M.Pavan Kumar

1

O.S.NO.287/2010

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM

PRESENT : Smt.V.BHAVANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Tuesday, the day 8 th of August 2017

O.S.287 of 2010

Between:

Mulaparthi Mariyamma, W/o Late Subbrao, age 60 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o Veeravallipalem, Ainavilli Mandal. 

..Plaintiff

And

Korapu Satyanarayana @ Satteyya, S/o Lacchayya, Age 45 years, Hindu, Coolie, R/o Veeravallipalem, Ainavilli Mandal. 

..Defendant

This suit coming on 09.06.2017 for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri.P.Radhakrishna, advocate for plaintiff and of Sri. A.V.S.Prasad, Advocate for

Defendant and in the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men and followers from interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for costs.

2]The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.0.10 cents house site in

R.S.No.81 of Veeravallipalem of Ayinavilli mandal. Originally the plaint schedule property belongs to the mother of plaintiff by name Gorre Sattemma. During the life time of plaintiffs mother - Gorre Sattemma , she executed a registered will in favour of the plaintiff on 03.06.1998. The said will is last will and testament of the Sattemma.

The said Sattemma died on 17.06.2000. After the death of plaintiff’s mother Sattemma, the will was acted upon by the plaintiff and the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and residing in the thatched house and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Subsequently, the plaintiff constructed a house with the help of AP Housing Corporation and paying 2

O.S.NO.287/2010

house taxes to the Panchayati of Veeravallipalem and enjoyed the schedule property peacefully. The plaintiff also got electrical connection and also paying electrical bills.

The plaintiff is a old lady without any male assistance. Taking taking advantage of her old age defendant is trying to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. On that the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice to the defendant on 20.04.2010 and again on 25.05.2010. The defendant received legal notice and kept quite. The defendant along with rowdy elements threatening the plaintiff to disposes her from the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff cannot resist the highhanded acts of the defendant. Hence, the suit.

3]The defendant filed written statement specifically denying the plaint allegations and further contending that Gorre Krishna Murthy, Adiyya and Samba Murthy of

Veeravallipalem are brothers and that Gorre Adiyya is father of the plaintiff and one

Ventapalli Sundaramma who is not having male issue. The plaint schedule property is ancestral property of the said Krishna Murthy and his brothers who enjoyed the same jointly before they orally partitioned the same. The three brothers enjoying the plaint schedule property jointly partitioned the same orally into three equal shares and each sharer got strip of property measuring 16 X 10 yards. In the said partition Krishna

Murthy got northern share, Adiyya got middle share and Samba Murthy got southern share. As per the said partition each each sharer enjoyed the properties with exclusively rights. The father of the plaintiff and Ventapalli Sundaramma i.e. Adiyya got middle share and enjoyed the same. While so enjoying , Adiyya died intestate leaving behind him his wife Sattemma, the plaintiff and Ventapalli Sundaramma as his next and nearest Class-I heirs. After the death of Adiyya his three heirs came into possession of the same and enjoyed the same with absolute rights by sharing coconut produce.

Subsequently, Sattemma also died intestate without making any arrangement with regard to her undivided 1/3rd share in Adiyya’s property. So, the plaintiff and her sister

Ventapalli Sundaramma after the death of their mother Sattemma enjoying the property of their father which devolved on them equally.

3

O.S.NO.287/2010

He further submits that there used to be a old house in southern share that fell to

Samba Murthy. Sambha Murthy had 2 daughters who are living with their families at their paternal places and after death of Samba Murthy his daughters allowed the family of Adiyya to live in the house of Sambha Murthy. Sambha Murthy’s daughters as they are living some other place gave their share of property to Ventapalli Sundaramma.

Malaka Appalamma who is daughter of Samba Murthy gave a letter on 28.05.2000 to the said Ventapalli Sundaramma stating that she handed over the property of her father to Ventapalli Sundaramma and that she was given right to enjoy the coconut trees in the said property. Since then, Ventapalli Sundaramma enjoyed the coconut trees in the property of Sambha Murthy and Gorre Krishna Murthy. Since then, the said Ventapalli

Sundaramma is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same and getting the coconuts plucked every month to the knowledge of all including the plaintiff and that the middle 1/3rd portion of of schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and her sister Ventapalli Sundaramma and there is a thatched shed in the said portion, which is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and Ventapalli

Sundaramma.

It is further submitted by the defendant that the mother of plaintiff and Ventapalli

Sundaramma i.e., Sattemma died in the year 2000 and that after her death the plaintiff and her sister Sundaramma enjoyed the property of their father jointly and the plaintiff did not claim exclusive rights over the property and did not state that her mother executed a registered will in her favour and Ventapalli Sundaramma participated in funerals of her mother and the plaintiff and the Ventapalli Sundaramma shared the expenses that were incurred for peforming ceremonies of their mother and Ventapalli

Sundaramma used to look after the welfare of her parents and they used to show much love and affection towards the said Ventapalli Sundaramma and that the alleged will

dated 03.06.1998 is not true and correct and it is created by the plaintiff with the

assistance of alleged attesters and the scribe and the said will is not a true and genuine one and the plaintiff might have impersonated some body before Sub Registrar and created the alleged will and that the alleged will is not acted upon and it did not see the 4

O.S.NO.287/2010

light of day till filing of the earlier suit by the plaintiff in O.S.No.264/2004 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram against her sister Ventapalli Sundaramma and

that prior to filing of the said suit the plaintiff did not claim rights under the said will and moreover, Sattemma is not having absolute rights to execute a will in respect of the plaint schedule property as Adiyya is not having absolute rights over entire plaint schedule property as Adiyya died intestate only only and the 1/3rd share of Adiyya devolved on Satemma and she could make arrangements or alienations only with regard to her 1/3rd undivided share but not to the entire property of Adiyya on that ground also the alleged will is not enforceable one and no rights will be accrued to the plaintiff.

It is further submitted by the defendant that previously the plaintiff with the same allegations of the plaint filed a suit in O.S.No.264/2004 on the file this court against her sister-Ventapalli Sundaramma claiming permanent injunction over the plaint schedule property, basing on the alleged registered will dated 03.06.1998 and the said suit was dismissed as per the decree and judgment dated 23.10.2006 and in the said suit this court clearly given a finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged will dated 03.06.1998 and further given finding that the plaintiff alone is not the absolute owner and her sister Ventapalli Sundaramma is having half share and that this court in

O.S.No.264/2004 held that as the plaintiff is not in possession of entire plaint schedule

property she is not entitled for permanent injunction and as as such the said suit was dismissed on merits, subsequently the plaintiff therein who is the present plaintiff preferred appeal in A.S.No.58/2006 and the said appeal was also dismissed on merits as per the decree dated 25.11.2008 and the plaintiff not preferred any second appeal and the said decree and findings in O.S.No.264/2004 became final, subsequently, the plaintiff and her sister Ventapalli Sundaramma amicably settled the dispute before elders and orally partitioned the schedule property equally during the year 2009 and in that partition the plaintiff got Ac.0.05 cents and her sister Ventapalli Sundaramma got

Ac.0.05 cents, while so, the said Ventapalli Sundaramma sold her share Ac.0.05 cents to the defendant and executed a registered sale deed dated 07.04.2010 since the date 5

O.S.NO.287/2010

of sale deed the defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the half share of the plaint schedule property and that the plaintiff suppressing all these facts filed the suit with false allegations and approached the court with unclean hands and as such she is not entitled for equitable relief of permanent injunction.

He further submitted that the plaintiff is not having title and exclusive possession over the entire schedule property and that the plaintiff and the Ventapalli Sundaramma are jointly enjoyed the property of Adiyya and they are co-shares till recently they used to share the proceeds from coconut trees in Adiyya’s property and orally partitioned the property into two equal shares and as purchaser of the share of Ventapalli Sundaramma the defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property purchased by him which is part of the plaint schedule property and as the earlier suit was dismissed and the claim of the plaintiff was negatived by this court in the earlier proceedings the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit and the present suit is not maintainable under the principal of resjudicata under section 11 of C.P.C. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

4]Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:-

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for an equitable relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

5]To substantiate the case, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1, one Saka

Krishna Murthy, , Korapu Krishna Murthy, Naraharisetti Sathibabu (VRO), Rayudu

Lakshmi Narasimha Setty (Panchayat Secretary) were examined as Pws 2 to 5 and

Exs. A.1 to A.9 and Ex.X.1 were marked on behalf of plaintiff. On behalf of the defendant, he himself got examined as DW.1 and one V.Peda Yesubabu as DW.2 and got marked Ex.B.1 during the evidence of PW.1.

6

O.S.NO.287/2010

6]ISSUE NO.1: It is a case of the plaintiff that, during life time of plaintiff’s mother, she executed a registered will in favour of the plaintiff on 03.06.1998, subsequently her mother died on 17.06.2000 and after her death, as per the will, she succeeded to the suit schedule property, since then, she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and paying taxes to the Grampanchayat and as well as paying electricity bills to the Electricity Department. The defendant having no right, title and possession over the schedule property, is trying to interfere with her possession taking advantage of her old age. She is not in a possession to resist the legal acts of the defendants without the aid of the court. In support of her contention, she filed her affidavit in chief before this court and it is nothing but reiteration of the plaint averments. In support of her contentions, the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A.1, Ex.A.4 to Ex.A.7 and Ex.X.1. Ex.A.1 is Certified copy of registered will dated 03.06.1998 executed by Gorre Sathamma, Ex.A.4 is Bunch of House tax receipts and demand notices (16 in number), Ex.A.5 is Xerox copy of Ration Card (Compared with original),

Ex.A.6 is Bunch of Electricity payment receipts (14 in number), Ex.A.7 is possession certificate, dated 18.02.2016 issued by VRO, veeravallipalem village. Ex.X.1 is Bunch of attested copies of House tax demand registers for the years 1997-98 to 2001 -2002, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2015-2016

During cross examination, PW.1 admitted that herself and Ventappli

Sundaramma are two daughters of her mother. Her mother died in the year 2000 and her father died in the year 1990. She admitted that their marriages were performed by their parents during the life time of her father. She admitted that she filed a suit in

O.S.264/2004 on the file of this court against her sister – Ventapali Sundaramma in

respect of schedule property and the same was dismissed by this court vide Judgment

dated 23.10.2006. She preferred an appeal in A.S.58/2006 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge Court, Amalapuram against the Judgment passed in O.S.234 of 2004 and the

same was transferred to Hon’ble II Addl.District court, Amalapuram and ultimately it was dismissed on 25.11.2008. She further conceded that Krishna Murthy and sambamurthy were the brothers of Gorre Adiyya. She further submitted that she did not file any 7

O.S.NO.287/2010

documents before this court to show that the schedule property belongs to her mother.

The schedule property is Ac.0.10 cents. Previously there used to be a old thatched house with mud walls in the schedule property. She denied the suggestion that

Sambamurthy used to reside on the southern side of the said thatched house. She also stated that Sambamurthy is having two daughters and they are residing at far places.

Krishna Murthy and Sambamurthy were not having any lands in their village. Initially the mud thatched house in the schedule property stood in the name of her father, subsequently, her name was mutated. She denied the suggestion that the original house situated in the schedule property was partitioned equally among her father,

Krishna Murthy and Sambamurthy, her father got middle portion, Northern portion fell to the share of Krishna murthy and Southern portion fell to the share of Sambamurthy.

She also denied that as Krishna murthy and Sambamurthy were not residing in the schedule house, they left their portions to her father and that the daughters of

Sambamurthy addressed a letter to her sister – Sundaramma on 28.05.2000 and handed over the coconut trees situated in the schedule property. She also denied that till the date of sale schedule property to the defendant, Sundaramma was in possession of schedule property including coconut trees and that her mother has no right to execute

Ex.A.1 in her favour and Ex.A.1 was created with the help of scribe and attestors. She also denied the suggestion that that Sundaramma sold the schedule property to the defendant under registered sale deed dated 07.04.2010 and since then he was in possession of Ac.0.05 cents out of schedule property. She also denied that by managing V.R.O., Veeravallipalem she obtained Ex.A.7 , though she was not in possession of entire schedule property. She also denied that Ex.A.1 is not a valid document and she cannot claim any right basing on Ex.A.1 as it was already decided in

O.s.264/2004 on the file of this court and that though she was defeated in O.S.264/2004

and A.S.58/2006, she again filed the present suit without any basis.

7]In support of her contention, the plaintiff got examined one Saka Krishna Murthy as PW.2. During the cross examination of Pw.2 admitted that, it is true that the plaintiff 8

O.S.NO.287/2010

filed a criminal case against Sundaramma, Venkatrao and others alleging that they bet her and that he deposed as a witness in the said criminal case and it was ended in acquittal. He deposed that he saw Ex.A.1 and the plaintiff obtained Ex.A.1 and the plaintiff did not attest on Ex.A.1 but he went to Register office at the request of the plaintiff. He know the father of the plaintiff- Adeyya. He do not know whether originally the property covered under Ex,.A.1 belongs to Adeyya or not. He do not know how

Sattemma succeded to the property covered under Ex.A.1 or not. Adiyya and his wife

Sathemma lived in their house. The house of Adeyya consists of two bed rooms during his life time. The marriage of plaintiff was performed at the time of childhood. Plaintiff resided with her husband in Pallamkurru. After the death of her husband, plaintiff came to Veeravallipalem. He did not see the documents of the schedule property. He do not know whether Sundaramma sold some part of her vacant site to defendant or not. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff was not in possession of entire Ac.0.10 cents of schedule property and the defendant is in possession of Ac.0.05 cents of schedule property and he is deposing false by receiving money from the plaintiff who is his relative.

8]The plaintiff also got examined one Korapu Krishna Murthy as PW.3 and he supported the version of PW.1 in all material aspects.

9]The evidence of PW.4 – V.R.O. is that Ex.A.7 was issued by the then V.R.O.

Mutyala Surya Rao. As per Ex.A.7 the total extent property is Ac.0.10 cents, out of which a thatched house is situated in Ac.0.02 cents and remaining Ac.0.08 cents is vacant site and it is in possession of plaintiff.

During his cross examination, he admitted that he cannot say whether Ex.A.7 was issued by Mutyala Surya Rao after conducting enquiry or not. Names of the title holders were not mentioned in their office records pertaining to Gramakantam site.

After receiving summons from the court, he has enquired about the schedule property.

One 3rd party is constructing a house opposite to the schedule property and he raised a temporary hut in the schedule property at the time of his enquiry. The house of the plaintiff is situated in Ac.0.02 cents of the schedule property on one side and the 9

O.S.NO.287/2010

remaining Ac.0.08 cents is vacant site. On enquiry he came to know that the plaintiff is having one sister. He do not know whether the schedule property belongs to plaintiff and her sister or not. Usually VRO has to conduct enquiry and submit his report to

M.R.O. and basing on report of V.R.O., M.R.O will issue possession certificate. There is no record in his office regarding the enquiry conducted by the then V.R.O. - M.Suryarao

before issuing Ex.A.1.

10]The evidence of PW.5 R.L.Narasimha Setty – Panchayat Secretary is that, he is working as Panchayat secretary , Veeravallipalem village. Ex.X.1 is bunch of attested copies of House tax demand registers for the years 1997-98 to 2001-2002, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2015-2016. The door numbers of house of the plaintiff as per the house tax demand register for the years 1997-1998 to 2001-2002 is 6-32. The door number of house of the plaintiff as per the House tax demand register for the years 2007-2008 is changed from 6-32 to 6-25. The door number of house of the plaintiff as per the House tax demand register for the years 2009-2010 is changed from 6-25 to 6-39. At present the door number of house of plaintiff is 6-39. Plaintiff is regularly paying house tax and residing in house bearing door number 6-39.

During his cross examination he deposed that the ownership details will not be entered in House tax demand register. The name of the persons who were in possession of the houses either owners or occupiers will be entered in house tax demand register. He did not verify house demand register pertaining to the years prior to 1997-1998 and he cannot say in whose name the house bearing door number 6-39 stands in the house tax demand register prior to 1997-1998. Since one year he is working as panchayat secretary. As per record he is deposing and he has no personal knowledge . Initially the name of elder member of family will be entered in the house tax demand register and in case of changes, the parties should submit their respective documents. He cannot say in which year the name of the plaintiff entered in house tax demand register. He cannot say the survey number and extent of the house property of the plaintiff.

10

O.S.NO.287/2010

11]It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff is not having title and exclusive possession over the entire schedule property. The plaintiff and her sister

V.Sundaramma are jointly enjoyed the property of Adiyya and they are co-sharers till recently they used to share the proceeds from coconut trees in Adiyya’s property and orally partitioned the property into two equal shares. As purchaser of the share of

Ventapalli Sundaramma he is in exclusive possession of the property purchased by him which is part of the plaint schedule property. Since the date of sale deed he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of house of the plaint schedule property i.e.,

Ac.0.05 cents . Infact, the plaintiff filed in O.S.264/2004 and the suit was dismissed and the came of the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit and the present suit is not maintainable under the principle of resjudicata. In support of his contention he himself was examined as DW.1 and he reiterated the contents of written statement.

During his cross examination he deposed that he do not know the contents of his chief examination affidavit. Plaintiff filed the suit in respect of Ac.0.05 cents of property.

Plaintiff filed the present suit questioning his sale deed. Plaintiff is residing in her house since 45 years. Plaintiff and her mother after the death of Adeyya used to reside in the thatched house with mud walls. He did not file any document before this court to show that he is in possession of schedule property. His name was not mutated in any revenue records in respect of schedule property. He denied the suggestion that he did not purchase schedule property from Sundaramma and he was never in possession of schedule property and he is deposing false. He do not know whether plaintiff filed private complaint against Gorre Venkatrao and others vide CCNo.171/2005 on the file of

AJFCM, Court, Amalapuram or not.

12]In support of his contention, the defendant got examined one V.Peda Yesubabu as DW.2. The evidence of DW.2 during his cross examination is that Plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant claiming the schedule property. He cannot say the total extent of schedule property. He did not mention in his chief examination affidavit 11

O.S.NO.287/2010

about letter given by Malaka Apalamma to Ventapalli Sundaramma. He do not know about the letter, dated 28.05.2000 given by Malaka Appalamma to Ventapalli

Sundaramma. Mother of plaintiff died about 7 years back. Ventapalli Sundaramma is residing with her husband in Kandulapalem. He was not called by Sathemma or

Sundaramma for execution of document. He do not know about the suit in

O.S.264/2004. He cannot say the date of Judgment in O.S.No.264 of 2004 , but he

came to know that the said suit was decred. Daughter of Gorre Venkatrao was given in marriage to the son of Ventapalli Sundaramma. Ventapalli Sundaramma was not in possession of any documents in respect of part of schedule property sold to the defendant, but after the dismissal of suit in O.S.264/2004, she sold the part of schedule property to the defendant. He did not attest on the registered sale deed, dated 07.04.2010. Since 20 or 25 years plaintiff is residing in the house portion situated in the schedule property. He denied the suggestion that by the time of death of Sathemma, the house situated in the schedule property is with mud walls. He deposed that after the death of Sathemma, plaintiff by obtaining loan from A.P. Housing corporation constructed new house in the place of old mud walls house on the Southern side of the schedule property. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff alone is in possession of entire Ac.0.10 cents of schedule property. He denied the suggestion that as plaintiff filed CC 171 of 2005 against him and others and as he was convicted in the said case, he is deposing false against the plaintiff.

13]On going through the rival contentions and basing on the entire evidence i.e. oral and documentary evidence available on record, the only question that arise in the present issue is, whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. In that regard, the plaintiff relied upon the evidence of PW.2 to 5 and as well as Ex.A.1 to A.9 and Ex.X.1. Ex.A.1 is certified copy of Registered Will dated 03.06.1998 executed by the mother of the plaintiff during her life time. Ex.A.7 is possession certificate, dated 18.02.2016 and Ex.A.4 is the Bunch of 12

O.S.NO.287/2010

House tax receipts, Ex.A.6 is Bunch of Electricity payment receipts in respect of suit schedule property standing in the name of the plaintiff. Though the defendant contended that the plaintiff is not in possession of entire schedule property and that she failed to got examined the attestor of the will dated 03.06.1998 to prove the will as required by law, in fact the suit is filed for injunction simplicitor. It is not necessary for the person claiming injunction to prove his title to the schedule property. It would suffice if he proves that he was in lawful possession of the schedule property and that his possession was invaded or threatened to be invaded by a person who has no title thereof. In the present case, though the defendant contended that he purchased the part of the schedule property from the sister of the plaintiff that is V.Sundaramma, the defendant did not file any documents before this court to show his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. No doubt as the present suit is filed by the plaintiff, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit by adducing appropriate oral and documentary evidence.

14]In the suit filed for permanent injunction, the burden is always upon plaintiff to prove her case and she cannot depend upon the latches or weakness of the defendant.

The plaintiff has to prove her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the filing of the suit. In the instant case the plaintiff has adduced the evidence of

PW.4 , V.R.O. , PW.5 Panchayat Secretary and as well as relied upon Ex.A.1, Ex.A.4 ,

Ex.A.6, Ex.A.7 and Ex.X.1 to show her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the filing of the suit. The plaintiff also adduced the evidence of independent witnesses to prove her possession over the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the defendant has not filed any scrap of paper to show his possession over the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not examine any of the attestors of Ex.A.1. But in suit for injunction the same cannot be made a ground to deny the right of the plaintiff when there is other evidence available on record showing that the plaintiff was in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

13

O.S.NO.287/2010

The plaintiff has filed possession certificate and other relevant documents to claim possession over the suit schedule property. Also the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property is admitted by defendant during his cross examination.

Admittedly, the sister of the plaintiff i.e., V.Sundaramma is residing with her husband at kandulapalem and also the said Sundaramma was not in possession of the documents in respect of part of the schedule property sold to the defendant. Further more, the defendant failed to examine the said V.Sundaramma on his behalf to prove his contentions. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

15]ISSUE NO 2: In view of the findings of Issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

16]In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant restraining the defendant and his men from ever interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court, on this the 8th day of August 2017.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: P.W1: Mulaparthi Mariyamma. P.W2: Saka Krishna Murthy. PW3: Korapu Krishna Murthy. PW4: Naraharisetti Sattibabu PW5: Rayudu Lakshmi Narasimha Setti.

For defendant:

14

O.S.NO.287/2010

D.W1: Korapu Satyanarayana @ Sattiyya D.W2: Vande Peda Yesubabu

Documents marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 : Certified copy of registered will, Dt: 03.06.1998 executed by Gorre Sathemma Ex.A2 : Office copy of Legal Notice dated 22.04.2010 Ex.A3 : Office copy of Legal Notice dated 25.05.2010. Ex.A4 : Bunch of house tax receipts and demand notices (16 in number) Ex A5 : Xerox copy of ration card (Compared with original). Ex A6 : Bunch of electricity payment receipts (14 in number) Ex A7 : Possession certificate dated 18.02.2016 issued by VRO, Veeravallipalem village. Ex A8 : Certified copy of judgment in CC.No.171/2005 on the file of AJFCM Court, Amalapuram. Ex A9 : Served postal acknowledgment dated 26.05.2010 for Ex.A.3.

Ex X1 : Bunch of attested copies of House tax demand registers for the years 1997-98 to 2001 -2002, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2015-2016

For Defendant : Ex B1 : Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.204/2014.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram

1 C.C.481/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AMALAPURAM. 

PRESENT:­ Sri M.Pavan Kumar, 

Judl. Magistrate of First Class 18th day of March, 2020

Calendar Case No.481 of 2016

Between: The State represented by The Sub­Inspector of Police, Inavilli Police Station.

... Complainant.

And

Saripalli Kasiviswanadha Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju Aged 30 years Caste Ksathriya, Magam village, Ainavilli

mandal....Accused 

This case is coming on today for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for Prosecution and Sri C.V.Suryanarayana, Advocate for accused upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :­

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Ainavilli Police Station filed charge­sheet against the accused in Cr.No.481/2016 of Ainavilli Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 324 IPC.

2.The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows :

The informant i.e LW.1 V Ramakrishna Raju is a resident of Magam village of Ainavilli mandal. Accused is the son in law of the informant who is also the resident of same village and mandal. There was some family disputes in between the accused and his wife (daughter of the informant) and that the daughter of the informant came to his house and staying with the informant. While so, on 17.09.2016 at about 8.00 a.m., the accused came with a stick and that attacked the informant while he was present at his house and due to the incident, the informant received severe bleeding injury towards left side of his head. Due to the 2 C.C.481/2016 injuries, the informant was shifted to the KIMS hospital Amalapuram by his neighbours and that basing on the complaint given by the informant, the Ainavilli police registered a case in Cr No. 126/2016 under section 324 IPC and that after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed accordingly.

3.The then court has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 324 IPC against the Accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents furnished to him in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused is examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge under

Section 324 IPC against the accused was framed which was read over and explained to him in Telugu under Section 240(2) Cr.P.C. After having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

P.W.1 to PW.6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and MO.1.

7.On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witness for which he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard .

9.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing 

the guilt of the accused for the offence 324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise ...

3 C.C.481/2016

10. POINT :

In this case the prosecution examined the informant as PW.1. According to prosecution he is the injured. He testified that in the year 2016 on one day while he was present at his house and while there was some dispute in between his daughter and his son in law being the accused, when he intervened into the matter, the accused grew wild against him and that beat him with stick on his left side of his head thereby he sustained bleeding injury. He added that the accused also beat him with the same stick over his left thigh. He further added that the

PW.2 to PW.4 rescued him and shifted him to the KIMS hospital Amalapuram.

Through him his complaint marked as Ex.P.1 and the prosecution also got marked the recovered material object i.e stick as MO.1. In his cross examination, it was elicited that the alleged incident took place on 17.09.2016 whereas the Ex.P.1 lodged on 28.09.2019. He admitted that his statement was not recorded by the police at the KIMS hospital, Amalapuram.

11.The PW.2 is the milk delivery boy in the house of PW.1. He testified that on one day when he went to the house of the PW.1, the accused came with a stick and that beat the PW.1 on his head thereby he sustained bleeding injury. He clarified that he do not know the disputes in between the accused and the PW.1.

He added that on raising the cries by the PW.1, the PW.3 rushed to the spot and shifted the PW.1 to the KIMS hospital Amalapuram. In his cross examination, he admitted that there were some family disputes in between the PW.1 daughter and accused family.

12.The PW.3 is the son of the PW.1 as such he sailed along with the PW.1 in all the material aspects. He added that at the time of the incident, he was present 4 C.C.481/2016 inside the house and on that on hearing the cries of the PW.1 and PW.2 , he came out of the house and came to know about the incident. 

13.The PW.4 is the adjacent neighbor to the PW.1. He corroborated the version of the PW.1 that on the date of the incident on 17.09.2016 while PW.1 sitting in the varanda, the accused being the son­in­law of PW.1 came to that place with stick and that beat the PW.1 on his head over left side region, thereby the Pw.1 sustained bleeding injury. On hearing the cries of PW.1, he found the accused and the PW.1 and that rescued the PW.1 from the hands of the accused.

14.The PW.5 is the medical officer who examined the pW.1 on 17.09.2016 and that found a laceration injury over the left paraital region of scalp and opined that the injury sustained by the PW.1 is of simple in nature. In his cross examination, the Medical officer clarified that in case if any MLC case is admitted in the hospital, the Management i.e KIMS Hospital (in this case) will intimate to the police.

15.The PW.6 is the then SI of Police Ainavilli who is the Investigating officer in this case. His evidence is chief is in tune with the records of the prosecution.

Through him the crucial records of the prosecution i.e the First Information report and the rough sketch marked as Ex,.P.3 and Ex.P.4. He added that on the date of the registering the FIR, he secured the presence of LW.6 Suribabu and LW.7

Narayana Swamy as mediators and that rushed to the scene of offence and that drafted a scene observation report marked as Ex.P.5 and that basing on the same, he seized one stick vide MO.1. His version is also that after receiving the wound certificate of PW.1 issued by PW.5 and that after completion of the investigation, 5 C.C.481/2016 he laid charge sheet. During the course of cross examination, the investigating officer categorically deposed that the alleged incident took place on 17.09.2016 whereas the PW.1 lodged a written complaint on 28.09.2016. He clarified that he did not receive any requisition from the KIMS hospital Amalapuram.

16.After analysis of evidence and marshalling of facts what emerges clear is that the PW.1 who according to prosecution is the injured is none other than the father­in­law to the accused. The record goes to show that there are some family disputes in between the PW.1’s daughter and the accused family. The testimony of the PW.1 is that on the date of the incident, when he was present at his house , the accused beat with a stick on his head left side so also on his left thigh as such the PW.1 sustained bleeding injury. Though the prosecution examined the PW.2 to PW.4 as the direct witnesses to the incident, their testimonies goes to show that on hearing the cries raised by the PW.1, the PW.2 and PW.3 rushed to the spot.

The evidence of the PW.4 is also that on hearing the cries of PW.1, he found the

PW.1 and the accused. Thus the evidence available on hand ranging from PW.2 to

PW.4 is not direct to the incident. However, even if the sole testimony of the injured being direct to the incident is taken into consideration, the version of the

PW.1 is that he sustained severe bleeding injury over his head as the accused beat the pW.1 with a stick over his head on the left side margin. For this, when perused the Medical evidence, the testimony of the Medical officer i.e PW.5 clearly shows that the injury sustained by the PW.1 is of simple in nature. When a person receives a severe bleeding head injury with a material object like stick in a sensitive area like Head, one cannot expect such simple a simple injury as projected by the Medical officer in his wound certificate vide Ex.P.2. This clearly shows the evidence of the PW.1 is nothing but exaggeration. Added to this, 6 C.C.481/2016 according to prosecution and according to the testimony of the investigating officer i.e PW.6, the Investigating officer secured the presence of the independent witnesses i.e LW.6 suribabu and LW.7 Narayana swamy who accompanied the police party to the scene of offence and that a scene observation report was drafted and that basing on the same, the material object i.e stick vide MO.1 was seized by the police. Here the point to be noted is that, the prosecution reported the death of the one of the independent witnesses i.e LW.6 M Suribabu and despite this the prosecution given up the evidence of another independent witness i.e LW.7 B Narayana swamy for the reasons best known to the prosecution. None examination of the independent witnesses by the prosecution leads to the failure of seizure of the material object vide MO.1 so also the scene observation report vide Ex.P.5 under which the MO.1 was seized by the police. Furthermore, when perused the testimony of the injured coupled with the testimony of the

Investigating officer, what emerges is that the alleged incident took place on 17.09.2016 whereas the PW.1 lodged a complaint on 28.09.2016. In this area also the prosecution miserably failed to explain such a unreasonable delay in lodging the complaint of the injured. The record also goes to show that after the alleged incident, the PW.1 was shifted by his neighbours to the KIMS hospital

Amalapuram. Though the learned counsel for the accused elicited that in case if any medical legal case came to the hospital, it is the duty of the management to inform about the case to the police in the jurisdiction and it is the regular practice for the police to approach the hospital record the statement of the injured. But in this case no such practice was adopted as the management of the KIMS hospital did not intimate to the police regarding the admission of PW.1 into the hospital though according to PW.1, he sustained severe bleeding head injury. The record is further clear that the investigating officer i.e., PW.6 did not went to KIMS 7 C.C.481/2016 hospital Amalapuram either to record the statement of the PW.1 or for recording of 161 statement of the injured. This creates a doubt on the story on the prosecution. Hence after agglomeration of evidence, the evidence available on record pertaining to the PW.1 alone is not inspiring the confidence of this court to proceed against the accused for the accusation leveled against him. Thus as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the

POINT is determined in favour of the accused. 

17.In the result, this court found the accused is not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 IPC, thereby he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment. The case property i.e Stick vide MO.1 received in CPR 37/2019 shall be destroyed after the appeal time. 

Typed to the dictation by the Stenographer grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2020

Sd/­ M.Pavan Kumar, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: V Rama krishna RajuNone

P.W.2 : K Venkata Rao

P.W.3 : Viswanadha Raju

P.W.4: D Siva

P.W.5: Dr V Narayana Raju

P.W.6: D Durga Sekhar Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Complaint of PW.1 dt 28.09.2016 

Ex.P.2 : wound certificate of PW.1 dt 04.10.2016 8 C.C.481/2016

Ex.P.3 : First Information report dt 17.09.2016 Cr No.126/2016 for the offence under section 324 IPC

Ex.P.4 : Rough sketch 

Ex.P.5: Scene observation reported dt: 28.09.2016

FOR DEFENCE:­­­­ NIL ­­­­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1 ­ Stick Sd/­ M.Pavan Kumar, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram.

// TRUE COPY //

J.F.C.M., AMALAPURAM.

9 C.C.481/2016

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari.

Calendar of cases tried by Sri M.Pavan Kumar, Judl. First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Date of Offence: 17.09.2016 Date of Report or Complaint: 28.09.2016 Date of Apprehension of accused : 28.02.2017 Date of Commencement of trial: 12.12.2019 Date of Close of trial: 26.02.2020 Date of sentence of Order: 18.03.2020

Explanation of delay and remarks : Due to non­production of Prosecution witnesses in time.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.481 of 2016 on the file of the Judl. First Class

Magistrate Court, Amalapuram.

Saripalli Kasiviswanadha Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju Aged 30 years Caste Ksathriya, Magam village, Ainavilli

mandal...Accused 

Offence: U/Sec. 324 IPC.

Plea of accused : Not guilty

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence : In the result, this court found the accused is not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 IPC, thereby he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment. The case property i.e Stick vide MO.1 received in CPR 37/2019 shall be destroyed after the appeal time. 

Sd/­ M.Pavan Kumar, Judl. First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Copies submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajahmahendravaram.

// TRUE COPY //

J.F.C.M., AMALAPURAM.

O.S.NO.6/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AMALAPURAM.

Present: Sri M. PAVAN KUMAR, 

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

16th day of March, 2020

O.S.6 of 2018

Between:

Kommireddi Rama Mohan S/o late Venkata Rao aged 36 years, Hindu, Labour worker, R/o Konkapalli , Nr.

..Plaintiff

Municipal High School, Amalapuram

And

Dunaboina Venkata Rao S/o Suranna, aged 61 years, retired employee, R./o 1­1­20/10, Ravula Cheruvu,

...Defendant

Amalapuram.

This suit coming today for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

Y.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.K.Sesha Rao, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1.This a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,60,000/­ due under the promissory note with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realization.

2.The brief averments in the plaint are:­

The plaintiff is a resident of Konkapalli village, Amalapuram Mandal. The defendant is a resident of Ravulacheruvu village of Amalapuram mandal of East

Godavari District. While so the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ for his family expenses and to discharge his sundry debts agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff

O.S.NO.6/2018

or to his order when ever demanded by the plaintiff and that the defendant got executed a promissory note on 25.06.2015 after receiving the loan amount. The plaintiff submits that the defendant being postponing to repay the debt amount on some pretext or other whenever demanded by the plaintiff and the defendant used to make vain promises without repaying the debt amount. The plaintiff further submits that as the defendant not giving response to his demand for the repayment of the debt amount, got issued a registered notice dated 04.12.2017 with a demand to repay the debt amount. The defendant gave a reply on 15.12.2017 with false allegations and on that the plaintiff is inclined to file the present suit. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments in plaint in toto. The sum and substance of the written statement goes to show that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time.

The contention of the defendant is that he do not know the plaintiff and added that the father of the plaintiff by name Venkata Rao maintained daily monthly chits and in that chit, the defendant is one of the member who participated in the auction, got the chit as highest bidder and that at that point , the father of the plaintiff obtained empty blank cheque and empty promissory note from the defendant as security to the chit transaction. The further contention of the defendant is that subsequent to the death of the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got filed the suit basing on the available documents in his custody and that the suit promissory note is not a genuine as it is a fabricated one. Hence the defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

O.S.NO.6/2018

4.Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the learned predecessor settled the following issues for trial ..

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount, as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

5.During the course of the trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A.4 were exhibited. On behalf of the plaintiff the PW2 and PW.3 were also examined. The defendant himself examined as DW.1 but no documents were exhibited on behalf of the defendant side.

6.Heard.

7.EVIDENCE : 

The plaintiff examined as PW1 and his evidence in chief is in tune with his plaint. Through him Ex.A1 to Ex.A.4 were exhibited. In his cross examination, he deposed that he got acquaintance with the defendant as he is his father colleague. He denied the suggestion that he obtained the blank promissory note from his father and that filled up the same and that filed the present suit. He further denied the suggestion that no money transaction taken place with the defendant as the defendant never borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from him.

8.The PW2 is one of the attestor to the Suit promissory note. He sailed along with the PW1 in all the material aspects in his evidence in chief. He clarified that

O.S.NO.6/2018

at the time of execution of the promissory note, he along with one T V

Satyanarayana acted as attestor were present apart from the PW1 and the defendant and further clarified that he attested the said promissory note as it is fully supported by consideration. During the course of the Cross examination, he deposed that he is working as Asst Professor in BVC Engineering college and added that he got acquaintance with PW.1 as brother of PW.1 is his colleague in the college. He deposed that the defendant is working in Amalapuram

Municipality as such he got also acquaintance with him. He categorically deposed that the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the PW.1 for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000 with 24% interest per annum. He clarified that he is one of the attestor to the suit document which was executed at Konkapalli at Amalapuram and added that one TV Satyanarayana acted as another attestor whereas one

Varaprasad scribed the document. It was elicited that the PW.1 gave the amount of Rs.1,00,000 to the defendant in denomination of thousand rupee notes. He denied the suggestion that no money transaction took place in between the defendant and the PW.1.

9.The PW.3 is the scribe who corroborated the version of the PW.1 and PW.2 in all the material aspects in his evidence in chief. During his cross examination, he also categorically deposed that on the date of execution of Ex.A.1, the PW.1 gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ to the defendant and clarified that he himself scribed the Ex.A.1 with PW.2 as one of the attestor and one TV Satyanarayana is another attestor. He further clarified that after receiving the amount of

Rs.1,00,000 from PW.1, the defendant signed in telugu on Ex.A.1. He also denied the suggestion that the defendant never borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the PW.1. 

O.S.NO.6/2018

10.The defendant examined as DW.1. His evidence in chief is in tune with in his written statement. In his cross examination he clarified that he retired from his service as a fitter man. He admitted his signature on Ex.A.1. He also clarified that he did not filed any document to show that there was a chit transaction in between the father of the PW.1 and himself. He denied the suggestion that he did not executed Ex.A.1 in favour of the PW.1 after receiving Rs.10,0000/­ from

PW.1. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing false in order to avoid the payment of amount to PW.1.

11.In re: Issue No. 1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

The plaintiff who examined as a PW1 categorically deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ after executing the Ex.A1

Promissory note in order to repay his sundry debts so also for his family necessities. The testimony of the PW2 goes to show that he acted as one of the attestor to the document along with one TV Satyanarayana and that corroborated the version of the PW1 by stating that the PW.3 being the scribe, scribed the document as the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ after executing the Ex.A1 in favour of the PW1. Though the PW.1 to PW3 were cross­examined by the learned counsel for the defendant, the evidence in chief of the PW1 coupled with the evidence of PW2 and PW.3 is not shaken. The testimony of

DW.1 goes to show that in the earlier instance originally there was a chit transaction in between himself and the father fo the plaintiff and that in that transaction, the father of the plaintiff obtained one blank promissory note and

O.S.NO.6/2018

cheque as a security for the chit transaction and that after the demise of the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff secured the promissory note and filed the present false suit. For this when perused the cross examination of the DW.1, he himself clarified that he did not filed any documents relating to the chit transaction in between himself and the father of the plaintiff. Hence the contention of the DW.1 cannot be countenanced. Added to the DW.1 clearly admitted his signature on

Ex.A.1 and further admitted that he himself executed the Ex.A.1 document. Thus, in view of the admission made by the DW.1 and that in view of the documents relied upon by the PW.1 and on perusal of the Ex.A.1, this court is of the considered opinion that the DW.1 himself executed the Ex.A.1 document in favour of the PW.1.

Thus in view of the discussion made supra, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff holding that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the part of the defendant.

12.In re:Issue No. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount, as prayed for ?

In view of the discussion made under issue No.1, the present issue is also answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 

13.In re: Issue No.3. To what relief ?

In view of the findings under Issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed for.

O.S.NO.6/2018

14.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/­ (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and with a future interest @ 6% p.a. on the principal amount i.e., Rs.1,00,000/­ from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to the Dictation by Stenographer Grade III, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 16th day of March, 2020.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

Appendix of evidence Witness examined For plaintiff P.W.1 : T Rama Mohan

P.W.2 : Tikkireddy Nagendra Kalkibabu

P.W.3 : Tumu Vara Prasad

For defendant: D.W.1 : D Venkata Rao

Documents marked For plaintiff: Ex.A.1 : Suit promissory note dt 25.6.2015 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A.2 : Office copy of registered legal notice dt 04.12.2017

Ex.A.3 : Acknowledgment from the defendant for Ex.A.2.

Ex.A.4 : Reply given by the defendant dt 15.12.2017

For defendant: – NIL –

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

O.S.NO.6/2018

Note: “The parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all exhibits which they wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order”.

O.S.NO.6/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AMALAPURAM.

Present: Sri M. PAVAN KUMAR, 

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

16th day of March, 2020

O.S.6 of 2018

Between:

Kommireddi Rama Mohan S/o late Venkata Rao aged 36 years, Hindu, Labour worker, R/o Konkapalli , Nr.

..Plaintiff

Municipal High School, Amalapuram

And

Dunaboina Venkata Rao S/o Suranna, aged 61 years, retired employee, R./o 1­1­20/10, Ravula Cheruvu,

...Defendant

Amalapuram.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money of Rs. 1,60,000/­ towards promissory note and for costs.

Suit presented on :03.01.2018filed on : 04.01.2018

Value of the suit:

Principal amount borrowed on 25.6.2015 is Rs.1,00,000­00

Interest thereon at 24% p.a. from 25.6.15 to 25.12.2017Rs.60,000­00 TotalRs.1,60,000­00

Court fee of Rs.4026/­ is paid under section 20, r/w Sch.I, Art 1{c} of APCF and

SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 25.6.2015 when the defendant borrowed amount and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and in all subsequent dates of demands made by the plaintiff and on 04.12.2017 when the plaintiff got issued legal notice and when the defendant received the said notice and he gave a reply with false allegations and the defendant did not pay any amount and at Konkapalli Amalapuram where the suit pronote transactions have been taken place and at Amalapuram where the defendant is residing which is within the jurisdiction of this court. 

O.S.NO.6/2018

This suit coming today for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

Y.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.K.Sesha Rao, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:­

That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,60,000/­ 1)

(Rupees One Lakh Sixty thousand only) with subsequent interest @

12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @

6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on principal amount of

Rs.1,00,000/­.

2) That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,698/­ towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 16th day of March 2020.

PRL. JR. CIVIL JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

Particulars of costs

For PlaintiffAmount inFor DefendantsAmount in Rs.Rs. Vakalat2­00No Cost memo filed­ Court Fee4026­00 Advocate fee6500­00 Process Fee70­00 Type charges100­00 Total: 10698­00

P.J.C.J.

Note: “The parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all exhibits which they wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order”.

1

O.S.NO.136/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM

PRESENT : Smt.V.BHAVANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Tuesday, the day 8 th of August 2017

O.S.136 of 2016

Between:

Achanta Nageswara Rao S/o Rama Rao aged 45 years, Hindu, R/o Allavaram, Allavaram mandal, Amalapuram

..Plaintiff

And

1)Vakapalli Srinivas S/o Satyanarayana aged 34 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Rangapuram, H/o Samanasa Door No.5- 132, Amalapuram mandal.

2)Vakapalli Sattibabu S/o Satyanaratyana Aged 30 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Rangapuram H/o Samanasa Door No.5- 132, Amalapuram Mandal.Defendants

This suit coming on 31.07.2017 for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri.N.S.S.Dora, advocate for plaintiff and Defendants are remained set exparte and in the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants to pass a preliminary decree on Registered Mortgage deed dated 13.03.2012 for Rs.2,68,350/- being

principal and interest due from the defendants on a Registered Mortgage Deed

executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule property, for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit, to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree and for the sale of the mortgaged property and to pass a personal decree in case the sale proceeds are not sufficient to realize the debt due by the defendant.

2]The pleadings of the plaint and the prayer for a preliminary decree for

Rs.2,68,350/- with subsequent interest and costs, it is supported by the evidence of

PW.1 and PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.4. Thus, as the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff is reliable, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.2,68,350/- 2

O.S.NO.136/2016

with subsequent interest on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- @12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization and the defendants are directed to deposit the amount within three months (redemption period) from the date of decree and in case of failure of defendants to pay the suit amount, the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed to apply for a final decree so as to proceed against the mortgaged property.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court, on this the 8th day of August 2017.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Plaintiff For Defendant: PW.1 : Achanta Nageswara Rao Nil PW.2 : Bommi Israel Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff

Ex.A.1: Registered Mortgage dated 13.03.2012 executed by defendants in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A.2 : Registered settlement deed, dated 27.04.1979 executed in favour of late Vakapalli Satheyya – father of the defendants.

Ex.A.3 : Office copy of Legal notice dated 13.04.2016.

Ex.A.4 : Returned registered legal notice cover.

For Defendants: Nil

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram.

O.S.NO.136/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM

PRESENT : Smt.V.BHAVANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Tuesday, the day 8 th of August 2017

O.S.136 of 2016

Between:

Achanta Nageswara Rao S/o Rama Rao aged 45 years, Hindu, R/o Allavaram, Allavaram mandal, Amalapuram ..Plaintif

And

1)Vakapalli Srinivas S/o Satyanarayana aged 34 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Rangapuram, H/o Samanasa Door No.5-132, Amalapuram mandal.

2)Vakapalli Sattibabu S/o Satyanaratyana Aged 30 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Rangapuram H/o Samanasa Door No.5-132, Amalapuram Mandal.Defendant s

Plaint presented on 01.08.2016, filed on 06.08.2016.

Value of the suit:-

Principal amount (Mortgage amount)- Rs.1,50,000-00

Interest thereon from 13.3.2012 to 31.07.2016 - Rs.1,18,350-00 ________________________ Total- Rs.2,68,350-00 ________________________

Cause of action for the suit arose on 13.3.2012 when the defendants herein borrowed the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and executed a mortgage deed in favour of the plaintif and on subsequent demands made by the plaintif personally and through mediators and on 13-04-2016 when the plaintif got issued a legal notice demanding the amount due under the mortgage to the 1st executant and when the notice returned stating the death of the deceased 1st executants and the transaction took place and the parties reside and the suit schedule property is situated is within the jurisdiction of this court.

This suit coming on 31.07.2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.N.S.S.Dora, advocate for plaintif and Defendants are remained set exparte and in the matter having stood over for consideration till this day,

DOTH ORDER AND PRELIMINARILY DECREE as follows:-

O.S.NO.136/2016

It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintif on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated up to this 1 st day of August 2016 is the sum of Rs.1,50,000-00 for principal, the sum of

Rs.1,18,350/-for interest on the said principal, the sum of Rs.--- for costs, charges and expenses (other than the costs of the suit) properly incurred by the plaintif in respect of the mortgage security together with interest thereon awarded to the plaintif making in all the sum of Rs.2,68,350-00 (Rupees Two Lakhs sixty eight thousand three hundred and fifty only)

with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of the suit till

the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree

till realization on Rs.1,50,000/- and the sum of Rs.10,213-00 for the

costs of the suit

2. And it is hereby ordered and decreed as follows: -

(i)that the defendant do pay in to court on or before the 5 th day of

November 2017 or any later date up to which time for payment may be extended by the court, the said sum of Rs.2,68,350-00 (Rupees Two

Lakhs sixty eight thousand three hundred and fifty only) with

subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of the suit till the

date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till

realization on Rs.1,50,000/-.

(ii) that on such payment and on payment there after before such date as the court may fix of such amount as the court may adjudge due introspect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of order XXXIV of the First schedule to the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintif shall bring in to court all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned, and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendant, or to such person as he appoints and the plaintif shall, if so required, recovery or retransfer the said property free from the said mortgage and clear of and from all encumbrances created by the plaintif or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claims and shall, if so required deliver up to the defendant quiet and peaceable possession of the said property.

3. And it is hereby ordered and decreed that, in default of payment as aforesaid, the plaintif may apply to the court for final decree for the sale of

O.S.NO.136/2016

the mortgaged property and on such application being made, the mortgaged property of a sufficient part thereof shall be directed to be sold and for the purposes of such sale the plaintif shall produce before the court or such officer as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property.

4. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid in to court and shall be duly applied (after deduction there from of the expenses of the sale) in payment of the amount payable to the plaintif under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this court and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the plaintif in respect of such costs of the suit, and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of XXXIV of the

First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that the balance if any shall be paid to the defendant or other persons entitled to receive the same.

5.And it is further ordered and decreed that, if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for the payment in full of the amount payable to the defendant as aforesaid, the defendant shall be at liberty (where such remedy is open to him under the terms of the mortgage and it is not barred by any law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the plaintif for the amount of the balance; and that the parties are at liberty to apply to the court from time to time as they may have occasion, and on such application or otherwise the court may give such directions as it thinks fit.

Copy of plaint schedule is hereto annexed.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 14th day of March 2016.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

O.S.NO.136/2016

PARTICULARS OF COSTS.

Particulars of costs

For PlaintifAmount inFor DefendantsAmount in Rs.Rs. Vakalath2-00No cost memo filed Plaint fee5126-00 Process fee110-00 Advocate fee4875-00 typing charges100-00 Total 10213-00 1

P.J.C.J.

1

 IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS MUMMIDIVARAM.

Present: Sri M.Pavan Kumar, Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Amalapuram.

(FAC)J.F.C. Magistrate, Mummidivaram.

Monday, this the Twenty third day of July, 2018

CALENDER CASE No.45 of 2018

Between:

State: Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector Mummidivaram. … Complainant

And

Kathari Ramesh, S/o Gandhi, Age 38 years, C/Kodari Molilu, R/o Singh Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. … Accused

This case is coming before this court for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for Prosecution and Sri M.B.Ramayogi, Advocate for accused and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1.The Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector at Mummidivaram filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.51/2016­17 of Prohibition and Excise Station at 

Mummidivaram for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) r/w 9(1) of A.P. Excise 

Act,1968. 

2.The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 06.05.2017 at about 5.30 PM, during the route watch conducted by the then Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Mobile party, Vedurulanka i.e. L.W.1­

G.Gangadharam along with his staff at Vedurulanka village limits near Excise check post at Ambedkar statue on the road margin found the accused come down from a Auto with a black polythene hand bag carrying with his right hand and on suspicion the Proh. & 

Excise Inspector detained the accused and tried to secure mediators through L.W.2 

K.V.V.Satyanarayana, Proh. & Excise Head constable, but in vain. Then the Proh. & Excise 2

Inspector examined the hand bag and found Ti Courrier Napoleon Finest Pure Grape 

French Brandy 1000 ml. ­ 2 bottles with company seals and labels, which contain the label as “For sale in Pondicherry State Only” and the liquor bottles are non­duty paid when questioned the accused he stated that he purchased the liquor bottles from Yanam brandy shop at a cheaper rate for selling to higher rate and eaking out his livelihood and that he has no license and permit to possess and transport the liquor bottles. Then L.W.1 arrested the accused and took two liquor bottles as sample, sealed, labeled and seized the property under the cover of special report drafted at the scene of offence and he handed over the case property to L.W.4/Ch.Swamy Reddy, Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector, 

Mummidivaram and he registered a case against the accused in Cr.No.51/2016­17 under 

Section 34(a) r/w 9(1)of A.P. Excise Act and sent him for judicial custody and he sent the sample of liquor bottles to the Chemical Examiner for Excise, Kakinada through the 

Asst.Proh. & Excise Superintendent, Amalapuram for analysis and the Chemical 

Examiner opined in his report that “it is found to be Indian Made Liquor” and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet accordingly.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 34(a) r/w 9(1)of 

A.P. Excise Act,1968 against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents furnished to him in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. 

5.The accused is examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., charge under Section 34(a) r/w 9(1) of A.P. Excise Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu under Section 240(2) Cr.P.C., after having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1, and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 so also marked M.O.1.

7.On completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined under 

Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material preparing the evidence of 3 prosecution witnesses for which he denied. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence is adduced and no documents were marked.

8.Heard both sides.

 9.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the 

accused U/Sec. 34(a) r/w 9(1)of A.P. Excise Act 

beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise?

POINT: 

10.In this case, the prosecution examined the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, 

Mummidivaram as PW1. His evidence in chief is in tune with the records of the prosecution. Through him the Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MO.1 is received in evidence. 

11. On perusal of the evidence available on record, what emerges clear is that the scene of offence is a busy locality and it is situated at Vedurulanka village limits at 

Ambedkar statue on the road margin which is surrounded by a number of residential houses. The evidence of Investigating officer is that he deputed the mediator i.e., 

L.W.2/K.V.V.Satyanarayana, Proh. & Excise Head Constable, for securing the mediators in and around the scene of offence but in vain.

12. After analysis of the above evidence what emerges clear is that the alleged scene is situated in a busy locality. Despite this topography of the scene, the prosecution failed to secure the support of independent witnesses for the search of the accused and seizure of contraband. The attempt of the Police Party in deputing the constable to secure mediators and his return in vain, has become futile when the deputed constable failed to file the report of non­availability of mediators. If at all the Police party tried best to secure mediators and failed, they ought to have filed report of the deputed constable as to whom he contacted and where and that he failed to secure the mediators. In the absence of such report, the alleged attempt of the Police party to secure mediators and proceeding against the accused basing on the special Report appears to be doubtful virtually. Thus there is a doubt in the case of the prosecution.

4

13. With this what emerges clear is that, by the time the search was conducted and seizure was made, there were people all along in the nearby vicinity and locality including village MRO and other official witnesses and that, despite their presence the investigating officer could not take their assistance to act as mahazardars. In other words, the local inhabitants were not pressed into service to act as mahazardars. Thus, the entire search is against the spirit of law of search, thereby the alleged seizure and arrest thereon is in contravention of the above law. In this way, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the Occurrence Report on which the case of the prosecution is edificed, thereby the Occurrence Report doubted, consequently, the entire case of the prosecution. 

14. So, in the light of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that the case of the prosecution filled with doubts, and that, the evidence of Police party alone is not inspiring confidence of this Court to proceed against the accused. Hence, the POINT is answered holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

15.In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence 

U/Sec.34(a) r/w 9(1) of A.P. Excise Act thereby he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment. The case property i.e., M.O.1­Courier Napoleon Brandy 1000 ml. ­ 2 bottles received in CPR.No.109/2018 shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of July, 2018.

Sd/- M.Pavan Kumar,

(FAC)J.FC.Magistrate, Mummidivaram.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1: 16.07.2018G.Gangadhara Rao, Proh. & Excise Inspector 

FOR DEFENCE:­­­ NIL ­­­

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: 

Ex.P.1: Special report, dt.06.05.2017. Ex.P.2: Original FIR in Cr.No.51/2016­17 of 34(a) r/w 9(1)of A.P.Excise Act of Proh. and Excise Mummidivaram police station dt: 06.05.2017. Ex.P.3: Letter of advice Ex.P.4: Analysis report, dated 30.05.2017.

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 – Courier Napoleon Brandy 1000 ml. ­ 2 bottles

Sd/- M.Pavan Kumar,

(FAC)J.F.C. Magistrate, Mummidivaram.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari

Calendar of cases tried by M.Pavan Kumar, Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Amalapuram (FAC), J.FC.Magistrate, Mummidivaram.

Date of Offence : 06.05.2017

Date of Report or Complaint : 07.05.2017

Date of Apprehension of accused : 06.05.2017

Date of release on bail: 09.05.2017

Date of Commencement of trial : 16.07.2018 

Date of Close of trial : 16.07.2018 

Date of sentence of Order : 23.07.2018

Explanation of delay and remarks: Due to non­production of

Prosecution witnesses

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NO.45/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDL. 

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MUMMIDIVARAM.

Details of Accused:

Kathari Ramesh, S/o Gandhi, Age 38 years, C/Kodari Molilu, R/o Singh Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

Offence : U/Sec.34(a) r/w 9(1)of A.P. Excise Act 1968

Plea of accused : Not Guilty

Finding : Not Guilty

Sentence:  In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a) r/w 9(1) of A.P. Excise Act thereby he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment. The case property i.e., M.O.1­Courier Napoleon Brandy 1000 ml. ­ 2 bottles received in CPR.No.109/2018 shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

Sd/- M.Pavan Kumar,

Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Amalapuram (FAC) J.FC.Magistrate, Mummidivaram

Copies submitted to:

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

The Superintendent of Excise, Amalapuram.