Sri M.Babu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: KANDUKUR

Present: Sri M.Babu, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur, FAC:: Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur.

Friday, this the 27th day of December, 2019

C.C.No. 455 of 2013

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Jarugumalli Police station. … Complainant.

Vs.

Bezavada Sheshaiah S/o Kotaiah, 45 years, R/o Chrikurapadu village, Jarugumalli mandal. … Accused.

This case is coming on 26-12-2019 for final hearing, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Sk.Shariff, Advocate for the accused, and on perusal of relevant material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Jarugumalli Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.20 of 2013 of Jarugumalli

Police Station, for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian

Penal Code, with the following allegations:-

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet is that on 27-02-2013 the deceased along with PW1 to PW5 went to the coolie works to thrash the bengal gram crop in the fields of Chirukurapadu village, belongs to the accused. The accused arranged the thrashing miller connecting to the tractor bearing No.AP 27 N 5182, and while it was running at about 5- 00PM due to rash and negligent act of the accused, the head of the deceased crushed into the miller, resulting which he died on the spot. On the report given by PW1 a case as in Cr.No.20/2013 U/sec. 304-A of the IPC was registered by PW9. During the course of investigation he visited the scene of accident and examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW10, LW4 and LW5. LW16/Dr.N.Prathyusha, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and issued PME report.

LW17/K.S.M.V.Krishna Rao, MVI, inspected the crime vehicle and issued 2 MVI report. On 04-06-2013 the accused was arrested and sent him for judicial custody, and after completion of investigation PW9 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

4. After appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused is examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C the substance of accusation levelled against the accused is explained to him in

Telugu language for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the

Indian Penal Code, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

6.On behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW10 are examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C the incriminating material evidence appearing in the prosecution witnesses was explained to the accused in

Telugu language, for which he denied the same and reported no evidence.

8.Heard both sides arguments. Perused the entire record.

9.Now the points for consideration are that:-

1. Whether the deceased by name Pemula Sivaiah was died in the accident on 27-02-2013?

2. Whether the accused was the owner of the tractor bearing No.AP 27 N 5182 on the date of the accident?

3. Whether due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused the death of the deceased was occurred ?

4. To what relief?

10.POINT No.1 :-

As per the version of the prosecution that on 27-02-2013 the deceased along with PW1 to PW5 went to the coolie works to thrash the bengal gram crop in the fields of Chirukurapadu village, belongs to the accused. The accused arranged the thrashing miller connecting to the 3 tractor bearing No.AP 27 N 5182, and while it was running at about 5- 00PM due to rash and negligent act of the accused, the head of the deceased crushed into the miller, resulting which he died on the spot.

11.On the other hand, the learned accused counsel by submitting his arguments has contended that PW1 to PW5, who are the alleged eye witnesses did not support the version of the prosecution and turned hostile.

He further contended that except the investigating officer(PW9) evidence there is no evidence about rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. He further contended that due to rash and negligent act of the deceased the accident was occurred. He further contended that the case was compromised out of the Court, and prays to acquit the accused.

12.On perusal of the material on record, on behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW10 are examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14.

On behalf of the accused, no witness is examined and no document is marked.

13.As seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they deposed with one voice about the death of the deceased, but the prosecution witnesses, who are alleged eye witnesses PW1 to PW5 did not speak anything against the accused, they completely deviating the story of the prosecution case, and their section 161(3) of Cr.P.C statements which shows that they might have compromised the case with the accused. As seen from the mediator report, i.e., the evidence of PW10, who is the VRO, inquest panchanama as well as Postmortem examination report, which reveals that the deceased died with crush injury on his head. In the entire cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses the learned accused counsel did not deny the death of the deceased, as such it is fact that the deceased was died on 27-02-2013 when he was thrashing the bengal gram seeds in the fields of the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered.

14.Point No.2 and 3

It is the case of the prosecution and as per the version of the charge sheet that due to rash and negligent operation of the miller, which is 4 fixed to the tractor of the accused the accident was occurred. As seen from the evidence of PW1, who gave complaint before the police station, which was marked as Ex.P7. As seen from the contents of the report, it is an admitted fact that PW1 to PW5 and the deceased used to went to the tractor of the accused for thrashing the bengal gram crop, similarly on 27- 02-2013 when they came to the accused field for thrashing the bengal gram crop, the accident was occurred. As seen from the contents of Ex.P7/report it was mentioned as follows “Shumaru 5-00 gantala samayamuna maa rithu

Bezawada Seshaiah tractor engine vadda munduvipu unndaga, venukavippu vunna miller vadda senaga panta kuppalunu millulo veuchunna Pemula Sivaiah, hathathuga kekalu veyaga, athaniki saameepamulo unna memu choodaga Pemula Sivaiah thalabagam millulo nokkukoni poovuchunnadi.” So, as per the above recitals which reveals that there are no eye witnesses about the negligent act on the part of the accused. Though it was mentioned in the last paragraph of Ex.P7 due to rash and negligent act of the accused the accident was occurred, but the recitals of Ex.P7 itself speaks that there is no negligent act on the part of the accused. Further the alleged eye witnesses PW1 to PW5 they did not speak about rash and negligent act on the part of the accused in the Court while they deposing in their evidence.

15.The evidence of PW6, PW7 and PW8, they speaks about the death of the deceased in the accused land, but their evidence is only hearsay evidence. They are not eye witnesses did not speak anything about rash and negligent act on the part of the accused.

16.The evidence of PW9, who is the investigating officer, he deposed about mode and manner of the investigation done by him. As per the evidence of PW9 on 27-02-2013 PW1 came to the police station and presented a report under Ex.P7, basing on it, he registered a case as in

Cr.No.20/2013 U/sec. 304-A of IPC, and issued First Information Report under Ex.P8. Then he visited the scene of accident and examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and also prepared rough sketch, 5 which was marked as Ex.P9. As per the evidence of PW9, he examined other witnesses and also conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. He issued requisition to

LW16, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, and he also issued another requisition to MVI, who inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report, which was marked as Ex.P14, and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet by arresting the accused. So, as per the evidence of PW9, he did not collect any revenue record to show that the land belongs to the accused. As seen from the evidence of PW10, who is the scene observation mediator, her evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution about the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. So as seen from the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there is no specific evidence about rash and negligent act of the accused. As seen from the evidence of PW7, who is the son of the deceased and PW8, who is the brother of the deceased reveals that they compromised out of the Court for

Rs.5 lakhs, out of which Rs.2,50,000/- was paid by the accused. But in their section 161(3) of Cr.P.C statements they did not speak about the same.

Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove about rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered.

17.Point No.4:

In view of my finding in point No.1 to 3, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian

Penal Code. Accordingly, this point is answered.

18.Therefore, in view of above facts and circumstances, considering the material available on record, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, these points are answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

17.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the accused is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence and he is set at liberty. The bail bond of accused and his sureties shall remain in 6 force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. In this case, no case property is produced, as such no specific order is passed for disposal of the case property.

Dictated to the Stenographer of this Court, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 27th day of December, 2019.

Sd/- M.Babu,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC:: ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Prosecution :For Defence : PW1: Ch.Chenchaiah-NONE – PW2: N.Jalaramaiah PW3: B.Kamaiah PW4: N.Venkaiah PW5: S.Hanumanthu PW6: P.Radha PW7: P.Mahesh PW8: P.Israil PW9: SK.Shavali PW10:N.Lakshmi

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex. P1: Signature of PW1 on the report given to the police Ex. P2: Statement of P.W.1 recorded under section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. Ex. P3: Statement of P.W.2 recorded under section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. Ex. P4: Statement of P.W.3 recorded under section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. Ex. P5: Statement of P.W.4 recorded under section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. Ex. P6: Statement of P.W.5 recorded under section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. Ex. P7: Report Ex.P8 : First Information Report Ex.P9 : Rough sketch Ex.P10: Bunch of photographs Ex.P11: Inquest panchanam Ex.P12: Postmortem examination report Ex.P13: Scene observation report Ex.P14: Motor Vehicle Inspector report

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL –

Sd/- M.Babu,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC:: ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

// True copy //

PJCJ, Kandukur, FAC:: AJMFC, Kandukur.

7

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: KANDUKUR.

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.455 of 2013

1.Date of offence27-02-2013

2.Date of filing27-02-2013 Date of apprehension of

3.04-06-2013 accused

4.Date of release on bail04-06-2013 Date of commencement of

5.29-01-2018 trial

6.Date of close of trial26-12-2019

7.Date of Sentence or Order27-12-2019 State : Sub-Inspector of Police,

8.Name of the Complainant Jarugumalli Police station. Bezavada Sheshaiah S/o Kotaiah, 45 years,

9.Description of accused R/o Chrikurapadu village, Jarugumalli mandal.

10.Nature of OffenceU/sec. 304-A of IPC.

11.Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.

12.Finding of CourtFound not guilty

14. Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the accused is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence and he is set at liberty. The bail bond of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437- A of Cr.P.C. In this case, no case property is produced, as such no specific order is passed for disposal of the case property.

15. Fine amount : --

16. Explanation for delay and Remarks: This case was taken on file on 15-12-2013. On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to him on 22-01-2018. The accused was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C on 22-01-2018. At this stage the case underwent several adjournments for non-production of the witnesses, and later on behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW10 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 were marked. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 26-12-2019 the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for which he denied and reported no defence evidence, and defence evidence was closed, and on the same day heard arguments on both sides, and posted for judgment. On 27-12-2019 Judgment pronounced (vide separate judgment) in open court. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- M.Babu,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC:: ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I-Addl. District Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole. Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole. // True copy //

PJCJ, Kandukur, FAC:: AJMFC, Kandukur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: KANDUKUR

Present: Sri M.Babu, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur, FAC:: Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur.

Friday, this the 27th day of December, 2019

C.C.No. 452 of 2014

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Kondapi Police station. … Complainant.

Vs.

Bodempudi Srinivasa Rao @ Srinivas, S/o Kondaiah, 38 years, R/o K.Uppalapadu village, Kondapi mandal.… Accused.

This case is coming on 26-12-2019 for final hearing, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K.Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for the accused, and on perusal of relevant material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kondapi Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.13 of 2014 of Kondapi Police

Station, for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal

Code, with the following allegations:-

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet is that on 04-03-2014 the deceased, PW1 to PW3 and LW4 and LW5 proceeded to coolie works in the fields of one Male Venkateswarlu in the tractor bearing No.AP 27 AS 5006, the accused who is the driver of the said tractor without observing the deceased reversed the tractor resulting which the back door of the tractor was hit to the left temple head of the deceased and caused grievous bleeding injury, then PW1 and other coolies shifted the deceased to the

Primary Health Center, K.Uppalapadu village, the doctor examined and informed that the deceased has brought dead. On the report given by PW1 a case as in Cr.No.13/2014 U/sec. 304-A of the IPC was registered by PW4.

Thereafter, he visited the scene of accident and prepared rough sketch and also drafted scene observation report in the presence of LW7 and LW8. He also visited the Primary Health Center, K.Uppalapadu village, and 2 conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the mediators, and also recorded the statements PW1 to PW3,

LW4 and LW5. He issued requisition to LW11/Dr.Sd.Khadar Basha, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. He also issued another requisition to LW10/B.Ramakrishna Reddy, MVI, who inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report. On 11-03-2014 LW6/P.Sanjeeva Reddy, who is the owner of the crime vehicle brought the accused and handed him to the PW4, on that he arrested the accused and send him for judicial remand, and after completion of investigation PW4 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

4. After appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused is examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C the substance of accusation levelled against the accused is explained to him in

Telugu language for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the

Indian Penal Code, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

6.On behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW4 are examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C the incriminating material evidence appearing in the prosecution witnesses was explained to the accused in

Telugu language, for which he denied the same and reported no evidence.

8.Heard both sides arguments. Perused the entire record.

9.Now the points for consideration are that:- 3

1. Whether the deceased by name Mylapati Venkata Rathamma was died in the accident on 04-03-2014 ?

2. Whether the accused was the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP 27 AS 5006 on the date of the accident?

3. Whether the accused drove the said tractor in a rash and negligent manner and caused to the death of the deceased ?

4. To what relief?

10.POINT No.1 :-

It is the case of the prosecution that on 04-03-2014 the deceased, PW1 to PW3 and LW4 and LW5 proceeded to coolie works in the fields of one Male Venkateswarlu in the tractor bearing No.AP 27 AS 5006, the accused who is the driver of the said tractor without observing the deceased reversed the tractor resulting which the back door of the tractor was hit to the left temple head of the deceased and caused grievous bleeding injury, then PW1 and other coolies shifted the deceased to the

Primary Health Center, K.Uppalapadu village, the doctor examined and informed that the deceased has brought dead.

11.On the other hand, the learned accused counsel by submitting his arguments has contended that the defacto-complainant and the accused have compromised the case out of the Court, as such the prosecution witnesses did not support the version of the prosecution, and prays to acquit the accused.

12.On perusal of the material on record, on behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW4 are examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On behalf of the accused, no witness is examined and no document is marked.

13.As seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses they deposed with one voice about the death of the deceased, but they entirely deviating the story of the prosecution. As seen from the inquest panchanama, which was marked as Ex.P8, as well as Postmortem examination report, which was marked as Ex.P9, reveals that the deceased died with injuries, as such it is fact that the deceased died with head injury as per the version of the prosecution. In the entire cross-examination of the 4 prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW4 the said fat was not denied, as such it is fact that the deceased died with head injury as per the version of the prosecution. Accordingly, this point is answered.

14.Point No.2 and 3

The version of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that due to rash and negligent driving of the accused without observing the deceased reversed the tractor resulting which the back door of the tractor was hit to the head of the deceased, resulting which she fell down and received bleeding injuries. As seen from the evidence of PW1 to PW3, they did not support and identify the accused as the driver of the tractor on the date of the alleged accident. There is no evidence of PW1 to PW3 that the accused drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner. As seen from the evidence of PW4, who is the investigating officer, he deposed about mode and manner of the investigation done by him. Except PW4 evidence, there is no another sufficient evidence about rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. As seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documents which reveals that they have compromised out of the court.

So, PW1 to PW3 have turned hostile and they did not support the version of the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove about rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered.

15.Point No.4:

In view of my finding in point No.1 to 3, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian

Penal Code. Accordingly, this point is answered.

16.Therefore, in view of above facts and circumstances, considering the material available on record, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, these points are answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

17.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the 5 accused is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence and he is set at liberty. The bail bond of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. In this case, no case property is produced, as such no specific order is passed for disposal of the case property.

Dictated to the Stenographer of this Court, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 27th day of December, 2019.

Sd/- M.Babu,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC:: ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Prosecution :For Defence : PW1: M.Rathna Raju-NONE – PW2: G.China Sundara Rao PW3: G.Yesamma PW4: V.Anjaneyulu

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex. P1: Signature of PW1 on the report given to the police Ex. P2: Statement of P.W.1 recorded under section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. Ex. P3: Statement of P.W.2 recorded under section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. Ex. P4: Statement of P.W.3 recorded under section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. Ex. P5: Report Ex. P6: First Information Report Ex. P7: Scene observation report Ex.P8 : Inquest report Ex.P9 : Postmortem examination report Ex.P10: Motor Vehicle Inspector report Ex.P11: Rough sketch

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL –

Sd/- M.Babu,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC:: ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

// True copy //

PJCJ, Kandukur, FAC:: AJMFC, Kandukur.

6

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: KANDUKUR.

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.452 of 2014

1.Date of offence04-03-2014

2.Date of filing04-03-2014 Date of apprehension of

3.11-03-2014 accused

4.Date of release on bail11-03-2014 Date of commencement of

5.18-10-2019 trial

6.Date of close of trial26-12-2019

7.Date of Sentence or Order27-12-2019 State : Sub-Inspector of Police,

8.Name of the Complainant Kondapi Police station. Bodempudi Srinivasa Rao @ Srinivas,

9.Description of accused S/o Kondaiah, 38 years, R/o K.Uppalapadu village, Kondapi mandal.

10.Nature of OffenceU/sec. 304-A of IPC.

11.Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.

12.Finding of CourtFound not guilty

14. Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the accused is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence and he is set at liberty. The bail bond of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437- A of Cr.P.C. In this case, no case property is produced, as such no specific order is passed for disposal of the case property.

15. Fine amount : --

16. Explanation for delay and Remarks: This case was taken on file on 18-07-2014. On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to him on 22-12-2014. The accused was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C on 08-08-2019. On behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW4 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 26-12-2019 the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for which he denied and reported no defence evidence, and defence evidence was closed, and on the same day heard arguments on both sides, and posted for judgment. On 27-12-2019 Judgment pronounced (vide separate judgment) in open court. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- M.Babu,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC:: ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I-Addl. District Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole. Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole. // True copy //

PJCJ, Kandukur, FAC:: AJMFC, Kandukur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: KANDUKUR

Present: Sri . M.Babu

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur.

Friday, this the 01st day of October, 2021

ORIGINAL SUIT No.101/2021

Between

Canara Bank, Mogilicherla Branch, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Mogilicherla Village, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintiff

AND

1. Mupparaju Madhava, S/o Lakshmi Narayan, Hindu, aged about 33 years, R/o VR Kota Village, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Mupparaju Lakshmi Narayana … Defendants

The Suit is coming on 01.10.2021 for Plaintiff evidence before me in the presence of Sri J.Rajendra Babu,Advocate for the Plaintiff bankand the Defendants having been called absent and set exparte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.8,94,174/- being the amount due as per the account copy maintained by the plaintiff bank with future interest at the contract rate from the date of suit, till realization from the defendants 1 & 2 personally, severally and jointly and out of their properties, and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The 1st defendant applied for Education loan (Vidya Sagar Scheme) to the plaintiff bank and executed loan application on 09.03.2009 in favour of the plaintiff bank agreeing to pay interest @13.45% per annum. On 09.03.2009 plaintiff bank sanctioned

Rs.2,12,000/- to the defendant for pursuing M.Pharmacy. The 1st defendant are agreed for the repayment schedule and signed on the sanction letter. The repayment schedule commencing from 2 year after completion of course or 1 year after getting employment 2 whichever is earlier. On 09.03.2009 defendants executed Educational Loan Agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank, on 09.03.2009. On 15.09.2019 applicant bank got issued legal notice through their panel advocate. As per sanction of education loan regarding the 1st defendant the installments i.e., 24 EMI commencing from two years after completion of the course or one year after getting employment whichever is earlier. The defendant paid the installments on different dates the same was reflected in the account copy filed by the plaintiff. The 1st defendant has not paid the installments amount from time to time as per agreement and also sanction letter and the said account became NPA on 09.07.2007. Hence, the suit filed by plaintiff is within the limitation. The defendant are not entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938, Act VII of 1977 or Act 45 of 1987 and

Act II of 1990. The defendants are not entitled to claim any reduction in the rate of interest in view of section 21(A) of the Banking Regulation Act as amended Bank Laws

Amended Act 1 of 1984 and the rate of Interest is charged as per the directions of the

Reserve Bank of India to which the defendant have agreed. An account was opened in the books of the plaintiff bank in the name of 1st defendant under Account

No.1828651008849 and copy of the same certified under section 4 of the Bankers

Books of Evidence Act is filed herewith. The account copy filed along with the plaint and also the documents shall be read as part and parcel of the plaint. The plaintiff is therefore obliged to file the suit against the defendants for recovery of the suit debt amount with interest and costs.

3.On behalf of the Plaintiff, the chief manager was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is the Application for Educational Loan executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank, dated.09.03.2009. Ex.A2 is the Sanction letter given by plaintiff bank to defendant, dated.09.03.2009. Ex.A3 is the Education Loan agreement executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank, dated.09.03.2009.

Ex.A4 is the Acknowledgment of debt and security letter executes by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank, dated.10.04.2013. Ex.A5 is the Acknowledgment of debt and security letter executes by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank, 3 dated.13.03.2016. Ex.A6 is the Acknowledgment of debt and security letter executes by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank, dated.22.01.2019. Ex.A7 is the legal notice issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant, dated.19.12.2019 and Ex.A8 is the Attested

Account copy for A/c.No.1828651008849, dated.20.11.2020. The Defendant remained set exparte.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is that :

I. Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to claim the suit amount as prayed for ? II. To what relief ?

6. Point. No.1:

The plaintiff counsel by submitting his arguments contended that the 1st defendant applied for Education Loan (Vidya Sagar Scheme) to the plaintiff bank on 09.03.2009. The plaintiff bank sanctioned loan of Rs.2,12,000/- with interest @ 13.45% per annum for pursuing M.Pharmacy. The defendants signed on repayment schedule and sanction letter. The repayment schedule commencing from 2 years after completion of course or one year after getting employment whichever is earlier. The defendants paid the installments on different dates. On 15.09.2019 the plaintiff bank issued legal notice through their panel Advocate. The defendant account became NPA. Hence, the plaintiff bank filed the suit for recovery of loan amount.

7.A perusal of the material record. The branch manager examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A8. The Defendants remained set exparte. The evidence of

PW.1 is nothing but a contents of the plaint, as per the evidence of PW.1 and documents which goes to show that the defendants borrowed money from the plaintiff bank. As such the defendants are liable to pay the amount to the bank individually and jointly. The evidence of Pw.1 was not challenged by the defendants as such the plaintiff bank proved the claim.

In view of the above facts and circumstances considering on the material record and documents the plaintiff proved his case. Accordingly point no.1 was answered in 4 favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants.

8.Point No.2:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff bank and against the defendants, directing the defendants 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.8,94,174/- (Rupees eight lakhs ninety four thousand one hundred and seventy four only) personally, severally and jointly to the plaintiff bank with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on Rs.8,94,174/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me i n the open court on this the 01st day of October, 2021.

SD/-M.BABU

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KANDUKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT : Pw.1: Jandrajupalli Boyoju Raju-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Application for Educational Loan executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank, dated.09.03.2009. Ex.A2:Sanction letter given by plaintiff bank to defendant, dated.09.03.2009. Ex.A3: Education Loan agreement executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank, dated.09.03.2009. Ex.A4:Acknowledgment of debt and security letter executes by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank, dated.10.04.2013. Ex.A5: Acknowledgment of debt and security letter executes by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank, dated.13.03.2016. Ex.A6: Acknowledgment of debt and security letter executes by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank, dated.22.01.2019. Ex.A7: Legal notice issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant, dated.19.12.2019. Ex.A8: Attested Account copy for A/c.No.1828651008849, dated.20.11.2020.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

SD/-M.BABU

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KANDUKUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: KANDUKUR

Present: Sri M.Babu

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur

Monday, this the 04th day of October, 2021

ORIGINAL SUIT No.125/2021

Between

Vema China Venkateswarlu, S/o Ramulu, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Teacher, R/o Brindavanam, Kandukur Town & Mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintiff

AND

Talari Vijaya Kumar, S/o Yesobu, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Office Subordinate, Prakasam Colony, Mahadevapuram Post, Kandukur Town & Mandal, Prakasam District. Now Working at Zilla Parishad Office, Ongle, Prakasam District. … Defendant

The Suit is coming on 04.10.2021 for Plaintiff evidence before me in the presence of Sri Sk.Mastan Vali, Advocate for the Plaintiffand the Defendant having been called absent and set exparte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.3,95,000/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dt.06.05.2018 executed by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff for Rs.2,50,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

On 06.05.2018 the defendant for his family necessities borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff, at Kandukur Town and in evidence thereof on the same day the defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff, and the defendant agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the 2 plaintiff or to his order on demand. Later in spite of his repeated demands, towards partly discharge of said debt on 13.05.2019 the defendant have issued cheque for

Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff bearing cheque no.097088 to be drawn from his

Account No.10897449777 of State Bank of India, Kandukur Branch, Prakasam District of

Andhra Pradesh and plaintiff presented the same in the same bank in his Account

Number:10957451713 for collection the same was bounced for wants of ‘funds insufficient’ in his account and thereafter on 06.06.2019 the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant with a demand to discharge debt amount and the same was received by the defendant on 10.06.2019 and even after receipt of notice also, knowing fully well of the contents debt or to gave reply notice and so the plaintiff filed separate complaint against the defendant on the file of Hon’ble Additional First Class Judicial

Magistrate of Kandukur vide CC.No.618/2019 for the offence punishable under section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the same is pending. The defendant did not choose to discharge the suit promissory note debt amount to the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit against the defendant for the recovery of the suit promissory note debt amount. The suit filed within the time of limitation. The plaintiff is herewith filed the original suit promissory note, office copy of legal notice and other connected documents and the same may be read as part and parcel of this plaint and the defendant is not entitled for any debt relief acts.

3.On behalf of the Plaintiff, on behalf of the plaintiff Pw.1 to Pw.3 are examined and got marked Ex.A1 & A2. Ex.A1 is the Promissory note dated.06.05.2018.

Ex.A2 is the Office copy of legal notice, dated.06.06.2019. The Defendant remained set exparte.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is that :

I. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit promissory note amount as prayed for ? II. To what relief ?

3

6. Point.No.1:

It is the case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- on 06.05.2018 from the Plaintiff for his family expenses and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum in favour of the plaintiff. In spite of several demands made by the Plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay the money. Hence, the suit is filed for recovery of promissory note debt.

7.On perusal of the material record and evidence of Pw.1 and Ex.A1 & A2 are marked. The evidence of Pw.1 is nothing but a contents of the plaint stating that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the Plaintiff on 06.05.2018 and agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the

Plaintiff or on his order on demand. The evidence of Pw2 and Pw3 which goes to show with one voice that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff of Rs 2,50,000/- on 06.05.2018 for his family necessities and executed a suit promissory note. As seen from the original promissory note which reveals that the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff under a promissory note which was marked as Ex.A1 agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and the defendant signed on the

Revenue Stamp affixed on the promissory note. The evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.3 reveals that the due execution of the promissory note. So, as per the provisions under section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, The Court is obliged to presume by virtue of Section 118(a) of the Act that the promissory note was made for consideration. The initial burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would lead the Court to believe the non-existence of the consideration. If the defendant discharges the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful the onus would shift to the plaintiff who would be obliged to prove the existence of consideration and on the failure to prove the same the relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument cannot be granted When once it is found that the execution of the pronote is established 4 and the defendant failed to discharge the initial burden of proving the non-existence of consideration the plaintiff would be entitled to the benefit of the presumption under

Section 118(a) of the Act. the presumption in respect of the date, passing of consideration was drawn in favour of the Plaintiff. The defendant did not to challenge the evidence of Pw.1. In view of the above facts and circumstances considering on the material record and documents the plaintiff proved his case. Accordingly, point no.1 was answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8.Point No.2:

In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,95,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and ninety five thousand only) to the Plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04th day of October, 2021.

SD/-M.BABU

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KANDUKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT : Pw.1: Vema China Venkateswarlu -None- Pw.2: Sunkari Venkata Rangaiah Pw.3: Pilli Venkata Narayana Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1Promissory note dated.06.05.2018. Ex.A2 Office copy of legal notice, dated.06.06.2019.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL 5

SD/-M.BABU

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KANDUKUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: KANDUKUR

Present: Sri . M.Babu

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur

Friday, this the 01th day of October, 2021

ORIGINAL SUIT No.88/2021

Between

Tanneru Veera Raghavulu, S/o Peda Raghavulu, Hindu, aged about 38 years, R/o Padamata Vadde Palem, Kandukur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintiff

AND

1. Thanneeru Chennamma, W/o late Peda Raghavulu, Hindu, aged about 65 years,

2. Upputuri Rajeswari, W/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 50 years,

3. Kunchala Ragamma, W/o Pothuraju, Hindu, aged about 48 years,

4. Chembeti Rejeswari, W/o Sreenu, Hindu, aged about 45 years,

5. Bandaru Ragini, W/o Velugondaiah, Hindu, aged about 42 years,

All are R/o Padamata Vadde palem, Kandukur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendants

The Suit is coming on 01.10.2021 for Plaintiff evidence before me in the presence of Sri M.Jagadeesh,Advocate for the Plaintiffand the Defendants having been called absent and set exparte, after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for preliminary decree for partition of Plaint Schedule

Properties into six (6) equal shares and allot one (1) such share to the plaintiff by metes and bounds, after considering the good and bad qualities of the properties and put him in separate possession of the same and for costs.

2

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaint schedule properties are originally belongs to the Thaneeru peda

Raghavalu after demise of Thanneeru Peda Raghavulu his entire estate devolved upon his legal heirs. There after 1st defendant orally partitioned the suit schedule mentioned property to only defendants 2 to 5. In fact the plaintiff also one of the legal heir and having legitimate right in the suit schedule mentioned property as a son in the estate of deceased Thanneeruk Peda Raghavulu. But the defendants did not partition the plaintiff share till today in spite of several repeated demands made by the plaintiff and postponing the same on some pretext or on the other reasons. The defendants have no any right to do so. Now the suit schedule mentioned is in joint constructive possession of the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff recently came to know that the defendants got ready to manage the Revenue Authorities to mutate their names in Revenue records by using their power and influence. The defendants are no any manner of right to do so. If any Revenue records tamper by the defendants those documents are nominal, sham and collusive documents and becomes null and void in eye of law those things are not valid in accordance with law. Being normal citizens the plaintiff would not resist their highhanded activism. Except the plaintiff and the defendants none of else have any manner of share concerning to the suit schedule mentioned property. While so the defendants have been giving out in the Village since one week that we will not allow the plaintiff to partition the suit schedule mentioned property. If the threatened act of the defendants is allowed to be materialized, irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiff.

The defendants are powerful persons in the Village supported by brutal strength and the plaintiff normal citizens without support and the plaintiff is not resist the illegal activities of the defendants without aid and help of the Hon’ble Court. The plaintiff put panchayat in the Village in the presence of Village elders for amicable partition of the suit schedule mentioned property. In the said panchayat also the defendants stated as supra. It is well settled law that as per Hindu Succession the deceased estate should have to divide equal 3 share among the legal heirs. But the defendants violating the act did not come forward for amicable partition of the suit schedule mentioned property. As matter of the fact the suit schedule mentioned property is not partitioned till today properly and it is under joint constructive possession of the plaintiff and the defendants. On account of the plaintiff issued legal notice, dated.16.11.2020 by demanding that come for amicable partition.

The defendants 1 to 5 received the same and did not give and reply till today. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained suit the present suit for partition against the defendants over the suit schedule mentioned property.

3.On behalf of the Plaintiff, he himself examined as Pw.1 and Ex.A1 to A4 were marked and the Defendants remained set exparte.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Now the point for consideration

I.whether the Plaintiff is constrained for partition as prayed for ? II.To, what relief?

6.Point.No.1:

The Learned Plaintiff counsel by submitting his arguments contended that the suit schedule property was belongs to one Thanneeru Peda Raghavulu who is none other than the father of the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 5 and husband of 1st defendant. Suit schedule property is the self acquired property of Peda Raghavulu. He purchased the same by virtue of registered sale deed, dated.18.05.1977. After his demise his entire estate devolved upon his legal heirs. Thereafter the 1st defendant orally partitioned the suit schedule property to only defendants 2 to 5 but did not partition the legitimate share of the plaintiff. In spite of several repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not cooperate the partition of the plaintiff’s share. Hence the suit is filed partition of the Plaint Schedule mentioned Properties.

7.On perusal of the material record, on behalf of the Plaintiff, he himself 4 examined as Pw.1, and Ex.A1 to A4 were marked. Ex.A1 is the Certified Copy of the

Registered sale deed, dated.18.05.1977 executed by Tanneeru Kondamma and others in favour of the Tanneeru Peda Raghavulu. Ex.A2 is the Office copy of the legal notice, dated.16.11.2020. Ex.A3 is the Postal receipt, dated.16.11.2020 and Ex.A4 is the

Acknowledgment in number (5). The evidence of Pw.1 is nothing but a contents of the plaint. The documents of the plaintiff and evidence proves the claim of the plaintiff. The defendants did not choose to contents the suit and set exparty already as stated above.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, considering on the material record, the point was answered in favour of Plaintiff against the Defendants.

8.Point No.2:

In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs dividing the

Plaint Schedule Properties into six (6) equal shares and allot one (1) such share to the plaintiff by metes and bounds and put him in separate possession of the same.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 01st day of October, 2021.

SD/-M.BABU

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KANDUKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT : Pw.1:Tanneeru Veera RaghavuluNone

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.A1 is the Certified Copy of the Registered sale deed, dated.18.05.1977 executed by Tanneeru Kondamma and others in favour of the Tanneeru Peda Raghavulu. Ex.A2 is the Office copy of the legal notice, dated.16.11.2020. Ex.A3 is the Postal receipt, dated.16.11.2020. Ex.A4 is the Acknowledgment in number (5).

SD/-M.BABU

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KANDUKUR