Smt.M.K.Padmavathi

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Monday, the 17th day of April, 2023

Present:- Smt.M.K.Padmavathi Prl. Senior Civil Judge, FAC. Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar

O.S. No. 147 of 2013

Between:-

Padmashali Seva Sangham Trust, Mahabubnagar ….Plaintiff

And

1.The District Tribal Welfare Officer, Mahabubnagar.

2.The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Hyderabad.

3.The State of A.P., through the District Collector, Mahabubnagar.

….Defendants

Sub:- Suit for recovery of money towards agreed rents.

* * *

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Anil Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Asst. Govt. Pleader for defendants, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following Judgment:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff trust against the defendants seeking direction to pay Rs.3,76,310/- with future interest @ 18 % PA on the due amount from the date of suit till realisation.

Page 2 of 18 OS.No. 147 of 2013, dt. 17.04.2023

2.The gist of the plaint averments is as follows: The plaintiff is a registered trust with Registration No. 12/90, situated in

Mahabubnagar. The trust owns properties near Ashok Talkies,

Mahabubnagar, which consist of a carpet area of 443 square feet spread across two floors. Defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff seeking accommodation to establish their office at the premises of

Padmashali Seva Sangam Trust, Padmashali Kalyana Mandapam, near Ashok Talkies, Mahabubnagar. Defendant No. 1 provided an assurance to stay in the said premises of two floors for a duration of two years, and the plaintiff accepted the offer.

a). Defendant No.1 requested the plaintiff to make various modifications and provide additional facilities through a letter dated 19.9.2011. These included a cardboard partition, attached toilets, white washing, repairs, glass fittings for windows and ventilators, 18 fans, 28 tube lights, and other necessary amenities on the two floors. In response, Defendant No. 1 assured the plaintiff in a letter

dated 14.10.2011 that they would occupy the premises for

two years if the mentioned amenities were provided.

Believing that Defendant No. 1 would stay for the agreed period, the plaintiff spent around 4 lakhs on the modifications. Defendant No. 1 occupied the premises in

November 2011. The Rent and Building (R&B) department

Page 3 of 18 OS.No. 147 of 2013, dt. 17.04.2023 validated the rent for a total area of 4881.83 square feet at a rate of Rs. 26,850 per month, as per GOMs.No.63, dated 18.4.2012.

b). However, without prior notice, Defendant No. 1 suddenly started vacating the premises on 10.09.2011, claiming Vastu non-compliance. They completely vacated both floors by 15.09.2012 without paying any rent. This unilateral action by Defendant No. 1 violated the terms of the lease and their earlier assurance. The plaintiff, who had made substantial investments in the modifications, expected to receive rental income for at least two years to cover the expenses.

c). In response, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 17.09.2013 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, exposing the defendants' illegal activity and demanding payment of rent for the promised two-year period, along with compensation for falsely blaming the premises. While all the defendants received the notices, Defendant No. 2 returned a copy of the letter to Defendant No. 1, as confirmed by CTW memo RC.No.D3/8605/2012, dated 25.10.2012. Defendant No. 1 then sent a letter to the plaintiff, through RC.No.A7/1025/11, dated 25.9.2012, acknowledging the vacation of the second floor on

Page 4 of 18 OS.No. 147 of 2013, dt. 17.04.2023 10.09.2012, while retaining the first floor and promising rent payment upon budget availability.

d). Later, Defendant No. 1 sent a cheque (No. 231287,

dated 24.11.2012) worth Rs. 2,69,395/- to the plaintiff as

rent for the period from 10.11.2011 to 10.09.2012, as mentioned in the letter RC.No.A1/1025/11, dated 24.11.2012. Subsequently, Defendant No. 3 informed the plaintiff through a letter (No.A7/1025/11, dated 28.2.2013) that the first floor was also vacated on 28.02.2013, with rent payment dependent on the budget availability. The plaintiff observed that Defendant No. 1 had removed 29 tube lights, worth Rs. 1,305/-, installed by the plaintiff during the process of vacating the premises. The defendants' act of vacating the premises without terminating the lease, contrary to their agreement to stay for two years, is deemed illegal and unilateral.

e). The plaintiff made significant modifications to the premises at considerable expense to meet the defendants' requirements, anticipating that it would be offset by the rental income over two years. However, due to the premature vacation of the premises, the plaintiff suffered substantial financial losses and mental distress. As a result, the plaintiff is seeking to recover an amount of Rs.

Page 5 of 18 OS.No. 147 of 2013, dt. 17.04.2023 3,76,310/- from the defendants, along with interest.

Therefore, the plaintiff has filed this lawsuit.

3.Defendant No.1 filed a written statement, while defendant

No.2 and defendant No.3 submitted an adoption memo. In their statement, defendant No.1 mentioned that they proposed to use the premises as an office cum warehouse for two years, but no agreement on stamp paper was executed. They took possession of the building on 10.11.2011. The District Collector's endorsement questioned the staff strength and the need for a 4881 square feet area. Based on this, the defendants claimed that they vacated the premises for the following reasons:

1.The building has three floors, with the office on the first floor and the second floor used for storing materials. Transporting items from the ground floor to the second floor was challenging and required labor.

2.The building's proximity to a motor workshop line and three film theaters caused inconvenience and disrupted the office atmosphere due to noise and disturbance.

3.The presence of a Lord Shiva temple on the ground floor created discomfort for staff and the public, as walking on the temple premises was considered a matter of sentiment. This situation also led to health problems among staff members. Considering these circumstances, the defendants decided to vacate the building.

a). They further submitted that the rent was fixed by

E.E., R& B, Mahabubnagar as per GOMs.No.63, dt.18.04.2011 @ Rs.26,850/- per month and the amount was paid to vacation of building from 14.11.2011 to 10.09.2012 through cheque No.231287 for Rs.2,69,395/- and cheque No.258920 for Rs.76,075/-. Thus, in all the

Page 6 of 18 OS.No. 147 of 2013, dt. 17.04.2023 defendant has paid Rs.3,46,010/-. They further submitted that they vacated the premises as per the order of the

District Collector. Already they have paid entire rent amount to the plaintiff through the cheques and they are not due for any amount. They are not responsible for missing of 29 tube lights as contended by the plaintiff.

There is no written agreement to stay for two years. Hence question of recovery of rent for a period of two years from this defendant does not arise. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the pleadings, my predecessor in the office framed the following issues for consideration.

i) Whether there is any agreement of lease between the plaintiff and D1 for a period of two years?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the rents for the period of two years as per agreement?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against defendant for a sum of Rs.3,76,310/- with future interest 2 18% p.a. as prayed for?

iv) To what relief?

5.In support of their contention, the plaintiff examined

Secretary of the plaintiff trust, K. Laxminarayana, as PW1.

Through him, they presented and marked documents as Exs. A1 to A12. On behalf of the defendants, district Tribal welfare officer,

Page 7 of 18 OS.No. 147 of 2013, dt. 17.04.2023

Mahabubnagar, Mudavath Chatru was examined as DW1. No documents were marked during his testimony.

6.Heard the plaintiff and defendants. Perused the record.

Issue Nos.1 to 3:-

7.To avoid repetition and for the sake of convenience, this court intends to discuss issues 1 to 3 collectively. In this case, the plaintiff called the Secretary of the plaintiff's trust as PW1 to support their claims and through him, they marked documents

Exs. A1 to A12. The chief examination affidavit of PW1 reflects the same assertions as those made in the plaint. Pw1 contended that defendant No.1 approached them seeking accommodation for their office at the premises of Padmashali Seva Sangam Trust,

Padmashali Kalyana Mandapam, near Ashok Talkies,

Mahabubnagar. Defendant No.1 assured the plaintiff that they would occupy the two floors for a period of two years, and the plaintiff accepted this offer as confirmed in letter Ex.A1. The letter also mentioned that the Tribal Welfare office, Mahabubnagar, had inspected the Padmashali Seva Bhavan located at Ashok Talkies and found it suitable for office use. Furthermore, defendant No.1 requested the plaintiff to undertake certain necessary actions to prepare the building for their occupancy, including installing a cardboard partition for staff, attaching toilets, conducting white washing and minor repairs, and fitting glass to the windows,

Page 8 of 18 OS.No. 147 of 2013, dt. 17.04.2023 among other tasks. It is also mentioned that the rent will be paid in accordance with government orders. Additionally, in letter

Ex.A2 addressed by M. Saraswathi, DTWO Mahabubnagar, to the

President of Padmashali Bhavan, Mahabubnagar, dated 4.10.2011, it states, "We are ready to occupy your building for office purposes for a period of two years on a rental basis if you are willing to create partitions in the second floor and close the ventilators, and construct a bathroom for official use. The rent will be paid as per the R&B rates and will be adjusted as per the prevailing rules." Ex.A3 is the acknowledgment of materials received by the DTW Officer, Mahabubnagar, dated 9.1.2012, acknowledging the receipt of materials from Padmashali Bhavan,

Mahabubnagar, including 18 fans, 28 tube lights, and 1 tube light without a tube. Ex.A4 is the office copy of the legal notice issued by Padmashali Seva Sangam Trust, along with the plaintiff, to defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The notice directs them to pay rent for the premises for the agreed period of two years, amounting to

Rs.6,44,400/- at the rate of Rs.26,850/- per month. The notice also includes a demand for interest at 18% per annum, in addition to the Rs.4 lakhs paid by the plaintiff for modifications as per instructions, and Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for the defendants' illegal and unilateral vacation of the premises, which has caused damage to the plaintiff's reputation in the public.

Ex.A5 is the postal acknowledgement, while Ex.A6 is the original

Page 9 of 18 OS.No. 147 of 2013, dt. 17.04.2023 letter addressed by DTWO to the plaintiff, dated 25.9.2012. In the letter, DTWO informs that, as per the order of the District

Collector, the 2nd floor of Padmashali Bhavan on Ashok Talkies road, belonging to Padmashali Seva Sangam Trust,

Mahabubnagar, has been vacated by the District Tribal Welfare

Officer on 10.9.2012. It is mentioned that only the 1st floor is now occupied from 10.09.2012 onwards. The letter assures that the rent for both the 1st and 2nd floors, from 10.11.2011 to 10.9.2012, as well as the rent for the 1st floor from 10.9.2012, will be paid soon after receiving the budget from the

Commissioner to Tribal Welfare, as per the proposal of the District

Collector, Mahabubnagar. Ex.A7 is the letter addressed by the

DTW Officer, Mahabubnagar, dated 24.11.2012, accompanied by cheque No.231287 as payment for rent from 10.11.2011 to 10.09.2012. Ex.A8 is the proceedings of the District Collector,

dated 28.11.2012, instructing the DTW Officer, Mahabubnagar, to

arrange for monthly payment of rent through a Demand Draft (DD) in favor of the plaintiff. The proceedings also authorize the

DTW office to continue occupying the plaintiff's building, with a monthly rent of Rs.26,850/-, and instructs them to debit the expenditure to the relevant head of account. Ex.A9 represents the rejoinder legal notice issued by the plaintiff to defendants 1 to 3.

It is accompanied by Ex.A10, the postal acknowledgement.

Furthermore, Ex.A11 consists of a letter addressed by the District

Page 10 of 18 OS.No. 147 of 2013, dt. 17.04.2023

Collector to the plaintiff on 28.2.2013. This letter informs the plaintiff about the vacation of the 1st and 2nd floors of the plaintiff's premises by the DTW Officer on 28.2.2013 due to budget constraints. The letter also assures the payment of rent for the 1st floor from 11.9.2012 to 28.2.2013, based on the availability of the budget. Lastly, Ex.A12 is an authorization letter.

8.Upon reviewing Exs.A1 and A2, it becomes evident that the

DTW officer, Mahabubnagar, approached the plaintiff with a request to accommodate their office on the 1st and 2nd floors.

The correspondence also mentioned that they had inspected the building and found it suitable for the District Tribal Welfare office in Mahabubnagar. They requested and assured to stay in the premises for a period of two years, subject to the plaintiff providing the requested amenities. Ex.A3 confirms that the plaintiff made the necessary arrangements, which were acknowledged by the DTW Office in Mahabubnagar. Additionally,

Ex.A8 reveals that the rent for the building was fixed at

Rs.26,850/- per month, as stated in the proceedings of the

District Collector under RC.No.A7/1025/11, dated 24.11.2012.

9.The defendants in this case specifically contend that there is no written agreement between the plaintiff and themselves regarding a two-year stay in the plaintiff's building. Consequently, they argue that they are not legally bound to pay rent for the

Page 11 of 18 OS.No. 147 of 2013, dt. 17.04.2023 aforementioned two-year period. However, as previously discussed, Ex.A2, a letter issued by the DTW officer, explicitly states their willingness to occupy the building for office purposes on a rental basis for a duration of two years, contingent upon the provision of specific amenities as requested. Moreover the defendants do not dispute the fact that the plaintiff failed to fulfill the requested amenity requirements outlined in letters Exs.A1 and A2. The defendants state that they vacated the building for several reasons. Firstly, the building had three floors, with defendant No.1's office on the first floor and the second floor used for storing notebooks, clothes, and materials from APCO, APTPC.

The defendants faced challenges in transporting cloth bales and notebooks between the ground floor and second floor, leading to labor difficulties. Additionally, the building's proximity to motor workshops and its location opposite three cinema theaters caused inconvenience, resulting in a lack of office ambiance and constant disturbance. Moreover, the presence of a Shiva temple on the ground floor, combined with the office's location on the first floor, inconvenienced both staff and the public, causing health problems. These factors led to their decision to vacate the premises. As previously stated, in letter Ex.A1, the DTW officer explicitly mentioned that they had visited the plaintiff's building near Ashok Talkies and determined it to be suitable for the office of the DTW office, Mahabubnagar. They proceeded to propose

Page 12 of 18 OS.No. 147 of 2013, dt. 17.04.2023 occupying the building only after confirming its suitability, contingent upon the fulfillment of specific amenities.

Consequently, the defendants' assertion in the written statement regarding the building's unsuitability for their office purpose is entirely baseless and lacks clarity.

In this case the counsel for the defendants extensively cross-examined PW1, but no evidence was uncovered to discredit his testimony. In fact, PW1 confirmed that no rental agreement was executed between the parties, but they did receive a letter,

Ex.A2, indicating their permission to stay in the premises for a duration of two years. He further stated that their building comprises three floors, and they have leased out the 1st and 2nd floors to the Tribal Welfare department. PW1 also stated that the

Tribal Welfare department took possession of the building on 10.11.2011, utilizing the 1st floor for office purposes and the 2nd floor as a godown. It is further stated that the plaintiff did not receive monthly rent from the defendants since the commencement of the tenancy. On 24.11.2012, the defendants issued a cheque with No.231287 amounting to Rs.2,69,395/- as rent for the period from 10.11.2011 to 10.9.2012. Subsequently, they issued another cheque with No.258920 for Rs.76,075/- covering the period from 11.09.2012 to 28.02.2013 at a rate of

Rs.13,425/- per month. The defendants vacated the 1st floor on

Page 13 of 18 OS.No. 147 of 2013, dt. 17.04.2023 10.09.2012 and the 2nd floor on 28.02.2013. The plaintiff entered into a two-year agreement with them and incurred significant expenses to provide the required amenities for the building. The plaintiff invested a substantial amount in modifications, under the belief that they would receive income for at least two years to offset the costs. However, before the expiration of the agreement, the defendants prematurely vacated the premises, resulting in financial loss for the plaintiff.

10.On the contrary, the defendants, in order to refute the plaintiff's claim and establish that they never made a promise to stay in the premises for a two-year period, presented DTW officer, Mahabubnagar Mudavath Chatru as DW1. The chief examination affidavit of DW1 mirrors the contents of the written statement. During cross-examination, DW1 acknowledged that they typically visit premises when they require a rental building, and after confirming its suitability, they request modifications. He further stated that the Collector serves as the final authority

before occupying any premises. Generally, when the government

rents a building, they enter into an unregistered lease agreement with the landlord. He added that in this case, they issued a letter to the plaintiff regarding the lease agreement as per Ex.A2. Their office records reveal that prior to renting the premises, they inspected the property, obtained permission from the Collector,

Page 14 of 18 OS.No. 147 of 2013, dt. 17.04.2023 and determined the rental amount. According to Ex.A2, the lease agreement is valid for a two-year period. Additionally, in Ex.A1, the defendants specified certain modifications required for the premises. They further mentioned that they sent two letters to the plaintiff at the time of vacating the premises, as evidenced by

Ex.A6. It is worth noting that Ex.A6 does not contain any statement indicating that they are vacating the premises due to the landlord's failure to make the modifications mentioned in

Ex.A1. The defendants' argument for vacating the premises is based on the unsuitability of the building for office rental purposes, citing the presence of motor workshops, theaters, and a temple within the building, which cause significant inconvenience and disturbance to their business operations.

During the cross-examination, DW1 acknowledged that the presence of the Lord Shiva temple in the suit premises predates their occupation. Similarly, the cinema theaters and motor workshops were already in the vicinity before they rented the premises. He also admitted that they visited the premises and obtained permission from the Collector, fixing the rent, only after confirming its suitability. Once they acknowledged the premises as suitable, they cannot now disregard their own admission in an attempt to conceal their shortcomings. Additionally, DW1 acknowledged that as per Ex.A2, they had agreed to occupy the premises for a two-year period, but they prematurely vacated the

Page 15 of 18 OS.No. 147 of 2013, dt. 17.04.2023 premises before the completion of the agreement. Consequently, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to them under Ex.A4. Based on

DW1's admission, it is evident that they had agreed to occupy the premises as outlined in Ex.A2, and they cannot refute their obligation to comply with its terms. The fact remains that defendant No.1 vacated the premises well in advance of the two- year agreement.

11.The court noted that defendant No.1 acquired the suit premises, specifically the 1st and 2nd floors, under a single letter with a monthly rent of Rs.26,850/-. However, as per the letter

Ex.A6, they vacated only the 2nd floor and continued to occupy the 1st floor, paying rent for the period from 11.9.2012 to 28.2.2013 at a rate of Rs.13,425/- per month, totaling

Rs.76,075/-. This action is in direct contradiction to their original agreement. Regardless of the circumstances, defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff through letters Exs.A1 and A2, expressing their intention to rent the plaintiff's building for their office on the first and second floors, at a monthly rate of

Rs.26,850/-. Based on their request, the plaintiff provided amenities to the building, investing a significant amount, with the expectation that the defendants would occupy the premises for a duration of two years. It is worth noting that the defendants have not denied receiving the amenities as requested in letters Exs.A1

Page 16 of 18 OS.No. 147 of 2013, dt. 17.04.2023 and A2. However, Ex.A3 reveals that the DTW Office received materials such as 18 fans and 28 tube lights (excluding one tube) from Padmashali Bavan, Mahabubnagar, which were duly acknowledged. Despite availing themselves of the provided amenities and utilizing the building, they abruptly vacated the premises before completing the agreed two-year period, causing financial loss to the plaintiff. Taking into consideration the aforementioned factors, this court concludes that the defendants are responsible for paying rent for the plaintiff's premises for a duration of two years, as agreed upon, at the rate of Rs.26,850/-, totaling Rs.6,44,400/-. The available records indicate that defendant No.1 has already made a payment of Rs.2,69,395/- through cheque No.231287, covering the period from 10.11.2011 to 10.09.2012. Additionally, they paid Rs.76,075/- via cheque

No.248920 for the period from 11.09.2012 to 28.02.2013 at a rate of Rs.13,425/- per month, as stated in cheque No.258920.

However, no agreement was reached regarding maintenance charges between the plaintiff and defendant for the 1st floor at the rate of Rs.13,425/-. Since defendant No.1 vacated the premises well before the agreed-upon date, they are liable to pay the entire rent for the period from 11.09.2012 to 28.02.2013.

Considering that defendant No.1 has already paid Rs.3,45,470/-, they still owe the plaintiff an amount of Rs.2,98,930/-, along with applicable interest. As mentioned above, since defendant No.1

Page 17 of 18 OS.No. 147 of 2013, dt. 17.04.2023 has violated the terms of the contract, they are obligated to pay

Rs.2,98,930/- to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff prevails over the defendants with regard to issues 1 to 3.

Issue No.4:-

12.In the light of findings in the issue Nos. 1 to 3, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

13.In the result, the suit is partly decreed against the defendants directing them to pay Rs.2,98,930/- to the plaintiff @ 18% p.a., from the date of suit till realisation, with costs. The defendants further directed to pay the above said amount to the plaintiff within a period of three months, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to recover the same through due process of law.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 17th day of April, 2023.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, FAC. Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

Plaintiff:

Page 18 of 18 OS.No. 147 of 2013, dt. 17.04.2023

PW1K.Laxminarayana

Defendant/s:

DW1Mudavath Chatru

Exhibits marked Plaintiff:

Ex.A1Original Lr. Address to the plaintiff by DTW Officer,

dt. 29.9.2011

Ex.A2Original Lr. Addressed to the plaintiff by District tribal welfare officer, dt. 14.10.2011 Ex.A3Acknowledgement of Materials by DTW office, dt. 19.1.12

Ex.A4Original letter addressed to the plaintiff by DTWO,

dt. 25.09.2012

Ex.A5Postal acknowledgement cards -2

Ex.A6Original Lr. Addressed to the plaintiff by DTWO, dt. 25.09.12

Ex.A7Original Lr. Addressed to the plaintiff by DTWO dt, 24.11.12 Ex.A8Proceedings of the District Collector, dt. 24.11.12

Ex.A9Office copy of rejoinder legal notice 17.1.12

Ex.A10Postal ack. Cards -2

Ex.A11Original letter addressed to the plaintiff by Dist. Collector,

dt. 28.02.13

Ex.A12Authorization letter by plaintiff, dt. 8.4.2013

Defendant/s:

-Nil-

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, FAC. Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

MAHABUBNAGAR

Dated, this the 18th day of April, 2023

Present:- Smt.M.K.Padmavathi Prl. Senior Civil Judge, FAC. Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar

O.S. No. 26 of 2016

Between:-

1)Mohammed Mujtaba Hussain S/o. Mohammed Abdul Hafeez, age 36 yrs.

2)Mohammed Muzammil Hussain S/o. Mohammed Abdul Hafeez, age 30 yrs.

Both Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.4-9-32, Brahmanwadi street, Mahabubnagar town and District.

….Plaintiffs

And

N.Venkat Narayan Goud S/o. late N.Balaoppa Goud, age 55 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.5-3-18, Gouds colony, Raichur road, Mahabubnagar town & district. ….Defendant

Sub:- Suit for issue of perpetual injunction.

* * *

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Mohd.

Jalaluddin, Advocate for the plaintiffs, Sri. G.Raja Narender Reddy, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following Judgment:-

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant his men, servants, agents, friends and relatives etc., from interfering with the possession of plaintiff over the suit property the tin shed

OS.No. 26 of 2016, dt. 18.04.2023

Page 2 of 14 bearing house No.5-3-16/1 and open place total measuring 728.66 Sq.yards out of

Sy.No.735 situated behind I town P.S., Mahabubnagar.

2.The gist of the plaint is that late Mohammed Mahboob Hussain acquired a land measuring 4250 sq. yards from the land in Sy.No.735, located behind I town police station, Mahabubnagar, through registered partition deed No.1098/66 on 12.08.1966. He was the absolute owner and possessor of the said land but passed away in 1968, leaving behind six sons. On 27.10.1984, all the sons of late

Mahboob Hussain divided the land among themselves in an oral settlement, with each receiving their respective shares. Accordingly, Abdul Hafiz, one of the brothers, acquired a land measuring 728.66 sq. yards and constructed a tin shed with house No.5-3-16/1 on the land from Sy.No.735, which is the subject matter of the suit. He is currently enjoying the land as the absolute owner and possessor.

Abdul Hafiz, as aforementioned, transferred ownership of the disputed property to the plaintiffs through a registered gift deed, documented as No.14120/15, dated 26.11.2015, and subsequently handed over possession to them. Therefore, the plaintiffs are now the unequivocal owners and possessors of the said property. On the other hand, the defendant, who occupies the adjacent open land on the southern side of the disputed property, has no legitimate right, title, or interest in the subject property. Despite lacking any lawful claim, the defendant attempted to encroach upon the suit property with wrongful intent on both 26.2.2015 and 27.2.2016, accompanied by associates. Left with no alternative, the plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit. Consequently, the suit was filed due to these circumstances.

3.On the contrary, the defendant submitted a written statement asserting that the plaintiffs' grandfather, Mohammed Mahboob Hussain, acquired a 4250 sq.

OS.No. 26 of 2016, dt. 18.04.2023

Page 3 of 14 yards plot of land and sold 1000 sq. yards on the southern side to Taj Mohammed

Abdul Rahaman through registered sale deed No.1096/70. Taj Mohammed Abdul

Rahaman enjoyed absolute ownership and possession of this sold portion until his demise, after which his legal heirs continued to possess it. However, in 1989, the father of the plaintiffs, along with his five brothers and others, caused disturbances regarding the sold plot. As a result, the legal heirs of Taj Mohammed Abdul

Rahaman filed OS No.90 of 1989 in court, seeking a declaration of title and recovery of possession against several individuals, including the father of the plaintiffs. This lawsuit was successfully decreed on 21.09.2005. In 2012, the defendant purchased 877.77 sq. yards from the legal heirs of Taj Mohammed

Abdul Rahaman through a registered sale deed dated 28.7.2012, while leaving the road margin out of the original 1000 sq. yards. Since then, the defendant has been enjoying this portion as the absolute owner. However, the plaintiffs, who are the sons of defendant No.4 in OS No.90/89, are not entitled to claim ownership of the plot located on the southern side of the suit property, as it belongs to a person named Saber. The plaintiffs, with an ill intention to acquire the plot, deliberately concealed significant facts. Due to the defendant's refusal to allocate a portion of the land to the plaintiffs for their convenience, the plaintiffs developed a grudge against the defendant. Under the pretext of seeking an injunction, they filed this suit. Therefore, the defendant requests that the suit be dismissed.

4.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for consideration.

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

OS.No. 26 of 2016, dt. 18.04.2023

Page 4 of 14

2) To what relief?

5.In support of their argument, the plaintiffs presented plaintiff No.1 as a witness (PW1) and submitted documents marked as Exhibits A1 to A8. During the cross-examination, Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked upon confrontation.

Additionally, Mohammed Mustafa Hussain was examined as PW2.

On the other hand, defendant examined as DW1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B7 documents. One Gangadhar Rao is examined as DW2.

6.Heard arguments of plaintiffs and defendant and perused the record.

Issue No.1:-

7.The plaintiffs assert that in this case, the late Mohammed Mahboob Hussain acquired a land measuring 4250 sq. yards located behind I town police station in

Mahabubnagar. This acquisition was made through a registered partition deed, documented as No.1098/66 on 12.08.1966. After Mohammed Mahboob Hussain's passing in 1968, he left behind six sons: Mohammed Ahmed Hussain, Mohammed

Jaffar Hussain, Mohammed Hussain, Abdul Hafiz, Mohammed Ghouse Hussain, and Mohammed Ameer Hussain. On 27.10.1984, these six sons partitioned the aforementioned land among themselves through an oral family settlement. They created a map clearly indicating their respective shares of the land. In the said partition, Abdul Hafiz acquired a land measuring 728.66 sq. yards and constructed a tin shed on the same. The municipality has assigned house No. 5-3-16/1 to this tin shed. The tin shed, along with an open area, occupies a total of 728.66 sq. yards from Sy.No.735, located behind I town P.S., Mahabubnagar. Out of natural love

OS.No. 26 of 2016, dt. 18.04.2023

Page 5 of 14 and affection, Abdul Hafiz gifted the suit property to plaintiffs 1 and 2 through a registered gift deed, documented as No.14120/15 on 26.11.2015. He also delivered possession of the property to the plaintiffs, making them the absolute owners and possessors of the suit plot. The plaintiffs further argue that the defendant possesses no form of right, title, or interest in the suit property. Nevertheless, the defendant, along with his associates, attempted to occupy the said property. They even made efforts to remove the tin shed, with the intention of taking over the suit property and unlawfully evicting the plaintiffs from the scheduled property.

8.On the contrary, the defendants acknowledged that the late Mohammed

Mahboob Hussain was the rightful and absolute owner of the land measuring 4250 sq. yards in Sy.No.735, situated behind I town police station in Mahabubnagar.

However, they disputed the claim that Saber is the owner of the plot located on the southern side of the suit property. In fact, the defendants are currently occupying the southern side of the suit property. They assert that they have never attempted to encroach upon or seize the suit property. Instead, they argue that it is the plaintiffs who are attempting to wrongfully claim the land belonging to the defendants, which is situated on the southern side of the suit property. The defendant argues that Mohammed Mahboob Hussain sold 1000 sq. yards of land on the southern side out of the total 4250 sq. yards to Taj Mohammed Abdul Rahaman through a registered deed, No.1096/70. Furthermore, in 2012, the defendant himself purchased 887.77 sq. yards of land from the legal heirs of Taj Mohammed Abdul

Rahaman through a registered sale deed dated 28.07.2012. This purchase included leaving the road margin out of the original 1000 sq. yards. Since then, the defendant has enjoyed absolute ownership of the land. The plaintiffs, who were

OS.No. 26 of 2016, dt. 18.04.2023

Page 6 of 14 unsuccessful in suit OS.No.90/89, are now falsely claiming that the owner of the land on the southern side is someone named Saber. They are attempting to encroach upon the defendant's land by suppressing the true facts.

9.Admittedly, the current lawsuit has been filed seeking the remedy of perpetual injunction. Therefore, in order to be granted perpetual injunction, the plaintiff must establish their possession of the suit schedule property as of the date of filing the suit, and they must also demonstrate that the defendant is attempting to dispossess them from the said property. In support of their case, the plaintiffs have presented plaintiff No.1 as PW1 and have submitted documents marked as Exhibits

A1 to A8. The chief examination affidavit of PW1 mirrors the averments mentioned in the plaint. Therefore, there is no need for this court to reproduce them here.

10.This court has reviewed the documents submitted by PW1 and noted that

Ex.A1 is a certified copy of the partition deed with No.1098/66, along with its

English translation. There is no dispute in this case regarding the execution of the partition deed mentioned in Ex.A1, which resulted in late Mohammed Mahboob

Hussain acquiring 4250 sq. yards of land from Sy.No. 735.

11.Additionally, the defendant contends that Mohammed Mahboob Hussain sold 1000 sq. yards out of the 4250 sq. yards to Taj Mohammed Abdul Rahaman through registered deed No.1096/70. The defendant further argues that in 1988, the father of the plaintiffs and others caused disturbances over the sold plot, leading to the legal heirs of Taj Mohammed Abdul Rahaman filing OS No.90/1989. The purpose of the suit was to obtain a declaration of title and recovery of possession

OS.No. 26 of 2016, dt. 18.04.2023

Page 7 of 14 against various individuals, including the father of the plaintiffs. Ultimately, the suit was decreed on 21.09.2005.

12.During the cross-examination, the defendant's counsel raised the topic with

PW1, suggesting that he might possess knowledge of the vendors of the defendant initiating a civil suit for declaration and recovery of possession against his father and others, specifically referencing OS No.90/89, which resulted in a decree.

However, PW1 asserted his lack of awareness, stating that he had no knowledge or information regarding such a suit.

13.Additionally, PW1 acknowledged that his senior paternal uncle had sold a portion of the total 4250 sq. yards to Dr. Narsimulu and two others. However, when questioned about whether Mahabub Hussain and Hafeez Hussain had jointly sold 1000 sq. yards to Abdul Raheman on the southern side of the suit plot, and the legal representatives of Abdul Raheman had subsequently sold 887.77 sq. yards to the defendant, while leaving a road margin, PW1 once again claimed ignorance and asserted that he had no knowledge of these transactions.

14.The defendant presented Exs.B3 to B5 documents as evidence to support the claim of Taj Mohammed Abdul Rahaman's purchase of 1000 sq.yards of land from Mahabub Hussain. This purchase was made out of a total of 4250 sq.yards through registered sale deed No.1096/70. These documents also provide proof of the civil suit filed as OS No.90/89 by Taj Mohammed Abdul Rahaman. Ex.B3, a certified copy of the plaint in OS No.90/89, reveals that Taj Mohammed Abdul

Rahaman initiated legal action against the children of Mohammed Mahboob

Hussain and others in relation to the 1000 sq.yards of land located in Sy.No.735.

OS.No. 26 of 2016, dt. 18.04.2023

Page 8 of 14

Furthermore, Ex.B4 consists of a certified copy of the written statement submitted by D11 in OS.No.90/89. Ex.B5 is a certified copy of the judgment and decree in

OS No.90/89 dated 21.09.2005. The judgment decreed that the plaintiffs in

OS.No.90/89 are the rightful owners and possessors of the suit schedule property,

and they are entitled to the recovery of possession as requested.

15.To establish his ownership of the southern side of the land, the defendant submitted Ex.B6, a certified copy of a sale deed dated 28.07.2012. This sale deed was executed by the legal heirs of Taj Mohammed Abdul Rahaman in favour of the defendant of 887.77 sq. yards in Sy. No.735. The boundaries of this land are as follows: to the east, the plot of Abdul Ghani; to the west, the 120 feet Raichur road; to the north, the sawmill and house of Dr Narsimulu; and to the south, the plot of the defendant, along with the houses of Laxma Reddy, Dasharath goud, and

D.No.5-3-18/1 and 5-3-19/2, respectively. It is acknowledged that in this case, the plaintiff asserts their title and ownership over the suit schedule property based on

Ex.A2, which is the original gift deed No.14120/15, dated 26.11.2015. Upon examining Ex.A2, it becomes clear that Mohammad Abdul Hafeez, the son of

Mohammed Mahboob Hussain, executed a settlement deed in favor of plaintiffs 1 and 2 for a total area of 728.66 sq.yards in Sy.No.735. This encompasses a house with the number No.5-3-16/A and an open plot measuring 525 sq.yards. The property is bounded by the plot of Sy. Abdul Ghani to the east, the plot of Dr.

Narsimulu to the west, the plot of Mohammed Abdul Hafeez and a 15' road to the north, and the plot of Mohd. Saber to the south.

16.This court observed that PW1, in his testimony, claimed ignorance regarding the sale of property measuring 1000 sq.yards by his grandfather to Taj

OS.No. 26 of 2016, dt. 18.04.2023

Page 9 of 14

Mohammed Abdul Rahaman. However, in the written statement filed by the plaintiffs, they admitted that their late grandfather, Mohammed Mahboob Hussain, had indeed sold 1000 sq.yards out of the total 4250 sq.yards to Taj Mohammed

Abdul Rahaman, resulting in 3240 sq.yards remaining. During cross-examination,

PW1 mentioned that after their grandfather's death, his children divided the land into six shares, with his father receiving 728.66 sq.yards in his share. However,

PW1 was unable to provide specific dimensions for the land in his father's share.

Additionally, he did not have knowledge of the extent of land allocated to the other

shareholders. It is worth noting that the plaintiffs claimed in their plaint that after their grandfather's death, the six children divided the land among themselves through an oral family settlement, accompanied by a map that depicted their respective shares. However, no such map was presented to the court to support their claim.

17.As discussed earlier, the judgment and decree under Ex.B5 in OS No.90/89, issued by the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar on 21.09.2005, declared the plaintiffs, the legal representatives of Taj Mohammed Abdul Rahaman, as the absolute owners of the 1000 sq.yards of land acquired by Taj Mohammed Abdul

Rahaman from Mohammed Mahboob Hussain through registered document

No.1096/70, dated 7.9.1970. It is undeniable that no appeal was filed against this judgment, and the plaintiffs themselves cannot refute the validity of the judgment and decree presented in Ex.B5. Therefore, the facts establish that only 3250 sq.yards of land remained with Mohammed Mahboob Hussain, and his legal heirs divided it among themselves. The plaintiffs argue that after Mohammed Mahboob

Hussain's death, his six children divided the land equally, implying that each

Page 10 of 14 OS.No. 26 of 2016, dt. 18.04.2023 shareholder received 541.66 sq.yards. However, the plaintiffs have failed to explain how their father acquired 728.66 sq.yards of land in his share.

18.As mentioned earlier, no map purportedly prepared by the plaintiffs at the time of property partition was submitted to the court to establish their respective shares. The plaintiffs heavily relied on Ex.A2 settlement deed to substantiate their ownership of the 728.66 sq.yards. As previously discussed, according to the judgment and decree under Ex.B5, the defendant's vendors conveyed only 1000 sq.yards of land. This court carefully examined the boundaries provided for the 1000 sq.yards of land in question in the aforementioned suit. The northern boundary is marked by house No.5-3-16/B2, the southern boundary by a toddy shop, the eastern boundary by the open land of Abdul Ghani, and the western boundary by the Hyderabad-Raichur road. During the cross-examination, the defendant's counsel questioned PW1, who admitted that the sketch map presented as Ex.B1 was similar to the sketch filed by the defendant along with the written statement in the suit. PW1 also acknowledged the similarity between the sketch attached to the defendant's registered sale deed and the sketch filed by the defendant in the suit. It is worth noting that Ex.B6, the registered sale deed, was executed in 2012, while Ex.A2, the settlement deed, was executed in 2015, subsequent to Ex.B6. Furthermore, as discussed earlier, the court, through Ex.B5, declared the ownership of the defendant's vendors.

19.This court further noted that the plaintiffs themselves became parties to the case after the demise of Mohammed Mahboob Hussain in OS No.90/89. It is evident that despite being aware of the filing of OS No.90/89 by the defendant's vendors and the defendant's ownership of the southern side of the suit schedule

Page 11 of 14 OS.No. 26 of 2016, dt. 18.04.2023 property, the plaintiffs deliberately concealed this information. The court observed that the plaintiffs intentionally and with malicious intent mentioned the southern side boundary as the plot of Md. Saber, without providing any supporting documents to establish his ownership. Even in Ex.A2, the plaintiffs mentioned the land of Md. Saber as the southern side boundary. However, Ex.B6 confirms that in 2012, the defendant purchased the southern side plot from the plaintiffs and is currently in possession of it. Despite being aware of this fact, the plaintiffs deliberately misrepresented the southern side boundary as the plot of Md. Saber in both the suit and Ex.A2. As previously mentioned, following the sale of 1000 sq.yards from the total 4250 sq.yards of land, the legal heirs of Mohammed

Mahboob Hussain were left with 3250 sq.yards. It is understood that after dividing the remaining land equally, each shareholder would receive 541.66 sq.yards as their share. However, the plaintiff has failed to provide any document to substantiate how they subsequently acquired 728.66 sq.yards of land.

20.As previously discussed, for the plaintiff to obtain the relief of perpetual injunction, they must prove their possession of the suit schedule property at the time of filing the suit. Although the plaintiffs submitted property tax demand notices, Exs. A7 and A8, dated 9.5.2014 and 10.6.2015, respectively, those notices are specific to the house identified as No.5-3-16/A. The plaintiffs argue that their father built a tin shed on the land, specifically house No.5-3-16/1, during his lifetime. However, the plaintiffs have not presented any document to establish their possession of the entire area measuring 728.66 sq.yards. Additionally, the evidence presented in court indicates that the defendants attempted to encroach upon the plaintiffs' land and remove the tin shed in order to take possession of the suit

Page 12 of 14 OS.No. 26 of 2016, dt. 18.04.2023 schedule property. In fact, during PW1's cross-examination, he acknowledged that the defendant's plot is located on the southern side of the suit plot and recognized the defendant's claim of ownership in that area. Therefore, PW1's admission itself establishes that the defendant is not encroaching upon the land and is asserting ownership over the southern plot. Similarly, PW2, who supports PW1's testimony, admitted in his evidence that the defendant is occupying the open land on the southern side of the suit schedule property, which he also mentioned during his chief examination. Despite being aware of the defendant's occupation of the land on the southern side of the suit schedule property, PW1 deliberately depicted the plot of Saber with malicious intent. Although PW2 stated in his testimony that the plaintiffs' land is beyond the tin shed, he also acknowledged that the open space beyond the tin shed is not depicted in the sketch shown to him and attached to

Ex.A2. Regardless of the circumstances, the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession of the suit schedule property measuring 728.66 sq.yards as of the date of filing the suit. Furthermore, they have also failed to establish that the defendant attempted to unlawfully dispossess them by encroaching upon the said property.

21.On the contrary, the defendant, in order to counter the claims made by plaintiffs 1 and 2 and to establish that they never attempted to encroach upon the suit schedule property, presented their own evidence. The defendant himself testified as DW1 and called Gangadhar Rao as a supporting witness (DW2). The chief examination of DW1 mirrored the statements made in the written statement.

The plaintiffs' counsel extensively cross-examined DW1, but no evidence was presented to discredit his testimony. Similarly, the plaintiffs also cross-examined

DW2, but no evidence was produced to undermine the defendant's argument. It is a

Page 13 of 14 OS.No. 26 of 2016, dt. 18.04.2023 well-settled principle of law that the party seeking equitable relief must substantiate their case based on their own merits. They cannot rely solely on the weaknesses of the opposing party. As discussed previously, the plaintiffs have unequivocally failed to prove their possession of the suit schedule property, specifically the total area of 728.66 sq.yards. Additionally, they have not established that the defendant is attempting to encroach upon their portion of the land. Therefore, based on the aforementioned discussion, this court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case for the granting of perpetual injunction in their favor.

Consequently, issue No.1 is decided in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

Issue No.2:-

22.Based on the conclusions reached regarding issue No.1, it is determined that the plaintiff is not eligible to receive the requested relief.

23.In the result, the suit is dismissed. Without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 18th day of April, 2023.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, FAC. Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

Plaintiffs:

PW1 Mohammed Mujtaba Hussain PW2 Mohammed Mustafa Hussain

Page 14 of 14 OS.No. 26 of 2016, dt. 18.04.2023

Defendant:

DW1 N.Venkat Narayana Goud DW2 Gangadhar Rao

Exhibits marked

Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 CC of regd. Partition deed No.1098/66 with English translation Ex.A2 Original regd. Gift deed No.14110/15, dt. 26.11.15 Ex.A3 CC of execution petition filed in EP No.75/06 Ex.A4 CC of warrant issued to Bailiff to give possession in EP No.75/06 Ex.A5 CC of panchanama, dt. 4.11.09 Ex.A6 CC of receipt Ex.A7 Property tax demand notice 9.5.14 Ex.A8 Property tax demand bill dt. 10.6.15

Defendant:

Ex.B1 Certified copy of plaint sketch of OS No.90/89 Ex.B2 Certified copy of sketch appended to the registered sale deed, No. 7159/12, dt. 28.7.2012 Ex.B3 CC of plaint in OS No.90/89 Ex.B4 CC of written statement in OS No.90/89 Ex.B5 CC of judgment and decree in OS No.90/89 Ex.B6 CC of sale deed dt.28.7.2012 Ex.B7 CC of order in EP No.75/06. Dt.16.11.2009

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, FAC. Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS

JUDGE AT: MAHABUBNAGAR

Monday, this the 17th day of April, 2023

Present:-Smt.M.K.Padmavathi, Assistant Sessions Judge, FAC, Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar

S.C.No. 86 of 2019

(This case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla, vide PRC.No. 1 of 2019 registered in Crime No.138/2018 of PS Bhoothpur for the offences under Sections 498- A, 306 of IPC)

Prosecution. Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mahabubnagar

Accused Dumpala Badri S/o. Ramulu, age 28 yrs. Caste SC-Mala, Occ. Coolie, R/o. Patelgudem village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R. Dist., now at Ayyappa colony, Shadnagar town. Counsel for the Sri Syed Nooruddin. accused Offence under section 498-A, 306 of IPC

Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty

Finding Found not guilty

Sentence or order Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/ss. 498-A, 306 of IPC and he is acquitted u/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. The Jail Superintendent is directed to release the accused forthwith from their custody, unless he is not required in any other case. MOs. 1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. -o0o-

SC No. 86 of 2019, dt.17.04.23

Page 2

J U D G M E N T

The accused is arraigned for the charges U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as “IPC”).

2.The prosecution's case, in brief, is that two years prior to the date of the complaint, Madaram Rangaiah and Madaram

Venkatamma, parents of Shirisha @ Manasa (deceased), arranged her marriage with Mala Balraj of Maddigatla village, which ultimately ended in divorce. On 24.02.2018, the parents of the deceased arranged her second marriage with the accused, who originally hailed from Patel gudem village in Ranga Reddy district but had migrated to Shadnagar town to work as a laborer. The deceased requested her husband to stop his illegal relationship with another woman, but he refused to do so. On 01.06.2018, the deceased went to her parental house and complained about the accused's illegal relationship. On 19.06.2018, the father of the deceased pacified the matter and left her with the accused, who again harassed her and abetted her suicide. Due to the accused's harassment and frustration, the deceased consumed Phorate, an organophosphate insecticide poison, in front of the complainant's house in Kothur village at around 5.00 p.m. She was immediately shifted to the government hospital in Mahabubnagar for treatment but succumbed while undergoing treatment.

SC No. 86 of 2019, dt.17.04.23

Page 3

3.On receipt of the complaint, LW11 Head Constable, SHO,

Bhoothpur P.S, registered a case in Cr.No.85/18, issued First

Information Report, got conducted inquest panchanama by the

Tahsildar, Bhoothpur and subjected for postmortem examination and report.

4.During the further investigation, the SHO, Bhoothpur conducted scene of offence panchanama, collected Asian paint plastic tin, Jai Kisaan Crop Care phorassan phorate and one 1.25 liters thumps up plastic bottle containing black liquid from the scene of offence. Further, the Inspector of police LW12 arrested the accused, and issued arrest card.

5.During the further investigation, LW13 S.I. of police

Bhoothpur collected FSL report and final opinion reports. After completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

6.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla, took cognizance for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 of

IPC, against accused and after following the committal procedure, committed the case to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

Mahabubnagar along with case records. The Hon’ble Court of

Assistant Sessions, Mahabubnagar had taken cognizance for the said offences and numbered the same as Sessions Case and later made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

SC No. 86 of 2019, dt.17.04.23

Page 4

7.Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this court examined the accused, U/Sec.228 Cr.P.C., and framed the charge for the offences u/ss. 498-A, 306 of IPC against accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular language and he pleaded not guilty for the said charges and claimed to be tried.

8.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 and MOs.1 to 3.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence leveled against him for which he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and perused the record.

11.Now, the points for determination are:-

1)Whether the death of Smt. Shirisha @ Manasais a suicide one?

2)Whether accused had subjected deceased to cruelty and abetted her to commit suicide?

3)Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec 498-A, 306 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?

SC No. 86 of 2019, dt.17.04.23

Page 5

Point Nos.1 to 3:-

12.The prosecution contended that on 19.06.2018 at 11.00 am, the deceased committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison due to the unbearable harassment inflicted upon her by the accused and thereby committed offenses punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

13.To prove the offence u/s. 306 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:

Section 306 of I.P.C: Abetment of suicide:- “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also be liable to fine”.

The essential ingredients of the offence u/s.

306 of IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted u/s 306 of IPC.

SC No. 86 of 2019, dt.17.04.23

Page 6

14.The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10 to prove the accused's guilt for the aforementioned offenses. PW1 is the deceased's mother, PW2 is an eyewitness, PW3 is a circumstantial witness,

PW4 is the panch for inquest, PW5 is the Tahsildar who conducted the inquest panchanama over the deceased's body, PW7 is the medical officer who performed the autopsy on the deceased's body, and PWs 8 to 10 are the investigating officers who conducted the entire investigation in this case.

15.Admittedly, the present case is registered based on the complaint filed by LW1 M. Rangaiah, but the prosecution could not examine him due to his death. Hence, the contents of the complaint remained unchallenged. However, the prosecution examined the deceased's mother as PW1. In her evidence, she testified that she had arranged her daughter Shirisha's first marriage with a boy from

Maddigatla village. Due to some family disputes, Shirisha obtained a divorce from her first husband. Four months prior to the incident, she arranged her daughter's second marriage with the accused.

After the marriage, they lived happily for a few days. Thereafter, some disputes arose between them, and the accused started to harass her daughter on every petty issue by keeping an illegal relationship with another woman. Her daughter informed them about the same, but in vain. The accused continued to harass her daughter, which made her disgusted with life, and she consumed

SC No. 86 of 2019, dt.17.04.23

Page 7 some unknown pesticide poison and committed suicide. She further stated that on the date of the incident, she went for coolie work, and LW4 informed her about the incident. They immediately went to the hospital, but by that time, her daughter had already passed away.

16.During the cross-examination, the defence counsel questioned

PW1, who stated that she did not know the name of the woman with whom the accused had an illegal relationship. She also mentioned that she was unsure whether the accused was present at

Shadnagar or their village on the date of the incident. PW1 further stated that they lived in Kondannagudem village and were unaware of what was happening in the accused's house at Shadnagar. The court observed that PW1 did mention during her chief examination that her daughter had informed her about the accused's illegal relationship with a woman but did not disclose the woman's name.

Additionally, PW1 admitted that she was not aware of the details of

the case and did not know the exact reason for her daughter's death. As a result, the court found that PW1's testimony may not be helpful to the prosecution in connecting the accused with the case.

a)The prosecution examined M. Narsimhulu as PW2, who was an eyewitness to the incident. In his evidence, he stated that about 4 years ago, the daughter of LW1 was found lying in front of

SC No. 86 of 2019, dt.17.04.23

Page 8 their house after consuming some unknown pesticide poison. He noticed this and immediately called an ambulance to shift her to the hospital for treatment. However, within 10 to 15 minutes of being admitted to the hospital and undergoing treatment, the deceased lost her breath.

b)) During the cross-examination, PW2 stated that at the time of the incident, neither the parents of the deceased nor her husband were present at home.

c)PW3, the junior paternal uncle of the deceased and one of the circumstantial witnesses, testified that the accused had an illegal relationship with a woman, and the deceased and accused would frequently quarrel about it. Once, the accused had beaten her and thrown her out of the house. In response, the deceased went to their village, and they mediated the situation and sent her back to her in-laws' house. However, the accused continued to harass her by maintaining an illegal relationship, and the deceased eventually came to her parents' house and committed suicide. Additionally, PW3 mentioned that the deceased had called him over the phone and informed him about the accused's harassment.

d)The court examined the 161 CrPC statement of PW3 and noted that he had informed the police that he learned about the

SC No. 86 of 2019, dt.17.04.23

Page 9 accused's harassment through the deceased's parents. However, in his testimony, he stated that he was an eyewitness to the harassment. The court also observed that PW3 did not mention in his 161 CrPC statement that the deceased had called him to inform him of the accused's harassment. During cross- examination, PW3 admitted that LW1 and PW1 had moved to their current village four years ago for their livelihood and had never visited Kothur village. He also stated that he did not attend the deceased's wedding and had never seen the accused before the incident. Additionally, he acknowledged that he did not tell the police that the accused had physically and mentally harassed the deceased and kicked her out of the house. Furthermore, he did not know the family situation of LW1. As a result, the testimony of PW3 may not be helpful in connecting the accused with the alleged offense..

e)PW4, the inquest panch, and PW6, the scene of offence panch, both testified that the police conducted the inquest and scene of offence panchanama in their presence. They also confirmed that their signatures appear on the inquest panchanama and crime details form, identified as Exs.P1 and P3, respectively.

SC No. 86 of 2019, dt.17.04.23

Page 10

f)f) PW5, the Tahsildar, stated that she conducted an inquest over the deceased's body under Ex.P2 in response to a requisition by the SHO, Bhoothpur.

g)) PW7, the medical officer, deposed about the conduct of the inquest over the deceased's body and the issuance of the postmortem examination and final opinion under Exs.P4 and P5, respectively. According to PW7, the cause of the deceased's death was due to phorate and organophosphate insecticide poisoning.

h)h) PW8 to PW10 categorically deposed about their investigation in this case.

17.Therefore, based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, along with Exhibits P2, P4, P5, and P7, it is clear that the death of the deceased was not natural, but rather due to the consumption of pesticide poison.

18.The defense counsel, on the other hand, has not specifically denied the death of the deceased. However, their argument is that the accused is not connected to the death of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in this case due to inadequate investigation.

19.Now, at this stage, this court has to discuss whether there is a direct nexus between the death of the deceased and the accused.

SC No. 86 of 2019, dt.17.04.23

Page 11

Now it is necessary to refer to Sec.107 of I.P.C:-

107. Abetment of a thing:-

A person abets the doing of thing, who- First:-Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly:- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” Explanation 2, which has been inserted along-with Sec.107 reads as under:- “Explanation 2:- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act”.

20.As already discussed above, though PW1 and PW3 in their chief examination categorically stated that the deceased committed suicide only due to harassment of the accused and he, by keeping an illegal relationship with some other lady, harassed the deceased both physically and mentally and abetted her to commit suicide.

However, in the cross-examination, they admitted that they do not know the name of the girl alleged to have an illegal relationship with the accused. PW1 further stated that as she was residing at

SC No. 86 of 2019, dt.17.04.23

Page 12

Kondannagudem village, she does not know exactly what was happening in the house of the accused at Shadnagar.

21.This court observed that PW3 in his evidence stated that the accused, by harassing the deceased physically and mentally, necked her from the house and they pacified the matter and sent her back to her in-laws' house, but PW1, who is none other than the mother of the deceased, did not disclose the above fact. As already discussed above, PW3 is only a hearsay witness, and he came to know about the harassment only through PW1. In the cross- examination, he categorically admitted that he does not know the family affairs of LW1. Hence, the evidence of PWs1 and 3 is no way directly helpful to the prosecution to connect the accused with the case and throw responsibility on him for the death of the deceased.

22.PW10 is the investigating officer who, in his evidence, stated that the accused had admitted his guilt at the time of arrest.

However, he did not record any confession panchanama to substantiate this claim. Additionally, he did not collect any suicidal note left by the deceased nor investigate the alleged illegal intimacy mentioned in the complaint. Furthermore, during the investigation, it was revealed that the deceased's parents were residing in

Shadnagar. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the case. Consequently, the accused is entitled to the

SC No. 86 of 2019, dt.17.04.23

Page 13 benefit of doubt. Hence, points 1 to 3 are answered in favor of the accused and against the prosecution.

23.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/ss. 498-A, 306 of IPC and he is acquitted u/s. 235(1)

Cr.P.C. The Jail Superintendent is directed to release the accused forthwith from their custody, unless he is not required in any other case. MOs. 1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17th day of April, 2023.

Assistant Sessions Judge, FAC, Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar

Appendix of Evidence:

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:-

PW1 M.Venkatamma PW2 M.Narsimhulu PW3 M.Venkataiah PW4 Madhava Reddy PW5 M.Jyothi PW6 S.Jangaiah PW7 Dr.K.Parvathi PW8 M.Sathyam PW9A.Parvathalu PW10V.Srinivas Rao

SC No. 86 of 2019, dt.17.04.23

Page 14

Defence:

-None-

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:-

Ex.P1 Inquest panchanama bears signature of PW4

Ex.P2 Inquest panchanama

Ex.P3 Crime details form bears signature of PW6

Ex.P4 Postmortem examination report

Ex.P5 Final opinion

Ex.P6 First Information Report

Ex.P7 Crime details form

Defence:

-Nil- Material Objects:-

MO.1 Asian Paint plastic can MO.2 Jai Kisaan Pockets MO.3 1.25 ltrs. thumsup bottle -

Assistant Sessions Judge, FAC, Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Tuesday, the 11th day of April, 2023

Present:- Smt.M.K.Padmavathi Prl. Senior Civil Judge, FAC. Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar

O.S. No. 20 of 2017

Between:-

1)Kasa Laxmamma W/o. Mallaiah, age 35 yrs.

2)Kasa Mallaiah S/o. Yellaiah, age 46 yrs.

Both Occ. Agri., R/o. Chennavelly villageof Rajapur Mandal.

….Plaintiffs

And

M/s. Bhavani Auto Finance, Jadcherla by its Managing partner Shambhu Krishnaiah S/o. Narayana, Major, Business, R/o.H.No.31-103/4, Gowrishankar Colony, Badepally, Jadcherla Mandal.

….Defendant

Sub:- Suit for cancellation of registered sale deed No.1192/15, dt. 20.02.2015 executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant in respect of the suit schedule land.

* * *

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs, Sri.K.Pratap Kumar, Advocate for defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following Judgment:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for cancellation of registered sale deed No.1192/15, dt. 20.02.2015 executed by

Page 2 of 10 OS.No. 20 of 2017, dt. 11.04.2023 plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant in respect of the suit schedule land.

2.The gist of the plaint averments reads as follows:-The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit schedule land in

Sy.No.128/E & 131/C, which has a total extent of Ac.1-00 and

Ac.4-00 respectively, totaling to Ac.5-00. The land is situated at

Chennavelly village of Rajapur mandal. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are well- known to the defendant who conducts a finance business and lends money for purchasing vehicles. The plaintiffs approached the defendant for financial assistance to develop their lands and also to discharge the debt incurred for agriculture. The defendant agreed to pay only Rs.8 lakhs with the condition that the plaintiffs should execute a registered sale deed in his name as security for the loan amount on the execution of the bond paper and on issuance of empty cheques. Accordingly, the defendant took the plaintiff to the office of the Sub Registrar and got a registered sale deed executed for Rs.5 lakhs as per the basic valuation register from the 1st plaintiff, with plaintiff No.2 as an attestor.

The plaintiff avers that in good faith, they registered the sale deed without any consideration and without delivering possession of the suit schedule land to the defendants, as security for the loan amount of Rs.8/- lakhs. However, the possession of the suit schedule land is still with the plaintiffs. The plaintiff regularly paid

Page 3 of 10 OS.No. 20 of 2017, dt. 11.04.2023 interest on the loan amount to the defendant. After learning that the defendant had malafide intentions to grab the suit land, the plaintiff secured the amount to discharge the debt and approached the defendant in December 2016 to receive the entire loan amount with interest, and to execute a registered release deed or to reconvey the same land to the plaintiff. However, the defendant did not agree to execute any release or reconvey deed in favor of the plaintiff. Instead, he tried to sell the land. As a result, the plaintiff approached the Tahsildar, Rajapur and filed an objection. He further submitted that if the defendant succeeds in his attempt, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss. Hence, he prayed to pass a decree for the cancellation of the registered sale deed No. 1192/15, dated 2.02.2015 executed by plaintiff No. 1 in favour of the defendant, and also to direct the defendant to hand over the registered sale deed in their possession along with the bond empty cheques to the plaintiff.

3.In their written statement, the defendant has admitted that plaintiff No.1 executed the registered sale deed No. 1192/15,

dated 20.02.2015, in favor of the defendant. However, the

defendant denies that the sale deed was not supported by any consideration and that plaintiff No.1 executed the sale deed only as security for the loan. The defendant also denies any allegation of forged or undue influence or coercion. The defendant claims

Page 4 of 10 OS.No. 20 of 2017, dt. 11.04.2023 that the plaintiffs have no right to question the sale deed and seek its cancellation. The plaintiff may file a separate suit for recovery of consideration if they assert that they have not received any consideration. The defendant argues that the loan amount of Rs. 8/- lakhs is separate from the suit transaction.

Plaintiff No.1 took a separate loan of Rs. 8/- lakhs from the defendant after the suit transaction. The plaintiff No.1 has finally sold the suit schedule property for Rs. 5/- lakhs for family and legal necessity and has received the sale consideration. Plaintiff

No.2 was one of the attesting witnesses to the transaction.

4.The plaintiff No.1, having executed the sale deed, is estopped from claiming the suit document as an illegal document.

The plaintiff has already transferred the legal title over the suit land in favour of the defendant. The loan transaction between the plaintiffs and the defendants is independent, and it has to be cleared. There is no connection between the said transaction and the suit transaction. The defendant, being the absolute owner, has every right to implead and mutate the suit schedule land in his name. Hence, I pray to dismiss the suit.

5.On the basis of the pleadings, my predecessor in the office framed the following issues for consideration.

i) Whether the registered sale deed bearing doc.No.1192/15 was executed without consideration and without delivery of possession?

Page 5 of 10 OS.No. 20 of 2017, dt. 11.04.2023 ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing doc.No.1192/15, dt. 20.2.2015?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against defendant for a direction to return the registered sale deed along with bond and blank cheques as prayed for?

iv) To what relief?

6.Plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW1 in support of the plaintiffs' case, and Exs. A1 to A6 were marked through him.

Plaintiff No.2 was also examined as PW2, and Ex.A7 was marked through him as well.

7.No witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants, and no documents were marked.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

Issue Nos.1 & 2:-

9.To avoid reputation, this court is inclined to discuss issue

Nos. 1 and 2 under one head. To support her case, the plaintiff herself was examined as PW1. The chief examination affidavit of

PW1 is the replica of plaint averments. Hence, this court is not inclined to reproduce the same here. PW1, supporting her contention, filed Exs.A1 to A6 documents. Ex.A1 is the registered sale deed No.1192/15, dt. 20.02.2015, which goes to show that

K.Laxmamma executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant, i.e., Bhavani Auto Finance, Jadcherla, represented by its

Page 6 of 10 OS.No. 20 of 2017, dt. 11.04.2023 managing partner Sri.S.Krishnaiah by receiving a sale consideration of Rs.5/- lakhs in respect of suit schedule property.

In this case, the main contention of the plaintiffs is that they executed the registered sale deed under Ex.A1 in favor of the defendant at their demand as security for the loan amount. They executed the sale deed in good faith without receiving any consideration and without delivery of possession. The defendants are trying to take advantage of this and implement the said registered sale deed in the revenue records. Plaintiffs rely on

Exs.A2 to A6 documents to establish that as of the date of filing of the suit, the suit schedule property was completely in the name of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A2 is a certified copy of the ROR dated 5.12.2016, which shows plaintiff No.1 as the pattedar and possessor of Sy.No.141/A2, 136, 131/C/A, 128/E to an extent of

Ac.0-02 gts., Ac. 4-38 gts., Ac.4-18 gts., and Ac.1-00, respectively, including the suit schedule property. Exs. A3 to A6 are certified copies of pahanies, which show that as of the date of filing of the suit, plaintiff No.1 was in continuous possession of the suit schedule property, and her name was entered as pattedar and possessor. Thus, Exs.A2 to A6 strengthen the argument of the plaintiff that they executed the sale deed but still had possession of the property.

Page 7 of 10 OS.No. 20 of 2017, dt. 11.04.2023

10.The plaintiffs further supported their contention by examining plaintiff No.2, one of the attestors of the sale deed, as

PW2. In his evidence, he stated that plaintiff No.1 is his wife and they filed a suit for the cancellation of the registered sale deed executed in favour of the defendant. He further submitted that plaintiff No.1 paid the entire due amount to the defendant for which they both entered into an agreement, dt. 7.9.2021, and the defendant promised to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by cancelling document No. 1192/15 in respect of the suit schedule property. To prove the same, he filed Ex.A7, the original agreement dt. 17.9.2021, executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff No.1 on 17.09.2021. On perusal of the said document, it is apparent that the defendant executed the said agreement by confirming receiving Rs.8/- lakhs from plaintiff No.1 and also admitted that for the purpose of security, he got the registered sale deed under Ex.A1 from plaintiff No.1, and he is ready to cancel the same as and when demanded by the plaintiff.

11.This court observed that the defendant in his written statement contended that the loan transaction is different from the suit transaction and the plaintiff No.1 has taken separate loan of Rs.8/- lakhs subsequent to the suit transaction. However, no document is filed by the defendant before the court to establish that the suit transaction covered under Ex.A1 is completely

Page 8 of 10 OS.No. 20 of 2017, dt. 11.04.2023 different to the loan transaction of Rs.8/- which is allegedly claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. Though the defendant raised so many contentions in his written statement but he did not came forward to cross examined PWs1 and 2 and to rebut their contention. In fact, the defendant reported no cross examination.

This court observed that the defendant in his written statement contended that the loan transaction is different from the suit transaction and the plaintiff No.1 has taken separate loan of

Rs.8/- lakhs subsequent to the suit transaction. However, no document is filed by the defendant before the court to establish that the suit transaction covered under Ex.A1 is completely different to the loan transaction of Rs.8/- which is allegedly claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. Though the defendant raised so many contentions in his written statement but he did not came forward to cross examined PWs1 and 2 and to rebut their contention. In fact, the defendant reported no cross examination.

12.The plaintiffs' contentions, along with their evidence and exhibits A1 to A7, remained unchallenged. The defendant failed to prove that the suit transaction was entirely separate from the loan transaction alleged by the plaintiffs. Moreover, the defendant's own exhibit A7 confirms that A1 was executed as security for the Rs.8 lakh loan transaction. The defendant himself admitted under A7 that he received the entire loan amount and is

Page 9 of 10 OS.No. 20 of 2017, dt. 11.04.2023 prepared to cancel the sale deed under A7. Hence, A7 alone suffices to demonstrate that the sale transaction under A1 was only nominal security and lacked consideration or transfer of physical possession. Since the plaintiff has cleared the entire loan amount to the defendant, they are entitled to cancel the sale deed under Ex.A1. Therefore, the court answers these issues in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.3:-

13.Based on the findings in issues 1 and 2, it is established that the plaintiff is entitled to the cancellation of the sale deed under Ex.A1. Additionally, since the plaintiff has cleared all debts owed to the defendant, they are entitled to the recovery of the original sale deed bonds and blank cheques executed by the plaintiff during the loan acquisition. Therefore, this issue is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.4:-

14.In the light of findings in the issue Nos. 1 to 3, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of cancellation of sale deed.

15.In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiffs without costs, granting decree of cancellation of registered sale deed bearing No.1192/15, dt. 20.02.2015 executed by plaintiff

No.1 in favour of defendant in respect of suit schedule property.

Page 10 of 10 OS.No. 20 of 2017, dt. 11.04.2023

Further, the defendant is directed to return the registered sale deed along with bond and blank cheques to the plaintiffs within two months from the date of this order.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th day of April, 2023.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, FAC. Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

Plaintiffs: PW1Kasa Laxmamma PW2Kasa Mallaiah

Defendant/s:

-None- Exhibits marked Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1CC of Regd. Sale deed No.1192/15, dt. 20.2.15

Ex.A2CC of ROR

Ex.A3CC of pahani for the fasli year 1426 in respect of Sy.No.131/C/A

Ex.A4CC of pahani for the fasli year 1426 in respect of Sy.No.128/E

Ex.A5CC of pahani for the fasli year 1426 in respect of Sy.No.131/C/A

Ex.A6CC of pahani for the fasli year 1426 in respect of Sy.No.128/E

Ex.A7Original agreement deed dt. 17.09.2021

Defendant/s:

-Nil-

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, FAC. Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT:MAHABUBNAGAR

Present: Smt.M.K.Padmavathi

Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge,

FAC Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

This the 21st day of April, 2023

S.C.No.245 of 2016

Between:-

The State through Police, I-Town, Mahabubnagar

...Complainant.

And

A1:Thimmapuram Pedda Balaiah S/o Chinna Chennappa, age 42 years, Caste:Telugu/mudiraj, Occ:Mason, R/o H.No.5-9-30/5/B, Gachibouli Area, Old Palamoor, Mahabubnagar Town. A2:Katla Krishnaiah S/o Kistappa, age 52 years, Caste:Telugu/mudiraj, Occ:Mason, R/o H.No.5-10-66, Gachibouli Area, Old Palamoor, Mahabubnagar Dist. ( sprit up in SC 217 of 2014 against A2)

...Accused.

This suit is coming before me in the presence of Addl.P.P. for the complainant and Sri K.Krishna Advocate for Accused and this court made the following:-

ORDER, DATE 21.04.2023

S.H.O. I-Town PS Mahabubnagar filed memo along with the Death certificate of

A2. Hence in view of filing Death Certificate case against A2 is abated. Hence this

S.C. is closed.

Sd/-

Prl.Asst. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar FAC Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.