Smt. M. Kalpana

 IN THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD

Dated this the 2 nd day of June, 2016

Present: Smt. M.Kalpana,B.A,LLB.,

VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

OS No. 203 of 2014

Between: Smt. Gundala Sunitha, W/o. G.Sudhakar, Aged about 32 yrs, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No. 1­2­343/9,Phoolbagh,

Domalguda, Hyderabad – 500 029 ... Plaintiff

A n d 1.N.Ramaswamy, S/o. Late Swamy, Aged about 67 yrs, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o. H.No. 1­2­342/6/41,B4­F1 2.N.Sudershan, S/o. Late Sailoo, Aged about 46 yrs, Occ: Private service, R/o. H.No. 1­2­342/6/42,B4­F2 3.Smt B.Geeta, W/o. Late B. Ramesh, Aged about 40 yrs, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No. 1­2­342/6/40,B3­F8 4.Pradeep Solmon Raj, S/o. Mohan, Aged about 44 yrs, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o. H.No. 1­2­342/6/48,B4­F8 5.P.Srinivasulu, S/o. P.Mallesham, Aged about 50 yrs, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o. H.No. 1­2­342/6/39,B3­F7 6.Chandra Prakash, S/o. Bal Reddy, Aged about 47 yrs, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o. H.No. 1­2­342/6/34,B3­F2 7.K.Lakshmi, W/o. K.Prakash, Aged about 42 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 1­2­342/6/46,B4­F6 8.K.Deva Sunder Raj, s/o. K.Mohan, Aged about 40 yrs, Occ: Private Service, R/o. H.No. 1­2­342/6/45,B4­F5 9.J. Satyanarayana, S/o. Not Known to Plaintiff, Aged about 45 yrs, Occ: Private Service, R/o. H.No. 1­2­342/6/43,B4­F3

All are Residents of Housing Board Quarters, Phoolbagh, Domalguda, Hyderabad­ 500 029 10.The A.P. Housing Board, Rep. By it's Chairman, Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad­500 004 (Impleaded as per Orders in IA No. 178/2014, dt: 12­2­2015)

... Defendants

2 OS No. 203 of 2014 

This Suit is coming before me on 2­5­2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Thomas Lloyd, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and of Sri G.Purushotham Rao, Advocate for Defendants No. 1 to 9, Sri K.Sampath Kumar, Advocate for Defendant No. 10 , and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a Suit filed under Order VII Rule1 r/w Sec. 26 CPC praying this Hon'ble Court to grant Perpetual Injunction and Mandatory 

Injunction. 

2.The brief averments of the Plaint contents is that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of House bearing No. 1­2­343/9, Phool bagh, Domulguda, Hyderabad and she purchased the same under 

Registered Sale Deed dt: 5­12­2011 from Vendor K.Pochaiah. The colony which is existing is a weaker section colony and the same was formed about 50 yrs back ie, much prior to the construction of quarters of Defendant No. 

10. The Defendant No. 10 is Housing board construction colony consisting of 4 blocks. Block No's. 1 & 2 are constructed towards western side of the 

Road ie., Road No. 6 of Gagan Mahal Colony, leading to Indira Park, towards the Eastern side of the Road Block 3 & 4 are existing ie, Road No. 6 of Gagan Mahal Colony leading to Indira Park. 

3.These blocks are constructed from East to West in between 30 ft road. The said road goes to the Colony in which Plaintiff and others are residing. The said road being used by all the locality people including the residents of allottees of Housing Board Quarters from the date of construction of the Quarters in that area. It is further submitted that Block 3 OS No. 203 of 2014 

No's. 3 & 4 are consisting of 16 flats in total. Block No. 3 contains total 8 flats. Similarly, Block No. 4 contains 8 flats. Four in the Ground floor and four in the first floor. After allotment of the said flats, the Defendant No. 10 registered them in favour of their purchasers. As per the Sale Deed, to the extent of flats were sold and registered by the Defendant No. 10 in favour of the purchasers, but not any appurtenant land situated around the blocks. It is further submitted that there is appurtenant land around the blocks, the same was constructed by the Defendant No. 10 and the same is vested with 

Defendant No. 10 only. It is relevant to submit that there is 30 ft road from 

East to West in between appurtenant land of 8 ft situated towards South side of Block 3 flats ie, appurtenant land of 8 ft situated towards Northern side of Block 4 flats. 

4.The 30 ft road is used by the residents of Plaintiff locality since the construction of the flats by Defendant No. 10 till this day without interruption from any body. There is a water line connection to the Plaintiff locality from underground of the said road. While the matter stood thus, the 

Defendants No. 1 to 9 herein dumped the said granite stones near 30 ft road, on 5­2­2014 and they are making certain measurements then the 

Plaintiff and others enquired about the same. The Defendants No. 1 to 9 recklessly and adamently stated that they are going to Block the 30 ft road by raising the construction of the wall towards the Eastern Side of the said road. Then the Plaintiff and the other residents protested the same and demanded the Defendants No. 1 to 9 to show the documents, but they failed to show any documents. 

4 OS No. 203 of 2014 

5.It is further submitted that the Plaintiff could secure the xerox copies of the Sale Deeds of the Defendants. On going through the said Sale 

Deeds, it is observed that the Defendant No. 10 had registered only flats in favour of the purchasers of the said flats and appurtenant land was kept with Defendant No. 10. It was categorically mentioned in the Sale Deeds that “The Vendee shall be the owner of the schedule property and the 

land appurtenant to the Flat shall remain and continue to be the 

absolute property of the Vendor and the Vendee shall have no right, title, 

claim or interest over the same.”

6.As per the said clause when the Vendees who are the Defendants 

No. 1 to 9 have no right over the appurtenant land itself, the question of getting the exclusive right over the road does not arise. It is further submitted that the 80 ft road of Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Land followed by 30 ft wide road. Once the same is the road used by all the public, and the same would be a thoroughfare and the same is used by the 

Plaintiff and other locality people for the construction of the quarters of 

Defendant No. 10 till date. Now the Defendants are trying to close the same depriving the easementary rights to the Plaintiff and other locality persons. 

The Plaintiff along with others collected the information, the purchasers of the Housing Board Quarters are not only in Phool bagh area and in other places, made a representation to the AP Housing Board to allot the appurtenant land to the purchasers to construct a compound wall for their safety. In turn the Defendant No. 10 has taken up the matter to the 

Government and the Government has issued a G.O. Ms. No. 48 dt: 20­4­ 5 OS No. 203 of 2014  1992 framing regulations and the same is called as “Andhra Pradesh 

Housing Board (Use of appurtenant land of multi­storied buildings) 

Regulations, 1991. As per the regulations, the flat owners may be permitted to construct a compound wall for the purpose of their protection and privacy. These provisions were issued for the use of appurtenant land of 

Housing Board and not others. As per the said GO, the allottees who are residing in the said blocks, permission was granted only to construct a compound wall keeping in view of the safety of flat owners but there is no permission for construction or even to grow vegetable plants. 

7.It is further submitted that the Defendants made a representation to the authorities for regularisation of the appurtenant land on 6­7­2009. On the said representation, the Additional Secretary to the 

Government, Housing Department addressed a letter dt: 7­10­2009, to the 

Vice­Chairman and Housing Commissioner, AP Housing Board, Nampally requesting to send the report in the said matter. After thorough consideration, the AP Housing Board, Nampally addressed a Letter dt: 17­ 12­2013 to the Additional Secretary to the Government, Housing 

Department stating that the owners of the Flats ie, Defendants herein are not entitled for Regularisation of the open appurtenant land existing in between the Block No's. 3 & 4 of the Phool Bagh area, Domulguda. When the owners of the Flats are not entitled for regularisation, then the question of exclusive right over the road attached to the appurtenant land does not arise. The said road is public thoroughfare and usable by all the public including this Plaintiff and Defendants are not having any right what so ever 6 OS No. 203 of 2014  to block the same. 

8.It is further submitted that the Defendants have encroached upon the appurtenant land and made construction contrary to the guidelines of the concerned authorities. The Defendants have also encroached upon the 30 ft road and made construction and at present, the road is hardly 10 ft. Still the Defendants want to make further construction on the remaining land by closing the road. It is further submitted that there is Defendant No. 10 land i.e, 8 ft adjacent to quarters followed by 30 ft road on one side. At present 10 ft road is left between the two quarters. The 

Defendants have occupied not only the appurtenant land and also the road and made constructions over it. 

9.It is further submitted that the Defendants made a representation on 5­11­2008 requesting to allot the open land to them. 

Then the Executive Engineer ( Housing) South Division, AP Housing Board issued a Memo dt: 23­12­2008 stating that the open space ie., appurtenant land around the block is made for the common usage of all the flat owners of the Block No's. 3 & 4, since it is common passage to all the allottees of the Flats. As per the said Memo, it is clear that the appurtenant land is made for the common passage of residents of Block No's. 3 & 4. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff is not claiming any Easementary rights over the said land but the Plaintiff and others cannot be prevented from using the road which is public street vested with GHMC. Hence, the present Suit. 

10.Written Statements filed by the Defendants No. 1 to 9. The 

Defendants No. 1 to 9 denied all the allegations mentioned in the Plaint. It 7 OS No. 203 of 2014  is submitted that the quarter in which the Plaintiff purchased the property is different from that of Housing board quarters. There is no relation between two locations, Plaintiff's locality is far away from the Housing Board quarters. It is admitted fact that there are 4 blocks constructed by the AP 

Housing Board, now the present Suit is filed against the inmates of Block 

No's. 3 & 4 of the said quarters. It is an admitted fact that the Block No's. 3 & 4 are existing in the Road No. 6 but is is utterly denied that there exists 30 ft road from East to West and the said road is used by all the locality people including the Housing Board quarters residents. Infact, the said 30 ft road is open space and made available to the residents of Block No's. 3 & 4 for their exclusive use. The said place is meant for parking area, light, ventillation, protection and privacy of the Block No's. 3 & 4 and there is a drainage pipe line existing for these 2 blocks. The two blocks are exclusively separate and having a separate transgression and ingression having no link with other locality which is dead end. The other locality people have no right whatsoever, to use the said space. It is further submitted that the said 

Block No's. 3 & 4 was sold by the Housing Board, consisting of 16 plots. 

When the Flats was sold by the Housing Board, the appurtenant automatically becomes part and parcel of the entire building. Moreover, it is not the 30 ft road, it is only 10 ft open space and no water pipe connection to the Plaintiff's locality from the underground is laid and the said land is not used by the residents of Plaintiff's locality at any point of time. 

11.The Plaintiff's locality and other slum areas in and around Block 

No's. 3 & 4 are no way concerned with the Housing Board property and 10 8 OS No. 203 of 2014  ft open space. They are far away from the Defendants flats and the Plaintiff is having separate lanes to reach their respective ways. It is further submitted that the Defendants denied about the dumping of material in the 

Suit Schedule Property. The appurtenant land means and construes as including land or building relating to his local right, interest or property subsidiary so that the Defendants have got the exclusive right over the 10 ft open space in and around Block No's. 3 & 4 of AP Housing Board Quarters. 

It is further submitted that on one hand the Plaintiff says 80 ft belongs to 

Housing Board on the other hand, the Plaintiff says 30 ft wide road are quite different. There is no 30 ft road in these two blocks. The said road is far away from the Blocks. It has nothing to do with the Plaintiff's locality and Housing Board property. There is no thoroughfare in between the Block 

No's. 3 & 4. It is further submitted that the G.O. Ms No. 48, dt: 20­4­1992 issued by the Government in favour of the flat owner only to construct the compound wall for the purpose of their protection, privacy and safety. So far, the Flat owners Association/Defendants have not constructed any compound wall. If the Defendants constructed a compound wall, they will construct the wall as per the law by obtaining prior permission from the concerned authorities. 

12.It is further submitted that the 10 ft or 8 ft open space is not a thoroughfare and the Defendants alone have exclusive right over it with regard to the appurtenant land. It is further submitted that the Plaintiffs locality person by name Sri Thomas Vinodh and others have already initiated proceedings before the Defendants against the Hon'ble High Court 9 OS No. 203 of 2014  vide Writ No. 13996/2010 to demolish the encroachments made by the 

Defendants by Writ of Mandamus. In the said Writ Petition, the GHMC and 

AP Housing Board and Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority filed their detailed Counters. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 23­12­ 2013, by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, aggrieved by the said 

Order, the Petitioners preferred a Writ Appeal vide No. 135/2014, the 

Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court confirmed the Order of the Single 

Judge and dismissed the Writ Appeal on 5­2­2014. The Plaintiff suppressed 

the above said facts and filed the present Suit. 

13.It is further submitted that the Memo dt: 23­12­2008 is issued by the Executive Engineer, South Division, in that Memo he stated that the appurtenant land around the Block No's. 3 & 4 is meant for the Flat owners since it is a common passage to the allottees of the Flat owners. Hence, the other locality people cannot be permitted to interfere into the Block No's. 3 & 4 appurtenant land. The Plaintiff misconceived 30 ft wide road as a public street vest with GHMC, but the appurtenant land in an around Block No's. 3 & 4 is not a public street, the Plaintiff failed to distinguish the same. The 

Plaintiff's and locality people have got other lanes to approach their respective residence. They went forcibly and entered into the appurtenant land of the Block No's. 3 & 4 of the Defendants quarters which they are not entitled. The Suit Schedule Property mentioned is totally wrong, misconceived and incorrect and legally untenable. The appurtenant land admeasuring 8 ft open space is not a road or public street. It exclusively belongs to AP Housing Board, Block No's. 3 & 4 that clearly classified 10 OS No. 203 of 2014  through GO Ms No. 48, dt: 20­4­1992 ie, conferred ownership rights to the 

Flat Owners Association of Block No's. 3 & 4 and permission can be granted to construct the compound wall to protect their privacy. The Defendants have been in actual possession over the appurtenant land for the last 50 yrs. 

The Suit itself is not maintainable as the GHMC and AP Housing Board are not made necessary parties. The Suit is barred for non­joinder of necessary parties and the Suit itself is not maintainable. Hence, praying this Hon'ble 

Court to dismiss the Suit with exemplary costs. 

14.The Defendant No. 10 is impleaded as per the Orders in IA No. 

178/2014. The Defendant No. 10, who is the standing Counsel for APHB filed his detailed Written Statement denying all the allegations mentioned in the Plaint. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff is neither the allottee nor the resident of Housing Board Quarter and the house of the Plaintiff is individual and not concerned with the AP Housing Board. The Defendants are the allottees of the Block No's. 3 & 4 at Phool Bagh area, Domulguda, as per the GO MS No. 130, dt: 23­12­1974 by virtue of the allotment. The 

Defendants No. 1 to 9 purchased the property from the Defendant No. 10 under Slum Clearance Scheme with the financial assistance of the Union of 

India. There are 16 plots in Block No's. 3 & 4, in between Block No's. 3 & 4 as per the proposed flat form and its drain sketch in 10­5­1977, the open space shown is common to all the flat owners of Block No's. 3 & 4 and it is a common passage to all the allottees of flat owners. 

15.It is further submitted that the carpet area of the flat was only conveyed to the Defendants under Registered Sale Deeds. In all the Sale 11 OS No. 203 of 2014 

Deeds it is made clear that the appurtenant land shall not be used and constructed by the allottees in the Sale Deeds should not make any constructions or alterations of the building and the appurtenant land is vested with Defendant No. 10. It is further submitted that the use of appurtenant land for construction of either permanent or temporary structure is illegal against the terms and conditions laid down in the Sale 

Deeds. The Defendant No. 10, Housing board is the owner of the appurtenant land of the block and all the allottees of Block are having right to enjoy the appurtenant land and they have no successful right over the same. It is further submitted that the request of regularisation of the appurtenant land was rejected by the Housing Board, if the Defendants have encroached upon the appurtenant land and made constructions if any the 

Defendant No. 10 is at liberty to take appropriate legal action against them. 

16.The appurtenant land and the common passage of Block No's. 3 & 4 of APHB does not belongs to any individual much less the Defendants and the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is not the allottee of Housing Board Quarter, if they are using the road for their ingress and egress and was allowed by the Defendants, the Defendants have no right to allege the encroachment of road and appurtenant land. It is further submitted that the case is not maintainable either in facts or in law. The Plaintiff has not approached the 

Court of law with clean hands and is not entitled for any remedy as the 

Plaintiff suppressed all the material facts. It is further submitted that there is no cause of action to file the present Suit. Hence, praying this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the Suit with exemplary costs. 

12 OS No. 203 of 2014 

17.Heard perused the record. 

Basing on the Pleadings, the following Issuesare framed: 

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Perpetual 

Injunction as prayed for ?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Mandatory 

Injunction as prayed for ?

3. Whether the Suit is bad for non­joinder of parties ?

4. To what relief ?

On behalf of the Plaintiff PW1 to PW3 is examined and Exhibits 

A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants DW1 is examined and 

Exhibits B1 to B4 were marked and the Counsel for the Plaintiff filed an application for summoning the witness Under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC and the said application was allowed Sri. M. Tulasi Ram, Assistant City Planner of 

Circle No. 9­A, Abids, GHMC is examined as CW1 and Exhibits C1 to C5 were marked, on confrontation of the counsel for Plaintiff, Exhibit C6 was marked. 

Issue No. 3:

18.After framing of the Additional Issue, the Counsel for the 

Plaintiff filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the 

Housing board as a necessary party. To decide the Issue No. 3, the said IA was allowed after due contest. Subsequently, the AP Housing Board represented by this Chairman is impleaded as Defendant No. 10 in the main 

Suit, as per the Orders in IA No. 178/2014, dt: 12­2­2015. Hence, there is no further discussion about the said issue as the AP Housing Board is impleaded as one of the parties. 

13 OS No. 203 of 2014 

Issues No. 1 & 2:

19.On behalf of the Plaintiff, her husband Sri G. Sudhakar is examined as PW1. As per Sec. 120 of Indian Evidence Act, “Parties to Civil Suit and their wives or husbands ­ Husband or wife of 

person under criminal trial – In all the civil proceedings, the parties to 

the Suit, and the husband or wife of any party to the Suit, shall be 

competent witnesses. In criminal proceedings against any person, the 

husband or wife of such person, respectively, shall be a competent 

witness”, for that on behalf of Plaintiff her husband is examined as PW1. 

The Plaintiff to show that she is an owner and possessor of 1­2­343/9, admeasuring 50 sq yrds or 41.80 sq mts situated at Domulguda, Phool Bagh area purchased from Sri K. Pochaiah by way of Registered Sale Deed document bearing no.2987/2011, dt:5­12­2011.From that day onwards, the 

Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the above mentioned property. 

The contention of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants No. 1 to 9 who are the owners of Block No's. 3 & 4 are trying to block the road, which is leading to the property of this Plaintiff. 

20.At the time of cross­examination of PW1, the Counsel for 

Defendants No. 1 to 9 stated that the Schedule of the Property as per Ex A1 was not mentioned as Housing Board Colony is the immediate neighbouring property of the Plaintiff. The PW1 further stated that he filed the present 

Suit on behalf of all the basti members but he has not filed any document to show that he is a GPA holder on behalf of the basti people and any authorisation issued by the Association in favour of the Plaintiff. He further 14 OS No. 203 of 2014  stated that the Phool Bagh Youth Association is registered one. But he failed to file a single scrap of paper to show that the said association is Registered one and there was existence of one Youth Association. PW1 further admitted that he has gone through the contents of Ex A4 page no. 6. Ex A4 is a Registered Sale Deed dt: 10­1­1996 executed by AP Housing Board in favour of the Defendant No. 1, Sri N. Ramaswamy. The said Sale Deed page no. 6 clearly mentioned that the,

“ Vendee the AP Housing Board shall be the owner of the Schedule of the 

Property. The land pertaining to the flat shall remain and continue to be 

the absolute property of the Vendor and the Vendee shall have no right, 

title, claim or interest over the same.”

21.PW1 is further admitting that Phool Bagh basti and Housing 

Board Colony are different. PW1 stated that the basti running from East to 

West directly goes to main road and there is a passage in between the property of PW1 and the Housing board colony. PW1 further stated that they are not claiming any Easementary right over the Suit Schedule 

Property and also admitted that he is not having any right over the property of Housing Board Colony. The PW1 further admitted that except Ex A3 he has not filed any document to show that the said property belongs to the 

GHMC. At the time of cross­examination PW1 stated that southern side of the house of PW1, there was a 10 ft lane and the said lane goes to Indira 

Park Road and also there was 10 ft road towards the Eastern side road and when the locality people of the Phool Bagh area will go to the West side, it will go to Gagan mahal road. In between the property of Block No. 3 there 15 OS No. 203 of 2014  was a 10 ft lane towards the west side it will lead to Indira Park road. 

22.The main contention of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants No. 1 to 9 who are the residents of Block No's. 3 & 4 illegally encroached the appurtenant land and made tin sheds without having any right contrary to the Sale Deeds. It will cause lot of inconvenience to the locality people of the Phool Bagh, Domulguda, Hyderabad. The contention of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants made representation and also the President and others of Phool Bagh area made representations for regularisation of the open space around Block No's.3 & 4, then the Special Commissioner issued a 

Letter dt: 17­12­2013 stating that the representation is rejected for regularisation of the open appurtenant land of Phool Bagh area as per the 

G.O. Ms. No. 48, dt: 20­4­1992. The said flat owners are not entitled for regularisation of the open appurtenant land existing in between Block No's. 

3 & 4, Phool Bagh area, Domulguda. Even though the said G.O and letter 

dt: 20­4­1992, is not marked, for the purpose of deciding the Suit, it has to 

be taken into consideration that as per the G.O. Ms. No. 48, dt: 20­4­1992, it was clearly mentioned in Clause no.5, “ The flat owners may be 

permitted to construct compound wall for the purposes of their 

protection and privacy. In cases where there is more than one flat on the 

ground floor, permission for the construction of compound wall may be 

granted for the entire block at their cost, if all the allottees of a 

particular block apply for such permission.”

23.As per Clause no. (5) of the said G.O., the flat owners may be permitted to construct the compound wall for the purpose of their 16 OS No. 203 of 2014  protection and privacy. It seems, as per the clause (14) of the said G.O., it is clearly mentioned that if any unauthorised construction is existing and made on the appurtenant land the Housing Board will take action and collect damages from the owners, who are responsible for illegal and unauthorised construction. It seems there is a specific clause that is any unauthorised construction is made by the flat owners, the Government will take appropriate action against the flat owners who made the illegal unauthorised construction. As per the contention of the Plaintiff is that as per Exhibits A4 to A7, Sale Deeds, it is clearly mentioned that in page no. 6 of Ex A4, that the Vendee shall be the owner of the Suit Schedule Property and land pertaining to the flat remained and continued to be the absolute property of the Vendor ie., Housing Board and the Vendee shall have no right, title, claim or interest over the same. It seems the appurtenant land belongs to the Housing Board authorities as per Exhibit A4 to Exhibit A7. 

The Plaintiff has clearly stated that the Defendants illegally making and encroaching the 30 ft road existing between the Housing Board Quarters in 

Block No's. 3 & 4 followed by the appurtenant land adjacent to other 

Quarters. 

24.On behalf of the Plaintiff, PW2 and PW3 were also examined to support the case of the Plaintiff. PW2 stated that he is a resident of Block 

No. 4 in Housing Board Quarters further stated that he himself made complaints to the Municipal authorities, stating that inmates of Housing 

Board Quarters trying to raise a wall towards Eastern side of 30 ft road but he has not filed the said complaint before this Court. PW2 at the time of 17 OS No. 203 of 2014  cross­examination by Counsel for Defendant No. 10 stated that the Plaintiff is not residing in the Housing Board Quarters. She is residing adjacent to the property of the Housing Board Quarters. He further stated that he has not gone through the contents of either letter issued by the Housing Board or Sale Deeds executed by the Housing Board. He further stated that he is using the passage for ingress and egress. He further denied that 30 ft common passage is not road, the same is existing in between the Block 

No's. 3 & 4 of Housing Board Quarters. PW2 further stated that he has not filed any document to show that MCH authorities erected street lights and 

Shabad road in the common passage. PW3 who is supporting the case of the 

Plaintiff admitted that they are having other three ways to reach the main road. Three passages towards the North side, East­West side is the CC road. 

He is further admitting that there is a dead end towards the southern side of the Block No. 4. Further he has not filed any document to show that there are Municipal Water Pipes alloted beneath the road of Phool Bagh area. 

25.At the time of cross examination by the Counsel for Defendant 

No. 10, PW3 stated that he donot know about the Block No's. 1 to 4 when it was constructed by the Housing Board Authorities and not filed any document to show that the road in two blocks is constructed by the MCH authorities. He further stated that his colony people said that CC road is constructed by the MCH authorities. He further stated that the present Suit is filed by the Plaintiff to obstruct the construction and also blocking the road by the Defendants. He further stated that so far there is no wall constructed to block the passage. 

18 OS No. 203 of 2014 

26.As per the evidence of PW1 to PW3 it is clear that the passage in between the Block No's. 3 & 4 belongs to the Housing Board Quarters. It is not exclusive right over the property of the Plaintiff and other locality people, the Plaintiff contended that they filed the present Suit on behalf of the locality people but no document is filed to show that all the locality people or basti people given any authorisation to the Plaintiff to file the present Suit. The contention of the Plaintiff is that the Basti people are not belongs to the residents of Housing Board quarters. The contention of the 

Plaintiff is that the Housing Board already handed over the road to the MCH authorities to lay the street lights and water pipe lines but the Plaintiff herein fails to file any document or any proceedings to show that the 

Defendant No. 10 handed over the appurtenant land to the MCH authorities.

27.To establish the said fact, during the pendency of the Suit, the 

Plaintiff filed the Petition for summoning the Assistant City Planner, GHMC, 

Circle No. 9, Abids, Hyderabad. On enquiry, the said Assistant City Planner was summoned as per the directions of this Court and he appeared and filed his Chief Affidavit as per the contents of Chief, CW1 stated that on verification of the connected documents, available records, personal inspection of the said site, it is found that Housing Board has not handed over the said property to the GHMC and as per the lay out plan of the AP 

Housing Board, the said property is ear­marked as common passage between Block No's. 3 & 4 of Housing Board Quarters. To establish the same, the CW1 filed Exhibits C1 to C5. As per the Exhibits C1, C2, the CW1 19 OS No. 203 of 2014  made a representation to the Executive Engineer, AP Housing Board, and the Tahsildar, Himayath Nagar Mandal for furnishing the details about the existing Houses/Plots in Block No's. 3 & 4 situated at Phool Bagh, 

Domulguda, Hyderabad and there is a lane in between the said flats connected to Indira Park main road, Domulguda, for that CW1 ie, Assistant 

City Planner requesting the concerned authorities to provide the copy of lay out and relevant documents in respect of the flats of Block No's. 3 & 4 situated at Phool Bagh, Domulguda. 

28.Then the Executive Engineer, AP Housing Board and the 

Tahsildar, Himayath Nagar Mandal issued the documents and letter dt: 15­ 2­2015 ie, Exhibit C4 issued by the Tahsildar, in favour of the Assistant City 

Planner that the common passage falls in TS No. 2, Block No. D, Ward No. 6 and also as per TSLR Column No. 10, earlier recorded as Fatima Begum, 

Thumpally Neelamma, Alavuddin (Custodies), Khaja Wahiuddin etc and 

Column No. 20 recorded as Housing Board. As per the Exhibit C5 ie, Town 

Survey ­ Land Register, record clearly shows that name of the present enjoyer is the Housing Board. At the time of cross­examination, the Counsel for the Plaintiff contended and confronted the proceedings issued by the 

GHMC authorities dt: 26­6­2010 in favour of one Sai Baba, who is the resident of Quarter No. B4,F4. As per the said proceedings, the GHMC authorities issued a letter to the said individual basing on the Complaint received from Anand Kumar and other stating that the owners of premises no. 1­2­342/6/32, to 40 and 1­2­342/6/42, situated at Phool Bagh area, 

Domulguda has encroached 30 ft vide road by way of constructing AC 20 OS No. 203 of 2014  sheets, rooms and compound wall duely reducing the road width which is causing obstruction to the local residents, for that the Assistant City Planner, 

Circle No. 9, GHMC directed the said individuals to produce the ownership 

Sale Deed documents for the verification of the said ownership and directed to produce the encroachments made on the road portion. For that the CW1 stated that if any complaint is received from any individuals, the 

Department will issue a Notice to the parties to produce the documents for verification and take appropriate steps. But it is not there in Ex A6 that 

Housing Board, handed over the lane to MCH authorities.

29.As per the evidence of CW1 he clearly stated that so far Housing 

Board has not handed over the said property to the GHMC authorities and as per the Exhibits C3, C4, it is clear that the property belongs to Housing 

Board as per Exhibits A4 to A7, the Housing Board authorities under slum clearance scheme executed Sale Deeds in favour of the individuals. The 

Plaintiff herein failed to establish that the said common passage belongs to the Plaintiff and also other locality people. 

30.As per the evidence of PW1 to PW3, it is clear that there are other ways to reach the locality of the people and also as per the G.O. MS 

No. 48, dt: 20­4­1992, it is clear that when there are any illegal encroachments made by the individuals/inmates of the Quarters, the 

Housing Board will take appropriate action against the said Flat owners under clause (14) of the said G.O.

31.On behalf of the Defendants DW1 is examined and filed Exhibits 

B1 to B4 were marked. DW1 is the Defendant No. 1 in the main Suit. He 21 OS No. 203 of 2014  contended that earlier, a Writ Petition was filed by the locality people of said Phool Bagh area, the same is marked as Ex B1 ie, Writ Petition No. 

13996/2010 Order dt: 23­12­2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court. In the said Writ Petition, the Petitioners made the Government as the party i.e., 

GHMC and Housing Board Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority and Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by it Principal Secretary and also this Defendant No. 1, the Defendants No. 2 & 4 and the Husband of the Defendant No. 3 were made as parties in the said Writ Petition, the 

Hon'ble High Court gave specific direction to the Respondents No. 2 & 4 

who filed their detailed Counters before the Hon'ble Court. The same was marked as Exhibits B2 and B3 in the present Suit. As per the Counters of the 

Respondent No. 2 who is the Assistant City Planner, Circle No. 9, GHMC clearly stated in para no. 6 of the said Counter clearly stated that the officials of the GHMC authorities have already issued Notices to the 

Respondents No. 5 to 8/Defendants No. 1 to 4 in the present Suit and those persons issued a reply to the said Notices and also the officials of the second 

Respondent inspected the site and it is found that there is no new construction or encroachments of Road margin as alleged by the Petitioners in the said Writ Petition and moreover, all the structures in Block No's. 3 & 4 of Phool Bagh area, Domulguda, Hyderabad are in existence since more than 20 yrs and moreover the officials of the GHMC inspected the Block 

No's. 3 & 4 and it is found that there are no new constructions or encroachments and the structures are existing for more than 20 yrs and there is a dispute with regard to the common open space between the two 22 OS No. 203 of 2014  blocks for which the applications are pending before the Housing Board. 

32.As per the Counter filed by the AP Housing Board in Writ 

Petition, AP Housing Board executed the Sale Deeds as per GO Ms No. 130, housing dt: 23­12­1974 by virtue of the allotment, the individuals purchased the said property and the same is in slum clearance with the financial Assistance of the Government of India. There are 16 flats in Block 

No's. 3 & 4 as per the proposed flats, form and its drain sketch in the year 10­5­1977, the open space shown is common to all the flat owners of Block 

No's. 3 & 4 and it is a common passage to all the allottees of flat owners. It is further submitted that there was a joint representation made by the Block 

No's. 3 & 4 of the flat owners dt: 5­11­2008 to the Executive Engineer, 

South Division, AP Housing Board, then the concerned Officer issued a 

Memo Number to the Block No's. 3 & 4/E4/Domulguda/EE(S)/2008, dt: 

23­12­2008 stating that the open space ie., appurtenant land around the 

Block is meant for the common use of all the flat owners of the Block No's. 3 & 4 since it is a common passage to all the allottees of the flats. Basing on the Counters filed by the concerned authorities, the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition with a specific direction “in view of these facts, 

the Writ Petition is totally misconceived and accordingly, the same is 

dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if 

any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed.” Aggrieved by the said 

Order, the Petitioners in Writ Petition preferred a Writ Appeal vide Writ 

Appeal No. 135/2014 before the Hon'ble Division Bench. The Hon'ble 

Division Bench dismissed the said Writ Appeal on 5­2­2014, by confirming 23 OS No. 203 of 2014  the Order of the Writ Petition No. 13996/2010. As per Exhibits B1 to B4, it is clear that earlier the same locality people approached the Hon'ble High 

Court basing on the same issue and the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the 

Writ Petition and Writ Appeal even though the Plaintiff filed the present 

Suit by suppressing all the material facts and seeking the Perpetual 

Injunction and also Mandatory Injunction. 

33.The Plaintiff is seeking the relief of Perpetual Injunction and also 

Mandatory Injunction, she has to establish her possession on the Suit 

Schedule Property but Prima facie it is clear that the Plaintiff is not in the possession of the Suit Schedule Property as per the evidence of all the parties and the entire documents, it is clear that the appurtenant land is belongs to Housing Board and as per the Written Statement of the Housing 

Board, it is clearly mentioned that if any illegal encroachments made by any of the flat owners, the concerned authority ie, Housing Board will take appropriate action and as per the Counters, of the GHMC and AP Housing 

Board filed before the Hon'ble High Court it is clearly mentioned that there was no new construction in between Block No's. 3 & 4. The said structures existing in Block No's. 3 & 4 are more than 20 yrs. Subsequently, there was a joint representation made by the individuals of Block No's. 3 & 4 of the 

Executive Engineer of AP Housing Board issued a Memo dt: 23­12­2008 stating that the said appurtenant land is common usage of all the flat owners of Block No's. 3 & 4. 

34.The contention of the Plaintiff is that the inmates of the Block 

No's. 3 & 4 are going to Block the road by construction of wall, as per the 24 OS No. 203 of 2014 

Counters of all the concerned authorities before the Hon'ble High Court and also Evidence of both parties in this Suit it is clear that there is no new structures or wall existing and moreover, there are other ways to reach the main road to the Plaintiff. The said common passage does not belongs to the 

Plaintiff. As per the Written Statement of Defendant No.10 it is clear that if there were any illegal constructions by violating the conditions under 

Exhibits A4 to A7, the AP Housing Board will take appropriate action against the flat owners. As per the G.O. Ms. No. 48, dt: 20­4­1992, there were clear conditions that the flat owners have right to construct the compound wall for their privacy and convenience of flat owners. 

35.As per the Evidence of CW1, he clearly stated that so far the AP 

Housing Board has not handed over the said property to the GHMC authorities. As per the evidence of DW1, he said that at the request of the 

Electricity Department, the Department errected Electrical poles on the said common passage but there are no water pipe lines laid reaching towards the colony of the Plaintiff. The water pipe lines are laid by the authorities for inmates of Block No's. 3 & 4. The said appurtenant land does not belongs to the Plaintiff and other locality people. It is an exclusive property of the AP 

Housing Board. The Plaintiff contended that the Housing Board has rejected the Regularisation of the said land, to the individuals but as per the G.O. 

and as per the proceedings dt: 23­12­2008, it is clear that the Block No's. 3 & 4 inmates are having right for common usage to use the appurtenant land and it is a common passage to all the allottees of the flat owners. The 

Plaintiff utterly failed to establish the Prima facie and also failed to prove 25 OS No. 203 of 2014  that the Defendants No. 1 to 9 encroached into the appurtenant land and the said land belongs to the Plaintiff and she is having exclusive right over it.

36.As per Exhibits, B1 to B4, it is an admitted fact that already some of the locality people approached the Hon'ble High Court and the 

Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and Writ Appeal stating that 

all the flat owners are entitled to construct the compound wall for the purpose of their protection and privacy and the land adjacent to their blocks is not meant for public thoroughfare or for the use by persons or for the use of other flat owners. The Plaintiff herein failed to establish the case, as per the Issue No. 2, the Plaintiff is seeking the Mandatory Injunction, directing the Defendants to remove the encroachments made by them on 30 ft road existing in between the Housing Board Quarters in Block No's. 3 & 4 followed by the appurtenant land adjacent to the other Quarters. But as per the Evidence of both the parties and also as per Exhibits B1 to B4, it is clear that there is no new constructions or encroachments made by the 

Defendants. The structures existing is more than 20 yrs even though the regularisation is rejected by the authorities as per G.O. MS No. 48 and the proceedings dt: 23­12­2008, issued by the Executive Engineer, GHMC, it is clear that the appurtenant land is a common usage of all the flat owners and the flat owners are having every right to construct the compound wall for protection and privacy and also the said appurtenant land is not meant for thoroughfare. Then, it is clear that there are no encroachments made by the 

Defendants. Hence Issues No's. 1 & 2 are answered against the Plaintiff and 26 OS No. 203 of 2014  in favour of the Defendants. In view of the above discussion, the Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of Mandatory Injunction. 

Issue No. 4: 

35.In the result, the Suit filed by the Plaintiff is dismissed. 

However, the parties shall bear their own costs. 

Dictation given to my P.A., typed by her corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 2nd day of June, 2016.

VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: Witnesses examined: 

PW1: Sri G. SudhakarDW1: Sri N. Ramaswamy PW2: Sri A. Sai BabaCW1: Sri M. Tulasiram PW3 : Sri B. Madhu

Documents marked for Plaintiff: 

1. Ex A1 : is the Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No. 2987/2011, 

dt: 5­12­2011.

2. Ex A2: is the letter dt: 10­12­2009, addressed to the Public Information 

Officer by the C. Venkatesh, the same is obtained under RTI Act.

3. Ex A3: is the letter dt: 7­3­2009, issued by the Executive Engineer,

GHMC to Venkatesh

4. Ex A4: is the Certified Copy of the Sale Deed dt: 10­1­1996, of the

Defendant No. 1.

5. Ex A5 : is the Certified Copy of the Sale Deed dt:16­12­1996

6. Ex A6 : Certified Copy of the Sale Deed dt: 27­1­1997

7. Ex A7 : is the Certified Copy of the Sale Deed dt:23­2­2001 obtained under mee seva along with receipts dt: 4­4­2014.

8. Ex C1: is the attested copy of the letter No. 63/ACP/C9A/CZ/GHMC, 

dt: 23­1­2015 issued by the Assistant City Planner to the Chief 

27 OS No. 203 of 2014 

Executive Engineer.

9. Ex C2: is the attested copy of the letter no. 09/ACP/C9A/CZ/GHMC, 

dt: 9­2­2016 addressed to the Tahsildar Himayath Nagar,

Hyderabad.

10. Ex C3: is the attested copy of the layout plan dt: 10­5­1977.

11. Ex C4: is the attested copy of the Letter No. A/1641/2016, 

dt: 15­2­2016 to the Assistant City Planner by the Tahsildar,

Himayath Nagar.

12. Ex C5: is the Attested copy of the Town Survey and land register town survey no. TS No. 2, Ward No. 56, Block No. 3.

Documents marked for Defendants: 

1. Ex B1: is the Certified copy of the Order passed in WP No. 13996/2010, 

dt: 23­12­2013 by the Hon'ble High Court.

2. Ex B2: is the Office copy of the Counter Affidavit filed by the MCH authorities, filed in WP No. 13996/2010

3. Ex B3: is the Office copy of the Counter Affidavit filed by the AP Housing 

Board in WP No. 13996/2010

4. Ex B4 : is the Order copy of the Writ Appeal No 135/2014 dt: 5­2­2014 preferred against WP No. 13996/2010.

VII JR. CIVIL JUDGE.

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

28 OS No. 203 of 2014 

1 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SECUNDERABAD

PRESENT: Smt M.Kalpana, XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

Dated this the 20 th day of April, 2024

CALENDAR CASE NO.1088 OF 2017

Between:

The State through the Sub Inspector of Police

P.S. Lallaguda..... Complainant

AND

P. Santosh Kumar S/o. Mallikarjun Aged 32 years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o.H.No.1-139/4, Annaram Road,

Parvathagiri, Warangal. ... Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt J.Bhargavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Sri Dhaneshwar Rao, Learned Counsel for Accused upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Lallaguda

Police Station had filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No.222/2016 for an offence punishable under Section420 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet in brief as follows:

LW1 Smt T. Aravindha has lodged a complaint on 27-10-2016 stating that during the course of time one person by name Pusala

Raghu who was neighbor of the complainant got introduced to her. In short period they become good friends. In 2013 Mr. Pasula Raghu 2 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 introduced the complainant to his brother P. Santhosh Kumar and said that his brother works in GRP he knows everyone, as the complainant is well qualified he can find a job for the complainant. Subsequently the accused P. Santhosh Kumar also promised to the complainant to place her in Railway department and shown some order copies of clients who got the job through him for which P. Santhosh Kumar asked Rs. 3,00,000/-(three lakhs), believing so the LW1 has transacted

Rs.1,00,000/- to A/c. 62055016131, SBH-Warangal, later on the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was given to him at her residence by hand.

LW1 also stated there are 5 other persons who known her were approached him for the job by giving the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- each but since 3 years he has not responding well accordingly, as he fail to fulfill the promise made to the complainant. As such she requested for necessary action. Hence the complaint.

3. Basing on the contents of the above report, During the course of investigation, LW13 has examined LW1 to LW6 and recorded their 161

Cr.P.C Statements thoroughly. Then LW13 has visited the scene of offence located at H. No. 12-1-508/92/A/D, Indira nagar, Lalapet

Secunderabad, secured the presence of two mediators LW7 & LW8, conducted the scene observation panchanama and drawn the rough sketch of the scene. While the investigation is going on 25-07-2017 at about 17.00 hours, on credible information, LW13 with the assistance of LW11 has apprehended the accused P. Santhosh Kumar, on thorough interrogation of LW13, the accused admitted his guilt in the 3 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 above offence. As such LW13 has issued notice U/s 41-A Cr.PC to the accused to show the reasons arrest him. After completion of

Investigation, he has filed a Chargesheet.

4.This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 420 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of Accused, copies of documents were supplied to him as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. Accused was examined Under section 239 Code of Criminal

Procedure. Charges have been framed against them for an offence punishable under section 420 of IPC and the same was read over and explained to him in vernacular language, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution has cited as many as (15) witnesses, out of them, it could be examined (03) witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P10. PW1 T. Aravindha is the Complainant. PW2 Ram Murthy is the

Eye witness. PW3 Rama Krishna is the Eye witness. PW4 N. Srinivas is the Eye witness. PW5 Sridhar is the Circumstantial witness. PW6

Mahesh Kumar is the panch witness. PW7 is the Vishweshwar is the

Bank Manager. PW8 is the Veera Babu is the SI of Police who has filed a Chargesheet. PW9 is the Deevan Reddy is the Sr.DPO who issued the genunity certificate. Ex.P1 is the Complaint. Ex.P2 is the CDF along with rough sketch. Ex.P3 is the concerned bank issued a reply to the

PS Lallaguda on 05-12-2016 by enclosing the copies of voter ID, ration 4 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 card, and Photograph of P.Santosh Kumar. Ex.P4 is the letter addressed to SI of police Lallaguda on 24-11-2106 by enlcosing the statement of account of the accused, Letter dated 24-11-2016, along with bank statement. Ex.P5 is the FIR. Ex.P6 is the CDF along with rough sketch. Ex.P7 is the Genunity certificate dated 22-06-2017.

Ex.D1 is the Original Promisory note. Ex.D2 is the Original Promissory

Note, dated: 20-09-2014 is confronted to the witness, he denied the contents of the document, but he admitted the signature on the

Promissory Note. Ex.D3 to Ex.D5 are the signatures on the Original

Agreement, which was executed on Non-Judicial Stamp Paper (Notarized Document) in which, PW2 has executed the Agreement stating that he has borrowed an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- from the

Accused, the said Agreement was confronted to the witness, but he has denied the entire contents of the document, but he admitted his signature on the document as well as Aadhar Card, which was enclosed with the document.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same was read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned

Counsel for the accused.

5 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017

9. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:

The Prosecution herein examined PW1 to PW9. The prosecution has given up the evidence of LW5, LW8, LW11 and LW12.

11. The brief averments of the complaint contents is that :

LW1 Smt T. Aravindha has lodged a complaint on 27-10-2016 stating that during the course of time one person by name Pusala

Raghu who was neighbor of the complainant got introduced to her. In short period they become good friends. In 2013 Mr. Pasula Raghu introduced the complainant to his brother P. Santhosh Kumar and said that his brother works in GRP he knows everyone, as the complainant is well qualified he can find a job for the complainant. Subsequently the accused P. Santhosh Kumar also promised to the complainant to place her in Railway department and shown some order copies of clients who got the job through him for which P. Santhosh Kumar asked Rs. 3,00,000/-(three lakhs), believing so the LW1 has transacted

Rs.1,00,000/- to A/c. 62055016131, SBH-Warangal, later on the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was given to him at her residence by hand.

LW1 also stated there are 5 other persons who known her were approached him for the job by giving the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- each but since 3 years he has not responding well accordingly, as he 6 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 fail to fulfill the promise made to the complainant. As such she requested for necessary action. Hence the complaint.

12.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PW1 to PW9 who are the complainant herein, Eye witness, panch witness and police officials.

13.PW1 who is the complainant herein testified before this court that

LW2 is her husband. She know the Accused, earlier they used to resided at Lallapet, they have sold the house situated at Lallapet. One

Raghu who is our neighbour, when they were at Lallapet, the accused informed her that his brother name is Sadanandam @ Santosh Kumar, who is working at GRPF, Warangal, he will provided the jobs in Railway

Department, earlier he has provided the jobs. In the year 2012, the

Accused came to their house and informed that he will provided the job to her as well as her husband, for which the accused demanded Rs.4

Lakhs, for which they accepted to pay the said amount. On the same day, her father-in-law paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the Accused and he asked us to give the Education Certificates of her husband and her 10th Class Certificate. Later her father-in-law paid Rs.1 Lakh to the

Accused at her residence. Later, they paid Rs.50,000/- at Warangal,

Rs.50,000/- at Tarnaka, Rs.20,000/- & Rs.50,000/- at her residence, in total we have paid Rs.2 Lakhs to the Accused. Further he has demanded to pay Rs.1 Lakh, for which, her husband transferred the amount in the account of the accused by way of installments like

Rs.3,000/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.2,000/- in total we 7 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 have paid Rs.1 Lakh in total. They have paid Rs.4 Lakhs by way of

Cash as well as amount to the Accused, he promised to provide the job, he postponed the same from one pretext to other from 2012 to 2013. In the year 2015, he has handed over the Call Letters (Xerox

Copy), he informed that later they will receive the original call letter.

They waited upto 6 months, but they have not received any original call letters from the Railway Department. In the year 2015, we went to

Rail Nilayam and enquired about the Santosh Kumar, they informed us that no person by name Sadanandam @Santosh Kumar is available in that Department. Whenever we called to the Accused, he postponed the same, they requested to return the amount, but the accused threatened them with dire consequences. As there is no option, then they went to PS Lallaguda and lodged the complaint against the

Accused.s

14. PW2 who testified before this court that PW1 is his wife they are residing at Lallapet, during that period, one Raghu is the neighbour through him they came to know the Sadanandam @ Santosh Kumar.

who is the brother of Raghu. In the year 2012, Raghu brought the

Sadanandam stating that he is working at GRPF, Warangal, he stated that they will provide the jobs at Railways Department and they are ready to provide the job to them earlier he has provided the jobs for 10 members in Railway Department. Accused has shown the Identity

Cards of the said 10 Members who were joined in the Railway

Department at Warangal. He stated that for providing the job, it will 8 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 incurred Rs.2 Lakhs. In the year 2012, Sadanandam has taken the an amount of Rs 30,000/- from them for providing the job. He asked him his educational qualification, for which, he stated that he has completed ITI, After one week of the said transaction, himself and PW1 went to Warangal to meet Sadanandam, they have given an amount of

Rs.20,000/- to him after one week of the said transaction, he called him and instructed him to come Tarnaka, then he went to Tanaka, there he has asked them for money, for which stated that we are not having money, thereafter one week of the said transaction alongwith

PW1 they went to Warangal and paid an amount of Rs. 20,000 to him.

Later, he called them and informed them to pay the amount in his account and has given his account number, vide A/c b.

No.62055016131 of SBH Bank, Suboti Branch, Hanmakonda. Further he called them, stating that he has given the account number and asked them to deposit the amount in his account, in total approximately around Rs. 1 Lakh on various dates, at that time, the

Accused has promised them to provide the job, but he has not provided the same, he is postponing the same on one pretext or the other.

15. PW3 who testified before this court that in the year 2015, PW2 has introduced the accused stating that the accused used to provide the job in Railway department. PW2 has informed to him that PW1 and himself are working at Dornakal, Warrangal District in Railway department, as the accused already provided the jobs to them. By 9 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 believing their words, he has shown his interest to join in Railway

Department. The accused and PW2 has demanded Rs.5,00,000/- in order to provide the job in Railway department, for which he accepted to pay the same. On 09-07-2016 he has paid an amount of

Rs.60,000/- to the PW2 near by Railway station in one cafe, in turn the

PW2 has handed over the amount to the Santhosh. Thereafter, he used to pay the amount of by way of installments by depositing the amount in the bank account of the accused, some of the amount was paid by the way cash to the PW2 and accused in total he has paid an amount of the Rs.4,50,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. Thereafter, the accused has given the order copy to him. He stated that he will get another other copy, at that time he joined in the Department. Later, he has received the same, the accused asked us to wait for some time. They waited upto two months, but there is no response from the accused. Then he strictly asked the PW1 and PW2, for which they went to PS and lodged a complaint, as the accused has cheated them on pretext of providing the jobs.

16. PW4 who testified before this court that PW2 is his Uncle. PW2 was introduced the Accused as Sadanandam, later he came to know that his name is Santosh Kumar. PW1 & PW2 who came to their house and informed that they are working in Railway Department, they promised him to provide the job to him in the same Department. They demanded an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs for providing the job. In the month of March 2013, PWs.1 & 2 asked me to come to Warangal Railway 10 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017

Station, at that time, he has paid Rs.2 Lakhs to the Accused in the presence of Pws.1 & 2. They have introduced the Accused that he provided the jobs to them. After one month of payment of above amount, again they were demanded an amount of Rs.1 Lakh. for which, he has paid the same at Warangal to the Accused in the presence of PW1 & PW2. Subsequently, PW2 demanded him to pay the amount frequently, for which he has transferred the amount in the account of the Accused as well as paid th Cash to the Accused in the presence of my uncle PW2, in total an amount Rs.5,50,000/- was paid to them. The Accused came to his residence and asked to purchase the computer, for which, he alongwith Accused purchased Computer and he has paid an amount of Rs.25,000/-, thereafter, they did Provided the job even after repeated requests, they have avoiding the same. In the month of December 2013, Accused asked him to come to that he will hand over the Offer Letter, at that time, himself, PW1 & PW2 went to the Secretariat, there, he has shown the Offer Letter to him, but he did not handes over the same, he waited up to one year, but there is no progress, he fail to provide the job to him as well as they have not repaid my amount of Rs.5,50,000/- As there is no other option, then he along with other Victims went to Lallaguda PS and lodged the

Complaint by PW1.

17. PW5 who testified before this court that on 29-10-2016 his sister came to him and informed that one Santhosh kumar cheated them on pretext of providing job at Railway department. The accused took an 11 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from PW1 in the year 2015 by way of installments through bank transaction. But he did not provide the job, he fail to fulfill his promise. When he fail to provide the job, PW1 and her husband requested the accused to return the amount, but he did not returned the same. As there is no other option then PW1 went to PS and lodged a complaint.

18. PW6 who testified before this court that he is working as Camera

Man in Sakshi TV channel, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. In the year, 2016

PS Lallaguda called him and asked to come to Lakshmi Nagar as the cheating was occurred. The concerned police informed him that someone collected the amount from the victims on pretext of providing the jobs. The police officials has obtained his signatures.

19. PW7 who testified before this court that On 05-12-2016, Police

Lallaguda came to the SBI Bank, Tarnaka Branch and requested to provide the Bank Statement and Account Particulars of the P.Santosh, vide A/c B.No. 62055016131, SBH Subedari Branch, Warangal from 01- 01-2012 to 04-11-2016, as the Criminal Case was registered against him as the bank was centralized, as such, they have furnished the Bank

Account Statement and A/c Opening Form of the Accused. The A/c

Opening Form is the Colour Xerox copy The Concerned Bank issued a

Reply to the PS Lallaguda on 05-12-2016 by enclosing the copies of

Voter ID, Ration Card and Photograph of P.Santosh Kumar. They have addressed a Letter to Sl of Police, PS Lallaguda on 24-11-2016, by enclosing the Statement of Account of the Accused. Letter, dated: 24- 12 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 11-2016 along with the Bank Statement of the Accused i.e. from 01-01- 2012 to 23-11-2016.

20. PW8 who testified before this court that On 27-10-2016 LW12 has received a complaint from PW1. The CD file is handed over to him for investigation, he has verified the CD File which was in proper lines.

Later he took up the investigation, during the course of the investigation he has recorded the statement of the PW1 & PW2 on 27- 10-2016 at PS. Later he has visited the scene of offence at Shanthi

Nagar, North Lallaguda, he has secured the presence of LW7 and LW8, conduced scene observation panchanama and drafted Rough Sketch in their presence. He has recorded the Statements of LW3 to LW6 on 29- 10-2016 at PS. On 05-01-2017, he has addressed a Letter to the Bank

Manager of SBI Subedari Bank, Warangal Branch to produce the

Statement of Account of the Accused. He has collected the Statement of Account of the Accused from the PW7 and also collected the genunity certificate of the which the versed by the Railway Authorities i.e. LW.10 C.N.Dheevan Reddy, in which the Certificate is not genuine, the concerned Railway Authorities (LW.10) addressed a letter on 22-06- 2017 to him as the Certificates enclosed alongwith Letters to the

Department are genuine, the Letter No.SER/P-SC/Misc./2017, dated: 22- 06-2017. While the investigation is going on 25-07-2017, on receipt of credible information, himself and LW11 went to Warangal and apprehended the Accused and brought him to the PS. On enquiry, the

Accused voluntarily admitted his guilt. He has issued the Notice U/S 41-

A of Cr.P.C. to the Accused.

13 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017

21. PW9 who testified before this court that he has received a

Requisition from the Concerned Police to verify the genuineness of the

Appointment Letter issued by the Senior Divisional Personal Officer of

South Central Railways Department, Secunderabad, they have enclosed the Three Appointment Letters. He has personally examined the Appointment Letters about the genunity. Thereafter, he has addressed a Letter to the Police Lallaguda on 22-06-2017 stating that "regarding verification and certification of the genuineness of the

Appointment letters referred from 01 to 06, it is stated that No such

Officer is present in the division with the designation, as Addi Principal,

Chief Conservator, also the letters issued under signature of Sr. Devi

Personal Officer, Secunderabad, C.R. - are not genuine".

22. During the course of cross examination PW1 who clearly admitted that studied upto Intermediate. In the year 2012, at first time, he has met with an Accused, he promised to provide the job to her as well as to her husband. They have not filtered any application with regarding to the job. she know that in IRCTC Temporary Jobs will be available for the candidates who failed 10 Class as well as Intermediate. At the time of handed over the amount to the Accused, they have not obtained any receipt from him. They have deposited the amount in the account of the Accused, but she has not filed any documentary proof to show that they have deposited in the account of Accused. The Accused promised to provide the job within the one year of receiving the amount, but he did not provide the job from 2012 to 2016. They have not enquired with the Railway Department whether the Accused has submitted our 14 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 applications in the department. she further admitted that she has not submitted any documentary proof to show that she has sold the

Property, out of the sale proceedings, she has paid the amount to the

Accused. She further admitted not sold the property, she has not paid any amount to the Accused. At the time of payment of the Amount to the Accused, herself, her father-in-law and her husband were present.

She has not obtained any receipt/document from the Accused to show that she has paid the amount to the Accused. Later she denied the suggestions given by the counsel for accused.

23. PW2 who clearly admitted that in the year 2016, they went to police station to lodge the Complaint, at that time, they are residing at

Prashanth Nagar, Malkajgiri. He has completed ITI Diploma (electronics). He know the reading and writing of Telugu and English.

He further admitted that they have not filled any application for applying jobs in Railway Department. He do not know whether IRCTC

Department is existing in the Railway Department and the said department appointed the Attenders for supply of Food Items and

House Keeping work in AC-Coach Bogies. He do not know if anybody applies the above said post by filing the applications, the Department will conduct the interviews and appointed as per the procedure. He further admitted that he has not obtained any receipt from the Accused at the time of payment of Rs.30,000/- to the Accused as well as he do not remember the exact date of payment of said amount /Even subsequent transactions also he has not obtained any receipt from the 15 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017

Accused. He further admitted that he has not obtained the receipt from the Accused to show that he has paid Rs.4 Lakhs to the Accused. He further stated that he has not issued any Legal Notice to the Accused, when he failed to provide the jobs from 23-01-2014. He further admitted that he has not lodged any complaint at PS Lallaguda in the year 2014. He further admitted that he has not obtained any hand loan from the Accused, he has not executed any document.

24. PW3 who clearly admitted that he PW2 is his brother-in-law. PW1 is his sister by relation he studied up to 8 Class. He has completed his

ITI as a Twitter and Turner. PW2 has introduced the Accused to him.

He further admitted that PW1 & PW2 informed him that they are working in a Railways, the Accused has provided the jobs to them in

Railway Department. He further admitted that he has not enquired in the Railway Department whether they are working in the said

Department. After lodging the Complaint by PW1. He has visited the PS around 2 to 3 times. He further stated that he has stated to the Police that he has paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the Accused through

PW2. He further admitted that he has stated to the Police in his 161

Cr.P.C. Statement that he has paid Rs.50,000/- to the Accused on 12- 07- 2013 at Warangal. He further stated that he has stated before this

Court in his Chief Examination that he has paid an amount of

Rs.60,000/- on 09-07-2016 in one Cafe, nearby Railway Station. He has not submitted any Application to the Railway Department. He has not handed over his Aadhar Card to the Accused. He do not know 16 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 about the process of Recruitment in Railway Department. He do not know about the obtaining Loan from the Accused by the PW1 & PW2 for an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/-. He further admitted that he has deposited an amount of Rs.22,000/- in the account of PW.2 (Ram

Murthy). He further admitted that he has not obtained any Receipt or

Undertaking from the Accused to show that he has paid an amount of

Rs.4,50,000/- to the Accused. He has handed over the Paying Slips to the concerned police, but he has not handed over the Bank Statement.

25. PW4 who clearly admitted that he studied up to 10th Class. PW1 & 2 stated to him that they are working in Railway Department at

Dornakal, Warangal District. In the year 2013, PW1 & PW2 were residing at Lallapet. He further admitted that he has not handed over any documents i.e. Aadhar Card, Educational Certificates to the

Accused, when they met for the first time, he further stated that he has not obtained any Receipt from the Accused at the time of payment of Rs.2 Lakhs. Only once, he has visited the PS Lallaguda He further admitted that he has stated to the Police that he has paid an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs to the PW2. He has not verified the Pay slips of PW1 &

PW2. He do not know about the hand loan of Rs.7,50,000/- obtained by the PW2 from the Accused. He further submitted that he has stated to the Police that in the month of Dec 2013, the Accused asked him to come to Secretariat that he will hand over the Offer Letter, at that time, himself, PW1 & PW2 went to the Secretariat, there, he has shown the Offer Letter to him, but he did not handed over the same, but on 17 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 perusal of the same, the contents were not found in the statement. He has not written any RRB Exam. He further stated that the PW1 & PW2 and Accused did not informed to him that in which cadre they are providing the jobs. He further stated that he has not lodged any complaint in Warangal District. He did not enquired whether the

Accused is working in the Railway Department or not. He know the process of Recruitment in the Railway Department. Further he has denied the suggestions given by the counsel for accused.

26. PW5 who clearly admitted that she is the sister failed the

Intermediate, PW2 is also studied up to Intermediate He further admitted that he came to know about the alleged cheating through the

Pw.1, but he never met the accused. He further stated that PW1 informed him as her husband (Pw2) obtained hand loan amount of

Rs.7,50,000/- from the accused and he executed the promissory note and agreement (Ex.D1 and Ex.D.2). He further admitted that on the date of lodging this complaint the PW1 and PW2 were resided at

Malkajigiri. He further stated that he do not know the bank transaction details of and came before this court and PW1 and the accused. He do not know the facts of this case.

27. PW6 who clearly admitted that he is having acquaintance with

LW13, at the time of Ganesha Chathurthi, he used to visit the PS for permission of installation of Ganesha Statue. He further admitted that the Police drafted Ex.P2, thereafter they have obtained his signatures.

He further stated that he do not know the exact facts of this Case.

18 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017

28. PW7 who clearly admitted that Basing on the request of the PS

Lallaguda, we have furnished the above documents. On verification of the record, the said request letter is not available. He further admitted that the Accused is having A/c at SBH, Subedari Branch. There is some of the bank transactions of the Accused occurred in our branch, but the documents not filed before this Court. He further stated that the concerned Police did not asked us to provide the Credit Vouchers. As per our internal rules, they can furnished the documents to the Police,

ED, CID, Income Tax Officials or any authorized Govt. Agency, even though the said person is not having any account in our branch. He do not know the transaction of the Accused. He is not aware about the transaction in between the Complainant and the Accused. He further stated that none of his higher authorities have given Permission to depose the evidence on behalf of the Ch.Vishweshwar. He further stated that during the year 2012-2016, the Vishweshwar is the Branch

Manager of the Warangal, he never worked in their branch at Tarnaka.

As per the instructions of the Police Department, he came to this Court to depose the evidence on behalf of Ch.Vishweshwar, Warangal Branch.

29. PW8 who clearly admitted that he has not examined one Pusala

Raghu through him the Accused was introduced to the PW1. He further admitted that he has not examined the owner i.e. H.No.12- 1-508/92/A/D at Shanthi Nagar, Lallapet, Secunderabad. He further admitted that he has not disclosed the educational qualifications of

PW1 & PW2. He further stated that he has not mentioned the educational qualifications of PW3 & PW4 (LW3 & LW4). He has not 19 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 collected the Originals of Counterfoils to show that the PW1 and PW2 are deposited the amount in the account of Accused. He further stated that he has not addressed a letter to the Indian Railway Cartridge

Services who used to appoint the Outsourcing Employees to attend in

AC Coaches. He further admitted that he has not mentioned in his charge sheet that he has addressed a letter tot he SBH Warangal,

Subedarai Branch. He further admitted that he has made any request to the Concerned Bank Authorities to freeze the Account of the

Accused. He further admitted that he has not mentioned in his charge sheet that how much amount was credited into the account of the

Accused. He further stated that he has not recorded the Confession

Statement of the Accused. He has not sent the alleged Appointment

Letters issued by the Railway Authorities to the FSL. He further admitted that he has not revealed in the Charge sheet that where the alleged Appointment Letters was prepared. He do not know whether the PW1 & PW2 were executed the Agreement, dated: 20-09-2014 stating that they are ready to return the hand loan amount of

Rs.7,50,000/- within a period of Two Years with 1% interest (ExD.3 &

ExD.4). Further he has denied the suggestions given by the counsel

for accused.

30. PW9 who clearly admitted that he has never visited the Police

Station to verify the genunity of the appointment letters. He further admitted that he has not conducted any external or internal veracity of the document. He further admitted that he cannot say who has prepared the fake appointment letters. He further stated that basing on 20 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 the requisition filed by the PS Lallaguda, he has verified the genunity of the certificates and he has issued the Letter, dated: 22-06-2017. He further stated that he has not sent the appointment letters to the FSL to know the genunity.

31. In order to prove the dishonest intention of the accused who cheated the PW1 and PW2 on pretext of providing the jobs in Railway

Department for which the prosecution herein examined PW1 to PW9 basing on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. the prosecution has to prove to false representation made by the accused to the PW1 and PW2, basing on that they were acted upon it. Subsequently the accused herein fails to fulfil his promise which is dishonest intention for which the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. As per the contention of the prosecution is that they have transferred an

Rs.3 Lakhs on different occasions, as accused promised to provide the jobs in Railway Department and their contention is that some of the amount was transferred by way of cash and personally handed over to the accused substantiate the same to the Investigation officer who has collected the bank statements of the accused.

32. The contention of the counsel for accused is that PW1 and PW2 who has obtained hand loan amount from the accused for an amount of Rs.7 Lakhs in order to avoid the same they filed the present case they filed a case by making false allegation. PW1 and PW2 who clearly admitted the execution of Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 about obtaining of hand loan amount from the accused and further submitted that the concerned 21 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 police who could not examine the person who introduced the accused to the PW1 and PW2 ie., Raghu and more over as on the date of filing the complaint herein PW1 and PW2 were not residing at Lalapet as this court is not having Jurisdiction to entertain the matter. As PW1 who clearly admitted that at the time of lodging this complaint they were resided at Malkajgiri, further the counsel for accused submitted that

PW7 is not authorized person to depost the evidence because LW9 Ch.

Visheshwar Rao who worked as a Branch Manager of SBH, Subedari

Branch. But PW7 is the manager of SBI Bank, Tarnaka branch his evidence is cannot be considered as he is not the authorized person to depose the evidence. He further submitted that Investigation officer did not send the alleged appointment letters to the FSL to prove the case of prosecution about fabrication. There is no documentary proof is collected to show that where the said letters were prepared. The prosecution has fails to prove the guilf of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence praying this Hon’ble court to acquit the accused.

33. As per the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 which clearly reveals that they have paid the amount to the accused ie., Rs.3 Lakhs to the accused, but there is no documentary proof is collected by the

Investigation Agency about transfer to the amount to him. They themselves admitted that no documents is filed to show that they have paid an amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs to the account of the accused. Further

PW1 and PW2 who clearly admitted the execution of Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 22 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 as well as they have admitted the signatures on agreement dated 20- 09-2014, but the PW1 and PW2 who has denied the contents of the documents eventhough the counsel for accused who confronted the

Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 for which there is no rebuttal evidence adduced by the prosecution to disprove the version of defence. By considering the

Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 which prima facie reveals that there is no monetary transaction in between PW1 and accused, further which reveals that they have converted the same into the criminal in nature without any material evidence, there is no evidence reveals that accused promised to provide the jobs in railway.

34. The prosecution who could not collect any documents about monetary transaction in between PW1 and PW2 and accused, further the investigation officer did not examine and recorded the statement of the person by name who introduced the accused to the PW1. As per the testimony of PW3 which is clear that he has deposited the amount of Rs.22,000/- in the account of the Ramu (PW2), as per the version of

PW3 which is clear that PW1 and PW2 who are working in the Railway

Department they further promised that the accused has provide the jobs to them in the said department.

35. On careful scrutiny of testimonies of PW3 and PW4 who clearly admitted that they have transferred the amount to the PW2, PW.1 and

PW.2 have informed to them, that they are working in the railway

Department for which it is clear that PW1 and PW2 promised to provide the jobs to the PW3 and PW4 stating that they are working in the 23 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017

Railway Department, but the circumstantial witnesses who has not seen the appointment letters of PW1 and PW2. As per the testimony of

PW1 and PW2 who clearly admitted that PW2 has obtained the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- from the accused, they have executed the promissory note ie., Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, but the investigation officer do not know the bank transaction details of PW1 and Accused, as on the date of lodging complaint they have resided at Malkajgiri at the request of PW1 he came to this court to depose his evidence.

36. In the present case on hand, the prosecution agency did not elicit the dishonest intention of the accused towards the PW1 and PW2 to cheat them. On careful scrutiny of testimonies of PW1 to PW5 which prima-facie reveals PW1 and PW2 informed to PW4 and PW5 that they are working in the Railway Department, they will provide the jobs with the help of the accused, the accused himself arranged the jobs to them, but the prosecution witnesses did not see the appointment letters of PW1 and PW2 and further there is no defence adduced by the prosecution to disprove the contents of Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. Eventhough the PW8 who has collected the bank statement of the accused, but no documentary proof is filed to show that PW1 and PW2 were transferred an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the account of the accused. Towards providing jobs. The prosecution is relying on the testimonies of PW7 who is the branch manager of Tarnaka, but his testimony is discarded because there is no transaction took place at Tarnaka branch as the accused is having account in the Warangal Branch, the Investigating 24 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 officer who collected the document from Wrangal Branch, the prosecuiton has produced the Branch Manager of Hyderabad, Branch not from SBH Subedari Branch. The prosecution is relying on the evidence of testimony of PW9 who has furnished his opinion regarding the appointment letters which is marked as Ex.P3, but the said letters was not sent to the FSL to prove the Genunity of the documents.

Further PW9 who could not conduct the confession cum seizure of the accused herein to prove the collection of fake appointment letters and none of the witnesses testified whether alleged fake appointment letters was prepared by the accused.

37. The prosecution agency could not collect the documentary prove about the monitory transactions in between PW1, PW2 and accused.

The prosecution agency who could not denied the version of defence about jurisdiction of this court. The prosecution agency fails to disprove the contents of Ex.D. and Ex.D2. There is no evidence reveals the dishonest intention of accused. Further the prosecution fails to produce the evidence accused promised to provide the jobs to the PW1 and

PW2. This could observed the deminor of witness during the course of cross examination, which clearly reveals that there is no credibility of testimonies of PW1 and PW2. As such this could has not considered the testimonies of PW1 and PW2. The prosecution agency did not send the documents i.e., fake appointment letters to FSL, the investigating

Officer did not obtained the specimen signtures of the persons who has signed on the same. The testimonies of PW3 and PW4 are 25 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017 inconsistency with the testimonies of PW1 and PW2. As the prosecution has fials to prove the allegations against the accused.

38. Hence in view of the above discussion the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of Accused persons for the offence under Section 420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.

39 . In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Code of criminal procedure. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as per

Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20 th day of April, 2024).

//Sd/-//

XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 T. Aravindha is the Complainant. - NIL -

PW2 Ram Murthy is the Eye witness.

PW3 Rama Krishna is the Eye witness.

PW4 N. Srinivas is the Eye witness.

PW5 Sridhar is the Circumstantial witness.

PW6 Mahesh Kumar is the panch witness.

PW7 is the Vishweshwar is the Bank Manager.

PW8 is the Veera Babu is the SI of Police who has filed a Chargesheet.

26 of 26 CC.No.1088 of 2017

PW9 is the Deevan Reddy is the Sr.DPO who issued the genunity certificate.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the Complaint.

Ex.P2 is the CDF along with rough sketch.

Ex.P3 is the concerned bank issued a reply to the PS Lallaguda on 05-12- 2016 by enclosing the copies of voter ID, ration card, and Photograph of P.Santosh Kumar.

Ex.P4 is the letter addressed to SI of police Lallaguda on 24-11-2106 by enlcosing the statement of account of the accused, Letter dated 24-11-2016, along with bank statement.

Ex.P5 is the FIR.

Ex.P6 is the CDF along with rough sketch.

Ex.P7 is the Genunity certificate dated 22-06-2017.

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1 is the Original Promisory note.

Ex.D2 is the Original Promissory Note, dated: 20-09-2014 is confronted to the witness, he denied the contents of the document, but he admitted the signature on the Promissory Note.

Ex.D3 to Ex.D5 are the signatures on the Original Agreement, which was executed on Non-Judicial Stamp Paper (Notarized Document) in which, PW2 has executed the Agreement stating that he has borrowed an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- from the Accused, the said Agreement was confronted to the witness, but he has denied the entire contents of the document, but he admitted his signature on the document as well as Aadhar Card, which was enclosed with the document.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

-NIL-- NIL -

//Sd/-//

XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

//True Copy//

XXII ACMM, Secunderabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

 CITY CIVIL COURT; HYDERABAD

Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2016 Present: Smt. M Kalpana, B.A.,LL.B. VII Junior Civil Judge

OS No. 1967 of 2015

Between: 1.S. Ramulu, S/o. Late S. Anjaiah, Aged about 68 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 8­4­382/1, Premnagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad

2. S. Srinivas, S/o. Late Anjaiah, Aged about 50 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 8­4­382/4/3,

Premnagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad... Plaintiffs

And

Salla Prem kumar, S/o. Late S. Krishna, aged about 36 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 8­4­394/11 to 13, Anitha Complex, 2nd floor, Laxmi Nivas (H.No. 8­4­394/11/1, 

Erragadda 'x' Road, Hyderabad­18... Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 2­ 5­2016 in the presence of Sri M. Basith, Advocate for Plaintiffs and of Sri N. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the Defendant and this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T 

This is a suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 R/W Section 26 of 

CPC seeking Specific Performance and Perpetual Injunction.

2.The brief averments of the Plaint contents is that the Plaintiffs 

No. 1 & 2 are brothers. Defendant is the Son of S. Krishna who is the brother of Plaintiffs who died in the year 2012. During the life time of the father of the Defendant a Suit for Partition was filed ie., vide OS No. 670 of 1993 by the Plaintiffs, S. Krishna and S. Sathyamma and the Sister of the 2 OS No. 1967 of 2015

Plaintiff on the file of the Hon'ble II Addl. Judge, City Civil Courts, 

Hyderabad. The said Suit was decreed with compromise, as per the said compromise Decree dt: 23­10­1997, the Cellar portion, House bearing no. 

8­4­394/11, 12, 13, Anitha Complex situated at Prem Nagar, Erragadda fell to the share of S. Sathyamma, who is the mother of the Plaintiffs and grand mother of this Defendant, and ground floor portion bearing no. 8­4­ 394/11/A to F fell to the share of Plaintiff No. 1, and first floor portion belongs to the share of Plaintiff No. 2 ie, bearing no. 8­4­394/11/G to H, and second floor portion fell to the share of father of this Defendant ie, bearing no. 8­4­394/11/G/H and also along with some other properties. As per the Compromise Decree clause (5), the roof rights of second floor in the said complex bearing no. 8­4­394/11, 12, 13 shall be shared equally by the 

Plaintiffs and father of the Defendant. In the said roof rights of second floor, the mother and sister are not having any right and the Sister relinquished her rights by receiving the amount. At the time of passing the said Decree no roof was laid on the second floor, the premises of the said house fell to the share of the Defendant's father and common water tank was lying on the second floor. Subsequently, when the father of the Defendant has laid roof over the 1st floor, the common cement water tank was lying on the 

Second floor terrace with equal expenses of the Plaintiffs and the father of the Defendant on the South­West Corner. The same fell to the share of 

Plaintiff No. 1 as per the said MOU. Subsequently, to avoid the future multiplicity of terms the Plaintiffs and father of the Defendant entered into the MOU dt: 20­6­2008. As per the MOU the Plaintiffs and father of the 3 OS No. 1967 of 2015

Defendant had partitioned the roof rights of the second floor ie, terrace of 

Second floor in the house bearing no. 8­4­394/11, 12, 13. As per the MOU the front side part towards one side fell to the share of the father of the 

Defendant, the middle part which is called as Plaint B Schedule Property, fell to the share of Plaintiff No. 2. As per the MOU there were three equal parts. Each part comprising 30” X 40” and back side part towards western side herein after called as Plaint A schedule Property fell to the share of 

Plaintiff No. 1. As per the said clause each party can make construction in their respective parts in second floor terrace after leaving the space for common passage ie., 90” X 9”, in the ground floor, first floor and second floor of the said complex. 

3.It is further submitted that the common water tank which is lying on the 2nd floor in the south west corner in the portion/part allotted to the Plaintiff No. 1 and the said common water tank is not being used for the last 5 yrs by any of the parties. Both the parties are using their own small motors and filling their own drums on their respective floors and the same is kept idle becoming dirty and unclean and filled with waste materials and lizard and the same is causing health hazards to the inmates of the complex, for that the Plaintiff No. 1 is willing to make construction in his portion on which the common water tank is lying as per the clause no. 4 of 

Memorandum of Understanding. 

4.The contention of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff and father of the Defendant entered into a compromise decree on 23­10­1997 as per the 

Compromise Decree, both parties were allotted their respective shares. 

4 OS No. 1967 of 2015

Subsequently, in the year 2008 they entered into MOU and the Plaintiffs are relying on the MOU and claiming their right as per clause 4 of the said 

MOU. The main dispute is with regard to the parties is that the second floor terrace rights where the common water is existing, now the Plaintiffs intend to demolish the existing water tank and they intended to construct new water tank and the Plaintiffs are seeking Specific Performance of the 

Contract, basing on the MOU dt: 20­6­2008 and directing the Defendant to perform his part of contract. For that the Plaintiff issued a Legal Notice dt: 

20­7­2015, to perform the part of the contract of the Defendant. As per the 

Compromise Decree, and Plaintiffs and the father of the Defendant, mother and sisters, got their shares as per the MOU. As per the said compromise 

Decree dt: 23­10­1997, the Cellar portion, House bearing no. 8­4­394/11, 12, 13, Anitha Complex situated at Prem Nagar, Erragadda fell to the share of S. Sathyamma, who is the mother of the Plaintiffs and grand mother of this Defendant, and ground floor portion bearing no. 8­4­394/11/A to F fell to the share of Plaintiff No. 1, and first floor portion belongs to the share of 

Plaintiff No. 2 ie, bearing no. 8­4­394/11/G to H, and second floor portion fell to the share of father of this Defendant ie, bearing no. 8­4­394/11/G/H and also along with some other properties. As per the Compromise Decree clause (5), the roof rights of second floor in the said complex bearing no. 8­ 4­394/11, 12, 13 shall be shared equally by the Plaintiffs and father of the 

Defendant. In the said roof rights of second floor, the mother and sister are not having any right over the same and the Sister relinquished her rights by receiving the amount. As per page no. 6, clause no. 5 of the Compromise 5 OS No. 1967 of 2015

Decree, “That since the second floor of the Item no. 4 of the Plaint 'A' 

Schedule property which is under construction fell to the share of the 

Plaintiff. The roof rights of the second floor shall be shared by the 

Plaintiff and Defendants 2 to 3 equally, and the Defendants no. 1 and 4 

shall not have any rights whatsoever'' and as per clause no. 4 of MOU, 

“That since the item no. 4 of the Plaint 'A' Schedule property fell to the 

share of the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3 in floor wise, all of them 

have agreed to enjoy the amenities in common like stair cases, corridors 

and 9 feet wide common passage in Ground floor, well, bore­well and 

motor, sump and over­head tanks, and shall be responsible for the 

payment of Electricity charges equally by Plaintiffs and Defendants No.2 

& 3 and the Plaintiff shall be responsible for the payment of charges 

after the expenditure incurred for the purpose of maintenance shall be 

borne by the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3 proportionately”. As per both the clauses, it is clear that Plaintiffs and father of the Defendant is having agreed to enjoy the amenities if any like stair case, corridors and 9 ft vide common passage in ground floor, well, borewell, motor sumps, over head tanks, is common for beneficiaries. Now the Suit is filed for claiming the rights of the Plaintiffs as per MOU dt: 20­6­2008 and also seeking 

Perpetual Injunction, against the Defendant for interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaint A and B Schedule Properties for installation of separate water tanks in the Plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Hence the present suit.

5.Sri N. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate filed Vakalath on behalf of 6 OS No. 1967 of 2015 the Defendant and filed his detailed Written statement denying all the allegations mentioned in the Plaint. The Defendant is admitting about the relationship of both the parties and also admitting the Compromise Decree passed by the Hon'ble II Additional Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad dt: 

23­10­1997. It is further submitted that the entire building consisting of 8­ 4­394/11, 12 & 13 consisting of Cellar, ground floor, first floor and second floor. The Cellar portion fell to the share of Defendant's grand mother, now the same is under dispute. During the life time of the grand mother of this 

Defendant, the Plaintiffs illegally created a Gift Settlement Deed executed by S. Sathyamma, in favour of the Plaintiffs. Then, this Defendant and his 

Grand mother filed OS No. 137/2014 on the file of the Hon'ble XXV 

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad and the same is 

pending. In the above said Suit, the Interim Injunction was granted. 

Subsequently, the same was dismissed. Then these Defendant herein preferred a CMA No. 586/2014, and the same is pending before the Hon'ble 

High Court. During the pendency of the said Suit, the Grand mother of this 

Defendant died on 28­5­2015. It is further clear that the present dispute is about the common water tank on 2nd floor of terrace of the building. Even though Cellar, ground floor, first floor and second floor were partitioned, the terrace portion of the second floor was never partitioned by the parties and the same is under common usage by all the parties apart from the common amenities in the Cellar area (Terrace rights are common as per 

Memorandum of Understanding). 

6.It is further submitted that in OS No. 137/2014, the grand 7 OS No. 1967 of 2015 mother of this Defendant died after adducing her evidence on 28­5­2015 in the said Suit. This Memorandum of Understanding is marked as Ex A2. In the above Suit, these Plaintiffs are the Defendants, in the said Suit filed their Written Statement denying about the Memorandum of Understanding. 

Now the Plaintiffs are claiming their rights through the said Memorandum of Understanding setting aside the Compromise Decree passed by the 

Hon'ble II Additional Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in OS No. 

670/1993. It is further submitted that the Compromise Decree para no. 4 is admitted by this Defendant. Subsequently, the father of this Defendant died on 29­12­2012. The Clause 5 is in consonance with the clause 4. The roof rights are common in nature and amenities are meant for common usage but not for exclusive usage of any body. The present Suit is filed by the 

Plaintiffs with a malafide intention to disturb the common amenities during the pendency of the OS No. 137/2014, the Plaintiffs herein altered the entire nature of the property in the Cellar portion of the building and also disturbed all the common facilities ie, well, borewell and motor, sumps etc. 

Even though they have specifically stated before the Hon'ble High Court, by way of giving an undertaking that they have not been proposing any constructions over the Cellar area. As per the undertaking given before the 

Hon'ble High Court the Plaintiffs have been disturbing common amenities 

which cannot be permitted at this stage. The Defendant has specifically denied about the roof rights of second floor ie, terrace rights in house bearing no. 8­3­394/11, 12 & 13 into three equal parts. 

7.It is further submitted that the MOU dt: 20­6­2008 was never 8 OS No. 1967 of 2015 brought into existence and the said document was unregistered document and also it is contrary to Compromise Decree, dt: 23­10­1997. So far there is no Partition by metes and bounds and the same is being used as common amenity by all the tenants of the building. It is further denied that the 

Plaintiffs and father of this Defendant have partitioned roof rights of the second floor as denied. It is further submitted that the Plaintiffs played a fraud by obtaining the Gift Settlement Deed in their favour for the cellar portion and now the present Suit is filed with a view to dismantle the common over head tanks which is only the source of water for the Plaintiffs and this Defendant, to deprive the rights of this Defendant, the entire Cellar portion is always locked and not allowing this Defendant to utilise the water from the common well, borewell and sump. The objective of the 

Plaintiffs herein is to prevent this Defendant from using the common amenities like stair case, corridors and 9 ft vide common passage in ground floor and to stop usage of the common well, bore well and motor sump and over head tanks. The existing water tank has been used for the last 8 yrs and there is no problem till today. 

8.It is further submitted that without getting any permission from the Municipal authorities the Plaintiffs want to make construction on the terrace area. It is contrary to law, if the existing water tank is removed, all the tenants of this building including this Defendant will be put to hardship. 

The proposed construction is with a view to stop the water sources for this 

Defendant. The Plaintiff is not having any right to make any construction on the terrace area which was not partitioned by metes and bounds as on this 9 OS No. 1967 of 2015 day, and the Memorandum of Understanding was never kept open. The OS 

No. 137/2014, claiming the rights of this Defendant ie., 1/3rd share in the cellar portion and the contents of the Memorandum of Understanding and the subject matter before the Hon'ble XXV Additional Chief Judge, City 

Civil Courts, Hyderabad. The proceedings relating to the Memorandum of 

Understanding cannot be agitated before any other Court without deciding the rights of the parties in the above said Suit. The Defendant denied about the charges ie, Rs. 50,000/­ incurred for demolition of common water tank, shall be borne by all the parties. But the Plaintiffs have not right to disturb the common amenities as per the Compromise Decree. The Plaintiffs cannot claim under the Memorandum of Understanding beyond the terms of 

Compromise Decree. So far there was no representation took place as per the Memorandum of Understanding of clause 4. Hence, praying this Hon'ble 

Court to dismiss the Suit as the Suit itself is not maintainable. 

Basing on the pleading the following Issues are framed:

1. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for Specific Performance of the 

part of the Contract as per the MOU dt: 20­6­2008 prayed for?

2. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for Perpetual Injunction as prayed for ?

3. To what relief?

On behalf of the Plaintiffs, PW1 is examined and Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants DW1 is examined and Exhibits 

B1 to B7 were marked.

10 OS No. 1967 of 2015

Issue No. 1:

9.It is an admitted fact that the Plaintiffs and father of the 

Defendant are brothers and the Defendant is the son of S. Krishna. Earlier, there was a Partition Decree passed by the Hon'ble II Additional Judge, in 

OS No. 670/1993, dt: 23­10­1997 and both the parties agreed for the 

Compromise Decree and as per the said Decree, the Plaintiffs and father of the Defendant and S. Sathyamma, who is the mother allotted their respective shares. As per the Compromise Decree, clause 1, “That in 

pursuance of the said compromise the properties detailed in the 

schedule 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' (annexed herewith) and shown in the plans in 

respective colours fell to the shares of the plaintiff, and the Defendants 1 

to 3 respectively, and, accordingly, from this day onwards, each of them 

shall be entitled to exclusively own, possess and enjoy the properties 

allotted to the respective parties as absolute owners”, Clause 2. “That 

each of the parties by virtue of this Compromise shall be entitled to get 

their names mutated in the concerned records, and are also liable to pay 

the property taxes to the extent of their properties directly to the 

competent authorities, Clause 3. “ That each of the parties hereby agree 

and covenent that they shall not interfere in the peaceful possession and 

enjoyment of the properties allotted to other in any manner, 

whatsoever”. The Plaintiffs Sister, relinquished her rights after receiving her share by way of money. As per the Compromise Decree, the father of the Defendant was allotted the share pertaining to House No. 8­3­394/11, 12 & 13. At the time of passing of the Decree, the second floor was under 11 OS No. 1967 of 2015 construction. As per clause 4 and clause 5 of the Compromise Decree, there were common amenities to all the beneficiaries including the over head tank. In the present Suit, the main dispute is with regard to the demolition of the existing over head tank which is lying on the second floor terrace. 

The contention of the Plaintiff is that, as per the MOU dt: 20­6­2008, the terrace rights of second floor was partitioned as per para no. 2 of Plaint, the property was divided into Plaint A & B Schedule Properties. Now, the 

Plaintiffs intend to demolish the existing structure and they want to make the construction of new water tank. The contention of the Defendant is that the Defendant is admitting about the Memorandum of Understanding but so far the terrace rights of second floor is not at all partitioned, during the life time of the father of this Defendant. The Plaintiffs herein denied the contents of the Memorandum of Understanding before the Hon'ble XXV 

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in OS No. 137/2014, 

at the time of filing the Written Statements. Now, the Plaintiffs are claiming their rights basing on the said memorandum of understanding. 

10.The Plaintiffs filed the documents marked as Exhibits A1 to A4. 

The Exhibit A1 is undisputed by both the parties and Exhibit A2 also admitted, but the Defendant is denying the partition of the property basing on the said Memorandum of Understanding. As per the Ex A2, the Plaintiffs are contending that, to avoid the future complications, during the life time of the father of this Defendant, they entered into Memorandum of 

Understanding on 20­6­2008 and also stated that the terrace area was already Partitioned. Now, the Plaintiffs intend to demolish the existing 12 OS No. 1967 of 2015 structure and they want to make a construction of water tank in respect of their properties. The Counsel for the Defendant denied about the 

Memorandum of Understanding as the document is an unregistered document, it cannot be looked into. As per Sec. 17 of the Registration Act, the documents which are compulsorily Registrable document, without any immovable transaction is entered into between the parties as per Sec. 17 clause (1)(b) of Registration Act, the document must be compulsorily registrable one. But in the present case, the second party who is the father of the Defendant died in the year 2012, then the said defect of Registration cannot be cured. 

11.PW1 is examined on behalf of the Plaintiffs. PW1 is admitting the compromise decree in OS No. 670/1993. As per the Ex A1, page no. 10, para no. 4. PW1 is agreeing the clause 4 of the Compromise Decree and also admitting that parties agreed to use the over head tank commonly and also admitting that at the time of passing the Compromise Decree, there was a 

Cellar, ground floor and first floor and open terrace was existing. 

Subsequently, in the year 2005 or 2006 second floor was constructed overhead tank was shifted from first floor terrace to the second floor terrace. From 2006 onwards, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant are using the over head tank commonly. The PW1 further admitting that in the year 2015, he issued a Legal Notice dt: 20­7­2015 under Exhibit A3, PW1 said that from 2006 to 2013, the Plaintiffs and Defendant used the common water tank during the life time of father of this Defendant. The Plaintiffs have not issued any Notice to the father of the Defendant for demolition of 13 OS No. 1967 of 2015 water tank and to construct a new water tank. PW1 further admitting that 

OS No. 137/2014, was filed by the Defendant along with the grand mother 

and also Injunction Petition is filed, the same is dismissed. Subsequently, 

CMA was preferred by the Defendant herein vide CMA No. 586/2014 and the same is pending. Further he admitted that the earlier Counsel stated 

before the Hon'ble High Court that the Plaintiffs have not been constructing 

any cellar area. The said Suit OS No. 137/2014 is in dispute with regard to the Cellar area. Further he admitted that the Cellar area is in the possession of the Plaintiffs. 

12.The Plaintiffs are relying on the Exhibits A1 to A4, but he failed to establish the case that there is a specific contract in between the Plaintiffs and this Defendant and more over the Plaintiffs herein failed to establish the subsequent execution of this Exhibit A2, ie., Memorandum of 

Understanding dt: 20­6­2008. There was a partition about the second floor, terrace area. PW1 at the time of cross­examination, clearly admitted that during the life time of the father of this Defendant and since 2006­2013, the over head tank was used by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, the Plaintiff herein has not filed any document to establish that they Partitioned the property as per clause 4 of Memorandum of Understanding, during the life time of S.Krishna. 

13.In the contrary, the Defendant he himself is examined as DW1. 

In support of his case, Exhibits B1 to B7 were marked. The DW1 is clearly admitting about the Compromise Decree and also Memorandum of 

Understanding but he denied about the Partition of the terrace rights in 14 OS No. 1967 of 2015 between the parties. He clearly stated that so far there was no Partition took place in between the parties. Moreover, there is no specific contract in between him and Plaintiffs and also denied the Legal Notice issued by the 

Plaintiffs. DW1 further stated that he is having objection for construction of the common water tank and contended that there is no problem about the existing water tank. The Plaintiffs intentionally created this problem, the water tank which is existing on the second floor terrace is common for all the parties. The Plaintiffs herein with a malafide intention fabricated the 

Gift Deed obtained from S. Sathyamma who is the grand­mother of this 

Defendant. For that the grand­mother and the Defendant filed OS No. 

137/2014 for cancellation of the Registered Gift Deed executed by S. 

Sathyamma. As per Ex B1, the Defendant contended that the Plaintiffs denied about the execution of the Memorandum of Understanding. Now the 

Plaintiffs are claiming the rights as per the Memorandum of Understanding. 

As per Ex B4, before the Hon'ble Court, the Plaintiffs who are the 

Respondents in CMA No. 586/2014 in CMA MP. 855 of 2014 is given an undertaking that they are not been proposing any construction over the 

Cellar area. The said OS No. 137/2014 dispute is with regard to the Cellar area. When the Defendant taken the specific plea that there is no Partition took place in between the parties as per the Memorandum of 

Understanding, to deny the said fact, the Plaintiffs have not filed any re­ joinder and not filed any document to show that the terrace rights of second floor was already partitioned. 

14.The Plaintiff is claiming the Specific Performace of the Contract 15 OS No. 1967 of 2015 basing on the Memorandum of Understanding of clause 4, but the Plaintiffs herein utterly failed to establish about the existence of the contract in between the Plaintiffs and Defendant. Even though the Defendant is admitting the Memorandum of understanding and Compromise Decree, he contended that so far terrace rights of second floor is not at all Partitioned and the water tank is existing on Second floor and terrace is common for all the inmates of the owners of the said building. Intentionally, the Plaintiffs are not using the said water tank and removed the Electricity connection in the Cellar area.

15.The Plaintiff herein has to establish about the contract and also establish the fact that the terrace rights of second floor was already partitioned in between the parties. The Plaintiffs failed to establish about the existence of the contract and the said Memorandum of Understanding is entered in the year 2008. From the year 2008 to 2015 if any Partition took place or any dispute arose, the Plaintiffs can agitate their rights during the 

Limitation period. Even though, the Defendant is admitting about the existence of Memorandum of Understanding, that is not a Registrable document and moreover, the Limitation for seeking the Performance of any contract is 3 yrs. The Plaintiffs have not filed the present Suit within 3 yrs. 

No document or any other supporting evidence is not adduced by the 

Plaintiffs about existence of the contract in between both the parties and terrace rights are already partitioned. He failed to establish the Partition as per Memorandum of Understanding dt: 20­6­2008. Hence, the Issue No. 1 is answered against the Plaintiffs and in favour of the Defendant. 

16 OS No. 1967 of 2015

Issue No.2:

16.The Plaintiffs and the Defendant are clearly admitting the Ex 

A2, Memorandum of Understanding dt: 20­6­2008. As per clause 1, the second floor terrace rights are to be divided into three equal parts between the Plaintiffs and the father of the Defendant and also further the contents of clause 1 is that each party can make construction in their respective part in the third floor of the said Complex after leaving space for common passage as that of 90 x 9 inches common passage in the ground, first and second floors of the said Complex. As per the clause 1, after Partition of the property as per the Memorandum of Understanding, each party can make their construction, but no document is filed to see that from 2008 to till today all the parties made their construction in second floor terrace. During the life time of the father of this Defendant, no Notice was issued and also no new constructions were made by the Plaintiffs as per the Memorandum of Understanding, and the Plaintiffs failed to examine any of the inmates of the said complex that the water tank is not useful and it is necessary to demolish the existing water tank. 

17.When the Plaintiffs herein failed to establish about the existence of the contract in between both the parties. Moreover, as per the 

Memorandum of Understanding, no partition has taken place in between the parties even though the DW1 is objection for demolition of existing water tank. The Plaintiffs have to establish that the Plaint A & B Schedule 

Properties are exclusive properties of the Plaintiffs and they are having possession over the Plaint A & B Schedule Properties. The Plaintiffs failed to 17 OS No. 1967 of 2015 establish about the Prima facie that they are in the possession of the Plaint 

A & B Schedule of the properties. The Defendant contended that there is no 

Partition took place with regard to the terrace rights of Second floor, if the existing water tank is demolished, it will cause great hardship to the 

Defendant as well as the inmates of the entire building. The main contention of the Plaintiffs is that not to provide any water facilities to the 

Defendant. As per the Evidence of PW1, he clearly admitted that since, 2006­2013 all the parties partitioned the common water tank, during the life time of the father of this Defendant, and further admitted that the 

Plaintiffs have not issued any legal notice to the father of the Defendant for demolition of the said water tank to construct a new water tank. Hence, the 

Plaintiffs herein failed to establish the Prima facie that they have exclusive right over the property of Plaint A & B Schedule Property and more over they utterly failed to show that the water tank is not useful. Hence, the 

Issue No. 2 is answered against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant. 

Issue No. 3:

18. In the result, the Suit filed by the Plaintiffs is dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. 

Dictated to my Personal Assistant, typed by her, corrected 

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 3rd day of June, 2016.

VII Junior Civil Judge,

City Civil Court,Hyderabad.

18 OS No. 1967 of 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendant:

PW1: S. Ramulu DW1:SallaPrem Kumar

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiffs:

1. Ex A1 : is the Certified Copy of the Judgment and Decree passed in OS 

No. 670/1993, on the file of the Hon'ble II Addl. Judge, City 

Civil Courts, Hyderabad, dt: 23­10­1997.

2. Ex A2 : is the Original Memorandum of Understanding dt: 20­6­2008

3. Ex A3 : is the Office copy of the Legal Notice issued by the Plaintiffs in favour of the Defendant through their Counsel dt: 20­7­2015.

4. Ex A4 : is the Photographs total (12) in number along with CD

Documents marked on behalf of Defendant:

1. Ex B1 : is the Certified copy of the Written statement filed in O.S. 137 of 2014 on the file of XXV ACJ, CCC, Hyderabad by the S.Ramulu and Srinivas who are the plaintiffs in this case.

2. Ex B2 : is the Certified copy of the Judgment and decree passed in O.S. 1879/2000 by VIII JCJ, CCC,Hyderabad dt. 20­8­2002.

3. Ex B3 : is the Certified copy of the order passed in I.A. 263/2014 in O.S. 137/2014 by the XXV ACJ. CCC, Hyderabad. 18­2­2014.

4. Ex B4 : is the Certified Copy of the Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CMA MP. No. 55 of 2014 in CMA No. 586 of 2014 dt.25­7­2014.

5. Ex B5 : is the photographs (14) along with CD. 

6. Ex B6 : is the legal notice issue by Sri P.Damodar Reddy Advocate to the plaintiffs on the instructions of the father of defendant. dt. 28.11.2006.

7. Ex B7 : is the legal notice issued by the Sri P.Damodar Reddy, advocate to the Assistant Medical Officer on behalf of the father of defendant. dt. 1­4­2011.

VII Junior Civil Judge, 

City Civil Court,Hyderabad.

19 OS No. 1967 of 2015 20 OS No. 1967 of 2015 21 OS No. 1967 of 2015

 IN THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD

Dated this the 27 th day of June, 2016

Present: Smt. M.Kalpana,B.A,LLB.,

VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

OS No. 6 of 2014

Between:

1. Mohd. Ibrahim, S/o. Late Mohd. Ismail, Aged about 50 yrs, Occ: Business

2. Mohd. Ayub, S/o. Late Mohd. Ismail, Aged about 48 yrs, Occ: Business, Both Rep. By their G.P.A. Mohd. Ameenuddin, S/o. Late Mohd. Nawab Jani, Aged about 40 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 2­3­54/11/B/4,

Quadri Bagh, Amberpet, Hyderabad. ...Plaintiffs

A n d 

1. Anwar Shareef, S/o. Yousuf Shareef, Aged about 52 yrs, Occ: Business

2. Ibrahim Shareef @ Afsar, S/o. Yousuf Shareef, Aged about 48 yrs, Occ: Business

3. Zakir Shareef @ Khaiser, S/o. Yousuf Shareef, Aged about 46 yrs, Occ: Business,

4. Omer Shareef @ Mazher, S/o. Yousuf Shareef, Aged about 42 yrs, Occ: Business, All R/o. Portion H.No. 2­3­43/B, Quadri Bagh, Amberpet, Hyderabad. 

5. Mohd. Ahmed, S/o. Late Mohd. Ismail, Aged about 42 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 2­3­43/1, Quadri Bagh,

Amberpet, Hyderabad. ...Defendants

This Suit is coming before me on 4­5­2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri Devender Pershad Jaiswal, Advocate for Defendants No. 1 to 4, Sri A. Jayawant Raj, Advocate for Defendant No. 5 and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a Suit filed for Perpetual Injunction under Order VII Rule 1 & 2 r/w Sec. 26 CPC.

2.The brief averments of the Plaint contents is that the Plaintiffs are represented by GPA Mohd. Ameenuddin, stating that the Plaintiffs are absolute owners and possessor of land surrounded by compound wall along with gate admeasuring 512 sq yrds in Sy No. 354 situated at Quadri Baig, 

Amberpet, Hyderabad herein after called as Suit Schedule Property. The same was acquired by the Plaintiffs from their paternal uncle, Mohd. 

Yousuf, S/o. Mohd. Ibrahim by way of Memorandum of Gift Deed dt: 9­5­ 1996 and the said Mohd. Yousuf obtained the said property under the 

Settlement deed dt: 5­5­1996. It is further submitted that originally the said property land bearing Sy No. 354/1 B, 354/2/B, 355C situated at Quadri 

Bagh, Amberpet, Hyderabad, the same was purchased by the Plaintiffs father and Mohd. Yousuf who is paternal uncle of Plaintiffs under 

Registered Sale Deed, dt: 26­11­1954 from Mohd. Hassan Siddiqui, S/o. 

Mohd. Yousuf Siddiqui. It is further submitted that from the date of execution of the Gift in favour of Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs are in possession of the Suit Schedule Property as absolute owners without any interference from any body. It is further submitted that the Defendants who are the neighbours and without having any right, title or interest over the Suit 

Schedule Property, the Defendants are trying to grab the property of the 

Plaintiffs and interfered into the possession on 18­12­2013 and on 26­12­ 2013, the interference of the Defendants was resisted by the Plaintiffs with the assistance of the neighbours and their family members. Then the 

Plaintiffs approached the concerned police but they have not taken any action as the matter is civil in nature. Hence, the Plaintiffs filed the present 

Suit seeking Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants and other in respect of the Suit Schedule Property. 

3.Sri M/s. Devender Pershad Jaiswal, Advocate filed Vakalath on behalf of Defendants No. 1 to 4 and filed his detailed Written Statement. 

4.The Defendants No. 1 to 4 denied the allegations mentioned in the Plaint. The Defendants No. 1 to 4 denied that the Plaintiffs acquired the property through Mohd. Yousuf by way of Memorandum of Gift Deed dt: 9­ 5­1996. The Defendants No. 1 to 4 submitted that they are the absolute owners and possessors of House property bearing no. 2­3­43/B, admeasuring 840 sq yrds situated at Quadri Baig, Amberpet, Hyderabad. 

The same comes under the Sy No. 354/B and 354 and purchased from 

Mohd. Yousuf in the year 1990. The said property was comprising of a house and open land which was covered with the compound wall, from the date of purchase of the property, the Defendants no. 1 to 4 are in possession and enjoyment of the said property without any interference or obstruction from any body. 

5.It is further submitted that originally Mohd. Yousuf and his brother Mohd. Ismail have purchased certain lands in Sy No. 353/B, 345 and other survey numbers. Subsequently, they sold the said lands to various persons by making plots over the said land. After the death of Mohd. Ismail, his wife, sons and daughters executed the Registered GPA in favour of 

Mohd. Yousuf on 22­9­1986 vide document bearing no. 1456/1986 

dt: 22­9­1986. It is further submitted that the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 5 

are brothers and sons of Late Ismail. The Plaintiffs and Defendant No.5 executed GPA in favour of Mohd. Yousuf, being a GPA holder, the said 

Mohd. Yousuf sold the land admeasuring 840 sq yrds as Plot No. 3 to the 

Defendants no. 1 to 4 and they constructed a house bearing No. 2­3­43/B. It is further submitted that the Plaintiffs along with their brothers, mother and sisters arrived at a Settlement Deed dt: 25­6­1990 confirming that Mohd. 

Yousuf has power to sell and make arrangements for distribution of sale proceeds. 

6.It is further submitted that the Plaintiffs intending to grab the property of this Defendants No. 1 to 4 filed the present Suit. It is out of place to mention here that Defendants No. 1 to 4 filed the Suit for Perpetual 

Injunction in respect of the House No. 2­3­43/B, admeasuring 840 sq yrds on the file of the XXV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad vide 

OS No. 1894/2010. The said Suit is still pending. It is further submitted that 

the Plaintiffs and his brother Defendant No. 5 are harrassing this 

Defendants No. 1 to 4 and filing one case and other cases against this 

Defendants No. 1 to 4. It is further submitted that the Mohd. Yousuf has no property at all to Gift the same to the Plaintiffs, he has sold the entire property to various persons by making plots. The alleged Gift Deed is forged and fabricated created for the purpose of filing of this Suit. The Plaintiffs were never in possession of the Suit Schedule Property at any point of time, to grab the property of the Defendants No. 1 to 4 filed this present Suit.

7. It is further submitted that there is no cause of action for filing this Suit, the Plaintiffs have not come to this Court with clean hands. Hence, praying this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the Suit with exemplary costs. 

8.On behalf of Defendant No. 5 Sri A. Jayawanth Raj, Advocate filed Vakalath and filed his detailed Written Statement. Defendant No. 5 submits that the Suit Schedule Property is a vacant land covered with compound wall. The Suit Schedule Property is situated at western side property bearing no. 2­3­43/B, Quadri Baig, Amberpet, this Defendant No. 5 is no way concerned with the Suit Schedule Property. This Defendant No. 5 is concerned with House bearing no. 2­3­43/B, 328 sq yrds in Sy No. 354 situated at Quadri Baig, Amberpet, Hyderabad for that, the Defendant No. 5 already filed a Suit for Declaration of title and possession. Pertaining to Sy 

No. 354 to an extent of 328 sq yrds vide OS No. 331/2010 on the file of the 

Hon'ble XIII Addl. Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against 

Defendants No. 1 to 4 and the same is pending. The Defendant No. 5 is praying this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the Suit with exemplary costs. 

9.Defendant No. 5 who is the brother of Plaintiffs No. 1 & 2 did not come into the witness box even after giving several opportunities as the 

Counsel also did not turn up except filing of Written Statement there is no other role of Counsel for Defendant No. 5. Even after passing the conditional orders also the Counsel for Defendant No. 5 did not cross examined the witness nor submitted their arguments and not adduced their evidence. Hence, adverse inference has drawn against Defendant no. 5, as he is indirectly supporting the case of the Plaintiffs. As the Pleading of the 

Plaint the Plaintiff is claiming 512 sq yrds and Defendant No. 5 is claiming 328 sq yrds in sy no. 354 and total comes to 840 sq yrds. 

Basing on the Pleadings the following Issues were framed: 

1. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of Perpetual 

Injunction as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

On behalf of the Plaintiffs, GPA holder is examined as PW1 and 

Exhibits A1 to A4 and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked. On behalf of the 

Defendants DW1 is examined and Exhibits B3 to B22 were marked. (In the deposition documents were marked on behalf of Defendants, Exhibits B1 to 

B 18 were marked. At the time of arguments, it is noticed that Exhibits B1 & 

B2 were marked through PW1. Hence, corrections were made as per series.) 

10.Heard both Counsels and perused the entire documents.

Issue No. 1:

11.The case of the Plaintiffs is that their paternal uncle acquired the property by way of Settlement agreement dt: 5­5­1993. Mohd. Ismail and 

Mohd. Yousuf who is the father of the Plaintiff's and uncle respectively purchased the property from Hasan Siddiqui in the year 1954 by way of 

Registered Sale Deed document bearing no. 1996/1994 under Ex A3, in respect of Survey No's. 354/1 & 2 and 355, and he delivered the possession of the property to the vendees. After settlement deed dt: 5­5­1993, Mohd. 

Yousuf executed a Memorandum of Gift dt: 9­5­1996 in favour of the 

Plaintiffs no. 1 & 2, under Exhibit A1 from the date of execution of the Ex 

A1, the Plaintiffs no. 1 & 2 were in possession of the suit schedule property. 

12.The GPA holder was examined as PW1 and Plaintiffs no. 1 & 2 never entered into witness box and Plaintiffs have not chosen to examine any of the witnessess to establish their lawful possession in the suit schedule property. As per the contention of the Plaintiff is that they are in possession of the suit schedule property by way of Ex A1 except that document they have not filed any other document to show that they were in possession of the suit schedule property and Plaintiffs have not filed Settlement Deed dt: 

5­5­1993, it is fatal to the case of the Plaintiffs, to show that Mohd. Yousuf got the right in respect of the property of the Plaintiffs to execute Ex A1. At the time of cross examination the Counsel for the Defendant no. 1 to 4 confronted the GPA vide document bearing no. 1456/1986 to the PW1 and he admitted the same. It is admitted fact that the wife and children of 

Mohd. Ismail executed a GPA in favour of the Mohd. Yousuf in respect of the properties. Basing on that GPA documents, ie., Ex B1, Defendants no. 1 to 4 purchased the properties under notarized documents from Mohd. 

Yousuf.

13.PW1 further stated that he knows about the pendency of OS No. 

1894 of 2010 after filing of the Written Statement by the Defendants No. 1 to 4 in respect of House no. 2­3­43/B, admeasuring 840 sq yrds. He further admitted that Defendant No. 5 filed OS No. 331/2010 on the file of the XIII 

Addl. Chief Judge, after filing of OS No. 1894/2010 by Defendants no. 1 to 

4. PW1 further admitted that the Plaintiffs have not filed any document to show that they are in possession of the Suit Schedule Property further stated that the said Suit Schedule Property is an open land. The Plaintiffs have not filed any document to show that they are paying the property tax to the concerned department or whether there is mutation in respect of suit schedule property in their favour. 

14.PW1 further admitted that all the properties sold by Mohd. 

Ismail and Mohd. Yousuf and their legal heirs by way of Notarized documents and also admitting that the property bearing no. 2­3­43/C, 2­3­ 43/B/1 belongs to Mohd. Ismail and Mohd. Yousuf. PW1 who is the GPA holder clearly admitted that he is no way concerned with the property to house no. 2­3­43/C, admeasuring 840 sq yrds and admitted he is not the legal heir of Mohd. Ismail and Mohd. Yousuf. PW1 further admits that he is not the brother nor relative of the Plaintiffs and further admitting that the 

Plaintiffs have not filed any document to show that they are the possessors of the suit schedule property in respect of house no. 2­3­43/B, admeasuring 840 sq yrds. 

15.As per Ex A4 it is a tounch map. How far this document is relevant to the Plaintiffs to establish their possession PW1 as well as their 

Counsel has not stated how this documents is helpful to the case of 

Plaintiffs. Hence, Ex A4 is not considered. 

16.Except Ex A2 no other documents are helpful to the case of the 

Plaintiffs. The contention of the Plaintiffs is that the Suit Schedule Property is an open land covered with compound wall. When the Plaintiffs are saying that the Suit Schedule Property was covered with compound wall, it is a duty of the Plaintiffs to file the documents to show that when they were constructed the compound wall, whether it is with the permission of the authorities or not, and also no document is filed by the Plaintiffs in respect of the Open land, whether they are paying the property tax to the 

Government or not. 

17.As per Ex A1, it is clear that the Plaintiffs are acquired said property from their paternal uncle, Mohd. Yousuf by way of Memorandum of Gift Deed, dt: 9­5­1996, in that document, the recitals clearly speaks that their paternal uncle acquired the property under family settlement dt: 5­5­ 1993, but the Plaintiffs failed to file the said Settlement Deed dt: 5­5­1993 

before this Court to prove that Plaintiffs are having lawful possession and to 

establish that Mohd. Yousuf is having every right to execute the Ex A1 and also to look after the properties of the family of Plaintiffs and their mother. 

18.The contention of the Defendants No. 1 to 4 is that they purchased the property from Mohd. Yousuf under Notarized document in the year 1990. Subsequently, they obtained the permission and constructed their house, in respect of House No. 2­3­43/B from the date of purchasing of the property, Defendants no. 1 to 4 are residing in that property. The 

Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 5 in collusion by creating Ex A1, they intend to grab the property of this Defendants No. 1 to 4. The contention of the 

Defendants No. 1 to 4 is that there are other similar cases pending in respect of Sy No. 354. One is OS No. 750/2008 filed by the wife of Mohd. Yousuf against these Defendants. Subsequently, the said Suit was dismissed for default and the Defendants No. 1 to 4 already filed OS No. 1894/2010, for seeking the Perpetual Injunction in respect of the House No. 2­3­43/B, admeasuring 840 sq yrds, the said Suit is pending on the file of Hon'ble XXV 

Junior Civil Judge. 

19.The Defendant No. 2 is examined as DW1, he clearly admitting that he has not filed the document to show that he purchased the property from Mohd. Yousuf. The said document is Notarized document and also admitting that he has not filed the document in respect of Sy No. 354, admeasuring 840 sq yrds. Further stated that he has not obtained any permission for construction of the building. Further admitting that as per Ex 

B20 certified copy of GPA there is no mention about the Sy No. 354. The 

Defendants are also admitting that Settlement deed was executed on 25­6­ 1990, but the said document is also not filed before this Court. PW1 admitted that Mohammed Yousuf and Mohammed Ismail sold all the properties by way of Notarized documents. Hence, it is clear that the admitted facts are need not be proved. 

20.The Defendants No. 1 to 4 are claiming that Sy No. 354, admeasuring 840 sq yrds, they purchased from Mohd. Yousuf by way of 

Notarized document and as per Exhibits B3 to B24, the Defendants No. 1 to 4 are paying property tax since 1990 in respect of house no. 2­3­43/B, 

Electricity Bills of the year 2002 to 2010 stands in the name of Anwar 

Shariff and also filed the Telephone bills and receipt of water charges to the concerned authorities stand in the name of Mohd. Anwar Sharif, and also filed Aadhar cards of Defendants showing that they are in possession of 2­3­ 43/B. At the time of cross­examination the Counsel for the Plaintiffs posed a question that the GPA document bearing no. 1456/1986, there is no mention about the Sy No. 354. The same was admitted by the Defendant but it is always burden on the Plaintiffs to establish their case, to show the lawful possession in respect of Suit Schedule Property. The Plaintiffs cannot rely on the weakness of Defendants, they have to stand on their own.

21.Except Ex A3 the Plaintiffs have not filed any other document to establish that from the date of execution of Ex A1, they are in possession of the Suit Schedule Property and also the Plaintiffs have not filed the family 

Settlement deed dt: 5­5­1993 before this Court to establish that Mohd. 

Yousuf acquired the property through that document and to establish that 

Mohd. Yousuf having every right to execute Memorandum of Gift Deed. 

22.The Counsel for Defendants No. 1 to 4 raised an objection at the time of marking of Ex A1, stating that under Mohammaden Law once the 

Gift is executed in written form, it requires Registration but Exhibit A1 is not Registered document. As per the decision reported in 

“Hafeeza Bibi & others 

V.

Shaikh Farid (dead) by L.R.s & Others”, AIR 2011 SC 1695, the position is well settled which is stated and restated time and again that the three essentials of the Gift under Mohammaden Law. (i) Declaration of the Gift by the donor, (ii) Acceptance of the Gift by the donee (iii) delivery of possession. As per the Mohammaden law three essential requisites must be fulfilled. The form is immaterial. If all the three essential requisites are satisfied constituting the valid Gift, the transaction of a Gift would not be rendered invalid because it has been written on a plain peace of paper. The distinction that if a written deed of Gift recites the form of prior Gift then such deed is not required to be registered but when the writing is comtemporaneous with the making of the Gift it must be registered as inappropriate and does not seem to us to be in confirmity with the rule of 

Gifts in Mohammaden law. 

23.As per the above decision, in Mohammaden law, the three essential conditions must be required. The objection raised by the Counsel for the Defendants no. 1 to 4 cannot be taken into consideration and 

Exhibits A1 is accepted. Except Exhibits A1 and A3, the Plaintiffs have not filed in other document that they are in possession of the property and moreover, the Plaintiffs are relying on the family Settlement Deed dt: 5­5­ 1993. As per the recitals of the Ex A1, it clearly shows that Mohammed 

Yousuf acquired the property, by way of family agreement dt: 5­5­1993, but it is not filed by the Plaintiffs before this Court. The non filing of the 

Settlement Deed is fatal to the case of the Plaintiffs. Hence, the Prima facie is not established by the Plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. The burden is always on the Plaintiffs to prove that they are in possession of the Suit Schedule Property. During the cross­ examination, the PW1 clearly admitted that the Plaintiffs have not filed any document to show that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the Suit Schedule 

Property and also admitted that he has not filed the family Settlement Deed 

dt: 5­5­1993 before this Court. The Plaintiffs herein not filed any supporting 

document to establish about the flow of acquiring the property of Mohd. 

Yousuf and also not filed the other relevant document to establish that they are in possession of the Suit Schedule Property since 1996. The Plaintiffs herein utterly failed to establish that they are in lawful possession in respect of the Suit Schedule Property. 

24.The Counsel for Defendants No. 1 to 4 relying on the decision reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441(1) as per Sec. 114 of Indian Evidence Act, the Court has to take adverse inference when the party to the Suit is not entering into witness box, the pleadings set by him is not correct. 

25.In the present Suit, the Plaintiffs No. 1 & 2 they did not enter into the witness box at the time of cross­examination by the Counsel for 

Defendants No. 1 to 4, only the GPA has appeared and faced the cross­ examination. Even though Rule 32 petition is allowed it is in respect of pursuing the matter, at the time of cross­examination of PW1 clearly stated that he is not the relative nor he is the brother of the Plaintiffs. 

26.As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Vidhyadhar, Appellant

V.

Mankikrao and another, Respondents, AIR 1999 SC 1441(1).

As per Para No's. 15 & 16 it is clear that “Where a party to the 

Suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the 

Privy Council beginning from the decision in, “Sardar Gurbaksha Singh 

Vs.Gurdial Singh, AIR 1927 PC 230”. It is further stated that if a party abstains from entering into the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. As per Sec. 114 of Evidence Act, against a party who does not enter into witness box, adverse inference has to be drawn. 

27.In the present Suit also the Plaintiffs have not come into the witness box and also not faced the cross­examination of Defendants No. 1 to 

4. Hence, it is clear that when the party to the Suit does not enter into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, presumption would arise that case set up by him is not correct. 

28.The Plaintiff has to establish their case to show that from the date of acquiring the property by way of Memorandum of Gift Deed under 

Ex A1 since 1996, they are in continuous possession of the Suit Schedule 

Property. The Plaintiff has to establish the lawful possession being a donee, he has to show about the flow of title of the donor. In the present case, the 

Plaintiff has not filed the documents to establish their lawful possession in respect of the petition schedule property.

29.In the case on hand, the Plaintiffs herein utterly failed to establish their lawful possession in respect of the Suit Schedule Property, the Plaintiffs are not entitled any relief of Perpetual Injunction. Hence, the 

Issue No. 1 is answered against the Plaintiffs.

Issue No. 2: 

30.In the result, the Suit filed by the Plaintiffs is dismissed. 

However, the parties shall bear their own costs. 

Dictation given to my P.A., typed by her corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27th day of June, 2016.

Sd/­

VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD. APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: Witnesses examined: 

PW1: Mohd. Ameenuddin DW1:Mohd. Ibrahim Shareef @ Afsar

Documents marked for Plaintiffs: 

1. Ex A1 : is the Memorandum of Gift Deed dt: 9­5­1996 along with translation copy (subject to objection).

2. Ex A2 : is the death certificate of Mohd. Yousuf dt: 23­6­1997.

3. Ex A3 : is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed in Urdu doc no. 1996/1954 along with translation, dt: 3­12­1954.

4. Ex A4 : is the Certified Copy of tounch map issued by Survey and Land

Records.

5. Ex B1 : is the Certified true copy of Notice issued by the Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad dt: 10­8­1990 issued by the 3rd 

ARC cum XV JCJ, marked as Ex A3 in OS No. 1894/2010.

6. Ex B2 : Photograph. (1) in number

Documents marked for Defendants: 

1. Ex B3: is the Certified true copy issued by the 3rd ARC cum XV JCJ marked the Electricity bill dt: 8­4­2003 marked as Ex A4 in OS 

No. 1894/2010.

2. Ex B4 : is the Certified true copy issued by the 3rd ARC cum XV JCJ marked the Electricity bill dt: 6­3­2010 marked as Ex A6 in OS 

No. 1894/2010.

3. Ex B5 : is the Certified true copy issued by the 3rd ARC cum XV JCJ marked the Electricity bill dt: 10­4­2009 marked as Ex A7 in OS 

No. 1894/2010.

4. Ex B6:is the Certified true copy issued by the 3rd ARC cum XV JCJ marked the Telephone bill dt: 11­7­2001 marked as Ex A8 in OS 

No. 1894/2010.

5. Ex B7: is the Certified true copy issued by the 3rd ARC cum XV JCJ marked the Telephone bill payment receipt dt: 10­12­2001 marked as Ex A9 in OS No. 1894/2010.

6. Ex B8 : is the Certified true copy issued by the 3rd ARC cum XV JCJ marked the payment receipt HMWS bill dt: 4­1­2009 marked as 

Ex A10 in OS No. 1894/2010.

7. Ex B9 :is the Certified true copy issued by the 3rd ARC cum XV JCJ marked the payment receipt HMWS bill dt: 15­3­2007 marked as 

Ex A11 in OS No. 1894/2010.

8. Ex B10 : is the original photographs total no. 10 with CD

9. Ex B11 : is the original electricity bill total no. 9, pertaining to the year 2013.

10. Ex B12 : is the original electricity bill total no.10, pertaining to the year 2014.

11. Ex B13:is the original electricity bill total no.10, pertaining to the year 2015.

12. Ex B14 : is the original Aadhar Card of Defendant No. 2

13. Ex B15 : is the waterworks department bills total in number 5, pertaining to the year 2013.

14. Ex B16 :is the waterworks department bills total in number 6, pertaining to the year 2014.

15. Ex B17 :is the waterworks department bills total in number 4, pertaining to the year 2015.

16. Ex B18 : is the certified copy of the GPA document bearing no. 

1456/1986 executed by the Plaintiffs herein and others executed in favour of Mohd. Yousuf.

17. Ex B19 : is the certified copy of Plaint in OS No. 750 of 2008 on the file of XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

18. Ex B20 : is the Certified Copy of the Written Statement of Defendant 

No. 1 in OS No. 750/2008 on the file of the XIX Junior Civil 

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

19. Ex B21 : is the Certified copy of the Judgment passed in OS No. 

750/2008, dt: 18­8­2010 by the X JCJ, FAC XXII JCJ

20. Ex B22 : is the Certified Copy of the Order passed in IA No. 314/2009 in OS No. 750/2008 by the XIX JCJ, CCC, Hyderabad 

dt: 8­10­ 2009.

Sd/­

VII JR. CIVIL JUDGE.

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

1 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SECUNDERABAD

PRESENT: Smt M.Kalpana, XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

Dated this the 23 rd day of April, 2024

CALENDAR CASE NO.979 OF 2023

Between:

The State through the Sub Inspector of Police

P.S. Ramgopalpet..... Complainant

AND

Gadepaka Mahesh @ Saidulu S/o. G. Laxman Aged 35 years, Occ: Private Employee.

R/o.Footpath. ... Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt J.Bhargavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Smt. Lakshmi, Learned Counsel for Accused upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Ramgopalpet Police Station had filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.36/2023 for an offence punishable under Section 420, 379, 75 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet in brief as follows:

LW1 Venkat Rao has lodged a complaint on 03.03.2023 stating that on 28-02-2023 at around 06:00PM on his Auto Trolly Bearing No.

AP39TQ5309 along with his brother in law Vallam Chetti Venkat Rao 2 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023 coming from Prakasam to Hyderabad, LB Nagar, NTR Market,

Madanapet and Mirayala Mandi Market along with Curry Tree Load

After unloading the Load at above mentioned place waiting for return order at LB Nagar, NTR Market. Meantime a phone call received from

Unknown No. 8885999344 stating that to transfer the Medicine Load at

KIMS Hospital, Minister road to Ongole RIMS Hospital. He spoke about

Fare charges and Fixed the order. On 01-03-2023 at around 10:30hrs they went to Minister road, KIMS Hospital. Then he took him to inside

KIMS Hospital for bring Bills and Made him to Sit at Canteen and he went inside. After Sometime he came and said that his phone pay limit is completed and asked him to give his phone to Pay amount and he will return in Cash and took his phone and went off, he waited for long time he didn't came back, so he went inside to Search for him, but in vain. So he went to his Brother-in-law and asked about that person and said about that his phone taken off by that Person. His Brother-in- law stated same thing happen with him that his mobile also took by him. They immediately dialed to their phones, which seem switch off.

Immediately he called to his brother about any phone call received from his phone. He replied that he received a call from his phone and stated that his vehicle got seized by RTA and they asked about amount and instructed him to send immediately. So he sent 30,000/- from

Phone Pay. The same thing happen to his sister Jayalaxmi and she too sent 27,000/- from Phone pay. Then he get to know that they were cheated by him. Hence he request the kind officer to take necessary 3 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023 action against the person who cheated his whole family as per law.

Hence the complaint.

3. Basing on the contents of the above report, During the course of investigation, LW13 has examined the LW1 & LW2 and recorded their detailed statement. LW13 along with crime staff visited the scene of offence, which is situated near KIMS Hospital, Minister Road,

Secunderabad, inspected the scene of offence and caused discrete inquires, but did not achieve any use full information about culprits,

Thereafter LW13 has secured two mediators LW7 & LW8 and recorded the scene of offence observation Panchanama and drew rough sketch of scene of offence in their presence and secured the presence of LW3 & LW4 and recorded the statements their statements. LW13 has collected bank statement of the LW1 and identified. transactions of

LW3 & LW4 and the same amount was withdrawal. LW13 has identified

LW5 & LW6 and caused enquiry and recorded their detail statements.

Later LW13 has collected the information of accused person details as

Gadepaka Mahesh. While the investigation was in progress, on 05.05.2023, LW11 has arrested the accused person Gadepaka Mahesh.

Further, LW13 has collected all relevant documents form LW11 and prayed to the Hon'ble court to issue Production Warrant against the accused person Gadepaka Mahesh. After completion of Investigation he has filed a Chargesheet.

4 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023

4.This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 420, 379, 75 IPC against the accused. On appearance of

Accused, copies of documents were supplied to him as required under

Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. Accused was examined Under section 239 Code of Criminal

Procedure. Charges have been framed against them for an offence punishable under section 420, 379, 75 IPC and the same was read over and explained to him in vernacular language, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution has cited as many as (15) witnesses, out of them, it could be examined (03) witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P4. PW1 C. Venkat Rao is the Complainant. PW2 V. Venkateshwarlu is the Circumstantial witness. PW3 V. Venkat Rao is the Eye witness.

PW4 Srinivas is the Circumstantial witness. PW5 U. Sai Kiran is the panch witness. PW6 K. Shashidhar is the SI of Police who has filed a

Chargesheet. Ex.P1 is the Complaint. Ex.P2 is the CDF along with rough sketch. Ex.P3 is the FIR. Ex.P4 is the Section Adding Memo.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same was read over and explained to him in vernacular 5 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023 language, for which, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned

Counsel for the accused.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable under Section 420, 379, and 75 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:

The Prosecution herein examined PW1 to PW7. The prosecution has given up the evidence of LW4, LW7, LW9, LW10. The concerned police filed a report that whereabouts of LW5 are not known to them.

11. The brief averments of the complaint contents is that :

LW1 Venkat Rao has lodged a complaint on 03.03.2023 stating that on 28-02-2023 at around 06:00PM on his Auto Trolly Bearing No.

AP39TQ5309 along with his brother in law Vallam Chetti Venkat Rao coming from Prakasam to Hyderabad, LB Nagar, NTR Market,

Madanapet and Mirayala Mandi Market along with Curry Tree Load

After unloading the Load at above mentioned place waiting for return order at LB Nagar, NTR Market. Meantime a phone call received from

Unknown No. 8885999344 stating that to transfer the Medicine Load at

KIMS Hospital, Minister road to Ongole RIMS Hospital. He spoke about

Fare charges and Fixed the order. On 01-03-2023 at around 10:30hrs they went to Minister road, KIMS Hospital. Then he took him to inside 6 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023

KIMS Hospital for bring Bills and Made him to Sit at Canteen and he went inside. After Sometime he came and said that his phone pay limit is completed and asked him to give his phone to Pay amount and he will return in Cash and took his phone and went off, he waited for long time he didn't came back, so he went inside to Search for him, but in vain. So he went to his Brother-in-law and asked about that person and said about that his phone taken off by that Person. His Brother-in- law stated same thing happen with him that his mobile also took by him. They immediately dialed to their phones, which seem switch off.

Immediately he called to his brother about any phone call received from his phone. He replied that he received a call from his phone and stated that his vehicle got seized by RTA and they asked about amount and instructed him to send immediately. So he sent 30,000/- from

Phone Pay. The same thing happen to his sister Jayalaxmi and she too sent 27,000/- from Phone pay. Then he get to know that they were cheated by him. Hence he request the kind officer to take necessary action against the person who cheated his whole family as per law.

Hence the complaint.

12.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PW1 to PW7, who are the complainant herein, Eye witness, panch witness, and police officials.

13.PW1 who is the complainant herein testified before this court that

On 28-02-2023, himself, LW2 came from Prakasham District on our 7 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023 business purpose in their Auto B.No.AP-39-TQ-5309, they have loaded the curry leaves in theri auto and transported the same from the

Prakasham District to the Hyderabad, they dumped the material at LB

Nagar, NTR Market, they waited for return transportation of the goods, at that time, he has received one Call from unknown for transportation of the medicines to the Prakasham District, the said person came to the LB Nagar market yard, he met him, they both went to the KIMS

Hospital, Minister Road to load the medicine for transportation. The said person took him to the Hospital and asked him to wait at

Reception, he came to him and asked his phone to call, as such, he has given his phone. Thereafter he did not turn up by his smart phone. His brother-in-law was waiting in their auto, when he came out of the hospital in order to meet LW2. He did not found the LW2 and their auto, when he took the phone of the by-passers to call to his brother- in-law, but his phone is switched off, the said unknown person took the mobiles of himself and LW2 and left. The said unknown person called to his elder brother-in-law and stated that our vehicle was caught hold by the RTA Authorities, in order to release the vehicle, he asked to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/-, for which, LW3 has transferred an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the account of LW2. Then he went to his native place, on the next day of the incident, he came to Hyderabad and lodged the Complaint.

8 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023

14. PW2 who testified before this court that On 28-02-2023, PW1,

LW2 came to the Hyderabad with load of Curry Leaves in Auto Trolley.

On 01-03-2023 at about 10.30 am, he has received a call from his brother LW2 Mobile Phone from one unknown person, stating that the auto was caught hold by the RTA Officials and asked him to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/-, by believing him, immediately he has transferred the same to the LW2 Mobile phone. At about 1.30 pm, he has received a call from LW2 with other mobile number and asked him whether he has transferred the amount to his mobile phone, as such, he has informed the same to the LW2. At that time his brother LW2 informed him that his mobile was lost. The said unknown person called to his cousin by name Jayalaxmi and asked her to transfer an amount of Rs.27,000/- for which, she has transferred the same to the mobile of

LW2. Later they came to know that one unknown person on pretext of transporting the medicines to the Prakasham District, he has took the mobiles of the PW1, LW2 and cheated them.

15. PW3 who testified before this court that On 28-02- 2023, he alongwith PW1 came to the Hyderabad with load of Curry Leaves in

Auto Trolley from Prakasham District on their business purpose in their

Auto B.No.AP-39- TQ-5309, we loaded the curry leaves in their auto and transported the same from the Prakasham District to the

Hyderabad, they dumped the material at LB Nagar, NTR Market, they waited for return transportation of the goods, at that time. PW.1 9 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023 received one Call from unknown person for transportation of the medicines to the Prakasham District, the said person came to the LB

Nagar market yard, he met him, we both went to the KIMS Hospital,

Minister Road to load the medicine for transportation. The said person took the PW1 to the Hospital and asked him to wait at Reception, he came to him and asked his phone to call, as such, he has given his phone, thereafter he did not turn up by his smart phone. he was waiting in their auto, when he came out of the hospital in order to meet him, he did not found him and their auto, when he took the phone of the by-passers to call to his brother-in-law, but his phone is switched off, the said unknown person took the mobiles of himself and

LW2 and left from that place. The said unknown person called to his elder PW2 and stated that our vehicle was caught hold by the RTA

Authorities, in order to release the vehicle, he asked to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/-, for which, LW.3 PW.2 transferred an amount of

Rs.30,000/- to my account.

16. PW4 who testified before this court that On 01-03-2023, one person came to his shop stating that his mother was admitted in

Gandhi Hospital, he is having need of money, he transferred an amount of Rs.37,000/- through Online by Scanning Mobile and the same was transferred to Bharath Pay, he took the commission of

Rs.500/-. In the month of May 2023, Police Ramgopalpet called him and enquired him about the facts of the case, he came to know 10 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023 through the Police that the said person was committed theft of Mobile, in which, he has done the online money transaction.

17. PW5 who testified before this court that On 03-03-2023, he was at KIMS Hospital as the Police Ramgopalpet asked us to act as a Panch

Witness for Scene Observation Panchanama with regard to the theft of the Property as the Accused cheated the Victim stating that the RTA

Officials caught hold the Vehicle of the Victim, for which he demanded the amount of Rs.50 to 60,000/-, for which, the Police conducted the

Scene Observation Panchanama at KIMS Hospital, he has accepted to act as a Panch Witness. The Police drafted the Rough Sketch Map in his presence. He can say the boundaries at the scene of offence i.e. Right side Ranigunj Road, Left side Towards PS Ramgopalpet, Opp Shops and Minister road, Back side DV Colony are situated. After completion of CDF and Rough Sketch, after explaining the contents of the same.

18. PW6 who testified before this court that On 03-03-2023, LW1 has lodged the complaint. The CD File was entrusted him for further investigation and he has verified the same which is proper lines. Later he took up the investigation, during the course of the investigation he has recorded the statements of the LW1 & LW2 at PS. Thereafter he alongwith his Staff visited the scene of offence situated at KIMS

Hospital, Minister Road, Secunderabad, he has secured the presence of

LW7 & LW8 and conducted Scene of offence Observation Panchanama and drafted rough Sketch Map in their presence. Later, he has 11 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023 recorded the statement of LW3 & LW4 at PS. He has collected the Bank

Statement of LW1 and verified the transactions sent by LW3 & LW4 and also verified the withdrawals. He has caused enquiries with LW5 &

LW6 and recorded their details statements. He has made efforts to apprehend the Accused person. On 05-05-2023, he has received the information from LW11 who has apprehended the Accused in

Cr.NO.83/2023 of PS Mahankali and he was in judicial custody in the said crime. He has collected the documents from LW11 and filed a PT

Warrant for regularize the arrest of the accused in the present crime.

On 12-05-2023, the arrest of the accused is regularized in this Crime.

LW11 who has conducted the confession of Accused, in which the

Accused confessed about the commission of present crime. As per his confession, he spend the amount for his lavishness. As such, he has filed the Section Adding Memo by adding the section 75 of IPC. After completion of investigation he has filed a charge sheet against the

Accused for the offence U/sec. 379, 420 and 75 of IPC.

19. PW7 who testified before this court that On 05-05-2023, he has received Credible Information about the availability of the Accused at

Plaza X Roads, immediately. He proceeded to the spot and apprehended the Accused and brought him to the PS Mahankali, and conducted Confession cum Seizure Panchanama of the Accused at

Plaza X Roads, SP Road, Secunderabad in Cr.No.83/2023 for the offence u/S 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (II) (B) of NDPS Act by securing the presence of LW9 & LW10 and also Gazetted Officer i.e. SHO of PS 12 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023

Market. During the confession in the above crime, the Accused has confessed about the Commission of the Cr.No.36/2023 of PS

Ramgopalpet alongwith other Crimes of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh

States and also recovered the Property from the possession of the

Accused pertaining to the Cr.No.83/2023 of PS Mahankali and

Cr.No.82/2023 of PS Mahankali, for the offence U/S 379 & 420 of IPC.

Thereafter he has produced the Accused before the Hon'ble Court for judicial remand in XI ACMM Court, Secunderabad.

20. During the course of cross examination PW3 who clearly admitted that he has handed over the transaction of the amount to the concerned police. He denied that the Accused is no way concerned with the alleged offence, he has identified the Accused with the help of the

Concerned Police.

21. PW4 who clearly admitted that he has not handed over the documentary proof to the concerned police that he is having license to run the business. They used to record the transactions in Bharath Pay.

He has not handed over the said transaction copy to the concerned police.

22. PW6 who clearly admitted that complaint was lodged against the unknown offenders. He further stated that he has not submitted the call records of the LW1 to LW3 and Accused. He further admitted that

PW1 did not mentioned the Bank transaction details of LW3 & LW4 in his Complaint. He further admitted that he did not get any 13 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023 incriminating material at the scene of offence. He further admitted that he did not examine the Independent witnesses of scene of offence i.e.

KIMS Hospital and LB Nagar. He further admitted that he did not collect the CCTV Footage from the scene of offence. He further stated that LW3 & LW4 stated that they have received a call from unknown person, he further stated that LW3 & LW4 did not file any separate complaint about cheating. He further admitted that LW3, LW4, LW5 &

LW6 have not handed over their bank transactions to show that the amount was deducted from their accounts. He further admitted that he did not collect the CCTV Footage at Petrol Pump, MG Road as the alleged transaction took place. He further admitted that he did not collect any documentary proof to show that he has transfer the amount in the account of the Accused. He further admitted that LW1 to LW8 did not identified the Accused at the time of recording the statement.

He further denied the suggestions given by the counsel for accused.

23. PW7 who clearly admitted that at the time of apprehension of

Accused, he was going by walk. The confession was typed at Plaza, as they have carried the Mini Laptop and printer with them he has not secured the presence of LW9 & LW10, who are the stock witnesses to the concerned Police, they have falsely implicated the Accused as he is no way concerned with the alleged crimes mentioned in the Confession cum Seizure panchanama.

14 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023

24. On careful scrutiny of the testimony of prosecution witness, the prosecution has to prove that who dishonestly cheated the PW1 and family members by taking the amount of Rs.27,000/- who has committed theft of mobile for which the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PW1 to PW3 who are the family members as per the version of prosecution the accused possessing himself as a customer for engaging the auto trolley in order to transport the medicines from

KIMS Hospital to Ongole Hospital. By believing the version of the accused herein they have went to KIMS hospital, he took the mobile of

PW1 stating that his Phone pay account is blocked, in order to pay the amount to the concerned hospital authorities he took his mobile, thereafter he was absconding. Subsequently the said unknown person who called to the sister and brother of PW1 stating that the Auto trolley B.No. AP 39 TQ 5309 was caught hold by the RTA officials in order to pay the amount to the RTA he asked them to transfer the amount as per his instructions they have transferred the amount to the said person. Later they came to know that some unknown person has cheated them with dishonest intention. As per the record the case was registered against unknown offenders, further PW6 who did not examine the persons who were available in LB Nagar and KIMS

Hospital. He has not collected any CCTV footage on record to identify the persons who cheated the complainant herein.

15 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023

25. In the present case on hand, the PW6 did not filed any requisition for identification of the person who cheated the PW1 to PW3 basing on the testimonies of PW1 to PW3 which is admitted fact that the some unknown offender has cheated them, as per the testimony of PW7 who is the Inspector of Mahankali who has apprehended the accused and recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama in Cr.No.83/2023.

26. In order to prove the confession cum seizure of the accused the prosecution agency did not adduced any evidence of G. Ballesh(LW9),

Chandra Shekar (LW10) to prove that accused made a confession in their presence about the commission of offence in Cr.No.83/2023,

Cr.No.36/2023 this court has given ample opportunities to adduce the evidence of LW6, LW9, LW10 but they did not adduced their evidence for which the prosecution could not prove the seizure of the material objects and also fail to prove the allegations Leveled against the accused.

27. In order to prove the allegations against the accused under section 75 of IPC, there is no record reveals that accused previously convicted. PW6 could not file the conviction orders along with chargesheet in CC.No.901/2017, and 903/2017 on Hon’ble II ACMM,

Hyderabad. On careful scrutiny of testimonies of prosecution witnesses there is no material objects on record reveals that accused himself cheated the PW1 to PW3, there is no identification proceedings were initiated by the PW6. The Investigation agency did not collect any 16 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023 record about the previous conviction of the accused. Further the prosecution agency could not produce LW9 and LW10 in whose presence entire confession cum seizure panchanama was conducted by the PW7 and seized the property. But the prosecution could not establish the seizure itself which vitiate the entire case of prosecution, as no material evidence is record reveals that accused has cheated the

PW1 to PW3 and committed the property.

28 . In the present case on hand, the prosecution agency has to prove that, the accused is having dishonest intention since the date of transaction. Further as per testimonies of PW1 to PW3 which is corroborated with the contents of Ex.P1. By examining the PW1 to PW3.

The prosecution agency successfully proved that some unknown offender have committed this offence. By believing him they have transferred the amount, further there is no identification proceedings was initiated by the concerned investigation officer which is one of the lackna to the case of prosecution.

29. The prosecution has fails to prove the seizure of the property from his possession there is no material evidence on record reveals that accused himself cheated them. The prosecution agency who could not place the record reveals that accused has committed this offence.

30. Hence in view of the above discussion the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of Accused persons for the offence under Section 420, 379, 75 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.

17 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023 31 . In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 420, 379, 75 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Code of criminal procedure. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as per Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23 rd day of April, 2024).

//Sd/-//

XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 C. Venkat Rao is the Complainant. - NIL -

PW2 V. Venkateshwarlu is the Circumstantial witness.

PW3 V. Venkat Rao is the Eye witness.

PW4 I. Srinivas is the Circumstantial witness.

PW5 U. Sai Kiran is the panch witness.

PW6 K. Shashidhar is the SI of Police who has filed a Chargesheet.

PW7 K. Srinivasulu is the SI of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 is the Complaint. - NIL -

Ex.P2 is the CDF along with rough sketch.

Ex.P3 is the FIR.

Ex.P4 is the Section Adding Memo.

18 of 18 CC.No.979 of 2023

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

-NIL-- NIL -

//Sd/-//

XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.