Smt M.G.Priyadarshini

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I­ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE 

Present:­Sri R.J.Viswanadham, I­Additional District Judge, Ongole 

Friday, the 16 th Day of March, 2018.

Original Suit No.112/2012

Between:­ 

Luhini Constructions (unregistered), Represented by its Proprietor, Navuluri Hanumantha Rao, son of late Chenchaiah, aged 45 years, resident of Maddipadu village and Mandal, Prakasam District. ­­­Plaintiff

AND 

Mudivarthi Sri Lakshmi, wife of late Piduri Krishna Murthy, aged 47 years, door No.7­5­83, Opposite to Sunshine Public School, Mangamooru Donka, Ongole. ­­­Defendant

This suit is coming on this day, 16.03.2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri PL Govindaiah, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri C.Venkateswarlu,

Advocate for defendant, on hearing both the counsels, upon perusing the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:­ 

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of

Rs.19,93,635/­ with subsequent interest at the rate of rupees 24% per annum from the date of the suit, till the date of realisation on Rs.19,93,635/­ and for costs. 

02.Briefly the averments of the plaint are as follows:­ The plaintiff started construction works in the name and style of Luhini Constructions in the year 2008.

The defendant purchased the site for an extent of 112.2/9 square yards in town survey No.6/2 near Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Ongole, on 09.05.2001 under a registered document No.1656/2001 of Sub­Registrar Office, Ongole, on dated 09.05.2001 and so the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule site.

The defendant offered to make construction in her schedule site and entered into

General Power of Attorney cum Development Agreement on dated 10.06.2011 with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is A­party, whereas the defendant is B­party in the 2

General Power of Attorney cum Development Agreement, dated 10.06.2011. The terms of the General Power of Attorney cum Development Agreement are:­

(a)The plaintiff has to construct a building with stilt + G + 4 floors with his expenditure in the plaint schedule site of defendant 

(b)The plaintiff and defendant have agreed to share the profits with 50% each by sold away the flats or by owning the flats by them. 

(c)The defendant has to hand over the plaint schedule site to the plaintiff without any disputes from anybody in any manner and if any dispute arises with regarding to the title and construction of the building, the defendant has to clear the disputes with his own risk and costs and hand over to the plaintiff to proceed with constructions.

(d)The defendant has to obtain municipal plan and permission for the construction of the building in the name of defendant and after the permission from the Municipality, construction has to be completed by the plaintiff within 15 months, if there are no any hurdles from any of the

Government Institution.

The plaintiff has got dug a bore well in the plaint schedule site and to arrange an electrical water motor. There are several other terms and conditions in the General

Power of Attorney cum Development Agreement. The defendant obtained a plan from the Ongole Municipality as per the terms of General Power of Attorney cum

Development Agreement. The plaintiff got dug a bore well in the plaint schedule site and arranged motor with electrical connection in the name of the defendant and the plaintiff started construction in the plaint schedule site. The plaintiff raised slabs for stilt, ground floor and first floor in the plaint schedule site on incurring an amount of Rs.17,50,851/­. The total expenditure incurred by the plaintiff is shown in a separate table enclosed to the plaint. The amount was spent in between July, 2011 to September, 2011. The defendant promised to the plaintiff that the defendant would obtain permission for other floors from the municipality. The 3 plaintiff started construction in site of the defendant on spending huge amounts on believing the defendant. The neighbour of the defendant by name Poluri Srinivasa

Rao, son of Venkata Seshaiah, started litigation by raising dispute for the construction of the building in the plaint schedule site when the construction was in progress in the suit schedule site. The neighbour of the defendant by name Poluri

Srinivasa Rao gave representations against the construction of the plaint schedule site to the municipal authorities; District Collector, Prakasam District; Legal Services

Authority, Ongole; Municipal Minister, Hyderabad; Lokayucta, Hyderabad; Director

Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad; Vigilance and Enforcement Department,

Hyderabad and others by requesting to stop the construction in the plaint schedule site. The municipal authorities demolished a portion of construction that was made by the plaintiff in the plaint schedule site and also directed both the plaintiff and defendant to stop the construction. Accordingly the construction of the building in the site of the defendant was stopped since November, 2011. By which date already stilt, ground floor and first floor slabs were laid by the plaintiff by spending

Rs.17,50,851/­. The construction was stopped due to legal hurdles. The defendant failed to resolve the disputes to proceed with in further construction in the plaint schedule site by the plaintiff. The duty is cast upon the defendant to resolve the said dispute. The plaintiff and defendant came to the conclusion that further floors cannot be raised as there is no permission for further constructions of the floors in the plaint schedule site. There was a case in Legal Services Authority, Ongole, filed by the neighbour of the defendant and the defendant failed to resolve the dispute with her neighbour. The defendant has not come out of the legal hurdles to proceed for further construction by the plaintiff. The General Power of Attorney cum Development Agreement, dated 10.06.2011 cannot be enforced under the said circumstances. The defendant and the plaintiff have equal right to park the vehicles in stilt floor, the ground floor has to allot to the defendant and first floor has to allot to the plaintiff as per the terms of the General Power of Attorney cum Development 4

Agreement. The plaintiff is always ready and is willing to complete the construction of stilt, ground floor and first floor in case of confining by the defendant for construction of stilt, ground floor and first floor and agreed to give 50% share in the said construction to the plaintiff. The defendant did not agree and the defendant demanded the plaintiff to make construction of G + 4 illegally with the expenditure of the plaintiff, for which the plaintiff did not agree. The plaintiff is entitled to claim an amount of Rs.17,50,851/­ as he had incurred as expenditure and the plaintiff is claiming Rs.17,50,851/­ together with interest at 24% per annum. The plaintiff arranged watchman and a supervisor at the construction spot and the plaintiff spent Rs.2,00,000/­ for purchase of wood, though not arranged in the construction. The plaintiff spent more valuable time of the plaintiff for construction of the above building in the plaint schedule site in addition to construction costs.

The plaintiff suffered much mental agony due to the disputes those were raised for construction of the plaint schedule site. The plaintiff contacted the defendant personally and also through his mediators for amicable solution. The defendant and her son by name Venkatesh are not coming forward for amicable settlement in the matter. The plaintiff issued demand legal notice, dated 06.06.2012. The defendant received demand legal notice but the counsel for the plaintiff did not receive the acknowledgment from the defendant. The plaintiff counsel made complaint to the postal authorities for acknowledgment. The defendant did not choose either to give reply or to respond positively. The municipal plan to construct the building in the plaint schedule site along with the permission is filed. The photographs with compact disc are filed to show the construction of building in the plaint schedule site. The bills and payment vouchers 68 in number are filed to show the expenditure for the construction in the plaint schedule site. There is absolutely no fault on the part of the plaintiff in not proceeding with construction in the site and the plaintiff is ready and is willing to complete the construction up to first floor as per the permission, if the defendant agrees to give 50% share in the 5 construction. The construction was stopped as the defendant failed to obtain permission from the municipal authorities. The defendant is liable to pay interest on the expenditure of Rs.17,50,851/­. The defendant is trying to alienate the suit schedule property to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file suit for recovery of the amount of Rs.17,50,851/­ that was spent by the plaintiff for construction of the building in the schedule site from the defendant. Hence, the suit. 

3.The defendant chose to file her written statement which runs as follows:­ The defendant denies all the material averments of the plaint. The defendant submits that the defendant is the owner of the vacant site bearing town survey No.6/2 for an extent of 112 2/9 square yards, near Ayyappa Swamy Temple in Mangamoor

Road, Ongole. The plaintiff enquired the ownership and title of the defendant and approached the defendant and requested the defendant to give her site for construction of the apartment. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed for the said construction of apartment in the suit schedule site and entered into development agreement cum General Power of Attorney and accordingly the development agreement was got reduced into writing and the defendant being a widower, having no assistance of any elderly person, contributed her signature to the development agreement got prepared by the plaintiff behind back of the defendant on believing the contents therein are genuine. The defendant contributed her signature on the said agreement that was got prepared by the plaintiff on the stamped papers and the same was registered under document No.7789/2011, dated 10.06.2011. The plaintiff got prepared a plan and approached the defendant to contribute her signature on the plan for submitting the same to the Ongole Municipality. The plaintiff started the construction work even before the approval by the municipality.

The plaintiff informed the defendant that he would look after every thing regarding the approval of the plan by the municipality. The plaintiff raised stilt, ground floor, 6 first floor and the second floor even prior to the obtaining the approval plan from municipality. The plaintiff was about to raise the eastern wall of the apartment adjacent to the basement compound wall of Poluri Srinivasa Rao without leaving an inch of the site adjacent to east of defendant site. The defendant requested the plaintiff to leave some reasonable site on the eastern side to construct the wall.

Accordingly the dispute that was raised by the eastern owner was subsided. The plaintiff proceeded with the construction of stilt, ground floor and first floor. There was no dispute absolutely by the eastern owners for the construction of the apartment building by the plaintiff. The defendant has no knowledge absolutely about the filing of the complaint by the eastern owner in Lok Adalat. The plaintiff constructed second and third floors even without obtaining permission from the municipal authorities which is impermissible. The plaintiff is bound to construct the apartment with ground floor, G+4. The construction of the building by the plaintiff is in gross violation of building rules. There was no any agreement or understanding on the part of the defendant to supply the approved plan. The plaintiff has to blame himself for proceeding with the construction of the proposed G+4 apartment and the construction of 2nd and 3rd floors. Even for the said two floors, the plaintiff raised only pillars and roofing and did not proceed with further construction. The defendant is no way responsible in making the plaintiff to start the apartment as agreed upon. The municipal authorities may at any time demolish the unauthorized construction in the plaint schedule property which would cause loss to the defendant. The plaintiff committed gross violation proceeded with the construction. The defendant cannot be made to bear the expenditure by the plaintiff. The defendant must have incur Rs.5,00,000/­ towards skeleton construction of the building. On account of the violation on the part of the plaintiff in not getting the apartment as agreed upon making the defendant at loss, it is the plaintiff that made the defendant to suffer to mental agony. The defendant got estimated the semi finished RCC building the costs of which estimated to the tune 7 of Rs.9,10,000/­ as per the estimation of Consulting Civil Engineer. The defendant is not at all liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff as prayed for. The plaintiff had falsely created all the receipts and vouchers and they are not binding on the defendant. There was no any demand by the plaintiff or any mediations those were raised by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s claim is a speculative one and plaintiff got filed the suit to gain wrongfully. For all these reasons, the defendant submits that the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.Basing upon the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues are settled:­

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest as prayed for?

3.To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled?

5.The plaintiff chose to examine PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9.

The defendant chose to examine DW.1 and no documents were marked for the defendant. 

6.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argues that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for with costs in view of evidence of PW.1 to

PW.4 and Exs.A1 to A9.

7.The learned counsel for the defendant argues that the plaintiff failed to prove that he is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for and the evidence of

DW.1 proves that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for and for all these reasons, the learned counsel for defendant submits that the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

8.Issue Nos.1 and 2:­

(a)PW.1 deposes that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule site and the defendant purchased the suit schedule site under Registered

Sale Deed, dated 09.05.2001 and chose to file the Registered Sale Deed, dated 09.05.2001 as Ex.A1. DW.1 is none other than the son of the defendant. DW.1 8 deposes that the defendant purchased the suit schedule site under Ex.A1. So there is no dispute for the title of the defendant over the suit schedule property by virtue of a Registered Settlement Deed, dated 09.05.2001 under Ex.A1, undisputedly. 

(b)PW.1 deposes that he himself and the defendant entered into General

Power of Attorney cum Development Agreement, dated 10.06.2011 for construction of G+4 floors in the suit schedule property and the plaintiff agreed to construct the ground floor plus four floors thereon in the suit schedule site on bearing the expenses for construction of the building and he himself and the defendant agreed to share the profits with 50% each by selling away either the 50% of plots or by owning the 50% of plots each equally and the General Power of Attorney Cum

Development Agreement was registered and the plaintiff chose to file the same under Ex.A2. DW.1 deposes that he was present at the time of execution of the

General Power of Attorney cum Development Agreement under Ex.A2 and the defendant entered into the General Power of Attorney cum Development Agreement with the plaintiff under Ex.A2 So there is no dispute for the execution of the

General Power of Attorney cum Development Agreement under Ex.A2 by both the plaintiff and the defendant.

(c)PW.1 deposes that the defendant herself agreed to obtain permission from the municipality for construction of ground floor plus four floors in the suit schedule site. DW.1 himself admits in his cross­examination that the defendant had to apply for approval of the building plan with the municipal authorities in her name and she has to get approval of the plan as per the condition No.2 under

Ex.A2. DW.1 admits in his cross­examination that the parties under Ex.A2 have to abide the terms and conditions under Ex.A2. So it is clear that the defendant was under obligation to apply to the municipal authorities for construction of the building for the ground floor and for the four floors in her name as stipulated under clause­2 under Ex.A2. PW.1 deposes that the municipal authorities accorded permission for construction of the building for ground floor, 1st floor and 2nd floor in 9 the suit schedule site and chose to file the municipal approval plan under Ex.A4.

PW.1 deposes that he raised roofing with pillars for the ground floor, first floor and the second floor on incurring an amount of Rs.17,50,851/­ and he is prepared to complete the construction for the ground floor, first floor and the second floor as per the approved plan of the municipality under Ex.A4 in case of giving 50% of rights in the ground floor and 50% of flats in the first floor and 50% of flats in the second floor by the defendant and the defendant did not agree for giving 50% of rights in the ground floor, 50% of flats in the first floor and 50% of flats in the second floor and the construction was stopped due to the fault on the part of the defendant and he incurred an amount of Rs.17,50,851/­ for construction of the building in the suit schedule site and he chose to file the photographs, the bill payments, the Certificate of Axis Bank, dated 29.06.2012 and the Estimation Report under Exs.A5 to A8. PW.1 deposes that he demanded the defendant to pay the expenses those were incurred by him under Ex.A3 and the defendant did not pay any amount and the defendant got issued reply legal notice under Ex.A9. PW.2 to

PW.4 corroborate the evidence of PW.1 that PW.1 constructed building for the ground floor, first floor and second floor and also corroborates the evidence of

PW.1 for the expenses those were incurred by the plaintiff for construction of the building for the ground floor, first floor and the second floor. The defendant is the competent witness to speak about the terms and conditions those were arrived in between the plaintiff and the defendant for construction of the building in the suit schedule property in pursuance of the General Power of Attorney cum Development

Agreement under Ex.A2. DW.1 cannot be substituted in the place of defendant to speak the aspects those were within the knowledge of the defendant nevertheless

DW.1 is none other than the son of defendant. DW.1 cannot be designated more than that of a other witness. PW.1 deposes that he is ready to construct the building with ground floor and four floors as stipulated under Ex.A2 in case of obtaining the approved plan by municipal authorities by the defendant. The 10 municipal authorities approved the construction of the building for ground floor, first floor and second floor as per Ex.A4, undisputedly. It is the obligation on the part of the defendant to secure approved plan for construction of the building for the ground floor and also for the four floors in the suit schedule site. The defendant failed to obtain the approved plan from the municipal authorities for construction of the building for the ground floor and for four floors in the suit schedule site. So the plaintiff could not construct the third floor and the fourth floor in contemplation of the agreement under Ex.A2, as the defendant failed to obtain the approved plan of the municipal authorities for construction of the building for the ground floor and for four floors in the suit schedule site. So the plaintiff could not construct the ground floor and four floors in the suit schedule property due to laches on part of the defendant to secure the approved plan from the municipal authorities for construction of the ground floor and four floors building in the suit schedule property. So it is clear that it is impossible to comply to the terms for construction of ground floor and four floors as stipulated under Ex.A2 by the plaintiff due to non­approval of plan by municipality. 

(d)PW.1 deposes that he even would construct the building for ground floor, first floor and the second floor in case of giving him 50% of rights in the ground floor, first floor and the second floor along with the defendant. DW.1 categorically deposes that they would not give 50% of rights in the ground floor, first and second floors in the case of constructing ground floor, first and second floors by the plaintiff. PW.1 deposes that he incurred an amount of Rs.17,50,851/­ for construction of the building for the ground floor, first floor and the second floor without completing the structure in toto. DW.1 admits that the defendant had not incurred a single paise for raising of the ground floor, first floor and the second floor in the suit schedule property. There is no possibility for the plaintiff to construct third and fourth floors in the suit schedule property, as the municipal authorities accorded permission for construction of only ground floor, first floor and 11 second floor. The defendant refused to give 50% of rights in the ground floor, first floor and second floor in case of completion of the entire construction work of the building in toto by the plaintiff as seen the evidence of DW.1 himself. So the plaintiff left no other option except to recover the expenses those were incurred legally by him for construction of the ground floor, first floor and the second floor in the suit schedule property. PW.1 deposes that he incurred an amount of

Rs.17,50,851/­ and he chose to file the photos, bills and payment vouchers 66 in number under Ex.A6 and the certificate of the Axis Bank, dated 29.06.2012 under

Ex.A8. PW.1 deposes that he employed supervisor and watchman for the purpose of constructing the building. There is no whisper for employing any supervisor or watchman for the construction of the building as per Ex.A2 and so the plaintiff is certainly not entitled for the expenses those were incurred by him if any for employing any supervisor and watchman for the construction of the building in the suit schedule property. PW.1 himself chose to file the estimation report of a qualified consultant under Ex.A7, where therein, the qualified consultant opines that the total estimated cost of the building is Rs.14,60,000/­. So the plaintiff himself is relying upon Ex.A7 for the estimation of the cost for construction of the building is Rs.14,60,000/­. So the plaintiff is certainly entitled for an amount of

Rs.14,60,000/­ towards construction of the building and so the plaintiff is certainly entitled reasonable rate of interest which would be 24% per annum over the estimated cost of the building i.e., Rs.14,60,000/­ from 01.12.2011 to 28.06.2012 over the estimated cost of approved amount of Rs.14,60,000/­. In view of above discussion, the issues 1 and 2 are partly answered in favour of the plaintiff. 

9.Issue No.3:­ In view of findings under issue issue Nos.1 and 2, the suit is liable to be partly decreed with costs.

In the result, the suit is partly decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.14,60,000/­ with subsequent interest at rupees 24% per annum from 01.12.2011 to 27.06.2012, at rupees 12% per annum from the date of the suit, till the date of decree; and at 12 rupees 6% per annum thereafter till realisation over the estimated cost of construction amount of Rs.14,60,000/­. 

Dictated to my Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 16thDay of March, 2018. 

Sd/­RJ.Viswanadham I­Additional District Judge, Ongole 

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined 

For Plaintiff:­For Defendant:­ PW.1 : Navuluri Hanumantha RaoDW.1 : Piduri Venkateswara Rao PW.2 : Padarthi Venkata Krishna Rao PW.3 : Nidamanuri Hanumantha Rao PW.4 : Medarametla Venkateswarlu

Documents Marked For Plaintiff:­ 

Ex.A1:Original Registered Sale Deed, dated 09.05.2001 executed by Konda Lakshma Reddy in favour of defendant Mudivarthi Srilakshmi Ex.A2:General Power of Attorney cum Development Agreement, dated 10.06.2011 Ex.A3:Office copy of Legal Notice with postal receipt, dated 06.06.2012 Ex.A4:Municipal approved plan along with proceedings of Municipal Commissioner, Ongole Ex.A5:Three positive photographs along with compact disc Ex.A6:Bunch of Bills and payment vouchers – 66 in number Ex.A7:Estimation Report, dated 24.12.2012 with specific and detailed abstract of the construction of the plaint schedule Ex.A8:Certificate issued by Axis Bank, dated 29.02.2012 Ex.A9:Reply Legal Notice received by the counsel for the plaintiff on 03.07.2012 from the advocate for defendant

For Defendant:­ Nil 

Sd/-RJ.Viswanadham

I­Additional District Judge, Ongole 

IN THE COURT OF THE I­ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE 

Present:­Sri R.J.Viswanadham, I­Additional District Judge, Ongole 

Friday, the 16 th Day of March, 2018.

Original Suit No.112/2012

Between:­ 

Luhini Constructions (unregistered), Represented by its Proprietor, Navuluri Hanumantha Rao, son of late Chenchaiah, aged 45 years, resident of Maddipadu village and Mandal, Prakasam District. ­­­Plaintiff

AND 

Mudivarthi Sri Lakshmi, wife of late Piduri Krishna Murthy, aged 47 years, door No.7­5­83, Opposite to Sunshine Public School, Mangamooru Donka, Ongole. ­­­Defendant

The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.19,93,635/­ with subsequent interest at the rate of rupees 24% per annum from the date of the suit, till the date of realisation on Rs.19,93,635/­ and for costs. 

Cause of action:­ Cause of action for the suit arose, when the plaintiff and defendant entered into a GPA­cum­Development Agreement, dated 10.06.2011 to construct building by the plaintiff in the plaint schedule site, that when the defendant obtained permission for ground floor and first floor only, that when the plaintiff started construction the plaint schedule and spent Rs.17,50,851/­ for laying slabs of stilt floor, ground floor and 1st floor, as the defendant promised that she will obtain permission, that when the neighbour of the plaint schedule by name Poluri Srinivasa Rao raised dispute for the construction of the building in the plaint schedule site by making representations to the authorities and when the municipal authorities demolished the front portion of part of the construction of the building, that when the defendant failed to obtain further permission and no objection from the authorities, that when the defendant failed to come for amicable compromise to proceed further works and share the profits of 50% each, that when the mediations were failed, that when since last one week, the defendant trying to alienate the schedule property to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, that when it cannot be possible to proceed with further constructions and that the plaintiff constrained to file suit for recovery of his expenditure from the defendant, that when the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant on 06.06.2012, that when the plaint schedule is situated in Ongole Town within the jurisdiction of this Court. 

Plaint presented on : 28.06.2012 and filed on 03.07.2012

Valuation and Court Fee:­ The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.19,93,635/­ on which a court fee of Rs.22,420/­ is paid under section 20 of APCF and SV Act. 

Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.19,93,635/­ 

This suit is coming on this day, 16.03.2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri PL Govindaiah, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri C.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for defendant, on hearing both the counsels, upon perusing the material available on record, this Court DOTH IN PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT ORDER AND DECREE:­

1.that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.14,60,000/­ with subsequent interest at rupees 24% per annum from 01.12.2011 to 27.06.2012, at rupees 12% per annum from the date of the suit i.e., on 03.07.2012, till the date of decree; and at rupees 6% per annum thereafter till realisation over the estimated cost of construction amount of

Rs.14,60,000/­.

2.that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.22422/­ (institution costs of the suit) (No CM and FC filed) towards costs of the suit, bearing her own costs of Rs.Nil/­ (No CM and FC filed).

Costs of the plaintiff:­ Rs.22422/­ (institution costs) Costs of the defendant:­ Rs.Nil (No CM & FC filed) 

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 16 th Day of March, 2018.

Sd/-RJ.Viswanadham

I­ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ONGOLE 

Table of Costs

S.No.ParticularsFor PlaintiffFor Defendant

1.Stamp on Vakalat2.00

2.Stamp on Plaint22420.00

3. Writing charges­­

4.Typing charges­­

5.Stamp on petitions­­(No CM and FC filed)

6.Stamp on process ­­­

7.Sr.Advocate fee 

8.Jr.Advocate fee Total22422.00

Sd/­RJ.Viswanadham

I­ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

ONGOLE ONGOLE 

Note : The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are filed have Note : The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are filed have toto be taken back by the petitioners concerned within stipulated time with an undertakingbe taken back by the petitioners concerned within stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by this Court.to produce the same as and when required by this Court.

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS : PRAKASAM DIVISION :: ONGOLE

(Before the I-Additional District Judge, Ongole)

PRESENT: Smt. M.G.Priyadarshini,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole.

FAC I-Addl. Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Thursday, this the twenty first (21 st ) day of September, 2017

Crl.M.P.No.205/2017.

(Cr.No.128/2017 of Ongole II town Police Station) Between: Shaik Mohammad Apsar Basha, Son of Mohammad Shafi, aged 32 years, Ammavarisala, Cumbum Post and Mandal, Prakasam District.

... PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND The State: Station House Officer,Ongole II Town P.S. Represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … RESPONDENT

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Raghavendra Reddy Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused and of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State, upon hearing the Advocates on record, upon perusal of the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following: -

// O R D E R //

1.This bail application filed by the petitioner/Accused under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of regular bail in Cr.No.128/2017 of Ongole II -Town Police Station for the alleged offences punishable u/sec.365 of IPC and Secs.6,11(4), 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.The brief facts of the case are that the defacto complainant Md. Sofia, W/o. Md. Kaifayathulla, who is mother of the victim presented a written report to the SHO, Ongole II Town Police Station stating that on 06.08.2017 at 22.30 hours, the victim, aged 15 years, left her house stating that she is going to bring note books but did not return home till night and later informed her through phone that she was leaving for Chennai and she would not return for ever and later switched off the phone and that her daughter/ victim studied 6th to 9th classes in Cumbum and the accused, who was working as Maths teacher in that school was chatting with his students including the victim and on coming to know of the same, the defacto complainant gave a complaint to the principal and thus the accused was removed from the job and now he is working in Narayana School,Ongole and the defacto complainant suspects the involvement of the accused in the missing of the victim. Based on the report, the SHO, Ongole II Town Police Station, registered the case as Cr.No.128/2017 under the head “Girl Missing”. During the course of investigation, the police traced the track of the cell phone of the accused at Narasaraopet and found the victim girl on 24.08.2017 in the house of Gpireddy Seetharavamma in Ramireddypeta, Narasaraopet and then they recorded the statement of the victim girl and she stated that on 6.8.2017, the accused chatted with her informing that he is coming to RTC Bus Stand, Ongole and instructed her to come there and accordingly she left the house and they both went to Kanigiri in a car and from there to Markapur and from there to Hyderabad and stayed there in a lodge and later went to Naerasaraopet and stayed in rented portion of the house from 9.8.2017 onwards and the accused introduced her as his sister to the house owners and they both decided to marry after she got majority. Based on the statement of the victim girl, the section of law was altered to Sections 365 I.P.C. and sections 11(4) r/w. 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Later, the accused was apprehended on 05.09.2017 and he confessed that he had participated in sexual intercourse with the victim and then the section 6 of POCSO Act was added to the above sections and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 5.9.2017 and since then he is in judicial custody.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused argued that the petitioner/accused is innocent and he did not commit any offence and he is falsely implication in this case due to personal grudges due to financial disputes between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and as the petitioner demanded the defacto complainant to discharge the amount due to him, only with a view to avoid the amount due to the accused, this false case was foisted. He further argued that most of the investigation is completed in this case and hence there is no reason to apprehend that the petitioner would either interfere or tamper with the prosecution evidence, hence, prays to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

4.The learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner/accused, who was maths teacher of the victim, who expected to be a role model to the society, regardless of morals, taking advantage of the innocence of minor girl, took her away from the lawful guardianship and put her in his control for nearly 18 days, and thus committed a heinous offence and moreover the investigation in this case is pending and if the petitioner/accused was enlarged on bail, there is every chance of his threatening the witnesses, hence prays to dismiss the petition.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled for grant of bail as

prayed for?”

7.POINT :-

This Court has Perused the case diary, F.I.R. and other material available on record, which prima facie discloses that the petitioner/Accused, who was the Maths teacher of the victim, regardless of the morals and dignity attached to the profession, took advantage of the lack of mental maturity of the victim girl, took her away from the lawful guardianship, took her to various places and kept her in his custody for more than 18 days and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Admittedly, the victim girl is below the age of consent and undoubtedly the minor girl is to be protected under law by taking serious note of sexual offences against women, especially against minor girls. This is not the stage to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused that this case has been foisted against him due to financial disputes between the accused and the defacto complainant. The case diary clearly discloses that the investigation in this case is pending for recording the statement of the victim girl under section 164 Cr.P.C. and for conducting potency test of the accused. Under these circumstances, if the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail there is every chance of tampering the prosecution witnesses and hampering of investigation by the accused. Therefore, considering the gravity of allegations made against the petitioner/accused and also the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused at this stage. Accordingly, the point is answered.

6.IN THE RESULT, the petition is DISMISSED.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, this the 21st day of September, 2017.

Sd/- M.G.Priyadarshini

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE

FAC I-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE.

Copy to

The SHO, Ongole II-Town Police Station

// t. c. f. b. o. //

Superintendent,

I-Addl. District Court, Ongole.

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS : PRAKASAM DIVISION :: ONGOLE

(Before the I-Additional District Judge, Ongole)

PRESENT: Smt. M.G.Priyadarshini,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole.

FAC I-Addl. Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Wednesday, this the twentiety (20th) day of September, 2017

Crl.M.P.No.203/2017.

(Cr.No.57/2017 of Pullalacheruvu Police Station) Between: Desavath Krishna Naik, S/o. Ram Singh Naik, aged about 27 years, caste by Sugali, R/o. Pedda P.R.C. Thanda Village, Pullalacheruvu mandal, Prakasam District.

... PETITIONER/ACCUSED

And

The State: Station House Officer, Pullalacheruvu P.S. Represented by Spl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … RESPONDENT

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D. Srinivasulu Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused and of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State, upon hearing the Advocates on record, upon perusal of the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following: -

// O R D E R //

1.This is the second bail application has been filed by the petitioner/Accused under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of regular bail in Cr.No.57/2017 of Pullalacheruvu Police Station for the offences punishable u/s.376 r/w. 511 of IPC and Sec.8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 27.7.2017 while the victim girl, aged about 13 years, was grazing buffalos at Pedda Cheruvu, at about 16.00 hours, the petitioner came from her back side, pushed her down on the ground, closed her mouth with his hand and tried to commit rape on her and on hearing sounds of tractor, he went away. On the written report given by the defacto complainant, father of the victim girl, the S.H.O., Pullalacheruvu Police Station registered the case in Cr.No.57/2017 under sections 376 r/w. 511 of I.P.C. and section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 of Pullalacheruvu Police Station and apprehended the petitioner/accused on 04.08.2017 and since then he is in judicial custody.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused argued that the petitioner/accused is innocent and he did not commit any offence and due to difference between the families of petitioner and complainant, he was falsely implicated in this case. He further argued that material part of investigation is completed except filing charge sheet, hence prays to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail.

4.The learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail application on the ground that the investigation in this case is in progress, and the petitioner/accused is a man of highhanded behaviour, if he is released on bail, he will threaten the witnesses and tamper the evidence .

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled for grant of regular

bail as prayed for?”

7.POINT :-

Earlier bail application in Crl.M.P.No.182/2017 was dismissed on 30.08.2017 with an observation at this stage. The case diary discloses that as many as six witnesses were examined indicating that material part of the investigation was completed. Though the case diary discloses that investigation is pending for want of recording the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim, both the counsel have fairly argued across the bench that the 164 Cr.P.C.statement of the victim has already been recorded. Since material part of the investigation was completed, there is no possibility for the accused either to tamper or hamper with the process of investigation. In view of the circumstances stated supra and also keeping in view the remand period of the petitioner/accused since 4.8.2017, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused, but, by imposing certain conditions.

8.In the result, the petition is ALLOWED. The petitioner/Accused is ordered to be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of this Court. On such release, the petitioner/Accused shall report and sign before the Stating House Officer, Pullalacheruvu P.S. on every Wednesday and Sunday in between 2.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. till further orders or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier. The petitioner/Accused shall not contact the complainant or the witnesses or pressurize any of them and shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten any of the witness. Further the petitioner/accused shall cooperate with the investigation agency and shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission. Violation of any of the above conditions imposed, shall amount to cancellation of bail forthwith.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, this the 20 th day of September, 2017.

Sd/- M.G.Priyadarshini.

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE

FAC I-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE.

Copy to 1.The SHO, Pullalacheruvu Police Station. 2.Sri D. Srinivasulu Reddy, counsel for the petitioner/accused.

// t. c. f. b. o. //

Superintendent,

I-Addl. District Court, Ongole.

 IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :: ONGOLE

(BEFORE THE I­ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE) Present:­ Smt.M.G.Priyadarshini, Chairman, MACT­cum­Prl. District Judge, Ongole FAC Chairman, MACT­cum­I­Addl. District Judge,Ongole

 Wednesday, the 20th Day of September, 2017.

M.V.O.P. No. 250/2017 Between: Darapaneni Seethamma, wife of late Balaramaiah, aged about 76 years, Hindu, agricultural coolie, resident of Dronadula village, Martur Mandal, 

Prakasam District. .. Petitioner

AND

1.Shaik Srinu, son of Allabakshu, aged about 18 years, Dudekula, Student, resident of Dronadula village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District. 

2.Shaik Allabakshu, son of Peeru Saheb, aged about 50 years, Dudekula, resident of Dronadula village, Martur Mandal, 

Prakasam District. .. Respondents

The petitioner/injured filed this petition under Section.166 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/­ for sustaining injuries in a road accident which took place on 21.05.2017 at about 10.45 am., in front of petitioner’s house at Dronadula village of Martur Mandal, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Motorcycle bearing No.AP27/AT/5120 within the limits of Martur Police Station of Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. 

The Motor Vehicle Original Petition is coming on today before me for issuance of summons to R1 and R2 in the presence of Sri P.Sivahari, Advocate for petitioner, on memo filed on behalf of the petitioner, this Court made the following:­

ORDER

Counsel for the petitioner filed memo in office on 07.09.2017 stating that he is not pressing the OP as the matter is settled before elders. Memo is recorded. Hence, petition is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20th Day of September, 2017. 

Chairman, MACT­cum­Prl. Dist. Judge, Ongole FAC Chairman, MACT­cum­I­Addl. Dist. Judge,Ongole 

Appendix of Evidence No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side

Chairman, MACT­cum­Prl. Dist. Judge, Ongole FAC Chairman, MACT­cum­I­Addl. Dist. Judge,Ongole 

 IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :: ONGOLE

(BEFORE THE I­ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE) Present:­ Smt.M.G.Priyadarshini, Chairman, MACT­cum­Prl. District Judge, Ongole FAC Chairman, MACT­cum­I­Addl. District Judge,Ongole

 Wednesday, the 20th Day of September, 2017.

M.V.O.P. No. 250/2017 Between: Darapaneni Seethamma, wife of late Balaramaiah, aged about 76 years, Hindu, agricultural coolie, resident of Dronadula village, Martur Mandal, 

Prakasam District. .. Petitioner

AND

1.Shaik Srinu, son of Allabakshu, aged about 18 years, Dudekula, Student, resident of Dronadula village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District. 

2.Shaik Allabakshu, son of Peeru Saheb, aged about 50 years, Dudekula, resident of Dronadula village, Martur Mandal, 

Prakasam District. .. Respondents

The petitioner/injured filed this petition under Section.166 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/­ for sustaining injuries in a road accident which took place on 21.05.2017 at about 10.45 am., in front of petitioner’s house at Dronadula village of Martur Mandal, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Motorcycle bearing No.AP27/AT/5120 within the limits of Martur Police Station of Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. 

The Motor Vehicle Original Petition is coming on today before me for issuance of summons to R1 and R2 in the presence of Sri P.Sivahari, Advocate for petitioner, on memo filed on behalf of the petitioner, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:­ (1)that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed.

(2)that there be no order as to costs.

(No CM & FC filed on either side) 

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 20th Day of September, 2017. 

Chairman, MACT­cum­Prl. Dist. Judge, Ongole FAC Chairman, MACT­cum­I­Addl. Dist. Judge,Ongole 

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, :: (FTC), ONGOLE

Present : Smt M. G. Priyadarshini

Prl.District Judge, Ongole FAC: III Addl. District Judge, (FTC), Ongole.

Friday, the 22 nd day of September, 2017.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 280/2011

Between:-

1) Tanniru Durga Lakshmi @ Lakshmi Durga, W/o Late Prasad @ Venkata Prasad, aged 25 years, C/o. Gunji Venkateswarlu, Government School Road, Ramavappadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District

2) Tanniru Venkata Bharath, Age: 8 Yrs

3) Tanniru Venkata Mahesh, Age: 6 Yrs

4) Tanniru Uma Maheswari, Age: 4 Yrs Being minors rep. by their next friend

Guardian mother i.e, the 1st plaintiff ... Plaintiffs

And

1) Tanniru Hari Babu, S/o Venkateswarlu, Age: 40 Yrs,

2) Tanniru Venkata Narayana, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Age: 37 Yrs, both are Defendants 1 and 2 residing at Plot No. 1 & 3, Lalamma Garden, Puppala Guda village, Rajendra Nagar Rangareddy District.

3) Tanniru Srinu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, H.No.8-1/07, Plot No. 39, Road No. 1, Sangareddy, Medak District.… Defendants

The suit is coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri T. Gopala Krishna Murthy and Sri C. Venkata Road (Junior), Advocates for Plaintiffs and Sri D. Srinivasulu Reddy, Advocate for the Defendants and both having orally represented above the compromise, this court having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants to devide plaint ‘A’ Schedule property into four equal shares by metes and bounds with good and bad qualities and to allot one such share to plaintiffs and put them in separate possession of the same; and to devide Plaint ‘B’ Schedule property into two equal shares and allot one such share to plaintiffs by metes and bounds with good and bad qualities and put them in separate possession of the same; and for costs of the suit.

At this stage, Counsel for both parties orally represented that the matter is compromised. However, this being a case pertaining to the year 2011, P.W.1 did not come forward for cross examination or appeared before the court despite direction. Hence, this suit is dismissed for default. No costs.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22nd day of September, 2017.

Sd/- Smt M.G.Priyadarshini,

Prl. District Judge, Ongole. FAC: III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC) ONGOLE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/- Smt M.G.Priyadarshini,

Prl. District Judge, Ongole. FAC: III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC) ONGOLE