex.A.3/ ­­­Postal acknowledgement of defendant No.1 Ex.A.4/ ­­­Postal acknowledgement of defendant No.2 Ex.A.5/18.09.2013:Reply notice dated 18.09.2013. Ex.A.6/13.06.1990:Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 13.06.1990 which was registered as document No.971 /1990 executed by the Kalivarapu Chandrabushana Rao and his son in favour of the 2nd defendant Ex.A.7/13.06.1990:Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 13.06.1990 which was registered as document No.972/1990 executed by the Kalivarapu Chandrabushana Rao and his son in favour of the 3rd defendant.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B.1/03.03.1990 Certified copy of the Registered sale deed document No.204/1990 dated 03.03.1990 executed by the Kalivarapu Chandrabhushana Rao, S/o late Narasimhulu and others in favour of 1st defendant Potnuru Kasturibhai, W/o Potnuru Surya Rao. 

Sd/­M.Babitha

Principal District Judge,

Srikakulam.

23OS No.18/2014, Dt. 29 05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

SRIKAKULAM. 

Present: Smt.M.Babitha,

Principal District Judge.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 26 th DAY OF MAY, 2020

APPEAL SUIT No.82/2018

Between:

Ommi Appa Rao, son of Suryanarayana, aged 42 years, Hindu, cultivation, r/o Maruthi Nagar, Ponugutivalasa, Santhakaviti mandalam, Rajam Nagar Panchayat, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam District Judge's Court limits. 

.. Appellant/Plaintiff 

And:

1.Sasubilli Ramana, son of late Subbi Naidu, aged 50 years, Hindu, cultivation, Residing at Pogiri village, Rajam mandalam, Srikakulam District.

2.Sasubilli Yellayya, son of late Subbi Naidu, aged 46 years, Hindu, cultivation, Residing at Pogiri village, Rajam mandalam, Srikakulam District.

3.Sasubilli Suryanarayana, son of late Subbi Naidu, aged 40 years, Hindu, cultivation, Residing at Pogiri village, Rajam mandalam, Srikakulam District.

4.Sasubilli Chandra Mohan, son of late Subbi Naidu, aged 36 years, Hindu, cultivation, Residing at Pogiri village, Rajam mandalam, Srikakulam District.

5.Sasubilli Appalanarayana, wife of late Subbi Naidu, aged 65 years, Hindu, cultivation and household duties, Residing at Pogiri village, Rajam mandalam, Srikakulam District.

6.Meesala Parvathi, wife of Sanyasi Naidu, aged 42 years, Hindu, house wife, r/o Laidam, Ponduru mandalam, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam District Judge's Court limits. 

…Respondents/Defendants.

2A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

Appeal filed against the Decree and Judgment made in

O.S.No.68/2015, dated 07.02.2018 on the file of the Senior Civil

Judge, Rajam.

Between:

Ommi Appa Rao, son of Suryanarayana,

.. Plaintiff.

And:

1. Sasubilli Ramana, son of late Subbi Naidu,

2. Sasubilli Yellayya, son of late Subbi Naidu

3. Sasubilli Suryanarayana, son of late Subbi Naidu,

4. Sasubilli Chandra Mohan,son of late Subbi Naidu,

5. Sasubilli Appalanarayana, wife of late Subbi Naidu

6. Meesala Parvathi, wife of Sanyasi Naidu,

...Defendants.

This appeal came on 10.02.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Rambabu Naidu, learned Advocate for the Appellant/plaintiff and of Sri.Y.Satya Srinivas and Sri B.S Chalam, learned Advocates for the Respondents/defendants and having heard both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, due to intervention of COVID­19, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The appellant/plaintiff preferred this appeal under Order 41

Rule 1 of C.P.C, against the decree and judgment dt.07.02.2018 in

O.S No.68/2015 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam.

The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before trial court as plaintiff and defendants. 

The plaintiff filed the suit for refund/repayment of the advance sale consideration amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ (rupees five lakhs only) with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the respective dates of Rs.3,00,000/­ from dated 06­03­2012, Rs.1,00,000/­ from dated 06­04­2012 and Rs.1,00,000/­ from dated 05­06­2012 and for damages for default and for costs of the suit.

3A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendants 1 to 4 are brothers and sons of Sasubilli Subbi Naidu. The 5th defendant is the wife and 6th defendant is daughter of Subbi Naidu. Sasubilli

Subbi Naidu and the defendants 1 to 4 approached the plaintiff and stated that the schedule mentioned property is their absolute property and they offered to sell the schedule land to the plaintiff to meet their necessity. The defendants and Subbi Naidu agreed to sell the schedule mentioned land to the plaintiff. The extent of the schedule land is Ac 1­00 cents and agreed to sell the schedule mentioned land at the rate of Rs.23,000/­ per cent. Sasubilli Subbi

Naidu and the defendants 1 to 4 executed an agreement of sale dated 06­03­2012 in favour of the plaintiff with a condition to execute registered sale deed either to plaintiff or to whom he suggested within one year from date of agreement. At the time of execution of the agreement of sale dated 06­03­2012, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/­ to Sasubilli Subbi Naidu and the defendants 1 to 4 as advance of sale consideration. On the same day i.e., on 06.03.2012 Sasubilli Subbi Naidu along with the defendants 1 to 4 executed a separate receipt in favour of the plaintiff acknowledging the receipt of Rs.3,00,000/­ as advance sale consideration to the suit agreement. Subsequently, on 06­04­2012 Sasubilli Subbi Naidu and defendant No.1 for their family urgent necessity received

Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff as part payment of sale consideration of the suit agreement of sale and executed receipt

dated 06­04­2012 in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequent to the

4A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

advance payment on 05­06­2012, the 1st defendant and Sasubilli

Subbi Naidu approached the plaintiff and requested to pay

Rs.1,00,000/­ to meet urgent necessary of their family. The plaintiff gave Rs.1,00,000/­ to Sasubilli Subbi Naidu as part payment of the sale consideration of suit agreement of sale. The 1st defendant received Rs.1,00,000/­ and executed a promissory note­cum­receipt on 05­06­2012 in favour of the plaintiff. In total the defendants and

Subbi Naidu received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ from the plaintiff as part payment and advance sale consideration of suit agreement of sale. The plaintiff and the defendants and Sasubilli Subbi Naidu got measured the land and the schedule land exactly Ac 1­00 cents and further agreed that the plaintiff have to bear the expenses stamp and registration charges. Later, as per the terms of agreement of sale, the plaintiff got ready with balance of sale consideration and stamp and other expenses for registration of the schedule land. The plaintiff requested Sasubilli Subbi Naidu, defendants 1 to 4 to come to execute registered sale deed. But they did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and postponed on some reasons or other. Subsequently on 19­01­2014

Sasubilli Subbi Naidu died. The defendants are the only legal heirs of

Sasubilli Subbi Naidu and the defendants are in possession of the property of Sasubilli Subbi Naidu. The defendants are liable to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for the schedule mentioned land as per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale dated 06­03­2012. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that Sasubilli Appalaramu, the brother of Sasubilli 5A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

Subbi Naidu filed OS 46/2012 on the file of the Senior civil Judge

Court, Rajam against the defendants and Sasubilli Subbi Naidu for partition of the family properties including the agreement schedule land. At the time of the execution of agreement of sale, the defendants and Sasubilli Subbi Naidu made the plaintiff believe that the defendants and Sasubilli Subbi Naidu are the only absolute owners of the plaint schedule land and none others have got any right in the schedule land. The defendants and Sasubilli Subbi Naidu have suppressed the real facts and misrepresented about the title of the schedule land which amounts to cheating, the defendants and

Sasubilli Subbi Naidu are liable for criminal prosecution. The plaintiff got issued registered notice dated 14­02­2015 to the defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with clear title and valid documents relating to the plaint schedule land as per the terms and conditions of agreement of sale dated 06.03.2012. The defendants received the notice and failed to come to execute the registered sale deed and the defendants gave reply dated 01­04­2015 to the registered notice. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to get registered sale deed for the plaint schedule land from the defendants as per the terms of the agreement of sale. The plaintiff is always ready to deposit balance sale consideration, value of stamp and registration charges etc., as and when directed by the

Court. The defendants issued belated reply with all false allegations.

Since the plaint schedule land is subject matter of litigation in OS 46/2012, there is no possibility of specific performance of the suit agreement of sale dated 06­03­2012 by executing registered sale 6A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

deed by Sasubilli Subbi Naidu and the defendants as they are not absolute owners of the plaint schedule land. Sasubilli Subbi Naidu and the defendants cheated the plaintiff and received an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/­ by misrepresentation and they are liable for criminal prosecution under section 420 I.P.C. The defendants enjoyed the benefit of the sale advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ as consideration amount. The defendants had and received the amount of

Rs.5,00,000/­, they are liable to repay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ which was received by them as part of sale consideration with interest @ Rs.2­00 per month per hundred from the date of receipt of the amount as mentioned in the petition schedule . They are also liable to pay damages for default of non execution of registered sale deed as per terms of agreement of sale. Hence this suit filed for recovery of advance sale consideration amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ with interest and damages and costs of the suit. Hence the suit.

03.The 1st defendant filed his written statement and the defendant

Nos.2 to 6 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by the 1st defendant denying the contents of the plaint as untrue and incorrect. Sasubilli Subbi Naidu and Sasubilli Appalaramu are divided sons of late Appalaswamy. Sasubilli Appalaswamy, Subbi

Naidu and Appalaramu were members of the joint family. Late

Appalaswamy acquired the dry land covered by survey No.9­18 for an extent of Ac 2­27 cents along with other lands under various registered sale deeds and obtained possession of the same. During his life time, Appalaswamy and his two sons late Subbi Naidu and 7A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

Appalaramu partitioned the lands covered in three villages including an extent of Ac 1­00 dry land out of Ac 2­27 cents in S.No.9­18 and tiled house, thatched house and kallam by metes and bounds. The said partition is an oral partition and took place about 50 years back in the presence of elders. In the oral partition the elders allotted the land covered by S.No.9­18 of an extent of Ac 2­27 cents and other properties which are not necessary to the present suit. Ever since said partition, father and sons had been in possession and enjoyment of the respective shares which are allotted by the elders and lived separately with their families. After partition Subbi Naidu and his divided brother Appalaramu obtained separate pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of their shares in three villages including the land covered under an agreement of sale. Late Subbi naidu and his brother obtained crop loans separately in respect of their share of lands. The revenue authorities also recorded their separate enjoyment in the revenue records. They also paid separate land revenue to their land is which they got partitioned. For discharge of debts and family expenses late Subbi Naidu and his sons who are defendants 1 to 4 sold the dry land towards west and north covered by survey No.9­18 for an extent of Ac 0­40 cents out of

Ac 2­27 cents of Palkhandyam village for valuable consideration of

Rs.12,000/­ to one Grandhi Madhavi, wife of Mohanarao under a registered sale deed dated 17­04­2000 and delivered possession to her. The said land is situated to the west of the land covered under the agreement of sale dated 06­03­2012. The remaining land which 8A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

is situated towards southern side is in possession and enjoyment of

Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and their father Subbi Naidu.

Late Sasubilli Subbi Naidu and the defendants are the absolute owners of the land covered under the aforesaid agreement of sale.

They got right, title and possession over the aforesaid land. After partition Sasubilli Appalaramu sold some of his share of the lands to 3rd parties under registered sale deeds. Defendants 1 to 4 and their father late Subbi Naidu proposed to sell the dry land of an extent of

Ac 1­00 out of Ac 2­27 cents covered by S.No.9­18 to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff after verifying the pattadar passbook and title deed and other revenue records and after due enquiry in the village and confirmed that the defendants and Subbi Naidu are absolute owners of the aforesaid land and agreed to purchase the same and negotiate the transaction and fixed the sale price at the rate of Rs.23,000/­ per cent. The extent of schedule land is Ac 1­00. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and their father Subbi Naidu executed an agreement of sale

dated 06­03­2012 in favour of plaintiff after receiving the advance

sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/­ in favour of the plaintiff.

Subsequently on 06­04­2012 Sasubilli Subbi Naidu and 1st defendant received Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff for their necessity as part of sale consideration and passed a receipt in favour of the plaintiff. On 05­06­2012 plaintiff paid an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/­ to defendant No.1 for urgent necessity and part of the sale consideration and passed a receipt cum promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid the total amount of 9A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

Rs.5,00,000/­ to the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and Subbi Naidu.

Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and Subbi Naidu and plaintiff got measured the land covered under the aforesaid agreement and the extent exactly come to Ac 1­00 cents. The plaintiff never get ready with the balance sale consideration and stamp and other expenses for registration of the land and requested Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and their father Sasubilli Subbi Naidu. After agreement of sale with regard to land covered in the agreement, the brother of Sasubilli Subbi Naidu by name Appalaramu at the instigation of enemies of the defendants got issued a legal notice on 07.05.2012 to Subbi Naidu and plaintiff.

Late Sasubilli Subbi Naidu and the defendants gave proper reply to the notice issued by Appalaramu. So the plaintiff is not willing and ready to get with the balance sale consideration and stamp and registration expenses on the pretext that a partition suit was filed by

Appala Ramu against Subbi Naidu in OS No.46/2012 on the file of this Court and the same is pending. The plaintiff wants to drag on the balance amount of sale price and to get registration and the reply given by the plaintiff, these defendants have given proper reply. The plaintiff has willfully and intentionally avoiding to perform his part of contract with a malafide intention and on the pretext that the suit is pending. Till today these defendants are ready and willing to perform their part of contract by execute a register sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as per the terms stipulated in the agreement of sale deed dt.06­03­2012. The suit for return of advance sale consideration, the plaintiff ought to have sought the relief of specific performance of 10A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

agreement. Without said prayer, the suit is not maintainable and the defendants are entitled for damages. Hence pray to dismiss the suit.

04.Basing on the above pleadings, the trial court settled the following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for recovery of advance consideration amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ with interest at 24% per annum from the respective dates of Rs.3,00,000/­ from 06­ 03­2012, Rs.1,00,000/­ from 06­04­2012 and Rs.1,00,000/­ from 05­06­2012 and damages for default ?

2.To what relief ?

Additional issue :­

Whether the suit for recovery of advance sale amount without seeking specific performance by the plaintiff is maintainable or not?

05.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the 1st plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got examined PW.2 and PW.3 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 documents. 

On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.10 documents. 

06.After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the trial court dismissed the suit without costs.

07.Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the trial court, the appellant/plaintiff preferred the appeal on the following grounds: 

1. The Judgment of the trial court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

11A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

2. The trial court erroneously held that the plaintiff has continued with the suit sale agreement in Ex.A.1, even after knowing about the defective title of the defendants.

3. The trial Court ought to have seen that the defendants have admitted receipt of total amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ as advance sale consideration on different occasions vide

Ex.A.2, Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4. The plaintiff had no knowledge of the defective title of the defendants until he received a notice from Sasubilli Appalaramu which is subsequent to them.

4. The trial court ought to have decreed the suit based on its finding in para No.17 of the Judgment that the defendants having known the fact that Sasubilli

Appalaramu is claiming title over the plaint schedule land, have entered into the suit sale agreement with the plaintiff by misrepresentation. 

5. The trial court has erroneously held that after the plaintiff has given Ex.A.6 notice and on receipt of Ex.A.7 reply notice from the defendants the plaintiff is not entitled to ask for return of earnest money since both the parties want to continue with the agreement that is subsisting between them.

6. The trial court ought to have seen that, as the partition suit filed by Sasubilli Appalaramu in O.S 46/2012 is still pending and since the fate of the sale transaction based on suit sale agreement is subject to the outcome of the said suit, having no other alternative the plaintiff has filed the present suit for return of earnest money.

12A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

7. The trial court has erroneously held that the plaintiff committed breach of contract basing on the Ex.A.7 reply notice by the defendants.

8. The trial court ought to have seen that the Ex.A.7 reply notice by the defendants is only insincere attempt to reassure the plaintiff of their readiness to register the sale deed, while the portion suit O.S 46/2012 is pending.

9. The trial court has erroneously held that without repudiating the contract or rescinding the contract, the plaintiff cannot claim recovery of earnest money.

10.The trial court ought to have seen that both Ex.A.1 agreement and receipts in Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.4 were prior in time to receive notice from Appalaramu, and by the time of execution of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4, the plaintiff had no occasion to doubt the title of the defendants.

11.The trial court ought to have seen that, a title which cannot rationally said to be free from doubt, is no title at all, and as such the suit sale agreement in Ex.A.1, cannot be legally enforced and the plaintiff is perfectly entitled to seek return of earnest money.

12.The trial court ought to have seen the different pleadings i.e., the early pleadings in written statement and the subsequent pleadings which do not tally with any one.

For these grounds and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, this court may set aside the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.68/2015 dated 07.02.2018 on the file of Senior

Civil Judge, Rajam. 

13A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

08. Heard arguments on both sides.

09.Now the points for determination in this appeal are

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for recovery of advance consideration amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ with interest at 24% p.a from the respective dates of Rs.3,00,000/­ from 06­03­2012, Rs.1,00,000/­ from 06­ 04­2012 and Rs.1,00,000/­ from 05­06­2012 and damages for default ?

2.Whether the suit for recovery of advance sale amount without seeking specific performance by the plaintiff is maintainable or not ?

3.Whether the Judgment and Decree dated 07.02.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajam in

O.S.No.68/2015 is sustainable under law or warrants

any interference?” 

10.POINTS:

The two points are discussed at one time as they are interconnected and also in order to avoid repetition of the facts and analysis. 

11.The case of the plaintiff is that he has entered into an agreement of sale dated 06.03.2012 for consideration @ Rs.23,000/­ per cent for purchase of Ac.1­00 cents of land from one Sasubilli

Subbi Naidu and his sons defendants 1 to 4 received advance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/­ and further another Rs.1,00,000/­ was received on 06.04.2012 for the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/­ and Rs.1,00,000/­. Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 are the receipts issued by the defendants 1 to 4 and their father Sasubilli Subbi Naidu and Ex.A.3 was issued by Sasubilli Subbi Naidu and defendant No.1. Further another amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ was taken by the 1st defendant to 14A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

Sasubilli Subbi Naidu as part of advance sale consideration for which the 1st defendant executed Ex.A.4 promissory note as a receipt. Meanwhile it came to the notice of the plaintiff that the paternal uncle of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 by name Sasubilli

Appalaramu has filed suit i.e., O.S 46/2012 for partition of the schedule property on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam and the same is pending. Hence, he sought for return of earnest money paid by him to Sasubilli Subbi Naidu as there is no possibility for specific performance.

12.On the contra the defendants contended that long back the partition has taken place between Sasubilli Subbi Naidu and his brother Sasubilli Appalaramu about 50 years back on the plaint schedule property devolved as Sasubilli Subbi Naidu along with the other property.

13.In support of his contention, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1. From the evidence of PW.1, the property is ancestral property of Sasubilli Subbi Naidu and that the surveyor measured the lands after 11 months of Ex.A.1 in the presence of both parties. One Grandhi Madhavi purchased some lands from the defendants in same survey number i.e., 9­18.

14.In support of his contention, the plaintiff got examined one of the attestor of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale dated 06.03.2012 as

PW.2. PW.2 states that he was present at the time of payment of advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/­ and also Rs.1,00,000/­ and also he was available at the time of measurements were taken on the 15A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

paper at that time himself and Tummala Srinu and six others were also present.

15.Further the plaintiff got examined PW.3 and that he was present at the time of payment of Rs.1,00,000/­ and execution of

Ex.A.4 promissory note and he was present at the time of mediation on 05.06.2012 and the said settlement is for payment of

Rs.1,00,000/­.

16.The 1st defendant got examined as DW.1, he admits that he had responsibility to give earnest money to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff sale transaction was not completed.

Ex.B.1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 17.04.2000 which was executed by Sasublli Subbi Naidu and his sons in favour of one Grandhi Madhavi, the property in survey No.9­ 18 to an extent of Ac.0.40 cents. Ex.B.2 is the pattadar adangal in fasili 1427 in survey No.7­18­B in an extent of Ac.1.87 cents in the name of Sasublli Appalanarayana, wife of late Subbi Naidu, Ex.B.3 is the pattadar adangal dated 03.10.2017 in fasili 1424 in the name of

Sasubilli Appalanarayana, Ex.B.4 is the pattadar adangal dated 03.10.2017 in fasili 1423 in the name of Sasubilli Appalanarayana,

Ex.B.5 is the pattadar adangal dated 03.10.2017 in fasili 1422 in the name of Sasubilli Appalanarayana, Ex.B.6 is the 1­B namuna (ROR) in the name of Sasubilli Appalaramanna, son of Appalaswamy under different survey numbers i.e., 9/12, 9/25, 9/44, Ex.B.7 is the 1­B namuna (ROR) in the name of Sasubilli Appalaramanna, son of

Appalaswamy in survey No.1/2. Ex.B.8 is the 1­B namuna (ROR) in 16A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

the name of Sasubilli Appalaramanna, son of Appalaswamy under different survey numbers, Ex.B.9 is the 1­B namuna (ROR) in the name of Sasubilli Subbi Naidu. son of Appalaswamy and Ex.B.10 is the 1­B extract in the name of Subbi Naidu, son of Appalaswamy for the katha No.391.

17.From the pleadings of both parties and as to the admissions made by both the parties in their evidence and by relying on the documents Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3, it shows that an agreement was executed in between both the plaintiff and defendants and their father Sasubilli Subbi Naidu and the defendants have received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/­ on the date of execution and subsequent to that Rs.1,00,000/­ vide Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 receipts were executed by them. Further another Rs.1,00,000/­ was received by way of part of advance sale consideration and to that extent a promissory note was executed and in the promissory it was not mentioned that it was executed as part of sale consideration but still as the both parties admitted as to receipt of part of sale consideration in total

Rs.5,00,000/­, there is no dispute with regard to Ex.A.4 promissory note being considered as receipt. 

18.The main contentionof the appellant/plaintiff is that whether the suit for refund of earnest money without seeking for specific performance of contract is maintainable or not. At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff has taken a plea that he came to know about the partition suit vide O.S 46/2012 was filed by the brother of

Sasubilli Subbi Naidu i.e., Sasubilli Apppalaramu, where as the 17A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

defendants pleaded that long back about 50 years, a partition was taken place between Sasubilli Subbi Naidu and Sasubilli

Appalaramu and the plaint schedule properties and other properties fell to the share of their father. Now the burden lies on the defendants to prove that there is existence of partition between the brothers and the plaint schedule property devolved on the father of the defendants i.e., Sasubilli Subbi Naidu.

19.Ex.A.5 is the notice issued by the counsel for the plaintiff on 14.02.2015 i.e., prior to the filing of the suit in which it was mentioned that subsequently the plaintiff came to know that

Sasubilli Appalaramu, the brother of Sasubilli Subbi Naidu filed O.S 46/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam for partition of the family properties including agreement schedule land. Thus Ex.A.5 notice is issued “to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with clear title and valid documents for the schedule mentioned land as per the terms and conditions of agreement of sale

dated 06.03.2012 after receiving the balance sale consideration at

the expenses of plaintiff. If not the plaintiff will be constrained to go to proper court of law for specific performance of contract of sale for the schedule mentioned land. In such a case, the defendants will be liable for costs and damages to be incurred by the plaintiff”.

For which the defendants 1 to 5 have issued a reply notice under Ex.A.7 through their counsel admitting the execution of agreement of sale and stated that Sasubilli Appalaramu at the instigation of defendants’ enemies got issued a legal notice dated 18A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

07.05.2012 to his brother Sasubilli Subbi Naidu and plaintiff for which the defendants 1 to 4 father gave proper reply to the notice issued by Sasubilli Appalaramu and that the defendants are not willing and ready to get the balance sale consideration and stamp and registration expenses on the pretext that the partition suit was filed by the Sasubilli Appalaramu against Sasubilli Subbi Naidu in

O.S 46/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam and the same is

pending. The Sasubilli Appalaramu has absolutely no right and title or possession over the suit schedule land. The defendants are given an opportunity by granting 15 days time for getting registration of the sale deed for their schedule land on payment of the sale price after deducting the advance amount. Except from the reply notice it has to observed that a notice was issued on 07.05.2012 by the

Sasubilli Appalaramu for which a suitable reply was issued by the defendants, the said notice was not filed herewith.

20.The trial court in its judgment has highlighted that the plaintiff has knowledge of the suit filed by Sasubilli Appalaramu and also the notice sent by Appalaramu on 07.05.2012 to the plaintiff as well as defendants, prior to the 3rd part of advance sale consideration i.e.,

dated 05.06.2012. Further having knowledge of the defective title,

the plaintiff got issued a notice for specific performance of the contract and filed this suit for refund of earnest money. So far as the plaintiff has got knowledge was not specifically elicited from the cross examination made by the defendants, but only inference is that basing on the reply notice Ex.A.7 issued it has to be considered that 19A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

the plaintiff has knowledge prior to payment of advance sale consideration which was made on 05.06.2012 which is prior to 07.05.2012, the date of notice issued by Sasubilli Appalaramu.

Neither of the parties filed the legal notice issued by Sasubilli

Appalaramu who is brother of Sasubilli Subbi Naidu. That the defendants having admitted that O.S 46/2012 on the file of Senior

Civil Judge, Rajam was filed against the defendants father and the

same was still pending by the time of evidence of PW.1. Even PW.2 has stated that he came to know from the plaintiff that brother of

Sasubilli Subbi Naidu got issued notice to the defendants claiming share of the schedule property. PW.1 also admits that the property is the ancestral property of Sasubilli Subbi Naidu and that he has not verified revenue records in the year 2013 after receiving notice from Sasubilli Appalaramu to know whether he is having any right on the above said property.

21.The appellant has filed petitions in IA Nos.449/2019 and 2425/2019 under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. to receive the documents by way of additional evidence and the said petitions were dismissed as the appellant/petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence that the documents are not within his knowledge and could not after due diligence the same was not produced. So far as IA

No.2425/2019 to receive the legal notice dated 07.05.2012 when the petitioner himself avers that the said notice was not issued to him, there is no reason in filing the said petition. With regard to the other petition in IA No. 449/2019 to receive the documents i.e., Certified 20A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

copy of plaint in O.S 46/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at

Rajam, it is an admitted fact as to filing of the partition suit, there is no necessity to receive the said document and with regard to the legal notice filed it is not legible and it is not useful and no due diligence as to its non­production is stated. Hence both the petitions were dismissed. 

22.As per section 22 of Specific Relief Act “Any person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property may in an appropriate case.

(a)Possession, or partition and separate possession, of the property, in addition to such performance; or 

(b)Any other relief to which he may be entitled, including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or (made by) him, in case his claim for specific performance is refused.

(2)No relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub­section (1) shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed.

So the ambit of Section 22 of Specific Relief Act a party must necessarily seek specific performance of the agreement to sell in order to seek refund of the earnest money paid by him in terms of the agreement to sell. The provisions of Section 22 do not go that far nor do they forbid a claim for refund of the earnest money paid by a party who is not at fault for the failure of the transaction. The trial court was not therefore correct in holding that the refund of earnest money was impermissible so long as the suit for specific performance was not filed and a claim for refund made only by way of an alternative prayer. The true position appears to be that if the seller 21A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

under an agreement to sell defaults in the discharge of his obligation, as was the position in the present case, the purchaser has the option of filing a suit for specific performance and for additional reliefs as indicated earlier or for canceling the agreement and demanding the refund of his earnest money. As a matter of fact, the demand of the earnest money back from the seller may by itself constitute a repudiation of the agreement by the purchaser for such a demand would be inconsistent with his readiness and willingness to go ahead with the transaction.

23.Here though in the notice issued prior to the filing of the suit, it was not claimed in specific to refund them, earnest money but affirmatively it was averred to get ready for registration with clear and valid documents. Here title deeds are valid documents for the schedule mentioned land, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale as observed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale shall be filed and also liable for costs and damages to be incurred by the plaintiff.

24.From the contention of the either parties and also the notices issued and as to the demand that the partition suit is pending, it shows that there is impossibility of performance of the contract. So the very purpose of the contract is frustrated and when there is an admission made by the defendants as to the receipt of advance sale consideration on different dates on Rs.5,00,000/­. The defendants cannot unlawfully enrich themselves without refund of the money.

So though the suit is filed for refund of earnest money without 22A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

seeking for specific performance of the contract, the suit is maintainable as the institution of the suit for specific performance for refund of earnest money would in such a event be only unnecessary.

25.However, the Act does not place any bar on a buyer to file a suit for mere recovery of the earnest money. When there is no bar upon the buyer to seek mere relief of recovery of the amount particularly when there is admission about the receipt of the part of advance sale consideration by the defendants and also there is a partition suit filed against their father by his brother, the suit cannot be said to be not maintainable. 

26.There is no specific contention in case of breach of the contract as to compensation is mentioned in Ex.A.1. The other aspect highlighted by the trial court is that even after the receipt of the notice, the plaintiff has paid the amount vide Ex.A.4 as part of advance sale consideration having knowledge of defective title how the plaintiff has continued transaction. There is nothing was brought on record from the cross examination of the plaintiff as to why amount was paid subsequent to the legal notice issued by Sasubilli

Appalaramu brother of father of the defendants. So, even though it is not sought for specific performance of contract, the refund of earnest money for which the suit is filed is maintainable and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ advance sale consideration. The plaintiff claimed interest at 24% per annum but it is excessive. Hence, this court allowed the interest at 6% per 23A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.

annum. The plaintiff is not entitled to any damages. Accordingly, this point is answered. 

27.In the result, the appeal suit is allowed in part and the decree and judgment, dated 07.02.2018 in OS No. 68/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, is modified. Consequently, the suit in OS No. 68/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam is decreed for Rs. 5,98,016/­ (Rupees five lakh, ninety­eight thousand and sixteen only) with proportionate costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on

Rs.5,00,000/­ (i.e, Rs.3,00,000/­, Rs.1,00,000/­ and Rs.1,00,000/­ ) from the date of the suit i.e., 07.07.2015 till the date of realization.

The rest of the suit claim is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 26th day of May, 2020.

Principal District Judge,

Srikakulam.

Copy to the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam..

24A.S.No. 82/2018, Dt 26.05.2020 PDJ Court, Srikakulam.