Smt M.S.Bharathi

Additional Junior Civil Judge

Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Kuppam (Taluka) · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

Smt M.S.Bharathi, Additional Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Kuppam (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2,080 court orders on record since 2016. 15 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC, EP cases.

2,080

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/49/2012

Burusu Gangulamma vs Burusu Sreenivasulu

13 Mar 2020

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PUNGANUR

Present : - Smt.M.S.Bharathi

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Friday, the Thirteenth (13th) day of March, 2020

O.S.No.49 of 2012

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Between : -

1.Bursu Gangulamma, S/o Late B.Ramaiah [Died]

2.Bursu Sallapuramma, W/o Budda Reddy, Hindu aged about 45 years, Cultivation, r/o Nadimuru, Bheemaganipalle post, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District (A.P.) [The 2 nd plaintiff, being L.R. of deceased 1 st plaintiff was recognized as LR of deceased 1 st plaintiff as per orders in I.A.No.582/2018, dt.20.07.2018] …. PLAINTIFFS

And : -

Bursu Sreenivasulu, S/o Venkatesh, Hindu aged about 32 years, Cultivaiton, r/o Rampalle village, Bheemaganipalle post, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District (A.P.) …. DEFENDANT

This suit coming on 24.01.2020before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B.Venkatamuni, Advocate for 2 nd Plaintiff, 1 st plaintiff died pendent lite and of Sri.D.Venkatramaiah Chetty, Advocate for defendant; upon hearing arguments and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following : -

J U D G M E N T

1) This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their right and title over suit schedule property and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from interfering with their - 2 - peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for costs.

2) The brief facts of the plaint are as follows : - The suit schedule property and other properties are the ancestral properties of 1st plaintiff’s husband and 2nd plaintiff father by name Ramaiah and said

Ramaiah was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and other properties. The 2nd plaintiff is the only daughter of

Ramaiah and 1st plaintiff and during the life time of Ramaiah, he never executed any documents in favour of anybody and said Ramaiah died about 6 years prior to filing of this suit leaving behind him, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 to succeed his properties including the suit schedule property. It is stated that defendant is the son of Ramaiah’s elder brother by name Venkatesh and the said Ramaiah and his elder brother got divided their family properties about 50 years back and they are residing separately. The defendant is giving out in the village that the said Ramaiah had executed a deed during his life time in favour of defendant in respect of suit property and basing on said document, he will dispossess the plaintiffs from suit schedule property. It is stated that the said Ramaiah had not executed any document and even if any such document is there, it is created, fabricated and forged with the help of scribe and attestors and it is not acted upon and never intended to be acted upon. The plaintiffs are in joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and they are having half share each and defendant is nearest relative of plaintiffs, is trying to manipulate the documents. The 2nd plaintiff also got issued legal notice dt.01.11.2011 to - 3 - the defendant not to claim the suit property and the defendant received the same and kept quite without any reply. It is stated that the defendant is trying to cause obstructions to the plaintiffs to cultivate the suit property and as the plaintiffs are unable to resist his highhanded acts, prayed the court to grant the relief.

3) The defendant filed his written statement pleading that suit is not maintainable in law or on facts. It is stated that the Ramaiah never married the 1st plaintiff and begot the 2nd plaintiff. The said Ramaiah married some other person and she abandoned him long back and living with different person separately. During the life time of Bursu Ramaiah, he executed a registered gift settlement deed dt.13.10.2004 in favour of defendant, who is his grandson in relation. The defendant accepted the gift and he is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by mutating his name in revenue records like pattadar pass book, title deed under Patta No.1532. The Government also acquired Ac.0.05 cents in suit schedule property for Handree-Neeva channel and award was also passed in the name of defendant and it is also endorsed in the pattadar pass book and title deed. It is stated that Bursu Ramaiah parted his rights in respect of an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in Sy.No.383/3 of Bheemaganipalle during his life time in favour of one Poojari Munaswamy and his wife Lakshmamma under registered sale deed dt.13.07.1992. It is stated that the 1st plaintiff executed an agreement of permanent acceptance dt.03.11.2008 conceding that the suit property was given to defendant by way of gift settlement deed and defendant convinced by the village elders to pay Rs.3,700/- to - 4 - 1stplaintiff, but the plaintiffs have suppressed the said fact and filed this suit. It is stated that Bursu Ramaiah was attacked with paralysis and his right hand almost became inactive and as such, he could not subscribe his signature as usual and in the said circumstances, Ramaiah put his LTI in the gift settlement deed dt.13.10.2004. It is stated that the claim of 2nd plaintiff that she has half share in the suit property is far from truth as she is not at all the daughter of Bursu Ramaiah. In view of her long silence waiving rights if any, she is estopped to say anything contrary to the actual state of affairs. The cultivation account filed by the plaintiffs in the name of dead person cannot have any sanctity. After issuance of legal notice by the plaintiffs, the village elders chastised the plaintiffs in view of conceding of rights in the suit property to the defendant and as the plaintiffs assured not to proceed further, the defendant kept quite without giving any reply. It is stated that there is no cause of action for the suit and the plaintiffs have approached the court with unclean hands by suppressing the facts. Hence, prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

4) Basing on the pleadings and documents, this court framed the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of permanent injunction?

2. To what relief?

5) During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff PWs.1 and2 are examined and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A.5.During cross examination - 5 - of DW.1, Ex.A.6 to Ex.A.9 are marked. On behalf of defendant, DWs.1 to 6 are examined and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.15. The Deputy Tahsildar,

Madanapalle examined as DW.5 and through him, Ex.X.1 was marked. The

Deputy Tahsildar, Punganur was examined as DW.6 and through him

Ex.X.2 and Ex.X.3 are marked.

6) Heard arguments on both sides.

7) Though the suit is filed for declaration of right and title over suit schedule property, but due to mistake and oversight that issue has not been framed. Hence, this court framed an additional issue as follows : -

Additional Issue : - Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration

of their right and title over suit schedule property or not?

8) During the course of trial, the 1st plaintiff died and the 2nd plaintiff, being her only daughter was recognized as legal heir and as she was already on record, as such amendment was made as per orders in

I.A.No.532/2018, dt.20.07.2018.

9) There is no dispute between the parties that Bursu Ramaiah is the original owner of suit schedule property and he is having two brothers namely Pedda Chengappa and Venkatesh, who is father of defendant.

10) ADDITIONAL ISSUE : - To prove the same, the 2nd plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and she filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and stated that suit schedule property and other properties are the ancestral properties of 1st plaintiff’s husband and 2nd plaintiff father by - 6 - name Ramaiah and said Ramaiah was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and other properties and revenue records stands in his name and he was issued old ryoth pass book under

Ex.A.1. The 2nd plaintiff is the only daughter of Ramaiah and 1st plaintiff and during the life time of Ramaiah, he never executed any documents in favour of anybody and said Ramaiah died about 6 years prior to filing of this suit leaving behind him, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 to succeed his properties including the suit schedule property. It is further stated that defendant is the son of Ramaiah’s elder brother by name Venkatesh and the said Ramaiah and his elder brother got divided their family properties about 50 years back and they are residing separately. The defendant is giving out in the village that the said Ramaiah had executed a deed during his life time in favour of defendant in respect of suit property and basing on said document, he will dispossess the plaintiffs from suit schedule property. It is further stated that the said Ramaiah had not executed any document and even if any such document is there, it is created, fabricated and forged with the help of scribe and attestors and it is not acted upon and never intended to be acted upon. The plaintiffs are in joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and they are having half share each and defendant is nearest relative of plaintiffs, is trying to manipulate the documents. The 2nd plaintiff also got issued legal notice dt.01.11.2011 under Ex.A.2 to the defendant not to claim the suit property and the defendant received the same under Ex.A.3 but kept quite without any reply. To prove the same, she examined PW.2 and he stated that Bursu Ramaiah is husband of 1st plaintiff and father of 2nd plaintiff and he was in possession and enjoyment of suit - 7 - schedule property and he is educated person and he used to read newspaper and he died about 13 years back leaving behind his wife and daughter.

After his death, his wife and daughter jointly succeeded the suit schedule property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. But as per the case of the defendant, deceased 1st plaintiff and 2nd plaintiff are not legal heirs of Bursu Ramaiah and 1st plaintiff given in marriage to one

Venkatappa @ Theeeladhaddarlodu of Gurramkonda and no document was executed neither in favour of 1st plaintiff nor in favour of 2nd plaintiff and

PW.1 claiming the property as she is legal heir of Bursu Ramaiah. On perusing Ex.A.1, Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.5, old ryothwari pass book, it stands in the name of Bursu Ramaiah for suit schedule property along with other properties wherein in 1-B Namoona and Adangal/pahani obtained from

Meeseva, they stands in the name of Bursu Ramaiah dt.09.07.2018 and drawn attention to the court in the evidence of DW.1, “It is true, it is mentioned in document dt.03.11.2008 that 1 st plaintiff is the wife of deceased Bursu Ramaiah.” Wherein in cross examination of DW.2, “Deceased 1 st plaintiff and 2 nd plaintiff are living together along with

Bursu Ramaiah. Witness adds that 2 nd plaintiff is residing with them prior to marriage of her. The above said Bursu Ramaiah is having two wives namely Lakshmamma (1 st wife) and Gangulamma (2 nd wife), who is 1 st plaintiff. About 30 years back 1 st wife deserted her husband Bursu

Ramaiah.” DW.4 also deposed that, “Ramaiah got married with deceased 1 st plaintiff.” So, by the above evidence, it clearly shows that Lakshmamma is the 1st wife of Bursu Ramaiah and she deserted him and after that Bursu

Ramaiah married deceased 1st plaintiff. Even for assuming for a moment, if - 8 - the deceased 1st plaintiff is kept mistress of Bursu Ramaiah, their children will also have share in the property of her father as per Hindu Succession

Act. But defendant stated that he do not know 2nd plaintiff is the daughter of Bursu Ramaiah. If 2nd plaintiff is not the daughter of Bursu Ramaiah, what prevented the defendant to file documents like Aadhar card, ration card to show she is not the daughter of Bursu Ramaiah. Except oral evidence, he has not filed any document to show that 2nd plaintiff is not the daughter of Bursu Ramaiah as such 2nd plaintiff is not the daughter of

Bursu Ramaiah is not correct.

11) On behalf of defendant, the defendant himself examined as

DW.1 and he filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and stated that the Bursu Ramaiah never married the 1st plaintiff and begot the 2nd plaintiff. The said Ramaiah married some other person and she abandoned him long back and living with different person separately. During the life time of Bursu Ramaiah, he executed a registered gift settlement deed dt.13.10.2004 under Ex.B.1 in favour of defendant, who is his grandson in relation. The defendant accepted the gift and he is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by mutating his name in revenue records like pattadar pass book, title deed under Patta No.1532 under

Ex.B.2 and Ex.B.4. The Government also acquired Ac.0.05 cents in suit schedule property for Handree-Neeva channel and award was also passed in the name of defendant and it is also endorsed in the pattadar pass book and title deed under Ex.B.3 and Ex.B.5. During Kharif season 2014, the said defendant was sanctioned input subsidy and it was credited into his - 9 -

Savings Bank account with Union Bank of India under Ex.B.9. Bursu

Ramaiah also sold an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in Sy.No.383/3 of

Bheemaganipalle which is other than suit property in favour of Poojari

Munaswamy and his wife Lakshmamma under registered sale deed dt.13.07.1992 under Ex.B.8. It is further stated that the 1st plaintiff executed an agreement of permanent acceptance dt.03.11.2008 conceding that the suit property was given to defendant by way of gift settlement deed and defendant convinced by the village elders to pay Rs.3,700/- to 1st plaintiff, but the plaintiffs have suppressed the said fact and filed this suit. It is further stated that Bursu Ramaiah was attacked with paralysis and his right hand almost became inactive and as such, he could not subscribe his signature as usual and in the said circumstances, Ramaiah put his LTI in the gift settlement deed dt.13.10.2004. It is further stated that the claim of 2nd plaintiff that she has half share in the suit property is far from truth as she is not at all the daughter of Bursu Ramaiah. In view of her long silence waiving rights if any, she is estopped to say anything contrary to the actual state of affairs. The cultivation account filed by the plaintiffs in the name of dead person cannot have any sanctity. It is further stated that defendant entered into n agreement of sale dt.23.11.2016 under Ex.B.10 with one

Papulamma and said Papulamma also got issued legal notice dt.15.11.2018 under Ex.B.11 to the defendant under specific performance under the above said sale agreement for which the defendant also issued reply notice dt.23.11.2018 under Ex.B.12. It is further stated that after issuance of legal notice by the plaintiffs, the village elders chastised the plaintiffs in view of conceding of rights in the suit property to the defendant and as the plaintiffs - 10 - assured not to proceed further, he kept quite without giving any reply. To prove the same, he also examined DW.2 and he stated that parents of defendant looked after the welfare of Bursu Ramaiah and defendant is grandson in relationship and to his knowledge, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and defendant executed sale agreement about 1 ½ years back to one Papulamma and

Annemmagaripalle and he acted as attestor for the sale agreement. But as per the case of plaintiffs, Bursu Ramaiah did not execute any gift deed in favour of defendant and Bursu Ramaiah is educated person and did not attack with paralysis and he was in sound mind until his death and he was a signatory and he is not a thumb impressionist and also stated that the defendant in collusion of attestors forged the thumb impression of Bursu

Ramaiah and created Ex.B.1. As per the evidence of defendant, the defendant mainly relied on Ex.B.1 registered gift deed executed by Bursu

Ramaiah for suit schedule property. To prove the gift deed, defendant examined DW.3 who is attestor of gift deed under Ex.B.1 and he deposed that he is native of suit village and deceased 1st plaintiff lived with Bursu

Ramaiah during his life time after her migration from Gurramkonda as his kept mistress in the village joining him along with her daughter i.e., 2nd plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Bursu Ramaiah by name

Lakshmamma abandoned him and deserted long ago. Subsequently, Bursu

Ramaiah never married any person much less the deceased 1st plaintiff, who continued to live with him. He further stated that till the death of

Bursu Ramaiah, the parents of defendant looked after his welfare and during the life time of Bursu Ramaiah, out of love and affection, he - 11 - executed a gift settlement deed dt.13.10.2004 in favour of defendant in which he acted as one of the attestor. He further stated that after execution of gift deed, the defendant got mutated his name in revenue records and further an extent of Ac.0.05 cents of suit land was acquired by the

Government for Handri-Neeva channel and the same was reflected in pattadar pass book and title deed. The defendant is in continuous possession and enjoyment of suit land for the last 14 ½ years and defendant also executed a registered sale agreement in favour of D.Papulamma to meet his necessities. To prove the same he also examined DW.4 and he stated that father of defendant is having three brothers namely Muni

Venkatappa, Venkatappa and Ramana and Ramanna executed gift deed in favour of defendant for suit land and signatures contains as 3rd attestor belongs to him. At that time, Ramaiah, his wife, Venkatesh, who is father of defendant, Venkatappa, who is father-in-law of defendant were present.

After his signature the above said Venkatesh acted as attestor in Ex.B.1 and transaction took place in his presence. As per Ex.B.1 Bursu Ramaiah executed gift deed in favour of defendant, but as per evidence of DW.4 it clearly shows that he do not know the actual name of donor (Bursu

Ramaiah) of Ex.B.1 and saying that Ramanna executed gift deed instead of

Ramaiah, as such it creates doubt in the evidence of DW.4 that he was present at the time of execution of Ex.B.1 During cross examination of

DW.1 he stated that, “My junior paternal uncle Ramaiah is educated person. But I do not know up to which class he studied. He was a signatory.

It is true in Ex.B.8 Burusu Ramaiah signed his signature as executant.

Witness adds that the above said Ramaiah is a signatory.” By this - 12 - admission it clearly shows that Bursu Ramaiah is a signatory and he will not put his thumb impression. As per Ex.B.1 it contains only thumb impression of Ramaiah and not signature. Their own exhibit (Ex.B.8) also contains the signature of Bursu Ramaiah and not thumb impression. By the above evidence of DW.1 and as per Ex.B.8 it clearly shows that Bursu

Ramaiah is a signatory and not a thumb impressionist. So, the thumb impression contains in Ex.B.1 is not belongs to Bursu Ramaiah and it is forged and created one. Generally, in gift deed the recitals is like as donee looked after the welfare of donor, out of love and affection, he executed gift deed in favour of donee. But in Ex.B.1, the recitals are “nuvvu na kumarudiki kumarudavu ainanduna naku manumadu kaavalenu”, except this recital, there is no such recital that the donee looked after the welfare, out of love and affection in gift deed, as such it creates doubt that Bursu

Ramaiah executed gift deed in favour of defendant. As stated by the defendant in the above, when Bursu Ramaiah really attacked with paralysis what prevented him to file medical record to show the above fact. Except oral evidence, he has not filed any document to show that Bursu Ramaiah attacked with paralysis and even there is no recital in Ex.B.1 also that due to paralysis, he put his thumb impression and not signed, as such, it creates doubt with regard to Ex.B.1.

12) The counsel for defendant stated that if really Bursu Ramaiah did not execute gift deed, how the Government will give compensation for acquiring land of Ac.0.05 cents for HNSS channel and passed award and same is endorsed in pattadar pass book and title deed under Ex.B.3 and - 13 -

Ex.B.5 and an extent of Ac.0.46 cents is rounded off and shown as Ac.0.41 cents in suit survey number 383/1 under Ex.B.2 and Ex.B.4. After execution of gift deed by Bursu Ramaiah, defendant also filed 6-A claim and Bursu Ramaiah’s name is cancelled in 1-B Namoona pertaining to

Patta No.543 under Ex.B.13 and Ex.B.14. To prove the same, he examined

DW.5, who is Deputy Tahsildar and got marked Ex.X.1 i.e., true copy of extract pertaining to possession of land for forming HNSS channel in

Sy.No.383/1 and he stated that, “We acquired Ac.0.05 cents from

B.Sreenivasulu (defendant) and paid Rs.15,000/- to him in Sy.No.383/1B.”

To prove the same, he also examined DW.6 Deputy Tahsildar and got marked Ex.X.2 and Ex.X.3 and he stated that, “Total extent contains in

Sy.No.383/1 is Ac.1.30 cents. As per Ex.X.2 one Pujari Munuswamy got an extent of Ac.0.07 cents in Khata No.343 in Sy.No.383/1; one Sreenivasulu got an extent of Ac.0.46 cents and out of Ac.0.46 cents, Ac.0.05 cents was taken over by HNSS in Khata No.1532 in Sy.No.383/1 and one S.Rajiya Bee got Ac.0.40 cents in Khata No.1709 in Sy.No.383/1 by way of purchase in

Document No.1212/2012 dt.07.03.2012. I do not know what happened to remaining Ac.0.42 cents.” At this stage the counsel for plaintiff stated that if really Bursu Ramaiah executed gift deed in favour of defendant for suit land, and drawn attention to the court in the cross examination of DW.2 stated that Ac.0.46 cents is allotted to father of defendant and Ac.0.46 cents is allotted to Bursu Ramaiah. The total extent is Ac.0.92 cents. But instead of showing Ac.0.92 cents, he showed only Ac.0.46 cents in pattadar pass book and title deed under Ex.B.2 and Ex.B.4. On perusing these documents, defendant shown only Ac.0.41 cents and rounded off Ac.0.46 - 14 - cents and written that Ac.0.05 cents was taken by the Government. By the evidence of DW.6, it clearly shows that Government acquired land of

Ac.0.05 cents in his extent (Ac.0.46 cents) and not in the extent owned by

Bursu Ramaiah. During cross examination of DW.6, “The entry in Ex.X.2 in the name of defendant Sreenivasulu was mentioned in the year 2012 after receiving claim petition. Prior to 2012 there is no name of

Sreenivasulu entered in 1-B Namoona on 14/10 and there is no year. The cancellation proceedings were recommended by Revenue Inspector and subsequently Tahsildar put his initial. There is no proceedings order in 1-B

Namoona in the name of Bursu Ramaiah. After the entry in Ex.X.2, we entered the name of Bursu Sreenivasulu in Ex.X.3. It is true without certification, the nameof Bursu Ramaiah is removed and mentioned the name of Venkatesh.” By the evidence of DW.6, it clearly shows that the name of Ramaiah was cancelled in 1-B Namoona on 14/10 and there is no year and there is no cancellation proceedings in 1-B Namoona in the name of Bursu Ramaiah and how the revenue authorities without certification

Ramaiah’s name was removed. When there is no entry in the name of

Venkatappa, S/o Chengappa in Ex.X.3, how the name of Venkatappa and name of defendant were shown in revenue records the reasons best known to them. When Ex.B.1 gift deed was executed in the year 2004, why defendant not mutated his name till the year 2012 and waited for eight years and he also not stated any reasons for not mutating his name in revenue records in Ex.B.1 since from 2004 to 2012.

- 15 -

13) The counsel for plaintiff stated that even today patta to suit extent is stands in the name of Bursu Ramaiah and got marked Ex.A.6 to

Ex.A.9. By marking Ex.A.6 i.e., 1-B Namoona dt.08.11.2018 stands in the name of Bursu Ramaiah under Khat No.543 for Sy.No.383/1B to an extent of Ac.0.46 cents and Ex.A.7 to Ex.A.9 1-B Namoonas stands in the name of Pujari Munuswamy in Sy.No.383/1A, Venkatappa in Sy.No.383/1C and

Rajiya Bee in Sy.No.383/1D which clearly shows that Bursu Ramaiah’s name is shown in 1-B Namoona along with defendant’s father and others in different extents in suit survey number. When DW.6 stated that there is no sub division held for suit survey number 383/1 in Ex.X.2 and FMB, how revenue authorities shown Bursu Ramaiah got land to an extent of Ac.0.46 cents in Sy.No.383/1B, Munuswamy got land to an extent of Ac.0.07cents in Sy.No.383/1A, Venkatappa (father of defendant) got land to an extent of

Ac.0.37 cents in Sy.No.383/1C and Rajiya Bee got land to an extent of

Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.383/1D the reasons best known to them.

14) The counsel for plaintiff stated that as per the evidence of

DW.1, he gave claim petition in the year 2011 and Bursu Ramaiah’s name was cancelled and shown his name in the year 2012 then how defendant’s name is shown for fasli 1418 and 1419 i.e., 2008 and 2009 under Ex.B.15.

On perusing Ex.B.15 manual adangal/pahani, defendant name

Sreenivasulu, S/o Venkatappa is shown in Khata No.1532 and 1232 for

Ac.0.46 cents in Sy.No.383/1. So, without claim petition, defendant’s name and Venkatappa’s name is entered in manual adangal unauthorizedly, as such Ex.B.15 cannot be believable.

- 16 -

15) Defendant also relied on Ex.B.9 i.e., Savings Bank pass book.

On perusing Ex.B.9, for which survey number he obtained subsidy is not mentioned, as such Ex.B.9 is not helpful to the defendant.

16) The counsel for plaintiff stated that defendant is not having any right over suit survey number 383/1B and he misrepresented the facts to the Government and Government, without any enquiry who are the original pattadars for suit survey number, granted compensation of

Rs.15,000/- and took the land of Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.0.46 cents in

Sy.No.383/1B then why defendant shown in Ex.B.10 instead of his father extent Ac.0.47 cents, but he shown only Ac.0.41 cents and drawn attention to the court that defendant entered into a sale agreement with one

Papulamma under Ex.B.10, there is exchange of notices in between defendant and said Papulamma under Ex.B.11 and Ex.B.12. On perusing

Ex.B.10, defendant executed sale agreement for Ac.0.47 cents in

Sy.No.383/1. So, by this exhibit, as discussed above, if Government acquired the land to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.0.46 cents in the extent of Bursu Ramaiah, how he entered into agreement with Papulamma for Ac.0.47 cents instead of Ac.0.41 cents the reasons best known to him.

Even assuming for a moment, if the Government acquired Ac.0.05 cents in the extent of Bursu Ramaiah, as discussed above, at the cost of repetition, as the thumb impression contains in Ex.B.1 is forged and created one and as such defendant will not get any right in the suit schedule property.

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

- 17 -

17) ISSUE NO.1 : - To prove the possession, the plaintiff relied on 1-B Namoona and Adangal/pahani for the year 2018 stands in the name of her father Bursu Ramaiah. But she has not filed any document to show that she is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit. Hence, plaintiff to prove her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit. Hence, this issue is answered against the plaintiff.

18) ISSUE NO.2 : - In the result, the suit is partly decreed with regard to declaration of right and title of plaintiff over suit schedule property; and dismissed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13 th day of March, 2020.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PUNGANUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Plaintiffs Defendant

PW.1 B.Sallapuramma DW.1 B.Sreenivasulu

PW.2 P.Venkatramaiah DW.2 M.Nagaraja

DW.3 R.Venkatappa

DW.4 S.Rajanna

DW.5 Annam Padmanabham

DW.6 S.Madhava Raju

Exhibits marked for Plaintiffs

Ex.A.1 -- Old Rythu pass book stands in the name of Ramaiah - 18 -

Ex.A.2 01.11.2011 Office copy of legal notice

Ex.A.3 -- Served postal acknowledgement

Ex.A.4 09.07.2018 1-B Namoona stands in the name of Ramaiah obtained from Meeseva

Ex.A.5 09.07.2018 Adangal/pahani stands in the name of Ramaiah obtained from Meeseva

Ex.A.6 08.11.2018 1-B Namoona stands in the name of Bursu Ramaiah obtained from Meeseva for Ac.0.46 cents in Sy.No.383/1B under Khata No.543

Ex.A.7 08.11.2018 1-B Namoona stands in the name of Poojari Munuswamy to an extent of Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.No.383/1A under Khata No.343

Ex.A.8 08.11.2018 1-B Namoona stands in the name of Venkatappa to an extent of Ac.0.37 cents in Sy.No.383/1C under Khata No.754

Ex.A.9 08.11.2018 1-B Namoona stands in the name of Rajiya Bee to an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.383/1D under Khata No.1709

Exhibits marked for Defendant

Ex.B.1 13.10.2004 Registered gift deed executed by B.Ramaiah in favour of defendant

Ex.B.2 -- Pattadar pass book stands in the name of defendant

Ex.B.3 02.08.2012 Endorsement in pattadar pass book with regard to acquisition of Ac.0.05 cents for Handri-Neeva channel

Ex.B.4 -- Title deed stands in the name of defendant

Ex.B.5 02.08.2012 Endorsement in title deed with regard to acquisition of Ac.0.05 cents for Handri-Neeva channel

Ex.B.6 21.08.2018 1-B Namoona stands in the name of defendant obtained from Meeseva

Ex.B.7 -- Adangal/pahani stands in the name of defendant - 19 -

Ex.B.8 13.07.1992 Registration copy of sale deed executed by Ramaiah in favour of Poojari Munuswamy and his wife Lakshmamma

Ex.B.9 10.02.2014 Savings Bank pass book of Union Bank, Punganur stands in the name of defendant showing credit of Rs.1,080/- on 10.02.2014

Ex.B.10 23.11.2016 Original deed particulars of document in respect of sale agreement executed by defendant in favour of Papulamma

Ex.B.11 15.11.2018 Legal notice issued by Papulamma to the defendant

Ex.B.12 23.11.2018 Reply notice issued by defendant to Papulamma

Ex.B.13 -- Certified copy of 6-A claim obtained under RTI Act

Ex.B.14 -- Certified copy of 1-B Namoona for Patta No.543 obtained under RTI Act

Ex.B.15 -- Copies of Adangal/pahani for fasli 1418 , 1419 and 1425

Ex.X.1 -- True copy of extract pertaining to the compensation awarded for formation of HNSS channel in Sy.No.383/1

Ex.X.2 -- 1-B Namoona

Ex.X.3 -- Adangal/pahani

PJCJ, PGR

- 20 -

Fair Judgment in

O.S.No.49/2012

Dt.13.03.2020

OS/148/2018

R Kavitha Rani vs V Santhamurthy

18 Apr 2024

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KUPPAM

Present: Smt. M.S. Bharathi, Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Kuppam.

Thursday the 18 th day of April, 2024

O.S. No. 148 OF 2018

Kavitha Rani, D/o. V. Santhamurthy wife of K.R. Ramesh Babu, residing at

Adavibudguur village, Mallanuru post, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra

Pradesh …Plaintiff -Versus-

1. V. Santhamurthy, aged 65 years, s/o. late. Venaktappa, residing at

Bayyanuru village, Dasegownuru post, Kuppam Mandal.(DIED)

2. Raghunath @ Chitti, aged 48 years, s/o. Munirathnam and husband of late. Lavanya,

3. Bhanu Prakash, aged 26 years, s/o. late. Lavanya,

4. Durgaprasad, aged 18 years, s/o. late Lavanya, 2 to 4 are residing at Sericulture Office Road, Opp: to KRECS Ltd.,

Kuppam

5. V. Komalavani, aged 40 years, w/o. N. Venkatesh, and d/o, V.

Santhamurthy, residing at Sivarampuram village & post.

Santhipuram Mandal,

6. N. Jayalakshmi, aged 38 years, w/o. R. Naveen Kumar, and d/o. V.

Santhamurthy, residing at Siddavuru village, Sogadaballa Post.

Santhipuram mandal.

7. Suresh, aged 33 years, s/o. V. Santhamurthy, residing at

Bayyanuru village, Dasegownuru post, Kuppam Mandal,

8. S. Sathyendra Sekhar, aged 44 years, s/o. M. Sundaraiah, residing at Radha Krishna Road, Kuppam town and Mandal.

…Defendants No. 1 to 8

This suit is coming up before me on 15.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P. V. Madhusudhan, Advocate for plaintiff and, and Sri.

M.Sudhakar, Advocate for Defendants 1 and 7, Sri. K.V. Vasu, Advocate for

Defendants 2 and 5and Sri. A. S. Natarajan, Advocate for defendant No. 8 and defendants 3, 4 and 6 are remained set exparte and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: - 2

J U D G M E N T

1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for Partition directing the defendants to divide the suit schedule land into 6 shares taking into consideration of good and bad qualities and allot one such share to the plaintiff and put in separate possession of his allotted share and costs.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff stated that the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of her. That the suit schedule properties was original owned by her paternal grandfather Nadipanna @ Venkatappa and he got the childrens namely

V.Jeevarathnam and V.Santhamurthy (the 1st defendant herein) and the above said persons have jointly entered in to the registered partition dated 10.09.1984 vide

Doc.No.2229/1984. In the said registered partition 'A' Schedule properties were allotted to the share of Nadipanna @ Venkatappa, 'B' Schedule properties were allotted to the share of V.Jeevarathnam and 'C' Schedule properties were allotted to the share of V.Santhamurthy. That as per above partition deed D1 got the plaint schedule lands to his share and he ever since from the date of above partition the

D1 and herself, D2 to D7 are in joint possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and formed part of undivided joint Hindu Family properties. She stated that being head of the undivided joint Hindu family, the D1 filed claims and got pattadar pass book and title deed book vide Patta No.49 of Daseganuru Revenue village, Kuppam Mandal in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and item No.2 of the suit schedule property is House property and part of joint Hindu family property. She, D5 to D7 and Late. Lavanyaare the childrens of D1 through

Late. Sankaramma and D2 is the husband and D3 and D4 are the childrens of late

Lavanya. D8 is stranger to the joint family but added him as a necessary party to the suit as he has purchased part of the schedule mentioned property under registered sale deed dt. 25.06.2018, vide Doc. No. 3041 of 2018 and extent of Ac 1.00 cents from D1 and D7 herein, but the possession of the property is with her and D1 to D7 jointly. She further stated that the D1 met with an accident about 2 years ago and since then he is not active and also not aware of the things and started yielding to the words of D7 and taking the advantage of circumstances, D7 3 and D1 have jointly sold the land to an extent of Ac 1.00 cents out of Ac 9.35 cents in Item No. 1 of the plaint schedule property to D8 under registered sale deed

dated 25.06.2018 and the same is not binding on her. She further stated that D7

also managed D1 and got registered gift settlement deed in his favor on 05.07.2018 vide Doc. No. 3221 of 2018 for the remaining extent of Ac 8.00 out of Ac 9.35 cents. The remaining Ac. 0.35 cents retained by D1. The said gift deed is also not binding and not valid document and not binding on her and D1 and D7 used to share the grains to her both of them started secreting the income and not sharing the produce to avoid the division of property. She further stated that she also demanding the partition of the plaint schedule properties for the past 3 year before the family members but the D1 and D7 have been postponing to divide the plaint schedule lands with some or other pretext. The other defendants are also hand in glove with the D1 and D7 and she issued legal notice on 29.09.2018 calling upon

D1 to D7 to divide the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds, but the defendants have issued reply notice on 10.10.2018 causing untenable reply. She further stated that during the pendency of the suit, D1 died on 03.06.2022 leaving the plaintiff and D2 to D7 as is legal heirs to succeed all his estate. The suit schedule properties are to be divided into 5 equal shares, the plaintiff is entitled to a 1/5th share, while the defendants 5 to 7 each are entitled to a 1/5th share and the defendants 2 to 4 are jointly entitled to a 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties considering the good and bad qualities of the plaint schedule properties. Hence, the suit.

3. Summons served to the defendants. D3, D4 and D6 not filed written statement. hence, they were set exparte on 17.12.2018.

4.Writtent statement filed by D7 and D1, D2 and D5 adpoted the writtent statement of D7.

5. Defendant No. 7 filed written statement and he stated that he does not admit any of the plaint allegations except those that are specifically submitted herein. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. Plaintiff suppression of the fact of possession of the defendant filed the suit for wrongful gain and he stated that the plaintiff and D7 are the daughter and son of V.Santhamurthy (D1), D5, D6 4 is daughters of D1 remaining defendants are relatives. He stated that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of D1. D7 and D1 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule. The plaintiff and other defendants are not interfered in to the suit schedule property and they don't know about suit schedule properties. He and D1 performed the marriage to her and other daughters also at that time 1st defendant spent huge amount to marriage and given gold ornament to daughters. He further stated that, D1 met an serious accident in the year 2016 at that time no help from the plaintiff side and other defendants side, at that time he had taken loans from various persons on interest basis and he is a poor person and after discharge of him he sold Ac.1.00 cents to D8 with the knowledge of the plaintiff and other defendants. The plaintiff also not helped to him and also D1. Now plaintiff coming and filed this suit for partition, she never approached him and also

D1 for partition of suit schedule property. He is having so many financial problems and having debts. The plaintiff is well settled person and having financial support.

Hence, prayed the court to dismiss the the suit with costs.

6. Defendant No.8 filed written statement and he stated that he does not admit any of the plaint allegations except those that are specifically submitted herein and all the allegations in Para No.3 of the plaint are false and denied. He does not know about the relationships as averred in said Para and he admitted the fact of execution of registered partition deed dt.10-09-1984 under document

No.2229/1984 and that the C schedule properties of said deed were allotted to the share of V.Santhamurthy (15 defendant). He denied that D1, plaintiff and D2 to D7 are in joint possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and formed part of undividied joint hindu family properties. He further stated that D1 and his son

D7 were in posession and enjoyment of land covered under sy. No. 142/2B of

Dasegounuru village of Kuppam Mandal which was allotted to the share of D1 under said registered partition deed 10-09-1984 and his name was also containing in

Revenue records and D1 and his son (D7) for their family personal necessities have sold an extent of Ac.1-00 cents of land out of Ac.9-35 cents within the specified boundaries covered under registered sale deed dt.25-06-2018 under vide registered document No.3041/2018 of SRO Kuppam and duly placed him in 5 possession and enjoyment of said land. Thus since the date of said sale he is in possession and enjoyment of the Ac.1-00 cents of land purchased by him which is part and parcel of item No.1 of present suit schedule properties. The Revenue

Authorities have also duly mutated the name of him in Revenue records, issued e- pass book under Khatha No.748 and also entered name in Online Revenue records.

The plaintiff has pledged the original sale deed dt.25-06-2018 and original pass book before third parties and availed a loan. Hence he is filing Xerox copies of the said records at present and undertakes to submit original records before the court at the time of trial. He denied in Para No.4 of the plaint. The Revenue Authorities have issued Revenue records in the name of D1 as he absolute owner of the properties. He further denied all allegations in Para No.5 of the plaint. He do not know about the relationship between as averred in said Para and the plaintiff be put to strict proof of the same. He was purchased Ac.1-00 cents of land under sale deed dt.25-06-2018, but denies the allegation that the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 7 are in joint possession of the same and prior to the sale the D1 and D7 were in possession of said Ac.1-00 cents of land and after purchase of the same he continuing in possession and enjoyment of the land purchased by him and he did not know anything about the averments in the para No.7 of the that all the allegations in Para No.8 of the plaint are false and denied and the plaintiff be put to strict proof of the same. He denined that all the allegations in Para No.9 of the plaint. He came to know that the plaintiff has no any right to seek partation in the suit schedule properties and he did not know anything about the averments in the para No.10 of the plaint and he is not know anything about exchange of legal notices between plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7. He denined that all the allegations in Para No.11 of the plaint. The plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties. He further denied all the allegations in Para No.12 of the plaint.

There is no cause of action for the suit and the alleged one is a concocted story and the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties and the suit is not maintainable. Hence, prayed the dismiss the suit.

7. In the beginning plaintiff filed the suit for 1/6th share and during the pendency 6 of trial, as 1st defendant was died. Later he amended the shares from 1/6th to 1/5th share.

8. Basing upon the pleadings the following issues were framed.

9. ISSUES:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled 1/5th share in the plaint schedule property or not ?

2. Whether the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of 1st defendant or not?

3. To what relief ?

10. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff PW1 was examined and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 and DW.2 Ex.B1 to

Ex.B6 were marked.

11. Heard arguments both sides.

ISSUE NO.1 and 2:

12. There is no dispute between the parties that deceased D1 Santhamurthy is having five childrens one male children (D7) and four female childrens i.e., plaintiff, deceased Lavanya, D5 and D6.

13. To prove the same plaintiff herself examied as PW1 and she filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and stating that he stated that the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties and the suit schedule properties was original owned by her paternal grandfather Nadipanna @ Venkatappa and he got the childrens namely V.Jeevarathnam and V.Santhamurthy (D1) and the above said persons have jointly entered in to registered partition dt. 10.09.1984 vide

Doc.No.2229/1984. In the said registered partition deed "A" schedule property was alloted the share of Nadipanna @ Venkatappa, "B" schedule property alloted to the

V. jeevarathnam and "C" schedule was alloted to the share of V. santhamurthy. But as per the above partition deed 1st defendant got plaint schedule land who is share.

That ever since from the date of above partition 1st defendant, herself defendants 2 to 7 are in joint possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and formed part of undivided joint hindu family properties. She further stated that being head of the undivided joint Hindu family, D1 filed claims and got pattadar pass book and 7 title deed book vide Patta No.49 of Daseganuru Revenue village, Kuppam Mandal in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and item No.2 of the suit schedule property is House property and part of joint Hindu family property. She further stated that the herself, D5 to D7 and Late. Lavanya are children of D1 through Late. Sankaramma and D2 is the husband and D3 and D4 are children of late Lavanya. D8 is stranger to the joint family but added him as a necessary party to the suit as he has purchased part of the schedule mentioned property under registered sale deed dated 25.06.2018 under Ex.A1, vide Doc. No. 3041 of 2018 and extent of Ac 1.00 cents from the D1 and D7, but the possession of the property is with the plaintiff and D1 to D7 jointly. She further stated that D1 met with an accident about 2 years ago and since then he is not active and also not aware of the things and started yielding to the words of D7 and taking the advantage of circumstances, D7 and 14 defendant have jointly sold the land an extent of Ac 1.00 cents out of Ac 9.35 cents in Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property to D8 under registered sale deed dated 25.06.2018 and the same is not binding on her and D7 also managed D1 and D3 got registered gift settlement deed in his favor on 05.07.2018 under Ex.A2 vide Doc. No. 3221 of 2018 for the remaining extent of Ac 8.00 out of Ac 9.35 cents. The remaining Ac 0.35 cents retained by the D1.

The said gift deed is also not binding and not valid document and not binding on her. She further stated that D1 and D7 used to share the grains to her but late defendant started secreting the income and not sharing the produce to avoid the division of property. She further stated that she has been demanding the partition of the plaint schedule properties for the past 3 year before filing of the suit with the family members, but D1 and D7 have been postponing to divide the plaint schedule lands with some or other pretext and the other defendants are also hand in glove with the defendants 1 and 7 and she issued legal notice on 29.09.2018 under Ex.A4 calling upon D1 to D7 to divide the plaint schedule properties by meets and bounds, but the defendants have issued reply notice on 10.10.2018 under

Ex.A5 causing untenable reply. Hence the plaintiff is obliged file this suit seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties. She further stated that her father who is D1 in the above suit died on 03.06.2022 intestate leaving her and D2 to D7 as 8 his legal heirs by death of their father she is entitled 1/5th share, D2 to D4 are jointly entitled for 1/5th share and D5 to D7 are each entitled for share of 1/5th in the plaint schedule property and D8 is not entitled to any share he is stranger to the family.

During the cross examination of PW1 she stated that I did not file any document to show the suit property stands in the name of my paternal grandfather by name

Nadipanna @ Venkatappa. I did not file partition deed dt. 10.09.1984 between my paternal grandfather Nadipanna and his children by name Jeevarathnam and D1. By this evidence it clearly shows that PW1 not filed any documents stands in the name of her paternal grandfather Nadipanna and not filed partition deed held between her grandfather, her father (D1) and Jeevarathnam.

14. But the counsel for plaintiff stated that after filing of written statement of D7 and same is adopted by D1, they did not come into the witness box nor lead any evidence and drawn attention to the court as per the written statement of D7 in para 3 it is true the suit schedule proeprty are the ancestral property of D1 and also wherein Ex.B2 registered partition deed dt. 10.08.1984 and it is also mention that properties are the anestral properties and as per the written statement of D7 and as per Ex.B2 it clearly shows that suit schedule property are the ancestral propertiesof

Nadipanna @ Venkatappa and there was a partition held between Nadipanna @

Venkatappa and his sons jeevanatham and santhamurthy(D1) and C schedule property (suit properties) are allotted to D1 (Santhamurthy) who is the father of plaintiff.

15. But the counsel for defendant stated that once partition held betwen father and his son that property becomes self acquired property as per Ex.B1 and C schedule property (suit property) was allotted to D1 as partition held between Nadipanna,

Jeevarathnam and Santhamurthy (D1) in the year 1984 as such suit schedule property is a self acquired property of D1 as such D1 and D7 sold tha suit property to D8.

16. Now it is necessary to see what is "ancestral property":

Ancestral property means when property is divided between four generations there 9 it will loses the character of ancestor property and becomes self acquired property.

But in the present case property divided between Nadipanna and his sons

Jeevarathnam and D1 is only the 1st generation not fourth generation, though as per Ex.B1 partition held between them, but it is still having status is an ancestral property not self acquired property of D1 (Santhamurthy).

17. After the amendment Act, 2005, in the Hindu Succession Act, even a daugher are co-parcenary and have a right in ancestral property. Now both sons and daughers are co-parcenary in the family and share equal rights and liabilities over the property. A daugher remains co-parcenary even after her marriage, while it is said that daugher have same right over the ancestral property as the son. But the

Hon'ble Supreme Court put a caveat that both father and daugher had to live on

September, 9, 2005. But in the year 2018 the Hon'ble Supreme Court rulled that daugher can inherit her deceased father's property irrespective of whether father was alive on this date or not. Wherein Arunachal Gownder VS Ponnu Swamy 2022 (11) SC 520.

Where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that father's property shall be inherited by the daugher, in addition to the property of co-parcenary which was obtained through partition.

18. Whereas Sec. 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confers the status of co- parcenary on the daugher born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with rights and liability. Hence, the above citations is applicable to the case on hand, as the plaintiff is one of the daugher of D1 as the suit scheudle property are the ancestral property of D1, by birth itself she is a co-parcenar irrespective of married or not.

19. The learned counsel for plaintiff stated that where in plaintiff did not mentioned her age and she did not born at the time of partition in the year 1984 as such she is not entitled for any share.

20. As per section 20 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 acknowledge and safeguards the rights of unbornchild to inherits ancestor and self acquired property by doing so 10 it helps in creating more equitable and just society providing equal opportunities for both born and unborn heirs.

21. On perusing the plaint though the plaintiff not mentioned on page, but as per section 20 of Hindu Succession Act it safeguard the rights of unborn child to inherit both ancestor and self acquired property of her father and defendant also not denied plaintiff is not the daugher of D1, even though if we accept the verison of defendant, if PW1 is not born at the time of partition in the year 1984 also still she is entitled for partition as per the above section 20 of hindu seccussion act as such plaintiff is not entitled the share as she was not born on the date of partition in the year 1984 is not correct.

22. There is no recital about Ex.A3 it is well settled law in the absence of pleading, if any documents marked it cannot be looked into as such Ex.A3 cannot be considered.

23. With regarding to item No.2 plaintiff stated that item No.2 house propety is a part of joint hindu family property. Except oral evidence she has not filed any piece of document to show item No.2 house property belongs to joint hindu family property as such plaint failed to prove item No.2 is a part of joint hindu family property.

24. On behalf of defendants, D8 was examined as DW1 and he filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he stated that he do not know relationships of plaintiff and defendant and know the facts of execution of registered partition deed dt.10.09.1984 under Ex.B2 in between father of plaintiff and others and in the said partition in C schedule property were alloted to the share santhamurthy who is deceased D1. D1 plaintiff and D2 to D7 are not in joint possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and the same was in possession and D1 and his son D7 to his knowledge and enquiry. He further submits that and D1 mutated in revenue record and D1 and D7 for their family and personal necessities sold an extent of Ac.1.00 land to him in sy.no. in item No.1, out of

Ac.9.35 cents within the specific boundaries covered under registered sale deed dt.25.06.2018 under Ex.B1 under the registered document no. 3041/2018 of SRO, kuppam and duly placed him in possession and enjoyment of suit land, since the 11 date of said same he have been continuing in possession and enjoyement of Ac.1.00 purchased by him and revenue authorities also mutated is name in revenue records and issued E-passbook in khata No.748 and entered his name in revenue record under sub divided sy.no.142/2B-2 under Ex.B3 to Ex.B6 and D1 being the absolute owner of the property got the same through partition deed and sold the land to him along with his son when he is in good sound state of mind and the plaintiff has no right to seek partition in the suit schedule property and he is the bonafide purchaser and enjoying the suit land to an extent of Ac.1.00 and plaintiff and other defendants 2 to 6 are colluded with each other and file the present to knock away his valuable property, as he developed the land purchased by him by spending huge amount.

By knowing all the facts plaintiff filed the present suit with baseless ground and by supression of facts and there is no cause of action for the suit and plaintiff was not entitled any share in the suit schedule property and the suit is not maintainable.

25. To prove the same, he was examined DW2 he filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he stated that he know both the parties and also the suit property. He and his family having their ownland near by the side in item no. 1 of the suit schedule and he came to know that late Santhamurthy i.e. D1 was in possession and enjoyment of the item no.l of the suit schedule and out of that D1 and his son by name S.Suresh i.e., D7 have jointly sold Ac.1-00 cents of land to

D8 under a registered sale deed during the year 2018 and since then D8 is exclusively enjoying the said land purchased by him and from his knowledge the plaintiff never continued in joint possession of any of the suit schedule properties and she has no any right in the suit schedule properties as the said properties was absolutely belonged to late Santhamurthy i.e., D1.

26. But the counsel for plaintiff stated that D1 and D7 has no right to sell away the property in suit sy. no. 142/2B to an extent of Ac.1.00 in favour of DW1, as per Ex.B1 itself mentioned that D1 got the property through partition are the ancestral property and in during cross examination of DW1 I have no idea how many childrens my vendor is having. I have not obtained any family certificate from deceased D1. I do not know deceased vendor is having children one male and four female namely deceased Lavanya, plaintiff, D5 to D7. By this evidence it 12 clearly shows that DW1 pleaded ignorance and saying that he has no idea how many childrens D1 is having and not obtained family member certificate and do not know deceased D1 is having how many childrens. DW1 is not an illiterate that too he worked as agricultural marketyard chairman. Normally if a person wants to purchase any property he has to see first family member certificate and must known how his vendor got the property and must know whether the property is an ancestral property or self acquired property or joint hindu family property or not.

Without making enquiry how DW1 purchased the property from deceased D1 and his son(D7) the reason best known to him.

27. During further cross examination of DW1 he statd that I do not obtained any document from the childrens of D1. Except D7 only. By this evidence it clearly shows that except D7 he did not obtained any document from the childrens of deceased D1. At the cost of repetation as the suit schedule property are the ancestral property of deceased D1 as such D1 and D7 has no right to execute registered sale deed under Ex.B1 to DW1, as such Ex.B1 is not binding on plaintiff.

As DW1 purchased the property under a registered sale deed under Ex.B1, if at all he will get any right in the property, he will get right in the property of D7 only.

28. Hence, over all discussion this court viewed that plaintiff proved the case as such she is entitled for 1/5th share in item No. 1 of suit property. Hence, this issues were answered, accordingly.

29. In the result, suit is preliminary decreed partly with regarding to item

No. 1 of suit schedule property and dismissed the suit with regarding to item No. 2 and plaintiff will get 1/5th share D2 to D4 will get 1/5th share (being the LRs of deceased Lavanya) and D5 to D7 each will get 1/5th share in the suit schedule property and D2, D5 to D7 are directed to divide the suit schedule properties into 5 equal shares and allot 1/5th share to the plaintiff by metes and bounds.

Typed by the Stenographer Grande – III on my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-M.S.Bharathi

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KUPPAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendants :

PW1 : Kavitha Rani DW1: Satyendra Sekhar

DW2: Thulasi Babu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Certified Copy of registered sale deed dt. 25.06.1980 executed by Shanthamurthy who is her father, her grandfather Venkatappa and her brother Suresh in favour of Satyendra Sekhar.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of registered gift deed dt. 05.07.2018 executed by Shanthamurthy who is her father in favour of her brother by name Suresh.

Ex.A3: 1B Extract for Khata No. 748 obtained from Satyendra Sekhar. Meeseva in the name of S. Satyendra Sekhar.

Ex.A4: Notice issued by her dt. 29.09.2018 to the her deceased father and remaining defendants.

Ex.A5: Reply notice dt. 10.10.2018 issued by defendants to her.

For Defendants : -

Ex.B1: Certified copy of sale deed dt. 25.06.2018 executed by D1 and D7 in his favour.

Ex.B2: Certified copy of partition deed dt 10.09.1984 among the defendants and their family members.

Ex.B3: Certified copy of IB dt. 07.03.2019 obtained through Meeseva in his name.

Ex.B4: Certified copy of adangal dt. 07.03.2019 obtained through Meeseva in his name.

Ex.B5: Certified copy of IB dt. 21.09.2023 stands in his name obtained through gramaward Sachivalayam.

ExB6: Certified copy of adangal dt. 21.09.2023 stands in his name obtained through gramaward Sachivalayam.

Sd/-M.S.Bharathi

AJCJ, KUPPAM.

OS/86/2013

Vontela Dasthigiri Saheb vs N.Masthan Saheb

13 Mar 2020

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PUNGANUR

Present : - Smt.M.S.Bharathi

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Friday, the Thirteenth (13th) day of March, 2020

O.S.No.86 of 2013

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Between : -

Vontela Dasthigiri Saheb, S/o Late Abdul Kareem Saheb, Muslim aged about 60 years, Cultivation and business, r/o # 1-78, Digavapeta, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District (A.P.) …. PLAINTIFF

And : -

1.N.Masthan Saheb, S/o N.Sabjan Saheb, Muslim aged about 40 years

2.N.Sayyed, S/o N.Sabjan Saheb, Muslim aged about 30 years [Both are living by cultivation and business, r/o Digavapeta, Ramasamudram Mandal,Chittoor District (A.P.)] …. DEFENDANTS

This suit coming on 11.03.2020before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Y.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri.A.Chennakesavulu, Advocate for defendants;upon hearing arguments and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following : -

J U D G M E N T

1) This suit is filed by the plaintiff for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the beams erected in ‘B, C’ wall and to remove the gate put up at ‘G, H’ as shown in rough sketch and for costs.

- 2 -

2) The brief facts of the plaint are as follows : - The suit schedule property and some other properties originally belonged to Vontela

Madar Saheb and Vontela Khaleel Saheb and they gifted the same to their brother’s son namely V.Dastirigi Saheb (plaintiff), V.Ameer Jan and

V.Anwar Saheb and V.Kalejabi (mother of plaintiff) under registered gift deed dt.02.07.1964 and delivered possession to the above said persons.

After some period, mother of plaintiff by name V.Khalejabi died leaving behind the plaintiff, V.Ameer Jan, V.Anwar Saheb to succeed her estate. So, the plaintiff and his brother namely V.Ameer Jan and V.Anwar Saheb are having 1/3rd share each in suit schedule property. It is stated that in the year 1970 all the three brothers orally divided the properties covered under registered gift deed dt.02.07.1964 and in the said division, the suit schedule property fell to the share of plaintiff and the plaintiff, being elder brother was given four feet extra as ‘jhesta bhagam’ and all the three brothers constructed houses. The plaintiff got constructed two storied house in ‘BCDE’ as shown in plaint rough sketch. The plaintiff put up two windows in ‘BE’ portion in two places and on the top of said windows, the plaintiff also put two water ‘kovulu’ to come out rain water from the said water kovulu. The rain water will fell on western side place left by the plaintiff in ‘ABEF’ portion and the plaintiff has left the said place to get air, light into his house situated in ‘ABCDE’ shown in rough sketch and also to enable to white wash to the northern side ‘BC’ wall. The main door of the plaintiff’s house is on southern side. It is stated that defendants got house on northern side of the house of plaintiff and they got constructed house long back and they got egress and ingress to their house on eastern side. The defendants - 3 - have no right whatsoever over ‘BC’ wall, ‘ABEF’ sandu dova of the plaintiff and plaintiff is absolute owner of the same. Recently the defendants removed one house which is situated on northern side of plaintiff’s house and started constructions. In the absence of plaintiff, the defendants highhanded got inserted the beams in ‘BC’ wall without any right and the defendants have not even right to use sandu dova situated in ‘ABEF’ portion shown in rough sketch. Hence the suit for mandatory injunction to remove the beams in ‘BC’ wall and also to remove the gate put up by the defendants at ‘GH’ portion as shown in plaint rough sketch.

3) The 1st defendant filed his written statement and the 2nddefendant adopted the written statement filed by the 1st defendant and pleaded that that suit is not maintainable in law or on facts. It is stated that the plaintiff has not stated how his vendor got the suit property. Though the gift deed was executed in favour of V.Ameer Jan, V.Anwar Saheb and

Khalijabi, the plaintiff name alone filed the suit. It is stated that there is no clear proof for oral division and the suit property fell to the share of plaintiff. In view of absence of pleadings in the plaint about the right and title of the property gifted by the vendor plaintiff, the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff failed to establish his right and title over the property. It is stated that suit is filed for mandatory injunction to remove or demolish the beams erected in “BC’ portioni and to remove gate put up to ‘GH’ portion as shown in rough sketch is very serious matter and it is to be established that the plaintiff has right and title over the suit schedule property. It is stated that the suit land is in Sy.No.151 is admittedly - 4 -

Government land for which title vests with the Government. Even the registered sale deed dt.06.07.1963 executed by Sabjan Saheb, S/o

Vankarollapalle Ghouse Saheb to one Khadar Saheb, S/o Vontela Budan

Saheb, the western boundary in the schedule is mentioned as ‘sandhu’, So, there is existence of ‘sandhu’ from the year 1963 and even prior to that year. The said ‘sandhu’ dova is in possession and enjoyment as easementary right since more than 40 years i.e., more than statutory period.

The beams erected in ‘BC’ wall by the defendants is as of right and usage for the last several years. The commissioner report will not help in anyway to the plaintiff. It is stated that the claim of easementary right for the usage of ‘sandu dova’ and the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction and there is no cause of action for the suit and hence prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

4) Basing on the pleadings and documents, this court framed the following issues for trial.

1.Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for mandatory injunction without seeing the relief of declaration of right and title over the suit property is maintainable or not?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of mandatory injunction for removal of beams erected in ‘BC’ wall, gate put up at ‘GH’ portion shown in rough sketch as prayed for?

3.To what relief?

- 5 -

5) During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff PWs.1 and 2 are examined and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A.6.On behalf of defendants,

DWs.1 to 3 are examined and got marked Ex.B.1.

6) Heard arguments on both sides.

7) There is no dispute between the parties that defendants 2, 3 and plaintiff are the sons of Magbul Bee and she is sister of defendants 2, 3 and plaintiff and they are own brothers.

8) ISSUE NOs.1 & 2 : - To prove the same, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examintion and stated that suit schedule property and some other properties originally belonged to Vontela Madar Saheb and Vontela Khaleel Saheb and they gifted the same to their brother’s son namely V.Dastirigi Saheb (plaintiff),

V.Ameer Jan and V.Anwar Saheb and V.Kalejabi (mother of plaintiff) under registered gift deed dt.02.07.1964 under Ex.A.1 and delivered possession to the above said persons. After some period, mother of plaintiff by name

V.Khalejabi died leaving behind the plaintiff, V.Ameer Jan, V.Anwar Saheb to succeed her estate. So, the plaintiff and his brother namely V.Ameer Jan and V.Anwar Saheb are having 1/3rd share each in suit schedule property. It is stated that in the year 1970 all the three brothers orally divided the properties covered under registered gift deed dt.02.07.1964 and in the said division, the suit schedule property fell to the share of plaintiff and the plaintiff, being elder brother was given four feet extra as ‘jhesta bhagam’ and all the three brothers constructed houses and paid tax and also obtained electricity service connections and Aadhar card under Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.5 and - 6 - plaintiff got constructed two storied house in ‘BCDE’ as shown in plaint rough sketch under Ex.A.6 and put up two windows in ‘BE’ portion in two places and on the top of said windows and also put two water ‘kovulu’ to come out rain water from the said water kovulu. The rain water will fell on western side place left by the plaintiff in ‘ABEF’ portion and the plaintiff has left the said place to get air, light into his house situated in ‘ABCDE’ shown in rough sketch and also to enable to white wash to the northern side ‘BC’ wall. The main door of the plaintiff’s house is on southern side. It is stated that defendants got house on northern side of the house of plaintiff and they got constructed house long back and they got egress and ingress to their house on eastern side. The defendants have no right whatsoever over ‘BC’ wall, ‘ABEF’ sandu dova of the plaintiff and plaintiff is absolute owner of the same. Recently the defendants removed one house which is situated on northern side of plaintiff’s house and started constructions. In the absence of plaintiff, the defendants highhanded got inserted the beams in ‘BC’ wall without any right and the defendants have not even right to use sandu dova situated in ‘ABEF’ portion shown in rough sketch. To prove the same he also examined PW.2 and he also deposed the same version and stated that suit schedule property is being enjoyed by the plaintiff since the age of his discretion. As per the case of defendants, plaintiff and his brothers are having houses on southern side of his house and they got constructed 3 houses as per the measurements under Ex.A.1 without leaving any space on western side of the plaintiff house and plaintiff is not having any right in ‘sandu dova’ i.e., ‘ABEF’ shown in rough sketch and same belongs to them. Without showing ‘sandu dova’ - 7 - plaintiff shown western boundary i.e., house of P.Khaleel Saheb and the boundaries shown in Ex.A.1 and plaint boundaries are different with each other and wherein in Ex.B.1 he shown ‘sandu dova’ on western side. On perusing Ex.A.1, boundaries are as follows : - East – Hakeem saheb land;

West – Pakeer Khaleel Saheb land; North – Sabjan Saheb and South –

Jainu Saheb land. The measurement are East – West 12 yards i.e., 36 feet;

North – South 9 yards i.e., 27 feet. Except northern boundary, other boundaries are tallying with Ex.A.1 and there is no ‘sandu dova’ is shown in Ex.A.1 wherein, in Ex.B.1 the western boundary showed as ‘sandu dova’ with measurements East – West 101.2 yards; North – South 41.2 yards. By this exhibit it clearly shows that ‘sandu dova’ is situated on western side of defendants land. The counsel for defendants further stated that after purchasing the property by their father in the year 1963, their father constructed a house first and later plaintiff constructed three houses for himself and defendants 2 and 3, who are none other than brothers of plaintiff and they are situated on eastern side of suit schedule property and all the brothers are residing separately in separate houses without leaving any space on western side. Plaintiff also relied on Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.5 electricity bills, house hold car and Aadhar card belongs to plaintiff. As there is no dispute between parties that plaintiff is having house on the southern side of house of defendants, these exhibits are belongs to the plaintiff, as such they are not discussed.

9) To prove the same the 1st defendant examined as DW.1 and he filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and stated that the plaintiff - 8 - has not stated how his vendor got the suit property. Though the gift deed was executed in favour of V.Ameer Jan, V.Anwar Saheb and Khalijabi, the plaintiff name alone filed the suit. It is stated that there is no clear proof for oral division and the suit property fell to the share of plaintiff. In view of absence of pleadings in the plaint about the right and title of the property gifted by the vendor plaintiff, the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff failed to establish his right and title over the property. It is further stated that suit is filed for mandatory injunction to remove or demolish the beams erected in “BC’ portioni and to remove gate put up to ‘GH’ portion as shown in rough sketch is very serious matter and it is to be established that the plaintiff has right and title over the suit schedule property. It is further stated that the suit land is in Sy.No.151 is admittedly Government land for which title vests with the Government. Even the registered sale deed dt.06.07.1963 under Ex.B.1 executed by Sabjan Saheb, S/o Vankarollapalle

Ghouse Saheb to one Khadar Saheb, S/o Vontela Budan Saheb, the western boundary in the schedule is mentioned as ‘sandhu’, So, there is existence of ‘sandhu’ from the year 1963 and even prior to that year. The said ‘sandhu’ dova is in possession and enjoyment as easementary right since more than 40 years i.e., more than statutory period. The beams erected in ‘BC’ wall by the defendants is as of right and usage for the last several years. The commissioner report will not help in anyway to the plaintiff. It is stated that the claim of easementary right for the usage of ‘sandu dova’, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction. To prove the same, he also examined DW.2 and he stated that suit schedule property and some other place on eastern side is not belongs to Vontela Madar Saheb and - 9 -

Vontela Khaleel Saheb and they never in possession of the same and plaintiffs are not having right over the suit schedule property. During cross examination DW.2 deposed that, “If defendant has to reach main road he has to pass disputed ‘sandu dova’. First defendant father constructed the house later my brother (plaintiff) got constructed three houses in the place of oblong huts. Witness adds that we have no way concerned to the disputed ‘sandu dova’. Wherein in cross examintion of DW.3, “Neither myself nor plaintiff nor DW.2 is having right in the ‘sandu dova’ and plaintiff constructed house as per the measurements given by our junior paternal uncle without leaving any space. It is true ‘sandu dova’ is situated on western side of my sister Magbul house. Except ‘sandu dova’ there is no other way for my sister to go to her house.” He denied the suggestion that

‘sandu dova’ left by the plaintiff on the date of construction of our

houses. During further cross examination, the counsel for plaintiff

suggested to DW.2 and he denied that as he is not residing on the

western side of plaintiff house, as such he is giving evidence against the plaintiff. The counsel for plaintiff not suggested any enmity to Defendants 2 and 3, as such they are giving false evidence against the plaintiff and their evidence can be believable and cannot be doubted.

10) The counsel for defendants stated that this court also appointed Advocate Commissioner and drawn attention to the court in the commissioner report that the said sandu dova is cement sandu dova, iron gates, pillars and houses of respondent are constructed newly. Wherein in sketch he shown Khaleel Saheb after sandu dova on western side. Wherein - 10 - in plaint schedule he shown western side as Pakeer Khaleel Saheb. So, by this commissioner report it clearly shows that there is sandu dova on western side of plaintiff’s house and after sandu dova Pakeer Khaleel

Saheb house is there. Plaintiff not shown sandu dova and shown Pakeer

Khaleel Saheb on western side of plaint schedule property. So, plaintiff intentionally not shown ‘sandu dova’ and shown western boundary as

Pakeer Khaleel Saheb. When there is no ‘sandu dova’ showed in Ex.A.1, how the plaintiff saying that ‘sandu dova’ belongs to him and same is left by him, as such he is not having any right in ‘sandu dova’ and same is not belongs to him. As stated by the defendants, in order to reach the main road, defendants have to pass through ‘sandu dova’. Granting of injunction is a discretionary relief and the plaintiff has to come before the court with clean hands in order to seek the relief. But he has not come to the court with clean hands, as such he is not entitled for the reliefs. Accordingly, these issues were answered against the plaintiff.

11) ISSUE NO.3 : - In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the13 th day of March, 2020.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PUNGANUR

- 11 -

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Plaintiff Defendants

PW.1 V.Dasthagiri Saheb DW.1 N.Masthan Saheb

PW.2 P.Munwar Basha DW.2 V.Ameer Saheb

DW.3 Anwar Saheb

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff

Ex.A.1 02.07.1964 Registered gift deed executed by Khaleel Saheb and Madar Saheb in favour of mother of plaintiff, plaintiff and his brothers

Ex.A.2 -- House tax demand notice

Ex.A.3 -- House tax receipts – 4 Nos.

Ex.A.4 -- Electricity bills – 3 Nos.

Ex.A.5 -- Aadhar card

Ex.A.6 -- Plaint rough sketch

Exhibits marked for Defendants

Ex.B.1 06.07.1963 Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by V.Khadar Saheb in favour of plaintiff’s father by name Sabjan Saheb

PJCJ, PGR

- 12 -

Fair Judgment in

O.S.No.86/2013

Dt.13.03.2020

CC/100148/2011 Acquitted

The S I of Police Punganur P S vs Mude Yugandhar Naik

02 May 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PUNGANUR

PRESENT: -Smt. M.S. Bharathi, B.Com , LL.B.,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Punganur .

Tuesday, the 2nd ( Second ) day of May, 2017.

C.C No. 148 / 2011 Between:-

The State of A.P. represented by the Sub-Inspector of police , Punganur Police station.

Complainant.

And : -

1)Mude Yugandhar Naik, age 23 years, s/o Raju Naik, Pedda Thanda, Sugalimitta, Punganur Mandal

2)Mude Lokesh Naik, age 20 years, s/o Valle Naik @ Vakalya Naik, Naramakulapalle Thanda, H/o Kotavaripalle, Madanapalle Mandal.

ACCUSED.

This case is coming on 27-4-2017 before me, for final hearing, in the presence of the Assistant Public prosecutor for State and of Sri L.V.Ramana,

Advocate for Accused Nos. 1 and 2, upon hearing the arguments and on perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :- -: JUDGMENT ;-

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Punganur P.S laid charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Cr. No. 94 /2011 for the offences punishable under Sec. 379 or 411 IPC .

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 8-3-2011 at about 8.30 p.m in front of house of LW-1-U.Ramachandraiah, parked his TVS Super XL motor-cycle bearing No. AP.03.AN.6435, green colour, worth of Rs.28,000/-, at D.No.27-5-18-1,

Gokul street, Punganur town. After some time he came and found that some unknown offenders committed theft of the same and on his complaint a case in Cr. No.

94/2011 was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, on 5-7-2011 at 11.00 A.M, on Pungnaur- Madanapalle road, near Eden Garden Hotel, 2

Punganur , A-1 was arrested by the S.I. of Police, Punganur in the presence of mediators and on confessional statement of A-1 admitted the commission of offence along with A-2 and on the confession of A-1 , the S.I. of police recovered the said TVS

Super XL motor-cycle from the possession of A-1 under a cover of mahazarnama and further A-2 was arrested on 23-7-2011 at 9.00 a.m, at Kotha Indlu Bus stop, Punganur town and on his confession about the commission of theft in the above case, he was arrested under a cover of mahazarnama and sent him to court for remand. . After completion of investigation, the S.I. of police, Punganur filed charge sheet against the accused under Sec. 379 or 411 IPC.

3. This case is taken on file under Sec. 379 or 411 IPC against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 by my learned predecessor-in-office.

4. On appearance of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, the copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were examined under Sec. 239 Cr.P.C and the contents of charge sheet were explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the offences and a charge under Sec. 379 IPC against A-1 and A-2 and under

Sec 411 IPC against A-1, were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8 Viz., PW-1 is N.Mani , PW-2 –C.Srinivasulu, PW-3 is Anthony

Raj, PW-4 is B.Reddeppa, PW-5 is G.Mallikarjuna, PW-6 is B.Venkatesh, H.C. PW-7 is N.Sivakumar Reddy, S.I. of police. Ex.P-1 is the Complaint of PW-1 given to police,

Ex.P-2 is the signature of PW-2 in the arrest , confession and seizure mahazarnama.

Ex.P-3 is the Signature of PW-3 in arrest and confession and seizure mahazarnama.

Ex.P-4 is the F.I.R. in Cr. No. 94 /2011 of Punganur P.S. Ex.P-5 is the Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P-6 is the Arrest and confession and seizure mahazarnama at 9.30 a.m. Ex.P-7 is the confession mahazarnama. Ex.P-8 is the receipt of PW-1.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence against the accused Nos. 1 and 2, for which they stated it as false and reported no evidence.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Nos, 1 and 2 for the offence under Sec. 379 I.P.C , and guilt of A-1 for the offence under Sec. 411 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubts?

10. POINT :- During the course of trial, the learned A.P.P. filed the death certificate of

LW-1-U.Ramachandra on 25-2-2015 and hence the evidence of LW-1 is closed.

11. The prosecution has examined LW.2 – Nanabala Mani as PW-1.

He deposed that he do not know the accused. On 8-3-2011 at about 3.00 p.m, he was informed by deceased LW-1-U.Ramachandraiah that his two wheeler was committed theft by some unknown persons. Immediately he reused to the house LW- 1 and also searched in and around Punganur town, but they could not trace the vehicle. Then himself and LW-1 went to police station, Punganur and LW-1-

U.Ramachandraiah gave complaint to police and he identified the signature of LW-1-

U.Ramachandraiah in the complaint. Ex.P-1 is the complaint. He was examined by police.

12. The prosecution examined LW-4-C.Sreenivasulu examined as PW-2 deposed that he do not know the accused. He deposed that no arrest and recovery mahazar was taken place in his presence. Only on the request of police he signed on mahazar, but he do not know the contents of the said mahazarnama. His signature was marked as Ex.P-2. He stated that he was not examined by police.

13. The prosecution examined LW-3-K.Anthonyraj as PW-3. He deposed that he do not know A-1 and A-2. He do not know anything about the case and no confession and arrest and recovery of two wheeler was taken place in his presence as stated by the prosecution. The police obtained his signature on the confessional mahazarnama and the said signature is marked as Ex.P-3. The learned APP cross- examined him and he denied the suggestion that he is deposing false and the police 4 have arrested and recovered the two wheelers in his presence and the accused voluntarily confessed their offence in his presence.

14. The prosecution examined LW-6-B.Reddeppa as PW-4. He deposed that on 23-7-2011 He was taken by the police and went to Kotha Indlu of Punganur town at their request. At that time LW-5 and police were also present. Police found

A-2 and arrested him and on enquiry A-2 revealed that he has committed theft of two wheeler at Gokul Theatre, Punganur town and police recorded the confession of A-2 in his presence and he signed on the confessional mahazarnama. His signature is Ex.P- 4 and LW-5-G.Ramesh was also signed along with him.

15. The prosecution examined Lw-7 : G.Murali Krishna, the then H.C.,

Punganur P.S., as PW-5. He deposed that on 22-4-2011 at about 10.00 a.m, while he was present in the station, LW-1-U.Ramachandraiah came to police station and gave written complaint and he registered a case in Cr. No. 94 /2011 under Sec. 379

IPC and issued Ex.P-4- F.I.R. On the same day, he examined LW-1-

U.Ramachandraiah and recorded his statement. On the same day, he went to the scene of offence situate at Gokul street, Punganur and secured PW-1 and recorded his statement and he drafted rough sketch. Ex.P-5 is the rough sketch. Further investigation was one by LW-8-B.Venkatesh and LW-9-N.Sivakumar Reddy, S.I. of police.

16. The prosecution examined Lw-6 : B.Venkatesh, the S.I of police, deposed that on 23-7-2011 at about 8.30 a.m, while he was present at the police station, he received a credible information about A-2. Later he and mediators and staff went to Punganur town , Kotha Indlu, Bus-stop and saw A-2 was thereby seeing them he tried to sklk away. Later he, and his staff caught hold him. On enquiry, he revealed his name and address. Then, he arrested him in the presence of mediators and A-2 confessed that he along with A-1 about 3 ½ months back , committed theft of

TVS XL Super Green colour which was kept in front of the house. Then he identify the accused that belongs to this case and drafted arrest mahazarnama, which is Ex.P-

6. Later he brought the accused to the police station and sent him to court for remand.

17. The prosecution examined LW-9- N.Sivakumar Reddy, Inspector of police, who worked as S.I. of police, Punganur, as PW-7. He deposed that he took the entire case records from PW-5 for further investigation. On 5-7-2011 at about 11.00 a.m, he along with LW-6 and some others went to Eden gardens situated at

Punganur – Madanapalle road for vehicle checking. At that time his staff stopped one TVS XL Super motor-cycle, but the rider of the vehicle did not stop the vehicle and went away to some distance without stopping. On suspicion his staff caught hold the said person and produced before him. On enquiry he revealed that his name as M

Yugandhar Naik (A1) and confessed that he along with A-2 committed theft of TVS XL super about three months back at Gokul street, Punganur. Then he seized the said

TVS XL super in the presence of mediators. PW-2, PW-3 and drafted confession and arrest mahazarnama, which is Ex.P-7. After drafting of Ex.P-7 , they will return back to the P.S., along the accused. Later he arrested the accused in the presence of mediators ie., PWs 2 and 3 and he sent the accused to court for remand. Further as per direction of this court he returned the vehicle to LW-1, after obtaining receipt from him. Ex.P-8 is the receipt. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

18. With the alleged facts and evidence on record, the learned A.P.P.

argued that A-1 and A-2 committed theft of two wheelers belongs to Pw-1. As per their voluntary confessions and therefore they are liable to be punished accordingly. On the other side, the learned defence counsel contended that the police have filed a false case against the accused and alleged confession of the accused obtained by force and it cannot be believable and mediators also not supported to the case of the prosecution and prayed this court to acquit the accused.

19. In this case the accused are charged for the offence under Sec.

379 or 411 IPC . To prove the offence under Sec. 379 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused dishonestly took any movable property out of the possession of any person without the consent of that person and in order to move such thing. In this case, on perusing the evidence on record, there is no direct eye witness who saw that the accused has committed theft of two wheeler and in Ex.P- 1 , PW-1 stated that some unknown offenders committed theft of his two wheeler. So 6 the prosecution depends upon the confessional panchanama ie., in Ex.P-7, to establish that the accused committed theft of two wheelers. But the confession of the accused cannot be relied upon to establish a fact as it is hit by Sec. 25 of Evidence

Act and it can be used to prove recovery of the property under Sec. 27 of Evidence

Act. Hence I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the offence under Sec. 379 IPC against the accused Nos. 1 and 2.

20. To prove the offence under Sec. 411 IPC and the prosecution has to establish that the stolen property recovered from the possession of the accused and the prosecution has to establish this fact by direct evidence. In this case the prosecution relied upon Exs. P6 and P7, coupled with oral evidence of PWs 2 to 7 and

PWs 2 and 3 who are mediators but they did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile to the case of prosecution and marked their signatures as

Exs.P-2 and P-3 and the prosecution also examined PWs 4 who is another mediator stating that A-2 arrested in his presence by PW-6 and he confessed that he committed he committed theft of two wheeler at Gokul street, Punganur and PW-6 drafted the arrest mahazarnama and marked as Ex.P-6. But here PW-6 stated that he drafted the seizure, confession and arrest mahazarnama. But he deposed in his evidence that he drafted only arrest mahazarnama. But as per the evidence of PW-4, he did not state that Pw-6 seized any stolen property from the possession of A-2. So the evidence of PW-4 is contradicting with the evidence of PW-6. So there is a doubt under Ex.P-6 whether PW-6 drafted the arrest mahazarnama or seizure, confession and arrest mahazarnama and PW-4 stated that he along with LW-5 signed in Ex.P-6, but the prosecution not examined LW-5 who is another mediator, to the reasons best known to them. It also creates some suspicion in the evidence of prosecution and

PW-7 also not conducted any identification parade and he stated that he gave the property to PW-1 and he obtained the receipt from PW-1 and marked as Ex.P-8. So it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. So on perusing the entire evidence on record.

Hence I am of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt against the accused under Sec. 379 or 411 IPC and the accused are entitled for acquittal. This point is answered accordingly.

21. In the result, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec.

379 IPC and A-1 is found not guilty of offence under Sec. 411 IPC and they are acquitted under Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under U/S 437-A Cr.P.C and thereafter they shall stands cancelled. The property returned to LW-1- U.Ramachandra under Ex.P-8 receipt, by the police and the same holds good after expiry of appeal time..

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- M.S. Bharathi,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PUNGANUR .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:- DEFENCE:- PW-1- N.Mani , -- NIL. PW-2 –C.Srinivasulu, PW-3 – Anthony Raj, PW-4 - B.Reddeppa, PW-5 - G.Mallikarjuna, PW-6 - B.Venkatesh, H.C. PW-7 - N.Sivakumar Reddy, S.I. of police.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: -

Ex.P-1 -- Complaint of PW-1 given to police, Ex.P-2 --Signature of PW-2 in arrest and confession and seizure mahazarnama. Ex.P-3 --Signature of PW-3 in arrest and confession and seizure mahazarnama. Ex.P-4 – F.I.R. in Cr. No. 94 /2011 of Punganur P.S. Ex.P-5- Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P-6-- Arrest and confession and seizure mahazarnama. Ex.P-7 - confession mahazarnama . Ex,P-8 – Receipt of LW-1-U.Ramachandra.

DEFENCE:

- NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- - NIL.

Sd/- M.S. Bharathi,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PUNGANUR .

// True copy // 8

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:: PUNGANUR.

Calendar in C.C.No. 148 / 2011.

Date of Offences:8-3-2011

Date of complaints:22-4-2011

Date of taken on file:4-8-2011

Date of apprehension of accused:5-7-2011 (A-1), 23-7-2011(A-2)

Date of commencement of trial.:8-6-2015

Date of close of trial:27-4-2017

Date of sentence of Order:2-5-2017

Complainant:The Sub- Inspector of Police, Punganur P.S, in Cr. No. 94 /2011

Names and addresses of the Accused : -

1)Mude Yugandhar Naik, age 23 years, s/o Raju Naik, Pedda Thanda, Sugalimitta, Punganur Mandal

2)Mude Lokesh Naik, age 20 years, s/o Valle Naik @ Vakalya Naik, Naramakulapalle Thanda, H/o Kotavaripalle, Madanapalle Mandal.

Nature of offence/U/ Sec. 379 or 411 IPC ( House lurking, theft or retaining of Section of law stolen property having reason to believe the same to be stolen property)

Ex.planation of delay Inspite of taking several adjournments, the prosecution examined PW-1 on 8-6-2015, PW-2 on 26-6-2015, PWs 3 and 4 on 29-7-2016, PW-5 on 10-2-2017, Pw-6 on 6-2-2017, PW-7 on 20-4-2017.

Finding of the court Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty.

Sentence of order. :- In the result, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 379 IPC and A-1 is found not guilty of offence under Sec. 411 IPC and they are acquitted under Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under U/S 437-A Cr.P.C and thereafter they shall stands cancelled. The property returned to LW-1- U.Ramachandra under Ex.P-8 receipt, by the police and the same holds good after expiry of appeal time..

Sd/- M.S.Bharathi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Punganur // True copy //

CC/100219/2017 Acquitted

The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Punganur vs B. Balaji naik

05 May 2017

---

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PUNGANUR .

PRESENT: -Smt. M.S. Bharathi, B.Com , LL.B.,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Punganur .

Friday, the 5 th ( Fifth ) day of May, 2017.

C.C No. 219 / 2017

Between:-

The State of A.P. represented by the the Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Punganur.

Complainant

And :

Banavathi Balaji Naik, age 38 years, s/o B.Muniya Naik, Caste-Sugali,

R/o Nallagutlapalle Village, Punganur

Mandal. Chittoor Dist.,

Accused.

This case is coming on 4-5-2017 before me, for final hearing, in the presence of the Assistant Public prosecutor for State and of Sri M.Vijaya Kumar,

Advocate for Accused, upon hearing their arguments, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :- - : JUDGMENT ;-

The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Punganur, laid charge sheet in

Cr.No. 376 /2014-15 against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 12-11-2014 at about 10.45 a.m, during the raids conducted by M.Lakshmana Dasu, the Prohibition & Excise Sub-

Inspector, Punganur (LW-3) along with his staff, reached at Black hillock road on

Pujaganipalli to Nallagutlapalli Thanda road of Punganur Mandal, found the accused in possession of one rubber tube and he tried to skip away. On suspicion the Proh. &

Excise Sub-Inspector and his staff surround and detained him. On enquiry, he revealed that the tube containing I.D.liquor. Then the Prohibition & Excise Sub-

Inspector, Punganur (LW-3) deputed LW-1-G.Bosukumar to secure mediators and he tried for mediators , but in vain. The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Punganur 2--- examined the rubber tube and found containing 20 liters of I.D. liquor. On interrogation the accused revealed his identity particulars. The accused did not disclose the source of said I.D liquor. Then the Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector,

Punganur had drawn one 180 ml sample into one glass bottle from rubber tube for the purpose of chemical analysis and sealed and labeled them and seized the remaining contraband and arrested the accused under a cover of special report. After returning to station, basing on special report, a case in Cr.No. 376 /2014-15 under

Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 was registered and investigated into and the accused was sent to court for remand. During the course of investigation, the Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Punganur (LW-3) sent the samples to the

Regional Chemical Laboratory, Chittoor for analysis and received the Chemical

Examiner’s report vide No. 477 /2014-15 dt: 28-11-2014 and property was destroyed on 29-5-2015 under cover of panchanama and after completion of investigation, the

Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Punganur (LW-4) filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 . Hence the charge.

3. After filing of charge sheet, this case is taken on file under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Sec. 239 Cr.P.C and the contents of charge sheet were explained to him, for which he denied the offence and a charge under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 is framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P4 and M.O.1. The prosecution examined PW-1 is M.Lakshmana

Dasu, the then Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Punganur. PW-2-is G.Bosu

Kumar, Proh. & Excise Constable and PW-3 is M.Sivaiah , P & E. H.C. Ex.P-1 is the 3--- special report dt: 12-11-2015, Ex.P-2 is the F.I.R. in Cr.No. 376 /2014-15 of Proh. &

Excise P.S, Punganur. Ex.P-3 is the Analysis Report. Ex.P-4 is the attested copy of

Panchanama. M.O. 1 is one Sample bottle. The learned A.P.P. given up the evidence of LW-4-P.Sravan Tej, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Punganur.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence by explaining the same to him in Telugu for which he denied the same and further he stated that he has no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record.

9. Now the point for consideration is :-

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 , beyond

all reasonable doubts ?

10. POINT :-

The case of the prosecution is that on 12-11-2014 at about 10.45 a.m,, during the raids conducted by the Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Punganur (LW-

3) along with his staff, during the raids reached at Black hillock road on Pujaganipalli to Nallagutlapalli Thanda road of Punganur Mandal, found the accused in possession of one rubber tube containing 20 liters of I.D. liquor and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. To prove its case, as stated supra, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-4 and M.O.1.

11. PW-1 –M.Lakshmana Dasu, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector deposed that on 12-11-2014 at about 10.45 a.m, during Excise raids along with his staff, when reached at Black hillock road on Pujaganipalli to Nallagutlapalli Thanda road of

Punganur Mandal, they found the accused along with one rubber tube and seeing them the accused tried to skip away and immediately they surrounded and detained him. On enquiry, the accused revealed that containing I.D.liquor. Immediately he deputed PW-2 to secure the mediators in surrounding villages and he came back and informed no one came forward to act as mediators and V.R.O and V.R.A. were not 4--- available in the village. So he verified the said tube and found containing 20 liters of

I.D. liquor and seized the contraband and arrested the accused under a cover of

Ex.P-1-special report drafted on the spot and basing on it, he registered the case in

Cr.No. 376 /2014-15 under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. Ex.P- 2 is the F.I.R. During the course of investigation, he sent the samples for chemical analysis to the Government Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for analysis and received C.E. Report vide No. 477 /2014-15 dt: 28-11-2014 and the said report reveals that the sample is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Ex.P-3 is the Chemical Analysis report. As per proceedings of Deputy

Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise , Chittoor vide R.C. No. 139 /2015-B2 dt: 18-5- 2015, the property was destroyed on 29-5-2015 under a cover of panchanama. Ex.P- 4 is the attested copy of panchanama. After completion of investigation, the

Prohibition and Excise Sub- Inspector, Punganur (LW-4) filed charge sheet against the accused.

12. PW-2 –G.Bosu Kumar, Prohibition and Excise Constable , Punganur deposed that on 12-11-2014 at about 10.45 a.m, during the raids conducted by the

Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Punganur (LW-3) along with his staff, reached at

Black hillock road on Pujaganipalli to Nallagutlapalli Thanda road of Punganur Mandal, found the accused was in possession of one rubber tube. On seeing them, the accused tried to ran away and immediately they surrounded the accused and detained him. PW-1 deputed him to secure mediators in surrounding villages, after some time he informed PW-1 that no one came forward to act as mediators and V.R.O and V.R.A. are not available. On interrogation of PW-1, the accused revealed his identity and PW-1 verified the said rubber tube and found it was containing 20 liters of I.D. liquor and PW-1 drawn one sample, duly sealed and labeled, and seized the contraband and arrested the accused under a cover of Ex.P-1-special report. PW-1 drafted the special report in his presence and he signed in it. Later they returned to police station and brought the accused and on the basis of Ex.P-1 PW-1 registered the case and further investigation was done by PW-1.

5---

12. PW-3 –M.Sivaiah, Prohibition and Excise Head Constable , Punganur deposed that on 12-11-2014 at about 10.45 a.m, during the raids conducted by the

Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Punganur (LW-3) along with his staff, reached at

V.R.O and V.R.A. are not available. PW-1 enquired the accused and the accused revealed his identity particulars and PW-1 verified the said rubber tube and found it was containing 20 liters of I.D. liquor and PW-1 drawn one sample, duly sealed and labeled, and seized the contraband and arrested the accused under a cover of Ex.P- 1-special report. He drafted the special report in his presence and he signed in it.

Later they returned to police station and brought the accused and on the basis of

Ex.P-1 PW-1 registered the case and further investigation was done by PW-1.

13. The learned A.P.P. argued that the prosecution has proved its case by placing sufficient material on record. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused argued that the Investigating officer has not followed the procedure laid down under

Sec. 100(4) Cr.P.C, at the time of seizure of contraband, as alleged by him. He further argued that in the absence of independent witnesses, the evidence of police officials cannot be relied on.

14. According to Sec. 100(4) Cr.P.C. before making a search, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality, if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. In a decision reported in 2005(3) ALT (Crl.) 1 (A.P) in between Gajamker Narayana Vs State of A.P., it was held that 6--- “ Neither the testimony of PW-1 nor that of PW-2 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P1 , Police Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by Excise Officials to secure independent respectable inhabits of the locality. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Sec. 100(4) Cr.P.C, are not followed by the Excise Officials while seizing the plastic can containing I.D.Liquor. Therefore the seizure made in this case is illegal.”

15. The present case is based on Ex.P-1. But in this case as stated supra, except PWs 1 to 3, the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses to speak about the incident happened at the scene of offence. A perusal of evidence of

PWs 1 to 3, in their cross-examination, they admitted that they have not drawn rough sketch at the scene of offence. PW-1 stated that PW-2 did not gave any written report with regard to non-availability of mediators. PW-1 and PW-2 stated that they have not taken any instruments. PW-1 further stated that PW-2 not given any written report with regard to non-availability of mediators. PW-1 has also not submitted the said black rubber tube before this court to prove the detection of the above crime.

PW-2 evidence shows that they went to raids in a private vehicle, but they have not taken the driver as witnessed and there is no explanation to show that what prevented them to take their driver as independent witness to their proceedings and they have not taken him as a witness. PWs-1 to 3 failed to take any of the villagers of nearby village or V.R.O. and V.R.A. , Sarpanch as independent witnesses and it creates doubt about the visiting of the scene of offence. PW-1 and PW-2 not given explanation as to why they have not secured the mediators from by village as the alleged offence detected at 10.45 am, in the day light and people will be available in the village and at the scene of offence, but he did not tried to get mediators, . PWs- 1 and 2 admitted that they have not taken any measuring instruments and so how they came to know that the said rubber tube containing 20 liters of I.D.liquor. The material 7--- on records is showing that the investigation is conducted in a routine manner. The

Prohibition and Excise officials have not taken sincere steps to secure mediators. So these circumstances are creating doubt on the genuineness of Ex.P-1. PW-1 to PW- 3 are police officials, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 without independent witnesses.

16. From the above discussion and in the light of the above decision, I feel that in the absence of independent witnesses, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 , who are police officials and interested witnesses without corroboration of independent witnesses. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. So, I am of the considered view that the material on record, is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. The prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused. The point is answered accordingly.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of offence punishable under

Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and he is acquitted under Sec.

248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months

U/Sec. 437- A Cr.P.C. and thereafter they shall stands cancelled. The M.O-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 5th day of May, 2017.

Sd/- M.S.Bharathi,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PUNGANUR .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION : DEFENCE :

PW-1 – M.Lakshman Dasu, P.& E. Sub-Inspector, -- Nil --

PW-2- G.Bosu Kumar Reddy, P.& E. constable. PW-3 : M.Sivaiah, P & E H.C.

EXHIBTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION :- 8---

Ex.P-1 : Special report dt: 12-11-2014.

Ex.P-2 : F.I.R. in Cr.No. 376 /2014-15 of Proh.& Excise P.S, Punganur.

Ex.P.3 : Chemical Analysis Report..

Ex.P-4 : Attested Copy of panchanama..

DEFENCE : -- NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O. 1 - one Sample bottle.

Sd/- M.S.Bharathi,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PUNGANUR .

// True copy // 9---

Order Record 2,001 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/18/2024	K.Mahesh vs T.Subbaiah	24 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
OS/230/2023	State Bank Of India vs S.Praveen	24 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
OS/148/2018	R Kavitha Rani vs V Santhamurthy	18 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
OS/212/2023	H.Jamuna vs Gangappa	18 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
OS/220/2019	Canara Bank, Kuppam Branch rep by its Chief Manager V Ramakrishna Rao vs B Ramya	18 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/41/2023	SHO KUPPAM URBAN PS vs S. Shafi	18 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/122/2022	SHO RALLABUDUGURU PS vs M. Kuppaswamy	18 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/252/2023	SHO Kuppam Urban P.S. vs V.V. Chinnaraju	18 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/254/2023	SHO KUPPAM URBAN PS vs C Sambavi	18 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/642/2022	SHO KUPPAM UPS vs Abjal @ Syed Abjal	18 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/644/2022	SHO KUPPAM UPS vs K SRINIVASULU	18 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/19/2022	SHO RALLABUDUGURU PS vs Hameed	16 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/42/2022	SHO RALLABUDGURU PS vs M Doraswamy	16 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/72/2022	SHO RALLABUDUGURU PS vs B. Kumaran	16 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/205/2022	SHO Rallabudguru PS vs V Sekhar	16 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/221/2022	SHO RALLABUDUGURU PS vs D. Muneppa	16 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/796/2021	SI OF POLICE, RALLABUDUGURU PS vs Krishnappa	16 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
OS/156/2023	A. Thilak vs P. Nagabhushanam Reddy	15 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
OS/214/2023	H.Jamuna vs K.Muneppa	15 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/16/2022	SHO RALLABUDGURU PS vs S kumareshan	15 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/326/2020	SI of Police, Rallabuduguru PS vs G Devarajulu	15 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/339/2021	SI OF POLICE, RALLABUDUGURU PS vs N Raja	15 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/1187/2021	SHO RALLABUDUGURU PS vs N. Nandikesh	15 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/1222/2021	SHO RALLABUDUGUR PS vs K. Nagaraju	15 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/12/2018	SHO of Rallabudugur P.S vs Subramanyam	12 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
OS/24/2023	K. Thippa Reddy vs M. Muni Reddy	08 Apr 2024	Other	—
OS/58/2020	Canara bank, Kuppam Branch rep by its Chief Manager V Ramakrishna Rao vs S Purushotham	08 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
OS/142/2018	Chinnammaiah vs The DistrictThe State of A.P. rep by its Distrctirct Collector, Chittoor	08 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
OS/224/2023	N. Munemma vs Anandappa	08 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
OS/234/2023	ACTS MAHILA MUTUALLY AIDED CO OPERATIVE THRIFT SOCIETY LIMITED (AMMACTS) vs A.Subba Reddy	08 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
OS/235/2019	A Amarendra vs G Sreenivasulu	20 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
EP/60/2018	P Surendera vs G Harinatah Reddy	13 Mar 2020	Order	—
EP/96/2017	B Ranganayakulu vs S Adinarayana	13 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/27/2019	Nare Sreedhar Reddy vs Madolla Sankara	13 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/49/2012	Burusu Gangulamma vs Burusu Sreenivasulu	13 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/51/2019	M Govindu vs K Gangappa	13 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/86/2013	Vontela Dasthigiri Saheb vs N.Masthan Saheb	13 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/201/2018	Kuppam Rathi vs Kunch Kalyan	13 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/416/2019	K.Naveen vs P.Adinarayana Naidu	12 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
EP/43/2016	Shaik Jubedabi vs Pathan Rasool Khan	11 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/9/2015	Jalli Narayanamma vs The State of A.P rep. by its District Collector	11 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/45/2020	Bonala Dhananjaya Chari vs Thota Reddeppa	11 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/46/2020	Eapa Sadasiva Reddy vs Bonne Muni Raju	11 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/81/2019	N Sulochanamma vs K R Sudhakar Reddy	11 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
EP/67/2019	Tekumani Janaki vs Tekumani Pedda Munaswamy (died)	10 Mar 2020	Order	—
EP/72/2015	P Gangulamma vs P Chenganna	07 Mar 2020	Other	—
OS/267/2016	Poojari Chenganna vs S Sadiq	07 Mar 2020	Other	—
EP/24/2019	P Govinda Swamy vs G Prabhakar Reddy	06 Mar 2020	Order	—
EP/72/2019	S Sreedevi vs N Mohammad Ali	06 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/149/2015	Pogakula Thulasamma vs Pogakula Adinarayana Swamy	06 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/236/2019	A Venaktaramana vs A Mohan	05 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/349/2019	C.Ananda vs M.V.Ramana @ Venkata Ramana	05 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/102/2015	M Nagamma vs I Rajasekhar	04 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/103/2015	Seshamma vs I Rajasekhar	04 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/104/2015	M Rajamma vs I Rajasekhar	04 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/319/2019	M Chandraiah vs B Venaktaramana	04 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/341/2019	Siddareddigari Narayana Reddy vs Toti Dasappa	04 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/86/2015	M Mymunnisa vs M Arifulla	03 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/197/2014	Cheenepalle Prabhakara Rao vs Varadam Janardhana	03 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/215/2015	Mammimanu Amjad Basha vs The A.P state rep.by District Collector,	03 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
EP/4/2016	P Manjunath vs Chennangi Venkatramana	02 Mar 2020	Order	—
EP/26/2017	Pala Govinda Swamy vs Chakala Sankara	02 Mar 2020	Order	—
EP/102/2010	Gurramkonda Chengahyudu vs Gurramkonda Venkatalakshmamma	02 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/13/2020	Musalappagari Gopal vs Kempilli Amaranath	28 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/44/2020	T.Chengalrayappa vs K.Murali	28 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/82/2014	Banavath Somalamma Naik vs Moode Sankar Naik	28 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/187/2019	P Akkula Reddy vs K Reddemma	28 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/250/2018	Iyalu @ A.Kanthamma vs Iyalu Chinna Reddeppa Reddy	28 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/262/2018	G Mangamma vs K Shilpamma	28 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/290/2018	N Krishna Redy vs A Venkatramana	28 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/372/2008	Lankipalli Venkatappa Naidu vs The State of A.P rep. by District Collector, Chittoor	28 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
EP/43/2019	Seekupalle Sankarappa vs Thattimitta Venu	27 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/66/2019	A Chinna Bhadraiah Chetty vs Thurmarakunta Ramana	27 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/15/2020	V.Palani vs B.Mallikarjuna	27 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/35/2020	P.Chinnanarayana vs N.Ramappa	27 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/146/2019	Kaguri Munirathnam vs Santhamma	27 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/163/2014	Palagani Ramesh vs Dadim Venkatramana	27 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/274/2019	Gaddam Chenga Reddy vs P Saifullah Khan	27 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/328/2019	P S Nagarathnamma vs Pasupuleti Ramanaiah	27 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
EP/45/2016	Shriram chits pvt.ltd. vs Ganje Venkataramana	26 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/83/2018	K Janardhanam vs R Chenga Reddy	26 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/22/2020	Naramsetty Suresh Babu vs Yemme Ramaiah	26 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/119/2019	L S Balaji vs V A Ramana Kumar	26 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/205/2019	N Rajendra vs S Aziz	26 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/306/2019	B Prabhakar Naik vs B Ravi Naik	26 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/321/2019	Marennagari Devaraju vs P Gangadhar	26 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/67/2005	R Rajanna vs S Hanumanthu	25 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/220/2018	Bathuluru Anandbabu vs Kavadi Maruthidevi	25 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
EP/11/2019	Palakuri Venkatarama Naidu vs Ganta Ramachandraiah	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/24/2014	Gangarapu Ravichandra vs Gangarapu Venkatramanappa	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/34/2019	T Padma vs T Venu	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/44/2016	K Venkatramana vs K Kanakaiah Naidu	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/68/2019	A Chinna Bhadraiah Setty vs C Mabu Saheb	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/94/2015	Shiram Chits Pvt. Ltd. vs P Suresh Babu	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/262/2016	Gopannagari Suresh Kumar vs Gopannagari Adinarayana	20 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/305/2019	Shaik Mohammad Sayeed vs Shaik Mohammad Rafi	20 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
EP/3/2020	Shaik Hyder Saheb vs T.Venkatesh	18 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/23/2018	P Amaravathamma vs K Muniraja Reddy	18 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/253/2018	B Narasimhulu vs B Guruswamy Naik	18 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
EP/39/2014	Ms Shriram chits pvt.ltd. vs T Padmavathamma	17 Feb 2020	Order	—

Showing 100 of 2,001 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2024		30
Mar 2020		33
Feb 2020		75
Jan 2020		48
Dec 2019		55
Nov 2019		36
Oct 2019		32
Sep 2019		65
Aug 2019		54
Jul 2019		71
Jun 2019		44
May 2019		19

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt M.S.Bharathi handled?

Smt M.S.Bharathi has handled 2080 court orders since 2016 at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Kuppam (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 23 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt M.S.Bharathi hear?

Based on available records, Smt M.S.Bharathi primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Kuppam (Taluka).

Where is Smt M.S.Bharathi currently posted?

Smt M.S.Bharathi is posted as Additional Junior Civil Judge at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Kuppam (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt M.S.Bharathi available online?

Yes. 15 judgments by Smt M.S.Bharathi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt M.S.Bharathi dispose cases?

Smt M.S.Bharathi disposes approximately 23 cases per month, based on 2080 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Kuppam (Taluka).

Since when is Smt M.S.Bharathi serving?

Smt M.S.Bharathi has been serving at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Kuppam (Taluka) since 2016.

Case Types

OS 53%

CC 22%

EP 19%

STC 3%

PRC 2%

MC 2%

DVC 0%

RCC 0%

Posting History

Mar 2024 — Apr 2024

Additional Junior Civil Judge · 30 orders
May 2017 — Jul 2020

Principal Junior Civil Judge · 1,477 orders
Oct 2016 — May 2017

Additional Junior Civil Judge · 573 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

P. Varun Teja

Junior Civil Judge

142 orders

← View all judges at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Kuppam (Taluka)