Sri M. Bhaskar

1 OS No. 53 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ARMOOR

Present: Sri M.Bhaskar, Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Armoor.

Dated this the 20th day of March, 2020

O.S.No. 53 of 2016

Between: Khandesh Satyanarayana S/o Late Ramaiah, aged 38 years,Occu: Business R/o H.No.1-4-31, Zirayathnagar, Armoor village and mandal, Dist. Nizamabad. ...Plaintif // AND //

1. Sathpute Gangadhar S/o Gangaram, aged 57 years, Occu: Business R/o Shastrinagar, near Nizam Sagar Canal, Armoor village and mandal, Dist.Nizamabad.

2. Polapally Mahesh S/o Polapally Suresh, aged 38 years, Occu: Business R/o H.No.1-6-53/2, Ramnagar, Armoor village and mandal.

3. Kathraji Muthenna S/o Ramulu, aged 59 years, Occu: Gazetted Head Master (retired) R/o H.No.1-1-26/39/2, Journalist colony, Armoor mandal, Dist.Nizamabad.

4. Chelimela Pentaiah S/o Gundanna, aged 61 years, Occu: Teacher (retired) R/o H.no.2-49, Venkateshwara colony, Mamda village and mandal, Adilabad District.

5. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Armoor proper, Armoor mandal, Dist.Nizamabad.

...Defendants

This suit coming before me on 13th day of March, 2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Krishnanand, Learned Counsel for the Plaintif, Sri M.K.Narender, Learned Counsel for the defendants No.1 to 4 and Sri Amitab Kirad, Learned counsel for defendant No.5; the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintif seeking declaration of title, declaring the plaintif as absolute owner and possessor of the open plot

No.3 (part) and 4 (full) in survey No.289/A, E in L.P.No.342/83 admeasuring 277.77 Sq.yards or 232.34 Sq.mtrs, bounded by: North: 30 feet wide road, South: Plot No.8 and 7, East: Plot No.5, West: Plot No.3 (part), situated at Zirayathnagar, Armoor village andmandal,Nizamabad

District and open plot No.5 in survey No.289/A, E in L.P.no.342/83 2 OS No. 53 of 2016 admeasuring total area of 222.22 Sq.yards or 185.87 Sq.mtrs, bounded by: North: 30 feet wide road, South: Plot No.6, East: Open place of

Vendors, West: Plot No.4, situated at Zirayathnagar, Armoor village and mandal, Dist.Nizamabad, hereinafter referred to as suit schedule A & B properties and grant Perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule A and B properties.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintif is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule A and B properties, having been purchased through registered document No.1022 and 1023/2016 dt.2-3-2016 from its original owners Nalla Laxmi, Narendhar,

Devendar and Vijaya Laxmi @ Gaddam Vijaya Laxmi, who are the legal heirs of late Nalla Narsa Reddy. One late Narsa Reddy who is the husband and father of the vendors respectively, purchased agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0-14 ½ guntas in survey No.289/E from Gojur

Tekulapalli Bhudevi W/o Yeddanna, through registered sale deed document No.52/1982 dt.23-1-1982 and also purchased Ac.0-27 ½ gts in survey No.289/A through registered sale deed document No.48 of 1982 dt.23-1-1982 from Gojuru Tekulapalli Rajanna S/o Buchanna. Later

Sri Nalla Narsareddy converted said agricultural lands into layout plots approved as Layout plan No.342/1983 vide File No.2445/83-DH of Gram

Panchayath, Armoor, said Nalla Narsa Reddy died on 12-6-2014 leaving behind the vendors of plaintif as his sole legal heirs and successors.

After purchase of the suit schedule properties the plaintif approached the Municipal Authorities, Armoor and obtained construction permission vide permission No.G1/1688/13/MCA/2016 vide File No.013/MCA/2016 3 OS No. 53 of 2016 dt.17-5-2016 which is for the Schedule B property, the permission for schedule A property is still pending. On 18-5-2016 the plaintif visited suit schedule properties and dumped construction material over his plots, then the defendants alongwith their henchmen came to the suit schedule properties and threatened him with dire consequences if he proceed with the construction on the ground that they are the owners of the suit schedule A and B properties, then the plaintif demanded them to produce the documents, so the defendants produced the documents, after going through it he realized that those documents are no way concerned with the suit schedule properties and the defendants

No.3 & 4 purchased plot No.4 & 5 through registered sale deed document No.829 and 830 of 1985 dt.28-6-1985, from one Rabia Begum

W/o Syed Sameer Ahmed, without mentioning the origin of title of said

Rabia Begum and the encumbrance certificate furnished by defendant

No.1 also reflects the same, basing on the above said documents, defendant No.3 illegally obtained sanctioned plan for schedule A property vide sanctioned permit No.G1/56/TPS/MCA/2015 dt.29-5-2015, but after noticing about the same, one of the vendors of the plaintif i.e,

Nalla Laxmi W/o Late Nalla Narsa Reddy addressed letter to Municipal authorities on 13-10-2015, in turn the Municipal authorities conducted enquiry and revoked the sanctioned plan for construction in favour of defendant No.3, since his explanation and filing of link documents are not proper. It is further contention of the plaintif that he is bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule properties from its lawful owners, who are having absolute rights and title, trying to construct the structure over the suit schedule properties, but the defendants illegally interfering into his peaceful possession and enjoyment, though he 4 OS No. 53 of 2016 approached the police, who refused to register criminal case on the ground that the matter is civil in nature, as such he approached this court for redressal.

3.Defendants No.1 to 4 filed their written statement, denying the plaint averments, they further pleaded that Nalla Narsa Reddy never sold suit schedule property to anybody, since he sold the same in favour of one Saleem Ahmed, S/o Syed, in the year 1961 through a sale deed on

Rs.2/- non-judicial stamp and delivered vacant possession to him. Rabia

Begum who is the mother of said Saleem Ahmed, wife of Shamsheer

Ahmed, sold plot No.4 & 5 in Sy.No.299/A & E admeasuring 208.33

Sq.yards each in Layout Plan No.342/1983 in favour of defendants No.3 & 4 through registered sale deed document No.830 and 829 of 1985,

Late Nalla Narsa Reddy signed as witness by accepting the selling of the said plots in their favour, ever since they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owners and possessors. Nalla Narsa

Reddy ratified the sale transaction of Rabia Begum in favour of

Defendants No.3 & 4 which is known to the vendors of the plaintif.

Defendant No.3 obtained construction permission from Municipality,

Armoor vide File No. 139/MCA/2015 permit No.G1/57/TPS/MCA/2015 dt.29-05-2015 for construction of RCC roofed house over his layout plot

No.4, but he did not construct the same. The said Nalla Narsa Reddy sold layout Plot No.6 in faviour of Singidi Venkata Narsimha Reddy through registered sale deed document No.2079/2011 in which plot

No.5 belongs to Defenant No.4 Plot No.5 is shown as northern side boundary. The legal heirs of Nalla Narsareddy colluded with the plaintif, brought into existence of sale deed documents No.1022 and 1023, so they have no title, muchless better title to convey the same in 5 OS No. 53 of 2016 favour of the plaintif. Defendant No.3 &4 sold their respective plots in favour of defendant No.2 through registered agreement of sale cum

General Power of Attorney No.4609 and 4610 of 2015, the defendant

No.2 in turn sold the said plots to defendant No.1 through registered document No.1887 of 2016, ever since defendant No.1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment as absolute owner and possessor. Since the plaintif's brother’s wife is a Municipal counsellor and his brother is politically influenced person, who influenced the Municipal official and got obtained permission by mis-representing and mis-leading them.

Though the vendors and vendee is one and the same to the schedule of properties A and B, but they sold through two diferent documents which itself shows the ill intention of the plaintif to grab the plots of the defendants. The layout plots and the area shown in the registered documents are diferent. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Defendant No.5 Municipal Commissioner filed written statement, pleading inter-alia that defendant No.3 applied for building permission in Plot No.4 in layout plot No.342/1982 on 15-05-2015, after verification of the documents, she accorded permission as per approved plan

No.139/MCA2015 proceedings No.G1/57/TPS/MCA dt.29-05-2015; on 13-10-2015 one Nalla Laxmi W/o Late Narsa Reddy submitted objection petition against defendants No.3 & 4 stating that her husband is the owner who made the layout plots and who is claiming ownership through registered sale deed document No.52/1982 and 48/1982. After going through the rival contentions of the both the parties,she canceled the permission granted in favour of Defendants No.3 &4 on the ground that Nalla Narsa Reddy approved layout plan through town and Country

Planning, Hyderabad vide file No.12445/83/D8 dt.20-08-1983, basing on 6 OS No. 53 of 2016 the proceedings of the Gram panchayth No.329/82-A2 dt.22-1-1996 who approved the layout plan converting the agricultural land in Sy.No.289/A and E into layout plots. Later the plaintif approached the Municipality for construction of house in the suit schedule properties A and B, but the Municipality accorded permission to construct house in the schedule ‘A’ property alone. She denied the influence of the brother and sister-in-law of the plaintif in order to obtain permission from the

Municipality.

5.Basing on the rival pleadings, this court settled the following issues:

i.Whether the vendors of plaintif under registered sale deed bearing document No. 1022 of 2016, 1023 of 2016 dated 02-03-2016 have any rights and title over the schedule A & B properties and to execute the above sale deeds in respect of

Schedule A & B properties in favour of the plaintif ?

ii.Whether Nalla Narsa Reddy signed as a witness on the registered sale deed bearing document Nos.829 of 1985 and 830 of 1985 of defendants No.3 & 4 ?

iii.Whether the registered sale deeds bearing Documents

No.1022 of 2016 and 1023 of 2016 are valid and convey valid title in favour of the plaintif in respect of the suit schedule A & B properties ?

iv.Whether the plaintif is entitled for declaration that, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule A and B properties ?

v.Whether the plaintif is in possession of suit schedule A & B properties as on the date of filing of the suit ?

vi.Whether the plaintif is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

vii. If so, to what relief ?

ISSUES No. i to vi:

6.In order to prove the case of the plaintif, the plaintif is examined as PW1., exhibits A1 to A18 are exhibited and got examined 7 OS No. 53 of 2016 one of the vendor as PW2, one attestor of Exs.A1 and A2 as PW3. Per contra the defendant No.3 examined as DW1, got exhibited B1 to B11, one Ravi Kumar examined as D2 on his behalf.

7.The affidavit of plaintif in lieu of his chief examination as PW1 is nothing but replica of the plaint. During the cross examination by the counsels for defendants No.1 to 4 he categorically admitted that Nalla

Narsa Reddy purchased the land measuring Ac.0-27½ gts in Sy.No.

289/A from Gojuru Tekulapally Rajanna S/o Buchanna and land measuring Ac.0-14 ¼ gts in Sy.No.289/E fromGojuru Tekulapally

Bhudevi W/o Yedanna. He denied suggestion that Exs.A16 and A17 are created and false documents. He denied suggestion that Ex.A18 is not disclosing about the land covered by Ex.A16 and Ex.A17.

8.PW2 is the crucial witness who is one of the vendor and son of the deceased Nalla Narsa Reddy who deposed and supported the version of the plaintif, during the cross examination by the learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 4, he categorically deposed that the suit lands are located on the southern side of the canal at Zirayathnagar, his father executed registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintif. Witness adds that after the death of his father he alongwith his other family members executed Ex.A1 and A2 in favour of PW1, his father purchased the land in survey No.289/A and 289/E from one Tekulapalli

Bhudevi and T.Rajanna in the year 1982 and made plots. He denied suggestion that one Rabia Begum is the pattedar and owner of the land admesuring Ac.0-29 ½ gts in survey No.289/A and 289/E who made the said land into plots, and sold the plot No.4 & 5 admeasuring 208.33 Sq.yards each in favour of defendant No.3 &4 under Ex.B2 & B3, having purchased the same from one Gojuru Bakkanna through 8 OS No. 53 of 2016 unregistered sale deed in the year 1961 and her name is also entered in the pahanies in the year 1961, continued till the year 1982. He admitted that defendant No.3 obtained permission from Municpality to raise construction in his plot, but he voluntaries that after they make complaint to the commissioner, Municipal commissioner Armoor who in turn canceled. He do not know defendant No.3 and 4 sold his plots in favour of defendant No.2 but he heard that defendant No.2 sold said plots in favour of defendant No.1, he voluntaries that defendant No.2 to 4 committed ofence of cheating.

9.PW3 who is the attestor of Exs.A1 and A2 deposed and supported the version of the plaintif. Nothing fruitful was elicited by the learned counsels for defendants No.1 to 4.

10.To disprove the version of the plaintif, the defenant No.3 examined as DW1 by way of filing affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, it is nothing but replica of his written statement. During the cross examination he categorically admitted that the layout plan

No.342/1983 was mentioned in Ex.B1 and B2 and as per Ex.A9 the layout has been sanctioned in favour of one Nalla Narsa Reddy vide layout plan No.342/1982. He further admitted that Ex.A18 is layout plan No.342/1982 and the suit plots are reflecting in the layout plan/

Ex.A18 which is sanctioned to the land of Nalla Narsa Reddy, said Nalla

Narsa Reddy died, the suit plots were not sold while Nalla Narsa Reddy was alive. He do not know about all the legal heirs of Nalla Narsa

Reddy, except Nalla Devender who is his son. He admitted that he obtained Municipal permission for the construction of the house which was canceled as per the objection letter of Nalla Laxmi W/o Late Nalla

Narsa Reddy. He did not filed any civil suit with regard to his alleged 9 OS No. 53 of 2016 plot. He admitted that no where mentioned in Ex.B2 sale deed how his vendor Rabia Begum has got acquired the land, though he verified the link documents of Rabia Begum but he has not filed any documents. He admitted that he did not filed any document to show that Saleem

Ahmed purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0-06gts in survey

No.289/2, later his vendor Rabia Begum inherited the same, who is the daughter of said Saleem Ahmed. He admitted that the suit plots are in survey N.289/A and 289/E and his vendor Rabia Begum has any right, title over the layout plan No.342 of 1983 i.e,. Ex.A18. He admitted that he was not in possession of his alleged plot No.4 as on the date of filing of the present suit, after the sanction of layout plan, Nalla Narsa

Reddy was in possession of the suit plots, after his demise his legal heirs were in possession, subsequently PW1 got possession through purchase. He further admitted that D4 was never in possession of plot

No.5. He further admitted that defendant No.2 not paid any amount at the time of executing general power of attorney in his favour who executed sale deed with regard to plots No.4 and 5. He further admitted that neither himself nor defendant No.5 in possession of plots No.4 and 5 at the time of executing general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.2 under Ex.B4 and B5.

11.DW2 is the third party to the proceedings, he supported the version of the defendants, during the cross examination he too admitted that one Late Narsa Reddy purchased the lands in Sy.No.

289/E but he do not know its total extent, later said Nalla Narsa Reddy made layout plots. Suit schedule plots are part of layout plan under

Ex.A18. He deposed that he do not know how Rabia Begum has got the land in layout plot No.4 and 5 (suit plots). He has not verified any 10 OS No. 53 of 2016 document to state that the suit plots belongs to Rabia Begum. Witness adds that about 3 or 4 persons have made the layout plots. He admitted that the plot Nos.4 & 5 are part of the layout plan/Ex.A18. He further admitted that the other persons have given their land to Nalla

Narsa Reddy and their land was also made into plots and the said plot were given to him. He pleaded ignorance that he do not know whether there is any document to show that the said persons have given their lands to Narsa Reddy to include it in his land and to make the plots. He admitted that the layout sanctioned letter/Ex.A9 is in the name of

Nalla Narsa Reddy only. He admitted that as per Ex.A18/sanctioned plan the land with regard to Nalla Narsa Reddy is only there. He further added that there are lands of other persons also in it. He denied suggestion that he is not holding any document to show that there are lands of other persons also in the sanctioned plan/Ex.A18. He admitted that defendant No.3 has applied for municipal permission for construction of house in plot No.4 and he received the permission from the Municipal authorities, Armoor. He admitted that defendant No.3 has not constructed any house there. As per the certified copy of the registered sale deeds/Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 PW1 has purchased the suit plots from the legal heirs of Nalla Narsa Reddy. He admitted that the suit plots are near to his house. On confrontation with the photos by the learned counsel for the plaintif he admitted the said photos/Ex.A5 pertains to the suit plots. He deposed that one current meter (electricity service connection) is also affixed to the suit plots and the said meter is in the name of the plaintif vide electricity receipt/Ex.A7.

He admitted that the plaintif has constructed the temporary shed at the suit plots as per the photos/Ex.A5. He admitted that he is not a 11 OS No. 53 of 2016 witness to any of the documents pertaining to the defendants and that he is deposing false.

12.Since DW1 categorically admitted the ownership and possession of the plaintif and his vendors who are the legal heirs of

Late Narsa Reddy, and his title and possession establishes by Exs.A1 to

A13 and A16 to A18. As such the plaintif is entitled for reliefs claimed by him. Accordingly issues No.1 to 6 are answered in favour of the plaintif against the defendants.

ISSUE No.vii:

13.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, declaring the plaintif as absolute owner of the suit schedule properties A and B and granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants No.1 to 4, their agents, workmen, servants etc., from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintif in and over the suit schedule properties A and B.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th day of March, 2020.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Armoor.

:::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:::

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PW.1: Khandesh Satyanarayana DW1: Kathraji Muthenna PW.2: Nalla Devender DW2: M.Ravi Kumar PW.3: Mohammad Zakeer

:::EXHIBITS MARKED::

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

Ex.A1: Certified copyof Regd.Sale Deed doct.No.1023/2016 dt.2-3-2016ExB1: Copy of Sale deed in urdu Ex.A2: Certified copyof Regd.Sale deed alongwith true translation doct.No.1022/2016 dt.21-03-2016 in English Ex.A3: NPDCL Receipt No.TD1875436 Ex.B2: Certified copy of Regd.Sale dt.19-5-2016 Deed No.829/1985 dt.28-6- Ex.A4: Encumbrance Cert. dt.10-5-2016 1985 12 OS No. 53 of 2016

Ex.A5: Photographs (8 Nos)Ex.B3: Original Municipal Ex.A6: Original building permission order permission alongwith No.3069/W23/2016/0002 dt.20-9- approved plan dt.29-5-2015 2016Ex.B4: CC of regd.Agreement of Ex.A7: Electricity receipt dt.22-09-2016 sale cum GPA doctNo.4610/2015 Ex.A8: Original Building permission No.Ex.B5: CC of Regd.Agreement of File No.013/MCA/2016 dt.17-5-2016 sale cum GPA doct.No.4609/2015 alongwith mapEx.B6: CC of Regd.Sale deed Ex.A9: True copy of proceedings for doct.No.1887/2016 dt.4-5-2011 Layout in Sy.No.289/A, Gram Ex.B7: CC of Regd.Sale deed doct Panchayath Armoor ROC No.329/82- No.2079/2011 dt.15-4-2011 A2 dt.22-01-1996Ex.B8: CC of Regd.Sale deed doct ExA10: CC of EC App No.32787 No.2555/2015 dt.26-6-2015. dt.12-8-2016Ex.B9: CC of Pahani for the year Ex.A11: Electricity demand notice 1954-55 dt.5-1-2018Ex.B10: CC of Pahani for the year Ex.A12: Electricity receipt dt.17-1-2018 1981-82 Ex.A13: Photographs (3 Nos) aloangwithEx.B11: CC of pahani for the year CD 1984-85 Ex.A14: Signature on Ex.A1 Ex.A15: Signature on Ex.A2 Ex.A16: Original Regd.Sale deed doct.No.48 of 1982 dt.23-1-1982 Ex.A17: Original Regd.Sale Deed doct.No.52 of 1982 dt.23-01-1982 Ex.A18: Certified copyof Layout Plan in LP No.342 of 1983

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Armoor.

CC 758 of 2017 1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT ARMOOR

Present: Sri M.Bhaskar, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

Dated this the 23 rd day of December, 2019

CC.No. 758 of 2017

Between: The State through

Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Kammarpalli ...Complainant

And

A1: Teddu Shiva Karthik S/o Rajanna, aged 23 years,Caste: SC (Madiga), Occu: Student R/o Hasakothur village of Kammarpalli mandal. A2:Teddu Pedda Rajanna S/o TedduGangaram, aged 63 years, Caste: SC (Madiga), Occu: Agriculture, R/o Hasakothur village of Kammarpalli mandal. A3: Teddu Rajanna S/o Teddu Gangaram, aged 62 years, Caste: SC (Madiga), Occu: Agriculture, R/o Hasakothur village of Kammarpalli mandal. A4: Teddu Ramesh S/o Teddu Gangaram, aged 44 years, Caste: SC (Madiga), Occu: Agriculture, R/o Hasakothur village of Kammarpalli mandal. A5: Teddu Rajeshwar S/o Teddu Gangaram, aged 41 years, Caste: SC (Madiga), Occu: Agriculture, R/o Hasakothur village of Kammarpalli mandal. A6: Katta Chinna Gangaram S/o Katta Bhumanna, aged 57 years, Caste: SC (Madiga), Occu: Agriculture, R/o Hasakothur village of Kammarpalli mandal. A7: Teddu Karan S/o Teddu Ramesh, aged 23 years, Caste: SC (Madiga), Occu: Agriculture, R/o Hasakothur village of Kammarpalli mandal.

[Case against A2 split up and numbered as CC 113 of 2019]

…. Accused

This case is coming on 16-12-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and Sri Aleti Gangadhar, learned counsel for the accused and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kammarpalli police station filed

CC 758 of 2017 2

charge sheet against the accused, alleging that the accused persons with common intention voluntarily caused hurt to the informant/Sri Kanaka Rajesh on his left hand by means of stirrer by

A1, on his head by means of fire wood stick by A2 and with hands by A3 to A7, as defined under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that,

(a)On 03-09-2017 at about 8.30 a.m. the informant/Kanaka Rajesh alongwith his sangam members were preparing food near Ganesh idol at madiga Sangam, Hasakottur village, in the mean time A1 to A7 attacked on them, A1 beat him with stirrer on his left hand,A2 beat him with a stick on his head, A3 to A7 beat him with hands and caused injuries.

(b)Basing on the report of the informant, the Sub.Inspector of

Police, Kammarpalli registered Crime No. 60 of 2017 under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and took up the investigation.

(c)During the investigation the Sub.Inspector of Police, Kammarpalli examined and recorded the statement of the informant, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of the mediators and also examined and recorded the statements of list of witnesses and seized MO1/stick and MO2/iron stirrer under the cover of panchanama. On 14-09-2017 the accused persons went to the police station and surrendered himself, on interrogation he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence.

The Sub.Inspector of police served Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused, instructing them to appear before this Court as and when they receive summons. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 & 2 for the offence punishable under

Sec.324 IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 323 against

CC 758 of 2017 3

A3 to A7.

(d)This court took the cognizance for the offence punishable under

Sec.324 IPC against the accused No.1 and under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC against A2 to A7. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused persons were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sec.324 r/w 34 IPC. Charge has been framed, read over and explained the contents of the same in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(e)During the trial, prosecution has examined PWs1 to 8 and got marked P1 to P6 and MOs1 & 2. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

3.Heard learned both counsels, perused material available on record.

Whether the accused persons with common intention voluntarily caused hurt to the informant/Sri Kanaka Rajesh on his left hand by means of stirrer by A1, on his head by means of fire wood stick by A2 and with hands by A3 to A7, as defined under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC ?

4.In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined PWs1 to 8 and got marked P1 to P6 and MOs1 & 2. PW1 is the informant cum injured; Pws.2, 3 & 5 are the direct witnesses; PW4 is the panchwitness for scene of offence panchanama as well as seizure panchanama; Pws 6 & 7 are the Investigating Officers. Ex.P1 is the report of PW1 to the police; Ex.P2 is the Crime Details Form and Ex.P3 is the First Information

Report. MO1 is the firewood stick and MO2 is big iron stirrer.

5.The learned APPO would submits that, that the evidence of Pws.1

CC 758 of 2017 4

to 5 alongwith the evidence of the Investigating Officers/Pws 6 & 7 is suffice to convict the accused persons. Hence, prayed to convict the accused persons.

6.Per contra the learned defense counsel would submits that the evidence of Pws 1 to 5 is not corroborating with each other. Moreover a counter case is filed a against PW1/the informant which is numbered as

CC No. 759 of 2017 basing on the report lodged by the accused No.2

herein in which the accused also sustained injuries at the hands of PW1 who beat him with a stirrer and fire wood stick. He further submitted that there is no corroboration between the evidence of the injured with that of the direct witnesses. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

7.Basing on the rival submissions this court has to scrutinize the evidence available on record.

8.It is the version of the prosecution that on 03-09-2017 at about 8.30 a.m. the informant/Kanaka Rajesh alongwith his sangam members were preparing food near Ganesh idol at madiga Sangam, Hasakottur village, in the mean time A1 to A7 attacked on them, A1 beat him with stirrer on his left hand,A2 beat him with a stick on his head, A3 to A7 beat him with hands and caused injuries.

9.PW1 deposed that on 3-9-2017 at about 8-30 a.m. he alongwith other Madiga community persons were preparing food in order to donate the same to the villagers on the eve of Vinayaka chavithi, at that time A1 to A7 came there and objected for Annadanam so he stated that they are providing Annadanam every year then why they are objecting, then the accused No.1 took a big stirrer (pedda iron Jalli

Gante) and beat him on his head he nod his head so the blow hit his left shoulder so he sustained severe injury to his left shoulder. A2 to A7 also beat him with their hands. Meanwhile A2 took fire wood stick and beat

CC 758 of 2017 5

him on his back side of the head due to which he sustained bleeding head injury later it was sutured due to which he became unconscious while beating him with a stick by A2 he sustained head injury. He was shifted to the hospital by his mother and villagers. Later he lodged

Ex.P1/report to the police. MO1 is the Fire wood stick, MO2/big iron stirrer. During the cross examination he denied suggestion that on 2-9-2017 at 8-00 PM while meeting is going on near the Ganesh idol in which A1 raised an objection that there are no sufficient funds in order to conduct Annadanam for which he scolded him that he is a child and he do not know anything and pushed him with his hands so A1 left to his house and on the next day he along with A2 to A7 and Teddu Sayanna,

Armoor Ramjeevan along with caste persons came to the community building and A4 enquired as to why he scolded A1 yesterday for which he scolded him as to who are they to ask him and beat PW1 with hands.

He denied suggestion that when A2 tried to rescue Pw1 from his clutches he beat him with an Aluminum stirrer on his head due to which he sustained bleeding head injury for which he lodged police report. He deposed that after sutures by the Medical Practitioner at Hasakothur he went to Bombay Nursing home, Nizamabad, he stayed there for a period of six days. He denied suggestion that while preparing food he fell on the rock as such he sustained head injury and that he has foisted this false case against the accused as a counter case.

10.PW2 deposed that on 3-9-2017 at about 8-30 am he alongwith other Madiga community persons were preparing food in order to donate the same to the villagers on the eve of Vinayaka chavithi, at that time A1 to A7 came there and objected for Annadanam and demanded to purchase T-shirts in this regard a heated arguments were exchanged between the accused persons and Pw1, meanwhile A1 took MO2 into his hands and beat Pw1 on his head, but Pw1 bend his head towards right

CC 758 of 2017 6

side as such he sustained injury on his left shoulder, A2 beat Pw1 on his back side of the head with a fire wood stick i.e Mo1 due to which he sustained bleeding head injury later it was sutured. Later he shifted

Pw1 to the hospital for treatment. During the cross examination he pleaded ignorance that he do not know whether any galata took place between the Pw1 and accused or not on 2-9-2017 at 8-00 PM for which on the next day morning the accused approached Pw1. He deposed that after hearing hues and cries of Pw1 he turned his face and found the accused persons as well as Pw1. He tried to pacify the issue between

Pw1 and accused. At the time of alleged offence 8 persons are there and women were cutting vegetables inside the community hall. He denied suggestion that while A2 tried to rescue A1 from the clutches of Pw1, A2 beat him with an Aluminum stirrer. He admitted that he alongwith

Naveen took Pw1 to Metpally for treatment and shifted him to

Nizamabad for better treatment. At the time of alleged offence Pw1 is also attending preparation of food. He denied suggestion that while lifting the utensils the Pw1 fell on the rocks and sustained injuries. He admitted that the accused lodged report against Pw1 who allegedly beat

A2. He denied suggestion that he alongwith Pw1 are childhood friends as such he is deposing false in favour of Pw1.

11.PW3 deposed that on 3-9-2017 at about 8-30 am, he alongwith other Madiga community persons were preparing food in order to donate the same to the villagers on the eve of Vinayaka chavithi, at that time A1 to A7 came there and objected for Annadanam and demanded to purchase T-shirts in this regard a heated arguments were exchanged between the accused persons and Pw1, meanwhile A1 took MO2 into his hands and beat Pw1 on his head but Pw1 bend his head towards right side as such he sustained injury on his left shoulder, A2 beat Pw1 on his back side of the head with a fire wood stick I.e Mo1 due to which he

CC 758 of 2017 7

sustained bleeding head injury later it was sutured. Later he shifted

Pw1 to the hospital for treatment. During the cross examination he admitted that on the previous night of the alleged incident a discussion took place between accused No.1 and Pw1 in which accused opposed for Annadanam due to insufficient of funds. He denied suggestion that in the said discussion Pw1 pushed A1 and pleaded ignorance that he do not know anything bout the affairs of society as he is a child. He admitted that on 3-9-2017 A1 to A7 came to the scene of offence, A4 enquired about the incident took place in the previous night with Pw1 for which A1 became emotional and committed this offence. He denied suggestion that Pw1 beat the A1 with his hands when A2 intervened and rescued from the clutches of Pw1, Pw1 inturn beat A2 with a aluminum stirrer on his head due to which he sustained head injury. He admitted that A2 sustained bleeding head injury. He denied suggestion that while lifting the utensils Pw1 slipped and sustained injuries. Pw1 took first aid at Hasakothur later he went to Nizamabad and took treatment for 3 days. He denied suggestion that A2 lodged police report against Pw1 for which Pw1 also foisted this false case against the accused persons in which he is supporting Pw1 who is my close friend.

12.PW4 deposed that In the year 2017 at about 12.00 noon police came to the house of Kanka Rajesh and conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence and recovered one iron stirrer and also stick. During the cross examination he deposed that after read over and explaning the contents of Ex.P2, he signed on it. He admitted that there is no whisper with regard to iron stirrer at column No.9 of Ex.P2/scene of offence panchanama.

13.PW5 deposed that on 03-09-2017 at about 8.30 pm while she was cutting vegetables at Madiga sangam, Hasakothur village, a galata took

CC 758 of 2017 8

place in between the accused and PW1, in which the accused persons asked PW1 to come aside in order to talk with him, for which PW1 refused to obey them since he is attending cooking work for

Annadanam of Ganesh Navarathrulu, so there were heated arguments took place in between them, both the parties beat each other with sticks and iron stirrer. A2 beat PW1 with a stick on the right side of the head, meanwhile PW1 raised his hand in order to protect blow,as such he sustained injuryon his left hand and A1 beat PW1 with a iron stirrer on his left hand. During the cross examination she deposed that at the time of alleged incident she alongwith one Sangeetha bothwere cleaning the utensils near the gate of Madiga sangam. She deposed that she was not present at the time of alleged injury caused by PW1 to A2 with aluminium stirrer.

14.PWs6 & 7 are the Investigating Officers who deposed their line of investigation during their chief examination. During the cross examination PW6 admitted that after treatment PW1 lodged report to him.He admitted thathe received report froma2 on 3-9-2017 at 10.00 a.m. alleging that PW1 beat him with a stirrer on his head so he registered a case in crime No. 125 of 2017 under Sec.290, 323, 506 IPC which is pending consideration before this Court vide CC 759 of 2017.

He admitted that neigher PW1 nor the direct witnesses stated before him that PW1 sustained injuries on his back side of the head and also on the left shoulder. He admitted that none of the direct witnesses stated to him that the accused allegedly went to Sangam and stopped preparation of food for annadanam. PW7 admitted that A2 lodged report against the informant alleging that PW1 beat him on his head with a stirrer.

15.Considering the evidence and documents on record, it can be

CC 758 of 2017 9

concluded that there is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws 1 to 5, hence the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they were charged. Hence, the accused No.1 to 7 are entitled for acquittal.

16.In the result, the accused No.1 found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and A3 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. MOs1 & 2 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation,corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of December, 2019

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW.1: Kanaka Rajesh PW.2: Podeti Anjaiah -NIL- PW.3: Palepu Murali PW.4: Palepu Ashok PW.5: Smt.Pasula Anitha PW.6: P.Prabhakar/IO PW.7: B.Murali/IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 is the report of PW1 to the police; Ex.P2 is the Crime Details Form Ex.P3 is the First Information Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO1 is the firewood stick -NIL- MO2 is big iron stirrer.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

CC 758 of 2017 10

1 OS No. 62 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ARMOOR

Present: Sri M.Bhaskar, I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Armoor. FAC Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Armoor.

Dated this the 9th day of January, 2020

O.S.No. 62 of 2014

Between: Landeri Maruthi S/o Lingoji, aged 42 years, Occu:Business R/o H.no. 6-8-281/A, Namdevwada, Nizamabad.

...Plaintif // AND //

Pateri Sudhakar S/o Chinna Gangaram, aged 42 yeas, Occu: Business R/o Konasamunder Village of Kammarpalli mandal, Dist.Nizamabad.

...Defendant

This suit coming before me on 6th day of January, 2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Nageshwar, Learned Counsel for the Plaintif and Sri Aleti Gangadhar, Learned Counsel for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintif against the defendant praying this court to grant perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining him from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the agricultural land in survey No.914 admeasuring Ac.01-10gts, Sy.No.917 admeasuring Ac.1-08gts, total

Ac.2-18 gts, bounded by North: Agricultural land of Mala Malkanna,

South: Agricultural Land of Pateri Balram, East: Agricultural Land of

Pateri Srinivas, West: Agricultural Land of Pateri Narsaiah, situated at

Bada Bheemgal village, Bheemgal mandal, Dist.Nizamabad, hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that, the plaintif is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same from Vanjari Gangamani@ Shobha D/o Mohan through a registered sale deed document No.2468 of 2013 dt.30-9-2013 and he got mutated his name in the concerned revenue 2 OS No. 62 of 2014 records, in turn the revenue authorities issued pattedar pass book and title deed in his favour, ever since he is enjoying the suit schedule property without any sort of interference by any one, but on 16-5-2014 the defendant without any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property with ill-will in order to usurp the plaintif over the suit schedule property, came to the suit schedule property and tried to encroach the same, but the plaintif with great difficulty with the help of other land owners and well-wishers resisted the illegal attempts of the defendant, while leaving the suit schedule property the defendant threatened to dispossess him from the suit schedule property within a short time, as such he has no other alternaive except to approach this court for redressal.

3.After receipt of summons the sole defendant appeared through his counsel filed written statement stating inter-alia that the plaintif is none other than his co-brother and there are disputes between the wife and the defendant, as such they are living separately. The land in survey No.914 extent Ac.2-24gts stands in the name of Akloor Linga

Reddy as owner and possessor and the land in survey No.917 to an extent of Ac.1-08gts stands in the name of Chittari Gaddameedi

Linga, Chittari Gaddameedi Poshanna, Chittari Gaddameedi Rajanna, the father of the defendant by name Vanjari Chinna Gangaram purchased the said lands through simple sale deeds dt.20-06-1996 and 12-10-1976 and he got mutated his name in the concerned revenue records, after his demise the name of the defendant entered as owner and possessor and he is cultivating the same peacefully. In order to prove his possession, he relied upon the pahanies for the years 1985 to 1987, 1989-90, and 1991-92. The plaintif never purchased the suit schedule property from the wife of the defendant since his wife neither owner, pattedar nor possessor of the suit 3 OS No. 62 of 2014 schedule property at any point of time. The wife of the defendant

Gangamani @ Shoba is sufering from ill-health and unable to move freely and also her condition is not proper since she was sufering from paralysis stroke, as such she is bed ridden. The plaintif taking advantage of her condition in order to knock away the suit schedule property took the said Gangamani to the Sub.Registrar Office,

Bheemgal and got executed sale deed in his favour, the photograph affixed to the said document clearly shows that Gangamani @ Shoba is totally sick, unconscious and unable to justify the things rationally, as such the registered sale deed is null and void, invalid and not binding upon the defendant, So the defendant filed suit for cancellation of the said registered sale deed, which is pending consideration. The plaintif never in possession of the suit schedule property, infact the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land and he is cultivating the same by drawing bore well water with electricity service connection No.174; hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the rival pleadings, documents placed on record, this court settled the following issues:

i.Whether the plaintif is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e., (The existing agricultural land in survey No.914 admeasuring Ac.01-10gts, Sy.No. 917 admeasuring Ac.1-08gts, total Ac.2-18 gts, situated at Bada Bheemgal village, Bheemgal mandal, Dist.Nizamabad) within the prescribed boundaries as on the date of filing of the suit ? ii.Whether the plaintif is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ? iii.If so, to what relief ?

ISSUES No.1 & 2:

5.In order to prove the suit claim the plaintif himself examined as PW1, got exhibited A1 to A11 and also got examined PW2 on his behalf. Per contra the defendant examined as DW1 and got exhibited 4 OS No. 62 of 2014

B1 to B11 and also examined Pateri Nadipi Sayyanna as DW2 and exhibited Bonafide certificate of Gangamani as Ex.B12 through PW1.

6.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintif that the plaintif purchased the suit schedule property from the wife of the defendant, since he is not taking care of his wife and daughter and they are living separately from him, the plaintif is none-other than his co-brother who came forward to purchase the land of the wife of the defendant in order to meet the marriage expenses of her daughter. Accordingly she got executed Ex.A1 in his favour and mutated his name in the concerned revenue records and obtained pattedar pass book and title deed. In order to prove the ownership of the vendor of the plaintif, he relied upon Exs.A1 to A11 i.e.,

Ex.A1/Regd.Sale deed doct.No.2468/13 dt.13-09-2013; Ex.A2/

Pattedar pass book; Ex.A3/Title Deed; Ex.A4/CC of Pahani for the year 2014 in Sy.No.914 dt.4-2-2014; Ex.A5/CC of Pahani for the year 2014 in Sy.No.917 dt.4-2-2014; Ex.A6, i.e,. proceedings under Annexure 13-C; Ex.A7/original title deed, Ex.A8/pattedar pass book and also latest pahanies i.e, Exs.A11 and A12. To prove his prima facie ownership over the suit schedule property, the plaintif has filed

Ex.A1/original registered sale deed, Ex.A3 is original pattedar pass book, A4 is the Adangal pahani for the year 2014. Ex.A9 is the tax payment receipt; Exs.A10 and A11 all these documents clinchingly establishes the prima facie title and legal possession of the plaintif over the suit schedule property, hence prayed to decree the suit with costs.

7.Per contra the learned defendants counsel submits that though the plaintif relied upon Ex.A6/Annexure 13-C, which was issued on 30-10-1998 basing on the simple sale deed, executed on 4-10-1973.

As on the date of execution of the simple sale deed i.e., 4-10-1973 5 OS No. 62 of 2014 the vendor of the plaintif Vanjari Gangamani @ Shoba is not in existence as per Ex.B12 her date of birth therein is mentioned as 27-6-1975, the said document is admitted by PW1 in his cross examination. As such it is crystal clear from the evidence of PW1 coupled with the evidence of DW1 and Ex.B12 clinchingly establishes that Ex.A6 is created, rank forgery for the purpose of this suit in order to knock away the valuable property of the defendant taking advantage of the ill-health and strained relations between the defendant and his wife Gangamani. The paintif approached this court with unclean hands. More-over it is the bounden duty of the plaintif to establish prima facie legal title over the suit schedule property and the learned counsel for the defendant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held between Ananthula

Sudhakar vs. P.Buchireddy1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in a suit for injunction trial Court should inspect the title of the plaintif incidentally in order to grant injunction in his favour, if there is a cloud or mist over the title of the plaintif created by the defendant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

8.Basing on the rival submissions, of the learned both counsels, this court has to scrutinize the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by both the parties.

9.Plaintif examined as PW1, he got exhibited A1 to A11.He reiterated his plaint contents during his chief examination, during the cross examination he categorically admitted that the defendant is his co-brother, he got registered the suit land in his favour, but he did not know how his vendor acquired the land. The origin of title acquired by the vendor of the plaitnfif is not mentioned in Ex.A1 by the plaintif and he got executed the same one week prior to the 1LAWS (SC) – 2008-3-175 6 OS No. 62 of 2014 death of Gangamani who died on 20-09-2013, Ex.A1 is executed on 13-09-2013. A perusal of Ex.A1 shows that as per revenue records the vendor/Gangamani @ Shoba is absolute, rightful owner and peaceful possessor of the suit schedule property, but it is settled principle of law that mere entries in the revenue records does not confer any right, title or interest over the immovable property. He denied the suggestion that the name of the defendant and his father is reflecting as owner and possessor in the pahanies for the year 1985 to 1987, 1989-90, 1991-92. PW1 further admitted that though he obtained Ex.A6, but failed to obtain sada bynama executed by vendors of Gangamani in her favour, a bonafide purchaser has to verify the title and actual possession and other allied inquiries while purchasing the land. He further admitted that the unregistered sale deed executed on 14-10-1973 under column No.9 of Ex.A6, as per

Ex.B12 the date of birth of Gangamani @ Shoba is 27-06-1975, but he pleaded ignorance that question of purchasing the land under simple sale deed by his vendor Gangamani in the year 1972 and 1973 does not arise, since she is born on 27-06-1975.

10.PW2 supported the version of PW1 to some extent, with regard to purchasing the suit land by PW1 in the year 2013, but his evidence is not helpful to the plaintif to prove his prima-facie title and possession over the suit schedule property.

11.Per contra the defendant is examined as DW1 and he reiterated the written statement contents, during the cross examination, he categorically admitted that he has not filed the documents to show that Aklur Linga Reddy, Chithari Gaddameedi Linganna, Poshanna and Rajanna are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property who executed simple sale deed in favour of his father. He further admitted that he did not filed said unregistered sale deeds 7 OS No. 62 of 2014

before this court. He denied suggestion that due to performing

marriage of his daughter, his wife Gangamani sold the suit schedule property in favour of PW1 for valuable sale consideration. He admitted that he did not filed any document to show that his wife

Gangamani is sufering from paralysis and her mental condition is not proper.

12.DW2 who is the neighbouring land owner, deposed and supported the version of DW1. During the cross examination though he deposed that he attended agricultural field work in the lands of the suit survey numbers, but he did not witness the document executed by the father of DW1. He further admitted that DW1 got second marriage with Vasundara during the life time of his first wife

Gangamani, since she is bedridden and unable to walk. He pleaded ignorance that Vanjari Chinna Gangaram and Gaddameedi Rajanna executed unregistered sale deed in favour of Gangamani. Nothing fruitful was elicited by the learned counsel for the plaintif.

13.In a suit for injunction simplicitor, the burden lies upon the plaintif not only to prove his prima facie title, legal possession and balance of convenience should tilt in his favour, but also the plaintif must approach the court with clean hands without suppressing any material facts, since the granting of perpetual injunction is an equitable relief guided by sound judicial principles. In the present case the plaintif claimed title, through the wife of DW1 Vanjari

Gangamani @ Shobha, she purchased the suit schedule property on 4-10-1973 and 22-5-1972 from Vanjari Gangaram, Gaddameedi

Rajanna and PW1 categorically admitted Ex.B12 bonafide certificate issued by Head Master, Mandal Parishad Upper Primary school,

Akloor village, Velpoor mandal, when it is confronted to him stating that Vanjari Gangamani is called as Shoba at her parents house and 8 OS No. 62 of 2014 categorically admitted that her date of birth is 27-06-1975, but there is no whisper in Ex.A1 nor his plaint how the vendor of plaintif got title, except as per revenue records. Since the date of execution of simple sale deed i.e., 22-05-1972 and 4-10-1973 respectively, she is not in existence, how she can purchase the land through simple sale deed from the vendors Vanjari Gangaram and Gaddamedi Rajanna

S/o Sayanna. PW1 failed to ofer any explanation and he pleaded ignorance about it, so it falsifies the origin of title acquired by PW1.

Moreover PW1 categorically admitted that he is the scribe of the agreement entered by Gangamani, defendant and their daughter

Jaya @ Shravani, in which the defendant under took to pay

Rs.5,50,000/- as her marriage expenses. If the defendant failed to pay the same, the defendant shall transfer the suit schedule land in favour of Shravani. In a suit for injunction simplicitor the jurisdiction of the court is very limited, however the court may inspect the incidental title of the plaintif and his legal possession in order to come to a just and correct conclusion. Since the plaintif failed to prove prima facie incidental title, that he acquired title through

Ex.A1, infact the vendor Gangamani @ Shobha is not in existence as on the date of execution of simple sale deeds dt.22-5-1972 and 4-10-1973. Hence, this court comes to considered opinion that the plaintif not only failed to prove his prima facie title and legal possession over the suit schedule property, but also approached this court with unclean hands by suppressing the real facts. Hence, the plaintif is not entitled for granting equitable relief of perpetual

Injunction.

14.In the result suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 3rd day of January, 2020.

9 OS No. 62 of 2014

FAC: Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Armoor.

:::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:::

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PW.1: Landeri Maruthi DW1: Pateri Sudhakar PW.2: D.Bhaskar DW2: Bheema Nadipi Rajanna

:::EXHIBITS MARKED::

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

Ex.A1: Regd.Sale deed doct.No.2468/13Ex.B1: CC of pahani for 1986-87 dt.13-09-2013Ex.B2: CC of pahani for 1991-92 Ex.A2: Pattedar pass bookEx.B3: CC of pahani for 1992-93 Ex.A3: Title DeedEx.B4: CC of pahani for 1993-94 Ex.A4: CC of Pahani for the year 2014Ex.B5: CC of plaint filed by deft in Sy.No.914 dt.4-2-2014 in OS 164/14 on the file Ex.A5: CC of Pahani for the year 2014 of Senior Civil Judge,Nzb in Sy.No.917 dt.4-2-2014Ex.B6: CC of Written statement Ex.A6: Annexure 13-C in OS 164/14 Ex.A7: Original title deed of VanjariEx.B7: CC of FIR alongwith report Gangamani i.e., vendor of PW1Ex.B8: Charge sheet Ex.A8: Original Pattedar pass bookEx.B9: CC of deposition of Ex.A9: Original tax payment receipt Smt.Karpe Suguna ExA10: CC of pahani for the sy.No.914/1 in CC No. 14 of 2013 for the year 2019Ex.B10: CC of deposition of ExA11: CC of pahani for the sy.No.917/1plaintif herein in CC 14/2013 for the year 2019Ex.B11: Electricity consumer pass book Ex.B12: Bonafide certificate of Gangamani

FAC: Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Armoor.

1 OS No. 97 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ARMOOR

Present: Sri M.Bhaskar, I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Armoor. FAC Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Armoor.

Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2020

O.S.No. 97 of 2017

Between: Kodigela Chandrashekar S/o Poshetty, aged 37 years,Occu:Business R/o H.No.3-39/12/15/5, Teachers colony, Armoor proper, Nizamabad District.

...Plaintif // AND //

1. The District Collector, Collector Office, Nizamabad.

2. The District Panchayath Officer, District Panchayath Office, Nizamabad.

3. The Panchayath Secretary, Gram panchaayth, perkit village of Armoor mandal.

4. Mula Yerranna S/o Oddenna, aged 40 years, Occu: Business & PACS Chariman, R/o Near Mayuri Beedi Factor, Mahalaxmi Colony, Armoor.

5. Golla Srinivas S/o Venkatesham, aged 59 years, Occu: Telecom Employee, R/o Opp: Bhashitha School, Mahalaxmi colony, Armoor village and mandal.

...Defendants

This suit coming before me on 2nd day of December, 2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.K.Suresh, Learned Counsel for the Plaintif; Learned Asst.Government Pleader for defendants No.1 to 3 and Sri M.K.Narender, Learned counsel for the defendants No.4 & 5; the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintif praying this court to declare him as as absolute owner and possessor of the property i.e, existing part of the open place lies in survey No.458, 459/1, 459/2 and 461 admeasuring total area to an extent of 406.11 Sq.yards, bounded by:

East: Plot of Kanchetty Gangadhar, West: Plot of neighbours, North: 30 feet wide road, South: Plot of neighbours, situated at Perkit village,

Armoor mandal, Dist.Nizamabad hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property.

2 OS No. 97 of 2017

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that, the plaintif has purchased the suit schedule property from its original owner Gojur

Pentanna through registered sale deed document No. 3765/2016 for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.3,26,000/- on 19-03-2016 and he delivered vacant physical possession, ever since he is enjoying the property as absolute owner and possessor without any hindrance or interference from any corner. The defendants No.4 & 5 who are politically influential persons in the village, in collusion with other defendants and colony people trying to usurp the title, enjoyment and legal possession of the plaintif over the suit schedule property, are trying to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment basing on the news published by the daily news papers stating that the suit schedule property belongs to Gram Panchayath, Perkit and the plaintif illegally got registered the same in his favour and they also got foisted criminal and civil cases against the plaintif in order occupy the suit schedule property illegally by dispossessing the plaintif. On 07-10-2017 the defendants No.1 to 3 who are the government officials alongwith defendants No.4, 5 and locality people came to the suit schedule property with JCB (Excavator) and illegally tried to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif, however the plaintif with great difficulty resisted their illegal attempts, but the defendants while leaving the suit schedule property proclaimed that they would occupy the suit schedule property by hook or crook at any costs, as such he approached this Hon’ble Court for redressal.

3.In order to prove his case he relied upon, original registered sale deed document No.3765/2016 dt.19-03-2017 (Ex.A1) certified copy of proceedings No.363/2005-B2, Panchayath dt.19-11-2005, issued by District Pancayath Officer, Nizamabad.

3 OS No. 97 of 2017

4.The defendants No.1 to 5 appeared through their counsels and defendant No.3 filed written statement, which was adopted by defendants No.1 & 2 who pleaded inter-alia that the suit schedule property is a part of 5% open land vest with the Gram Panchayath as per Layout Plan No. 18/1996 dt.13-05-1996. It is further contention that the vendor of the plaintif Gojuru Pentanna S/o Gojuru Bakanna is the owner and pattedar of the land in survey No.458, 459/1, 459/2 and 461 situated at Perkit village, Armoor mandal alongwith the adjacent pattedars of the land jointly made plots in their respective lands and got approved Layout vide Layout Plan No.18/1996 dt.13-05-1996 approved by defendant No.3/Gram panchayath, in which the pattedars left 5% of the land i.e,. 1320.48 Sq.yards under

Layout Plan No.18/1996 to the Gram Panchayath as open place, since then the suit schedule property is vest with the Gram Panchayath as a part of 5% land, as such the vendor of the plaintif has no title, right or interest to execute a registered sale deed vide document No.

3764/2016 dt.19-03-2016 in favour of the plaintif is illegal and there is no property in existence on the spot within the boundaries mentioned in the said sale deed, infact the gram panchayath is the absolute owner and possessor of the same. The plaintif with the influence of some of the political leaders hatched a plan to grab the suit schedule property, created and got into existence the registered sale deed. The plaintif alongwith his supporters tried to interfere into the gram panchayath land, the defendants No.4 & 5 who are the locality people informed the same to the Gram Panchayath people, so the gram panchayath alongwith secretary and staf went to the suit schedule property, and stopped the illegal interference and attempt to grab the gram panchayath land with the help of the locality people and reported the matter to the higher officials. On 04-10-2017 the 4 OS No. 97 of 2017

District Panchayath officer visited the suit schedule property and enquired with the locality people and verified the layout plan

No.18/1996 and issued memo No.B5/571/2017 (Pts) dt.11-10-2017, instructing the defendant No.3 to launch prosecution against the land grabbers. Accordingly defendant No.3 lodged report to the police, who in turn registered FIR No. 325 of 2017 dt.12-10-2017. In order to support his case, defendant No.3 filed Certified copy of layout approved plan No.18/1996 dt.13-05-1996, certified copy of yhr registered sale deed No.2309 of 2014 in order to show the western side boundary to the plots No.31 and 32 mentioned as gram panchayath land and also certified copy of the document No. 718 of 2000, showing the western boundary as gram panchayath open land,

Photographs showing enquiry conducted by District Panchayath

Officer dt.4-10-2017, copy of memo dt.11-10-2017 for launch prosecution against the land grabbers, hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.The defendant No.4 & 5 also filed their written statement supporting the contention of the Gram panchayath/defendant No.3.

No documents were filed on their behalf.

6.Basing on the rival pleadings, this court settled the following issues:

i.Whether the plaintif is owner and possessor of suit schedule property having purchased the same from its owner for valuable sale consideration through registered doc.

No.3765/2016 dtd.19.3.2016 i.e., 406.11 square yards in

Sy.No.458, 459/1, 459/2 and 461 bounded by North 30feet wide road, South plot of neighbour, East Plot of Kancheti

Gangadhar, West: Plot of neighbours, situated at Perkit village, Armoor Mandal, Dist. Nizambad ?

ii. Whether the suit schedule property comes under 5 percent of layout plan No.18/1996 dtd.13.5.1996 vest within the

Gram Panchayat, Perkit village ?

5 OS No. 97 of 2017 iii. Whether the suit is filed within the limitation ?

iv. Whether the plaintif paid proper court fee or not ?

v. Whether the plaintif is entitled for consequential perpetual injunction ?

vi. If so, to what relief ?

7. In order to prove the case of the plaintif, the plaintif himself examined as PW1 and his vendor is examined as PW2 and got exhibited A1 and A2. Per contra, the defendant No.3 is examined as DW1 and got exhibited B1. Defendant No.4 is examined as

DW2, no documents were exhibited on his behalf. Defendant No.5 filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination as DW3, buthe did not turned up, so his affidavit is eschewed.

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintif that the defendant No.3 categorically admitted the title and ownership of the vendor of the plaintif i.e., PW2 (Gojuru Pentanna) stating that he alongwith other adjacent land owners, converted the agricultural land into residential plots by approving layout plan No.

18 of 1996, but at the time of preparation of approved layout plan,

PW2 is not in India and he never executed any document in favour of the developers by name Gattadi Gundu Gangadhar and

Chovutu Giridhar, but they illegally included the said land in

Layout No.18/1996, however if it is assumed to be true, as per

Ex.A2 the approved layout Plan No.18 of 1996 is illegal and the

District Panchayath Officer directed DW1 to call for fresh layout plans from the Layout plot owners and send it to the Director,

Town and country planning for its approval, since the approved layout plan No.18/1996 is not in accordance with the law, the said fact DW1 categorically admitted in his cross examination, he also further admitted that he did not filed any document to show that the suit schedule property is vest with the Gram Panchayath as 6 OS No. 97 of 2017 5% land under the approved lay out and he got permission for construction of the houses within the vicinity by receiving betterment charges. Since the defendant No.3 who is the authorized person and public servant, as Secretary Gram,

Panchayath Perkit, has admitted the title and ownership of the vendor of the plaintif i.e., PW2 and there is no dispute with regard to origin of ownership of PW2 and the District Panchayath Officer declared the approved lay out plan bearing No. 18 of 1996 as illegal and DW3 also received betterment charges in order to construct houses under layout Plan No. 18 of 1996. All these facts and circumstances clinchingly establishes the undisputed title of

PW2 who conveyed his better title under Ex.A1 in favour of PW1, hence prayed to decree the suit with costs.

9. Per contra the learned Assistant Government Pleader for defendants No.1 to 3 urges that PW2 alongwith other land title owners approached the Gram Panchayath by way of approved layout plan No. 18 of 1996, accordingly they approved the same by leaving the 1320.48 Sq.yards as 5% land to the Gram

Panchayath, Perkit. Thus the suit schedule property is become the absolute property of gram panchayath and at present the said land is utilizing by the locality people by erecting a tin shed and performing poojas periodically on the eve Vinayaka chaturdashi, since the PW2 relinquished his right, title and interest in favour of the Gram Panahcyath while approving layout plan No. 18 of 1996, as such neither the plaintif nor his vendor i,.e., PW2 has any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, so question of executing Ex.A1 in favour of PW1 by PW2 does not arise, infact

Ex.A1 is sham, bogus and concocted for the purpose of this case, 7 OS No. 97 of 2017 which is null and void in the eye of law. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

10. The learned counsel for defendants No.4 & 5 adopted the arguments of the learned Assistant Government Pleader. He further contended that except registered sale deed allegedly executed by PW2 in favour of PW1 no other documents were produced before this Hon’ble Court to prove the contention of the plaintif, since in a suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction, the burden heavily lies upon the plaintif to prove his legal title and he failed to discharge his onus, hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

11. Basing on the rival submissions of both the counsels, this court has to scrutinize the evidence on record.

ISSUES No.1 to 3:

12. There is no dispute with regard to the title of the vendor of the plaintif i.e, PW2, infact DW1 categorically admitted in his pleadings that PW2 is the original owner of the suit schedule property, but disputed his ownership when it was converted into approved house plots under approved layout plan No. 18/1996 as it is vest with the gram panchayath as 5% of the land, but PW1 proved his case that the PW2 is the original owner and he never filed any requisition before the then Panchayath, Secretary, Gram panchayath, Perkit for approved lay out Plan No. 18 of 1996, however the said layout No.18 of 1996 is declared as illegal by the

District Panchayath Officer directing the DW1 calling for fresh layout proposals from the layout holders and send it to the

Director, Town and country Planning, Hyderabad for its approval.

None of the parties placed any material to show that the Gram panchayath Secretary received fresh approved layout proposal 8 OS No. 97 of 2017 from the layout holders, sending it to the Director, Town and

Country Planning, Hyderabad for its approval as per law, on the other hand DW1 categorically admitted that he has received betterment charges from the plot owners under layout No. 18 of 1996 who intended to construct a house, in the absence of approved layout, the Gram Panchayath used to receive/realize the betterment charges from the plot owners who intend to construct a house. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

ISSUE No.4:

13. It is a settled principle of law that whenever the vacant plot is conveyed through registered sale deed by the original title owner in favour of the purchaser, the title follows possession.

Since the suit schedule plot is open plot it is conveyed by PW2 in favour of PW1 under Ex.A1, when the defendants No.1 to 3 with the support of defendants no.4 & 5 erected notice board stating that the suit schedule property belongs to Gram pancayath as such the plaintif has approached this Court, which itself shows that the plaintif is aggrieved by the activities of the defendants and it shows that the plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, so the court fee of Rs.4,926/- paid under Sec.24(b) of AP Court fee and suit valuation Act is proper.

ISSUE No.5:

14. In view of the findings arrived at issues No.1 to 3, the plaintif is entitled for consequential relief of perpetual injunction retraining the defendants No.1 to 5 herein from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

9 OS No. 97 of 2017

ISSUE No.6:

15. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, declaring the plaintif as the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property i.e,.existing part of the open place lies in survey No.458, 459/1, 459/2 and 461 admeasuring total area to an extent of 406.11 Sq.yards situated at Perkit village, Armoor mandal,

Dist.Nizamabad and consequential permanent injunction is granted retraining the defendants No.1 to 5 from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property. The defendants shall pay the costs to the plaintif.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 3rd day of January, 2020.

FAC: Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Armoor.

:::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:::

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

PW.1: Kodigela Chandra ShekarDW1: G.Srinivas PW.2: Gojur PentannaDW2: Mula Yerranna

:::EXHIBITS MARKED::

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

Ex.A1: Original registered sale deed Ex.B1: Photographs (2 Nos) document No.3765 of 2016 alongwith CD dt.19-03-2017 Ex.A2: Certified copy of Proceedings No. No.363/2005-B2 (Panchayath) dt.19-11-2015 issued by District Panchayath Officer.

FAC: Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Armoor.

1 CC 156 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT ARMOOR

Present: Sri M.Bhaskar, Judl.Magistrate of First Class,Armoor.

Dated this the 20th day of March, 2020

CC.No. 156 of 201 9

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Armoor

...Complainant

// AND //

Md.Asif S/o Kousar, aged 35 years, Muslim, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.3-2-86/4, Kamala Nehru colony, Armoor.

...Accused

This case came before me on 16th day of March, 2020 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Avari Ramesh, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub.Inspector of Police, PS Armoor filed charge sheet alleging that accused person indulged in selling items to the villagers in exchange of Public Distribution scheme Rice (PDS) from the card holders (hereinafter called as PDS rice), as defined under Section 7 of

Essential Commodities Act.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

(a) On 11-01-2019 at 5.30 p.m. on receiving reliable information that accused selling items to the villagers in exchange of Public

Distribution scheme Rice (PDS) from the card holders and storing the same in the house belonging to one Smt.Dokka

Sayavva with an intention to sell the same on higher price; the informant/Dy.Tahsildar (Enforcement), Armoor alongwith

Dy.Tahsildar (Enforcement), Bheemgal and VROs went to 2 CC 156 of 2019

Teachers colony, Armoor to the house of Smt.Dokka Sayavva and on search found PDS rice in 15 plastic bags of different weight, total 13.00 quintals of PDS rice, seized the same and kept the same in the safe custody of ration shop.

(b) Basing on the report of the informant/Deputy Tahsildar (Enforcement, Armoor, Police Armoor registered a case in Crime

No. 10 of 2019 under Section 420 IPC and Section 7 of Essential

Commodities Act and took up the investigation. During the investigation he examined and recorded the statement of the witnesses and conducted scene of offence panchanama. On 17-01-2019 the Sub.Inspector of Police served Section 41-A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused and on 19-01-2019 the accused went to the police station and complied to the notice issued under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and furnished sureties, accordingly he was released on bail, instructing him to appear before this

Court as and when he receive summons. After completion of the entire investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.This court took the cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act against the accused person and on his appearance of the accused, copies of the case records were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Charge has been framed for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Essential

Commodities Act, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the trial, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 5 and exhibited P1 to P4. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found 3 CC 156 of 2019 in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

5.Heard learned both sides and perused the material available on record.

6.Now the point that arises for consideration herein is:

Whether the accused person indulged in selling items to the villagers in exchange of Public Distribution scheme Rice (PDS) from the card holders, as defined under Section 7 of Essential

Commodities Act ?

POINT:

7.To substantiate the version of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 5 and got exhibited P1 to P4. PW1 is the informant;

PWs2 & 3 are the witnesses, PW4 is the panch for seizure of PDS rice and PW5 is the Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is Seizure panchanama;

Ex.P2 is the report of PW1 to the police; Ex.P3 is First Information Report and Ex.P4 is Crime Details Form.

8.The learned APPO would submits that the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 coupled with the evidence of the Investigating Officer/PW5 is suffice to convict the accused person.

9.Per contra the learned counsel for the accused would submits that the prosecution failed to examine any of the ration card holders or cited them as witnesses in the charge sheet, from whom the alleged PDS rice is bought. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused persons.

10.Basing on the rival submission of the learned both counsels this court has to scrutinize the material available on record besides oral and documentary evidence.

11.It is the case of the prosecution that On 11-01-2019 at 5.30 p.m.

4 CC 156 of 2019 on reliable information that accused selling items to the villagers in exchange of Public Distribution scheme Rice (PDS) from the card holders and stored the same in the house belonging to one Smt.Dokka

Sayavva with an intention to sell the same on higher price; the informant/Dy.Tahsildar (Enforcement), Armoor alongwith Dy.Tahsildar (Enforcement), Bheemgal and VROs went to Teachers colony, Armoor to the house of Smt.Dokka Sayavva and on search found PDS rice in 15 plastic bags of different weight, total 13.00 quintals of PDS rice, seized the same under cover of panchanama and kept the same in the safe custody of ration shop. Later he lodged report to the police.

12.PW.1 is the informant who deposed that on 11-1-2019 he received reliable information with regard to storage of PDS rice at Teachers colony, Armoor in the house of one Dokka Sayavva so he along with

PVL Narayana, Neeradi Laxman, Sunkari Jeevan, Nalla Prashanth and

Datthapuram Gangaram rushed to the house of Dokka Sayavva and entered into the house and found the PDS rice bags (15) plastic bags about 13 quintals on enquiry with the owner of the house Sayavva who revealed that the accused took the house on rent, so he conducted

Ex.P1/seizure panchanama and seized PDS rice in the presence of above said persons and deposited the same with one Mamidipally Srinivas, fair price dealer for safe custody and informed the accused that if he has any objection, approach the Joint Collector who is authorized to conduct 6-A Essential commodities Act inquiry. Later he lodged

Ex.P1/report to the police. During the cross examination he admitted that he cannot say the alleged seized rice of 13 quintals are PDS rice or not. He admitted that there is no standing order according to Essential

Commodities Act quantity of storage of rice by the citizens. He admitted that he did not collect any document to show that the house bearing 5 CC 156 of 2019

No.3-1-39/B/46 belongs to one Dokka Sayavva, also the lease deed allegedly entered by the accused with said Sayavva and also rent payment receipts. He denied suggestion that the accused never stored any rice much less 13 quintals rice in the alleged scene of offence house, infact no such scene of offence house is in existence, as such question of taking lease by the accused does not arise.

13.PW2 deposed that on 11-1-2019 Pw1 took him along with Sunkari

Jeevan, Nalla Prashanth, Dattapuram Gangaram to the house of Dokka

Sayavva and searched her house and found plastic bags of various quantities; on observation it was found as PDS rice, Pw1 seized said rice under cover of panchanama in the presence of Nalla Prashanth and

Dattapuram Gangaram and Mamidipally Srinivas, took the seized rice to the fair price shop of one Mamidipally Srinivas, weighed the same and found 13 quintals of rice worth Rs.9000/-, so Pw1 handed over the same to said Mamidipally Srinivas for safe custody. Later they went to police station and Pw1 lodged report to the police. During the cross examination he admitted that he is subordinate to PW1 and he has to follow his legal instructions. He admitted that there is no norms or guidelines for identification of PDS rice in the possession of card holders or other persons. He denied suggestion that he was not on duty as on 11-01-2019.

14. PW3 deposed that on 11-1-2019 Pw1 took him alongwith Pw2,

Nalla Prashanth, Dattapuram Gangaram to the house of Dokka Sayavva and searched her house and found plastic bags various quantity on observation it was found as PDS rice, Pw1 seized said rice under cover of panchanama in the presence of Nalla Prashanth and Dattapuram

Gangaram and Mamidipally Srinivas, took the seized rice to the fair prise shop of one Mamidipally Srinivas, weighed the same and found 13 6 CC 156 of 2019 quintals worth Rs.9000/-, so Pw1 handed over the same to said

Mamidipally srinivas for safe custody. Later they went to police station,

Pw1 lodged report to the police. During the cross examination he admitted that he is subordinate to PW1 and he has to follow his legal instructions. He admitted that there is no norms or guidelines for identification of PDS rice in the possession of card holders or other persons. He denied suggestion that he was not on duty as on 11-01-2019.

15.Pw4 is the panch witness for seizure panchanama who deposed that on 11-1-2019 at about 5-30 PM, Pw1 took him alongwith PWs2 & 3,

Dattapuram Gangaram to the house of Dokka Sayavva, searched her house and found 15 plastic bags various quantity on observation it was found as PDS rice, later Pw1 took scale from the fair price shop belongs to one Mamidipally Srinivas, weighed and found it 13 quintals, Pw1 seized said rice under cover of panchanama/Ex.P1 in his presence, PWs 2 & 3, Dattapuram Gangaram and Mamidipally Srinivas; took the seized rice worth Rs.16,900/-. He deposed that Pw1 handed over the same to said Mamidipally Srinivas for safe custody. He identified his signature on

Ex.P1/panchanama. During the cross examination he admitted that he has to follow the instructions of his superiors. He admitted that he came to know through PWS 1 to 3 that the alleged seized rice is PDS rice. He admitted that police never collected any duty certificate from PW2 or

MRO concerned nor he handed over the same to them to show that he was on duty on 11-01-2019. He denied suggestion that he was not on duty on 11-01-2019, as such question of preparation of Ex.P1 by PW1 and seizure of 13 quintals of rice does not arise.

16.PW5 is the Investigating Officer who deposed that he received

Ex.P2 report along with Ex.P1/panchanama from Pw1 on 11-01-2019 at 7 CC 156 of 2019 7-30 pm basing on it he registered a case in Crime No.10 of 2019 for the offence under section 420 IPC, Section 7 of Essential commodities

Act and issued Ex.P3/FIR, took up investigation. During the investigation he examined and recorded the statement of Pws 1 to 3 and one PVL

Narayana at police station, on the next day he along with Pw1 visited the scene of offence conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Bandari Srinu and Janaki Krishna Rao and prepared CDF panchanama/Ex.P4 and he secured the presence of Dokka Sayavva examined and recorded her statement. On 17-01-2019 he served 41(A)

Cr.P.C notice to the accused instructing him to appear before him on 19-01-2019 accordingly he appeared and on his interrogation he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and furnished sufficient sureties, so he released him on bail, later he handed over the

CD file to Ch. Vijay Kumar on his transfer. During the cross examination he admitted that he did not collected any duty passports and attendance certificates of PWs1 to 3 and PVL Narayana to show that they were on duty on 11-01-2019. He admitted that he did not obtained any document to show that Dokka Sayavva is having a house bearing

No.3-1-39/B-46 situated at Teachers colony in which the accused stored alleged property as a tenant and tenancy agreement if any between the said Sayavva and accused. He denied suggestion that the accused is no way concerned with the case, basing on he report of PW1 for statistical purpose he registered this case against the accused.

17.The prosecution in order to prove its case, must establish and prove that the alleged rice seized from the possession of the accused belongs to Public Distribution Scheme. The prosecution failed to file duty passports and attendance certificates of PWs1 to 3 and PVL Narayana to show that they were on duty on 11-01-2019 and also failed to file any 8 CC 156 of 2019 document to show that Dokka Sayavva is having a house bearing No.

3-1-39/B-46 situated at Teachers colony in which the accused stored alleged property as a tenant and lease agreement if any between the said Sayavva and accused. In the absence of proof that the said rice belongs to Public Distribution Scheme, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. Bonds and bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th day of March, 2020

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ARMOOR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :- For Defence :-

PW1: Bommena Shankar -None - PW2: Neeradi Laxman PW3: Sunkari Jeevan PW4: Nalla Prashanth PW5: M.Narsaiah/IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :- For Defence :-

Ex.P1 is Seizure panchanama; Ex.P2 is the report of PW1 to the police; -NIL- Ex.P3 is First Information Report Ex.P4 is Crime Details Form.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ARMOOR.

9 CC 156 of 2019