Sri. M.V. Harinath

1OS.No.8/2006

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt S.V.P. Surya Chandra Kala, Secretary, Dist. Legal Services Authority, Nizamabad. FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. 

Tuesday, the 07th day of November, 2017

O.S.No.8 of 2006

Ainampudi Srinivas, S/o: Ainampudi Koteshwar Rao, Aged: 33 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.5­153/54, Makloor, Nizamabad District … Plaintiff

Vs.

1. Parachoori Ramuloo, S/o: Kistaiah, Age: 42 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o: Makloor, his house is situated at backside house of Sudershan at Makloor Village

2. Smt Gamini Roja, W/o: Venu Madhav and D/o: Parachoori Ramuloo, Age: 25 years, Occu: Household, R/o: Nandipet Village and Mandal, and also (resides at Makloor Village and Mandal in the house of her parents) D­ 1 at Makloor, Nizamabad District (The second defendant is added as necessary party as per orders in I.A. No.230/2006 dated 10­09­2007) 

 .. Defendants

This suit coming before me on 07­11­2017 for hearing in the presence of Sri A. Ramesh, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri G. Madhava Rao, Advocate for defendants 1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivers the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for specific performance of agreement of sale and for perpetual injunction.

2.The brief avements of the pleadings of the plaintiff goes to show that first defendant said to have agreed to sell his own land bearing Sy.No.84 said to have adjacent to his own land in Sy.No.83 in February, 2005 and also he said to have purchased the stamp paper on 11­02­2005 and the 2OS.No.8/2006 terms were settled and also alleged contract was accepted by the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.84,000/­ per acre. After settlement of the price the first defendant said to have executed an agreement of sale on 18­03­2005 in favour of the plaintiff. It was further agreed that the first defendant should satisfy the plaintiff that the property was not under any encumbrance or bank loan and it was also said to have agreed that after measuements if the land in Sy.No.84 was less to make good of the agreed two acres, the first defendant would make good from his adjacent Sy.No.83 and till that date the first defendant should not disturb the status of the land in Sy.No.83 and also should not sell it. It was further pleaded that with the said oral and written understandings the plaintiff said to have paid Rs.84,000/­ to the first defendant in the presence of Rathod Narayana and Syed Ahmed Pasha on alleged date of execution of agreement of sale. It was further pleaded that the balance of sale consideration should be paid by the plaintiff if the first defendant was prepared to add the property in Sy.No.83 if any extent in Sy.No.84 was less. It was agreed that the possession would be delivered and also the first defendant should execute the sale deed. It was also pleaded by the plaintiff that at the instigation of family members of the first defendant, the first defendant did not perform his obligations. It was pleaded further that the son in law of the first defendant namely G.Venu

Madhu said to have attested the agreement of sale. The first defendant due to alleged pressure of his family members was not inclined to go with the terms of the agreement. As per further pleadings of the plaintiff, in order to show his readiness he said to have deposited Rs.45,000/­ vide Indian 3OS.No.8/2006

Bank receipt dated 24­12­2005 and also he was said to have been ready with cash in hand and the same was said to have shown to his elders but the first defendant said to have demanded the enhanced amount. The first defendant said to have refused to proceed further to conclude the contract by executing sale deed and by getting it registered as well as by delivering vacant possession of two acres. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

3.Both the defendants filed written statement and denied the allegations made in the plaint. As per the contentions of the first defendant he did not dispute regarding his alleged ownership and possession of those lands said to have situated at Singampally Village outskirts of Makloor

Mandal. It was contended by the first defendant that when he was in financial crisis his daughter and son­in­law said to have helped him financially hence the 1st defendant said to have gifted the agricultural land in Sy.No.84 measuring Ac.1­39 gts., to his daughter (2nd defendant) and also said to have delivered the possession of the same. It was further contended that the plaintiff created alleged agreement of sale which was unregistered. It was further contended that he was nothing to do with alleged bank deposit of Rs.45,000/­. According to his further contentions the 2nd defendant was in possession of the said land. It was also contended as per pleadings of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had to pay the balance sale consideration till the end of December, 2005 even if it was considered that alleged sale agreement was genuine document, he further contended that the rights of the purchaser were waived for not complying with the terms 4OS.No.8/2006 and conditions. He further contended that the plaintiff had no right to claim any relief and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4.As per the contentions of the 2nd defendant in brief, said to be the daughter of the 1st defendant she also denied the allegations made in the plaint however she did not dispute regarding alleged ownership of the 1st defendant prior to alleged gift in her favour. According to her the said property which was given to her by her parents towards Pasupu Kumkuma at her marriage which was said to have performed with one Venu Madhav on 06­03­1999 at Makloor. It was contended that at that time no conveyance deed was neither executed nor registered as it was felt not necessary. Later as the transfer deed became necessary, hence it was contended that the 1st defendant said to have executed gift deed in her favour by transferring the land comprised in Sy.No.84. She contended that at the time of her marriage itself, the title was transferred and she was said to have delivered possession on the next date of her marriage and contended that the subsequent execution and registration of the gift deed was formal one. She contended that there was no land to the 1st defendant in Sy.No.84 to sell it at higher price. She also contended that the plaintiff was never inducted into land by any one, at any point of time and claimed that she was in possession of the land. As per further contentions of the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff was restrained from entering the peaceful possession of the defendants is same said to have ordered by the Court of

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. By contending that the property was absolute property of the 2nd defendant and by further contending that the 5OS.No.8/2006 plaintiff created alleged agreement of sale for the purpose of this suit, the 2nd defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5.In view of rival contentions the following issues 1 to 4 were framed at first instance as well as an additional issue was framed.

1. Whether the defendant No.1 sold the land of Ac.2.00 and executed agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff on 18­03­2005 ?

2. Whether plaintiff paid Rs.84,000/­ to defendants?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the specific performance of contract by defendant No.1?

4. To what relief?

6.Additional Issue:­

Whether the suit land gifted by the first defendant to his daughter i.e. the second defendant was gifted towards pasupu kumkuma?

The matter was remanded to this Court by the Hon'ble

Appellate Authority and it is pleased to frame the following eight issues for determination and for re­adjudication. 

1. Whether the defendant No.1 agreed to sell 2 acres of land to the plaintiff under agreement of sale, dated 18­03­2005 at the rate of Rs.84,000/­ per acre?

2. Whether the defendant No.1 received Rs.84,000/­ as part sale consideration under agreement of sale, dated 18­03­ 2005?

3. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration?

4. Whether time is essence of contract as mentioned in the agreement, dated 18­03­2005?

5. Whether the gift made and executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 under gift settlement deed,

dated 28­01­2006 in respect of land in Sy.No.84 

measuring Ac.1­39 gts., situated at Singampally is valid or liable to be set asided ?

6OS.No.8/2006

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract or refund of Rs.84,000/­ with interest as prayed for?

7. To what relief?

7.In support of the pleadings of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as Pw.1 and also got marked Exs.A1 and A2. Ex.A1 is the alleged agreement of sale said to have executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 18­03­2005. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of challan. The plaintiff also got examined Pws.2 and 3. The 2nd defendant herself was examined as Dw.1 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of gift settlement deed dated 28­10­2006 said to have executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant (Dw.1). Ex.B2 is the copy of order of the then Tahsildar, Makloor for mutation of name of the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant himself was examined as Dw.2. Inspite of opportunities and conditional order no arguments was submitted for the plaintiff. Hence the arguments of the plaintiff are treated as heard.

8.Heard the arguments of the defendant.

9.Issues 1 to 6:­

As issues 1 to 6 are interrelated to one another. Hence they are going to be discussed under one common head for the sake of convenience.

10.Perused the record. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for specific performance of alleged agreement of sale dated 18­03­2005 said to have executed by the 1st defendant in his favour and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from committing mischief by way of second sale or to disturb the status quo, for costs and other 7OS.No.8/2006 reliefs. Admittedly, the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant are father and daughter. The defendants did not dispute the ownership of the 1st defendant in respect of alleged lands in Sy.Nos.83 and 84. Both the defendants denied regarding alleged execution of alleged agreement of sale by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff which is marked as Ex.A1

dated 18­03­2005 as well as about alleged delivery of possession in favour

of the plaintiff and vesting of possession with the plaintiff. They both claimed about the executing the original of Ex.B1 gift deed by the 1st defendant in favour of his daughter the 2nd defendant. When the defendants disputed and denied regarding alleged execution of alleged agreement of sale under Ex.A1, it is for the plaintiff to establish alleged execution of agreement of sale, by placing positive, material and worth convincing evidence. In order to support the pleas of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as Pw.1. He incorporated the same things in his chief examination affidavit as pleaded in his pleadings. Likewise the defendants incorporated to some extent the same things, in their chief examination affidavits, as contended in their pleadings. The plaintiff made an attempt to prove alleged transaction of agreement of sale on given date.

He could examine independent witness in whose presence alleged transaction of agreement of sale was said to have taken place as well as alleged passing of part of sale consideration said to have made, as Pws.2 and 3. They categorically mentioned in their chief examination affidavits regarding alleged execution of agreement of sale on 18­03­2006 by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff at the house of the 1st defendant, in the 8OS.No.8/2006 presence of his son­in­law, his daughter the (2nd defendant) as well as

Pws.2 and 3 for sale of 2 acres of land in in Sy.No.84 belonged to the 1st defendant. They supported the version of the plaintiff regarding alleged execution of document on 18­03­2005 about alleged payment of

Rs.84,000/­ by the 1st defendant about alleged signing in their presence by the 1st defendant as well as putting signatures by the son­in­law of the 1st defendant and by one Ramesh. According to them, the son­in­law of the 1st defendant was the scribe of the document Ex.A1 and they claimed that other witness and themselves were present and seen when the plaintiff said to have made payment of earnest money of Rs.84,000/­ to the 1st defendant who said to have received the said part of consideration.

11.When it was pleaded by the plaintiff that the terms were settled and stamp paper was purchased on 11­02­2005, by accepting the contract by both of them, whereas during the course of cross examination, he deposed that they had not settled the terms prior to 18­03­2005. According to his testimony, they got reduced into writing all the terms of agreement and said agreement of sale was executed on 18­03­2005. According to his further testimony there was no mention in Ex.A1 agreement, to give land from Sy.No.83 if the land in Sy.No.84 was founded to be less. He also deposed regarding not mentioning in Ex.A1 that he paid Rs.84,000/­ to the 1st defendant or about mentioning in Ex.A1 about alleged receipt of

Rs.84,000/­ by the 1st defendant from him. He admitted that there was no mention in Ex.A1 that he paid Rs.84,000/­ to the 1st defendant. From perusal of Ex.A1 there is no specific mention regarding receipt of part of 9OS.No.8/2006 consideration amount or alleged payment of specific amount towards earnest money deposit or part of sale consideration and there is no specific mention as deposed by Pw.1 that he paid particular amount or Rs.84,000/­ towards part of sale consideration. Likewise it is also not mentioned and there is no averment in Ex.A1 alleged agreement of sale, to make good of the property from Sy.No.83 in case the property in Sy.No.84 is found to be less. So the plaintiff made his pleas beyond the recitals of Ex.A1. Though he could examine the witness, by claiming in their presence alleged transaction under Ex.A1 taken place, but admittedly by Pw.1, Pws.2 and 3 never attested on Ex.A1. It was suggested to Pw.1 whether he was aware that the lands were sold by the 1st defendant to the second defendant as on the date of filing of the suit and also suggested whether the 2nd defendant purchased the property as donee. The plaintiff pleaded ignorance of the same.

12.The 1st defendant admitted of having property in respect of which the plaintiff alleged that agreement of sale was executed under Ex.A1 whereas the 2nd defendant, the daughter of the 1st defendant disputed in her pleadings at one point of time regarding having property by the 1st defendant her father, in given survey number subsequently. In fact in her pleadings the 2nd defendant admitted that 1st defendant was the absolute owner of the property which the 1st defendant alleged to have agreed to sell. As per the 1st defendant he executed a registered gift deed in favour of his daughter i.e. 2nd defendant on 28­01­2006 and execution was completed prior to filing of the suit but her pleadings were silent regarding 10OS.No.8/2006 giving said property to the 2nd defendant under pasupu kumkuma.

Whereas as per the 2nd defendant at the time of marriage itself the title was transferred to her by her father and she was inducted into possession on the next day of her marriage. At one point of time she contended that

Dw.1 was the absolute owner and alleged transfer of property in Sy.No.84 in her favour under gift deed. Whereas at later one point of time she pleaded contrary to her earlier contention, by pleading that there was no land to the 1st defendant in Sy.No.84 to sell it at higher price which is inconsistent with her earlier pleadings. One cannot approbate or reprobate or blow hot and cold. The 2nd defendant at one time by contending that her father being absolute owner of property in Sy.No.84 has executed gift deed in her favour under Ex.A1 and contrary to the same contended having no property by the 1st defendant in Sy.No.84 to sell at higher price. No doubt when the 1st defendant denied regarding alleged purchase of stamp paper on 11­02­2005 as pleaded and deposed by Pw.1, in the name of the 1st defendant but there is no specific denial by the 1st defendant. During the course of cross examination, he even waived or not put suggestion and not denied specifically his signature on Ex.A1. During the course of cross examination of Pw.1 there is no specific denial to Pw.1 regarding alleged purchase of stamp paper in his name. So by virtue of not denying the same or not disputing his signature on Ex.A1, specifically his contentions at the first instance was remained as mere contention and no doubt there are no steps taken by the 1stt defendant to send the disputed document to an expert to compare the signatures on Ex.A1 with the admitted signatures, in 11OS.No.8/2006 order to show his bonafieds. However the plaintiff has to strengthen his case on his merits but not on the weakness in the case of the defendant.

When it is the prima facie and bounden duty of the plaintiff to establish the execution of Ex.A1 when in the pleadings, the defendant denied alleged transaction under Ex.A1, though Pw.1 by claiming Pws.2 and 3 (Rathod

Narayana and Syed Ahmed Pasha) as the persons in whose presence he said to have paid the amount but admitted that it was not his case they were attester's of Ex.A1. Pw.1 deposed that Ex.A1 did not contain his signature. It was suggested to Pw.1 that 1st defendant never entered into an agreement under Ex.A1 for Sy.No.83 or 84 and Ex.A1 was created to grab the property of the 1st defendant and also suggested that the 1st defendant never received any consideration under Ex.A1. So the 1st defendant denied regarding execution of Ex.A1 by way of specific suggestions. Pw.1 deposed that agreement of sale was in respect of

Sy.No.84. At the first instance he deposed about issuing legal notice to the 1st defendant prior to filing of the suit. Subsequently deposed that he never issued any legal notice prior to filing of suit and also not addressed any letter to the 1st defendant prior to filing of the suit. So admittedly there is no document in writing to show that the plaintiff expressed his readiness or willingness to perform alleged part of contract.

13.It has to be seen whether the testimonies of Pws.2 and 3 can be taken into consideration and helpful to the plaintiff, in order to establish whether the 1st defendant agreed to sell two acres of land to the plaintiff under

Ex.A1 dated 18­03­2005 at Rs.84,000/­ per acre and to determine whether 12OS.No.8/2006 the 1st defendant received Rs.84,000/­ as part of sale consideration under alleged agreement of sale dated 18­03­2005, as the defendants denied the execution. Admittedly, Pws.2 and 3 are not the attester's of Ex.A1 document. During the course of cross examination, Pw.2 deposed alleged place of scribing of Ex.A1 in the house of 1st defendant at Makloor. Pw.2 himself deposed that he did not sign on Ex.A1. Though Pw.1 deposed that there was no mention in Ex.A1 regarding, alleged payment of Rs.84,000/­ to the 1st defendant by the plaintiff but contrary to the recitals under Ex.A1 and the testimony of Pw.1, Pw.2 deposed that there was mention in that regard. In fact different dates of alleged agreement of sale were mentioned in the chief affidavits of Pws.2 and 3. Earlier it was mentioned about the presence of the witness on 18­03­2006 subsequently it was mentioned alleged date of execution of document as 18­03­2005 and different thing was deposed by Pw.2 by deviating from his earlier version regarding alleged execution of document and deposed that the document was executed on 11th February. So it entertains doubt regarding alleged his presence at the time of alleged transaction and also admittedly he did not sign on Ex.A1 and he was not the attesters of the document, to prove the transaction under Ex.A1.

14.Though Pw.3 furnished his particulars as resident of Singampally but he deposed that he was resident of Makloor but not Singampally. As deposed by Pw.2, Pw.3 also deposed regarding alleged mentioning in Ex.A1 said to have executed by the 1st defendant that the 1st defendant received

Rs.84,000/­ and said to have paid by the plaintiff. Though he denied the 13OS.No.8/2006 suggestion that there was no mention in Ex.A1 that Rs.84,000/­ was paid to the 1st defendant and there was no mention that Rs.84,000/­ was received by the 1st defendant, from the plaintiff's own admissions as observed earlier there is no recital in Ex.A1 in this regard, about alleged payment of alleged part of sale consideration of Rs.84,000/­ or about alleged payment of

Rs.84,000/­ by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant. He denied the suggestion that the son in law of the plaintiff and one Ramesh never attested Ex.A1.

According to further testimony of Pw.3 he went to the house of the 1st defendant at the instance of plaintiff at the time of execution of document. He admitted that he did not sign on behalf of the plaintiff and

Pw.2 never signed on behalf of the 1st defendant. So admittedly Pws.2 and 3 they never signed as attester's or in any other capacity on Ex.A1. So their evidence cannot be taken into consideration regarding the proof of execution of document under Ex.A1 when they are not the attester's or scribe of Ex.A1.

15.From perusal of Ex.A1 there is no mention specifically under Ex.A1 agreement of sale dated 18­03­2005 regarding the payment of particular amount as part of sale consideration or regarding alleged receipt of

Rs.84,000/­ by the 1st defendant. As per the pleadings and evidence of

Pw.1 amount was fixed i.e. sale consideration was fixed at Rs.84,000/­ per acre and the 1st defendant said to have agreed to sell 2 acres of land in

Sy.No.84. From perusal of Ex.A1 alleged agreement of sale, it prima facie mentioned regarding the property in Sy.No.84 and there is no recital about the property in survey numbers. It was mentioned in Ex.A1 the nature of 14OS.No.8/2006 property as wet land of 2 acres and costs of Rs.84,000/­ per acre prima facie it was only mentioned to pay remaining balance without making mention specifically how much amount was received towards part of alleged sale consideration and how much amount to be paid, by the end of

December, except mentioning that the remaining balance to be paid in

December. Though it impliedly to some extent indicates of alleged payment or receipt of some amount and to pay the remaining amount

before conclusion of December and the 1st defendant said to have agreed to

register by the end of December, but there is no specific mention or recital in Ex.A1 as observed earlier regarding particular amount of part consideration. It was mentioned in Ex.A1 regarding alleged sale fo property on 18­03­2005 said to have agreed by the 1st defendant to register

Ex.A1 and to pay remaining amount by the end of December. When substantial evidence of alleged attestors is lagging by virtue of not examining the alleged attester's or scribe of Ex.A1 agreement of sale, it cannot be considered that the plaintiff is able to establish or prove the transaction under Ex.A1 agreement of sale. When the witnesses examined as Pws.2 and 3 found to be admittedly not the attester's and their evidence cannot be taken into consideration and no evidential value be attached to their testimonies regarding the proof of Ex.A1. The plaintiff failed to give proper explanation, to not to examine alleged attester's though there is reasonable ground for him to not examine alleged scribe said to be the son­in­law of the 1st defendant and the husband of the 2nd defendant but

Pw.1 is not justified in not examining alleged attesters of Ex.A1 in order to 15OS.No.8/2006 establish alleged transaction under Ex.A1 and to prove Ex.A1. When the defendants denied more particularly the 1st defendant about alleged execution of agreement of sale and receipt of alleged sale consideration and also the recitals under Ex.A1 agreement of sale are not specific to the extent of alleged payment of particular amount towards part of sale consideration or about alleged balance of sale consideration, it is expected to examine alleged attestors to prove the transaction under Ex.A1 but the plaintiff failed to examine alleged attestors. So by virtue of Section 114 of

Indian Evidence Act, it can be presumed that evidence if adduced would be unfavourable to the plaintiff hence he intentionally withhold the same.

More over the burden of proof lies on the person who says those facts exist and who would fail if no evidence at all is given on either side by virtue of section of 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act. Pw.1 relied upon Ex.A2 attested copy of challana under which the plaintiff deposited Rs.84,000/­ and it was marked after verifying or comparing with the original and the said amount was deposited towards alleged balance of sale consideration in the presence suit. He pleaded and deposed that in order to show his readiness, he said to have deposited Rs.45,000/­ on 24­12­2005 in his own name and said original receipt was also filed. When there is no clarity regarding quantum of consideration in Ex.A1 it cannot be taken to consider that it is validly and properly executed. More over execution is also not proved. With regard to the execution of Ex.A1 the sole testimony of Pw.1 is not believable and no reasons were assigned by the plaintiff as observed supra, for not examining the attestors. So it was not established that the 1st 16OS.No.8/2006 defendant agreed to sell 2 acres of land to the plaintiff under agreement of sale dated 18­03­2005 at the rate of Rs.84,000/­ per acre and also it was not established that the 1st defendant received Rs.84,000/­ as part of sale consideration under Ex.A1, as there was no recital regarding receipt of

Rs.84,000/­ and it was also not established by the plaintiff by examining alleged attestors. When execution is not proved there is no need to consider plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract even otherwise to consider the plaintiff has deposited amount but it is deposited in his own name which is only half of the amount alleged to be payable under Ex.A1 and it does not show his readiness and willingness and more particularly no legal notice is issued in writing to express his readiness or willingness by intimating about having cash or deposit of

Rs.45,000/­ in the bank. So it is not established and it will not suffice to prove whether the plaintiff is ever ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration as the issues 1 and 2 regarding execution of agreement under

Ex.A1 as well as receipt of part of sale consideration are not established.

16.Regarding 4th issue, “whether time is essence of the contract”?. It can be considered that the time was stipulated in Ex.A1 for alleged execution and the time was the very essence of contract as it was mentioned, by the end of December the balance amount had to be paid. Though the plaintiff said to have deposited Rs.45,000/­ in the bank on 24­12­2005 but it cannot be attributed regarding alleged knowledge to the 1st defendant, when execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale is not established as the plaintiff miserably failed to prove the document by virtue of examining attestors.

17OS.No.8/2006

When alleged part payment of Rs.84,000/­ is not proved the question of refund of Rs.84,000/­ also does not arise, as, in Ex.A1 there is no specific averment regarding receipt of Rs.84,000/­ as observed earlier. When there is no recital specifically regarding receipt of consideration it cannot be considered regarding alleged payment of specific amount of advance what is the exact amount received as advance is also not categorically mentioned in Ex.A1 agreement and also it is not clearly mentioned in Ex.A1 regarding alleged receipt of particular amount as advance or the specific amount as balance amount except stating that balance of amount has to be received.

When the time is stipulated in Ex.A1 as December it can be considered the time is essence of contract the document was said to have agreed to be and executed and registered within stipulated period. So it can be undoubtedly considered the time is the essence of contract. Even the plaintiff failed to establish that he was ready with the complete amount of consideration. In fact he failed to establish the quantum of consideration said to have paid earlier and yet to be paid. The learned counsel for the defendant relied upon the ruling of our Hon'ble High Court between Baddam Prathap

Reddy V/s Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy which is pleased to be delivered on 12­06­2008 and contended that in the absence of sending any written communication or notice, demanding execution of sale deed the plaintiff cannot enforce specific performance of contract and also further contended that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

17.From the out come of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble High

Court it is worth mentioning the gist. The Hon'ble Court is kind enough to 18OS.No.8/2006 by emphasis on the aspects which are relevant with regard to the requirement to issue legal notice in order to show readiness and willingness etc. The Hon'ble Court is kind enough to discuss regarding Form 47 and 48 of the C.P.C.

“Paragraph 3 of Form No.47 is to the effect that “plaintiff has been and still is ready and willing specifically to perform the agreement on his part of which defendant has had notice”. Similarly, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Form NO.48 are to the effect that plaintiff tendered the balance money and demanded the transfer of the property by sufficient instruments. Paragraph 3 of Form No.48 is also to the effect that plaintiff again demanded such transfer and defendant refused to transfer the same. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that when Form No.47 speaks of notice it necessarily refers to a notice in writing, and therefore, in the absence of any such notice by the plaintiff prior to filing of the suit, the suit is barred. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff/first respondent submits that plaintiff pleaded that since one year prior to filing of the suit, plaintiff demanded the 1st defendant to receive balance of sale consideration and execute sale deed and this is sufficient pleading.

Reading Form Nos.47 and 48 of CPC together and Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, it has to be held that ordinarily the requirement of law is issuance of a registered notice by the plaintiff demanding the accepting of (balance) sale consideration and execution of sale deed by the vendor first defendant). Section 16

(c) of the Specific Relief Act lays down that the plaintiff has to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. A contract for sale of immovable property has to be performed by the buyer in accordance with Sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Transfer of Property Act, for brevity). Section 55 of the 19OS.No.8/2006

Transfer of Property Act, contains the rights and liabilities of buyer and seller. Section 55 (1) (d) of the Transfer of Property Act lays down that seller is bound to execute proper conveyance of the property when the buyer tenders the amount due in respect of the price at a proper time and place. Section 55 (5) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act is to the effect that buyer is bound to pay at the time and place of completing the sale, the purchase money to the seller and then request for a proper conveyance deed. The execution of conveyance deed, as a duty of the seller and as a right of buyer, has a commonality with reference to time and place of completing transaction. There cannot be better evidence of showing compliance with these provisions than the buyer sending a registered notice to the seller demanding execution of a conveyance deed. Indeed, this conclusion is supported by the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

A study of four decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant namely, Abdul Khader Rowther V. P.K. Sara bai 8. Syed

Dastagir (supra), Pushparani S. Sundaram (supra) and Manjunath

Anandappa (supra) and Manjunath Anandappa (supra), would show that if the requirement of sending a communication or notice demanding execution of sale deed is not complied with prior to filing of the suit, it would weaken the case of plaintiff for enforcing specific performance of contract in respect of immovable property.

If a notice is issued by the plaintiff, it itself would to a large extent, might lead to an inference that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Mere allegation that the plaintiffwas ready and willing to perform his part of the contract would not be sufficient for enforcement of the contract. In

Pushparani S.Sundaram (supra) it was held. …Section 16 (c) of the

Specific Relief Act requires that not only there be a plea of readiness and willingness but it has to be proved so. It is not in dispute that except for a plea there is no other evidence on record to prove the same except the two circumstances. It is true that mere absence of 20OS.No.8/2006 plaintiff coming in the witness box by itself may not be a factor to conclude that he was not ready and willing in a given case as erroneously concluded by the High Court. But in the present case, not only the plaintiff has not come in the witness box, but not even sent any communication or notice to the defendant about his willingness to perform his part of the contract. In fact no evidence is led to prove the same.

“Hon'ble Court is further pleased to observe that as observed by this

Court in Pt. Prem Raj v. D.L.F. Housing and Construction (P) Ltd.

10. It is well settled that in a suit for specific performance the plaintiff should allege that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and in the absence of such an allegation the suit is not maintainable”.

From the above brief discussion, the law can be taken as well settled that a suit for specific performance has to comply requirements prescribed in Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act and From

Nos.47 and 48 of Appendix A of CPC and averments should be proved. If a suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale without making prior demand by way of a notice on the defendant – vendor, such a suit is not in compliance with Form

Nos.47 and 48, and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. This Court also hastens to add that in appropriate case, subject to strictly proving such allegation, an oral demand can also be proper compliance with requirement of law, but this question has to be gone into in detail in appropriate case.”

18.No doubt by virtue of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 under explanation, for the purpose of Clause (c) where a contrary involves the payment of money it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in Court any money except when so directed 21OS.No.8/2006 by the Court under explanation to section 16 (c) (ii) the plaintiff must aver performance or readiness and willingness to perform the contract according to its true construction.

19.From the established legal principles it can be understood that even oral demand can be made however it has to be proved strictly. It can be understood that an oral demand can also constitute proper compliance with requirement of law however it is subject to proof. In the instance case the plaintiff not only failed to establish execution of agreement of sale under

Ex.A1 by the 1st defendant, but also failed to show he made certain payment towards part consideration or issued any legal notice or made any oral demand by expressing his readiness and willingness. The plaintiff could not establish his bonafides as alleged by him in his pleadings. 

20.The 2nd defendant when she was examined as Dw.1 she relied upon

Ex.B1 certified copy of gift settlement deed dated 28­01­2006 said to have executed by her father in her favour. She deposed that her marriage was performed on 06­03­1999 and further deposed that no document was executed at the time of marriage for the land given to her. Though she pleaded ignorance that since the next day of her marriage she had been in possession of the property covered under Ex.A1 and also when she deposed she raised crop and filed pahani but she herself deposed that no such document was filed. It was suggested to Dw.1 that the land was cultivating by her father but not by her. When she deposed that her marriage took place about 12 years ago i.e. in 1999, she herself admitted that her father 22OS.No.8/2006 after her marriage never gave any document except the gift deed and also deposed that there was no document in writing given by her, earlier to gift deed. Her testimony further reveals that there is no document in writing at the time of her marriage for giving property under gift deed to her.

According to her it was really agreed in her marriage to give the property to her prior to execution of Ex.B1 certified copy of gift deed. So her testimony further goes to show that she is not having any title deed or pass book or any revenue record in her favour subsequent to her marriage and prior to alleged execution of Ex.B1. She also relied upon the copy of Ex.B2 it was mentioned regarding the ownership of (Ramulu) 1st plaintiff of the property prior to alleged gifting of property to her. So as pleaded by her she failed to file any document to show her continuous possession since the very next day of her marriage. Dw.1 pleaded ignorance and she deposed that she did not know Pws.2 and 3. She deposed that she could identify the signatures of her husband who used to write in Telugu and deposed that he did not write in English. She denied Ex.A1 containing the signature of her husband in English. She deposed that she could identify the signature of her husband written in Telugu. According to her, signatures on Ex.A1 did not pertain to her father. She denied, at the time of execution of Ex.A1 her father, herself and her husband were present and also denied her father received Rs.84,000/­. She deposed that the extent of the land in Sy.No.84 was Ac.1.38 gts. She denied her father sold the said property and also agreed to get purchase of Ac.0.02 gts., of land in Sy.No.83 and they should sell 2 acres of land. She denied about the execution of Ex.B1 gift deed by 23OS.No.8/2006 her father to avoid execution of enforcement. It was suggested to Dw.1 that the suit land had been cultivating by her father till the day and the same was in possession of her father and Ex.B1 was created subsequent to filing of suit. At one point of time the plaintiff pleas were inconsistent regarding alleged possession of the property and it was pleaded that the land was in his possession and subsequently pleaded contrary to the same.

Whereas subsequently suggested as if the 1st defendant had been in possession.

21.It is not the testimony of the Dw.1 that her husband not known

English and never signed in English. She only deposed that he did not write in English. She did not depose she could not identify the signatures of her husband in English. Admittedly no document was filed by Dw.1 to show that the property was settled even prior to Ex.B1.

22.The 1st defendant was examined as Dw.2, Dw.2's pleadings are silent regarding giving of property to Dw.1, regarding giving property to Dw.1 under pasupu kumkuma and not even suggested to Pws.1 to 3 and he only developed his version in his chief examination affidavit. In fact there is no mention in Ex.B1 the attested copy of the gift deed regarding alleged settling the property in favour of Dw.1 by Dw.2 even prior to Ex.B1 or delivering the possession to the 2nd defendant even prior to Ex.B1 as pleaded and deposed by the 2nd defendant. So no proof to strengthen the things alleged by 2nd defendant/Dw.1 regarding giving of property under pasupu kumkuma or continuous possession of her or delivering the 24OS.No.8/2006 property to her. By virtue to Ex.B2 prima facie goes to show regarding alleged effort of the 2nd defendant regarding change of her name in respect of property in Sy.No.84 for an extent of Ac.1­39 gts., and she relied upon the same to show that to that extent that an order was passed by the then

Tahsildar, Makloor.

23.Since the gift deed under Ex.B1 is not subject matter of the suit and no specific Court fee is paid by the 2nd defendant, further as issues 1 to 4 are already determined against the plaintiff, this issue under issue No.5

whether the gift made and executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of

defendant No.2 under gift settlement deed, dated 28­01­2006 in

respect of land in Sy.No.84 measuring Ac.1­39gts., situated at

Singampally is valid or liable to be set aside, need not be decided.

24.Dw.2 the father of Dw.1 deposed that he knew Pws.2 and 3 who belonged to their village, for 20 years. He denied regarding entering into agreement of sale with the plaintiff to sell Ac.1.39 gts., of land in Sy.No.84 on 18­03­2005 by receiving Rs.84,000/­ and he also denied he agreed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving remaining consideration of Rs.84,000/­. He pleaded ignorance whether

Venu Madhav son­in­law and Ramesh attested the said agreement of sale in the presence of Pws.2 and 3. He denied that he agreed to give land in

Sy.No.83 if the land in Sy.No.84 did not come as Ac.1.89 gts., after measurement. He denied his signature on Ex.A1 and he deposed that he could not identify the signature of his son in law. He denied that he refused to receive the remaining amount of Rs.84,000/­ from the plaintiff 25OS.No.8/2006 when he offered. He denied that as per the terms of agreement he had to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It was suggested to

Dw.2 that the suit schedule property was in possession of the plaintiff even

before the date of Ex.A1 and he damaged the crop of the plaintiff in the suit

schedule property. Contrary to the said suggestion it was suggested to

Dw.1 that the suit schedule property was in possession of her father i.e.

Dw.2 till the date. So different things were suggested to Dw.1 and Dw.2 regarding the possession of the property even the plaintiff did not stick on to one plea, regarding alleged possession of the property he pleaded one thing and suggested differently to Dws.1 and 2. It is needless to emphasize more on the aspects, which are subsidiary in nature. 

25.So the plaintiff prima facie failed to discharge his initial burden, regarding the proof of execution of document under Ex.A1 as well as passing of part consideration, his readiness and willingness to pay alleged balance consideration and even failed to establishes positively he was ever ready and willing to perform his part of alleged contract within the stipulated time i.e. by the end of December, 2005 when the time was essence of the contract. So under such circumstances as he failed to establish his pleas positively, cogently in worth convincing, hence he is not entitled for the discretionary relief of specific performance of contract or refund of Rs.84,000/­ with interest as prayed for as he failed to establish the quantum of amount said to have made towards earnest money deposit or execution of agreement. However he is entitled for refund of 26OS.No.8/2006

Rs.84,000/­ deposited by him under Ex.A2 during the pendency of the suit.

Accordingly 6th issue is also answered against the plaintiff.

26.Issue No.7:­ In the result, the suit is dismissed, considering the circumstances each party is directed to bear their own costs. The plaintiff is entitled for refund of Rs.84,000/­deposited by him under Ex.A2 during the pendency of the suit along with accrued interest if any.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, on this the 07th day of November, 2017.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFSFOR DEFENDANTS

PW1: Ainampudi Srinivas Dw.1: Smt Gamini Roja PW2: Rathod Narayana Dw.2: Paruchuri Ramulu PW3: Syed Ahmed Pasha 

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of the) FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1: Agreement of sale dated 18­03­2005 said to have executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff Ex.A2: Verified challan 

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1: Certified copy of gift settlement deed dated 28­01­2006 said to have executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant Ex.B2: Certified copy of proceedings of MRO, Makloor

Senior Civil Judge,

NIZAMABAD

1SC.NO.229 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri M.V. Harinath, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Nizamabad, FAC: Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Wednesday, the 26th day of April, 2017

Sessions Case No.229 of 2016

Name of complainantThe State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, Nizamabad Town.

Name of AccusedA1:Dandla Babu @ Babu Balaji Gaekwad S/o Balaji, age 31 years, Caste: Vaddera, Occ: Labour/DriverofLorryN/o.R/o. Mahalaxminagar, Vagugadda Manikbhandar Shivar Makloor Mandal, N/o. Khanapur Paata, Degloor Tq., Nanded Dist.

A2:Mitkar Laxman @ Lkahna S/o Peeraji, age 27 years, Caste: Vaddera, Occ: Stone Cutter, R/o. Nanduga (Vill), Ardapoor Tq., Nanded Dist.

*A3:Jogudandi Vikas S/o Peeraji, age 28 years, Caste: SC (Mala), Occ: Driver, R/o. Sath Namdevnagar, Danoora Road, Beed Town & District.

(*The case against A3 is split vide PRC.No.14/2016).

This case is being tried only against A1 & A2.

ChargeUnder Section 395 IPC.

Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.

FindingAccused Nos.1 and A2 are found not guilty.

Sentence or OrderAccused Nos.1 and A2 are acquitted.

Prosecution conducted bySri R. Rathnakar Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad.

Accused defended bySri D. Vinay Kumar, Advocate, Nizamabad.

This case was committed by the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, in PRC No.12 of 2016 (Cr.No.137/2015 of PS Town-III, Nizamabad).

26/04/2017 ASJ 2SC.NO.229 of 2016

This case coming on 25-04-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Rathnakar Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and that of Sri D.Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the accused Nos.1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

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

The Circle Inspector of Police (hereinafter referred to as 'the CI of Police')

Nizamabad Town, filed a charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') alleging as follows:

a)On the intervening night of 12/13-06-2015, at about 2.30 hours, accused Nos.1 and 2 and four others gained entrance into the house of one

Gajula Srinivas (PW3), situated at Gouthamnagar, Nizamabad and committed theft of his mobile phone and purse. Later, they gained entrance into the house of the defacto complainant Katkam Bhumaiah (PW1) by breaking open the door way, situated in between the houses of Gajula Srinivas and Katkam

Bhumaiah, threatened Katkam Bhumaiah and his wife Katkam Padmavathi (Pws 1 and 2) with knives and robbed one gold pustela taadu, gold ear tops, gold ring and cash of Rs.80,000/- and cell phones of Katkam Bhumaiah, his wife, Gajula Srinivas and Peddamalla Mallesh. They kept those four persons in the bath room and locked it outside. While going away, they committed theft of Maruthi 800 Car bearing No.AP-09-L-8010 belonging to Gajula Srinivas. On the report given by PW1, a case in Cr.No.137/2015, under Section 395 IPC was registered and investigated into.

b)During the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and prepared crime details form including rough sketch. While so, on 15.06.2015, after preliminary 26/04/2017 ASJ 3SC.NO.229 of 2016 investigation, the Investigating Officer came to know that PW1-Katkam

Bhumaiah gave a false complaint that gold pustela taadu, gold ear tops, gold ring and net cash of Rs.80,000/- were committed theft of, though only rold gold ornaments and cash of Rs.5,000/- was committed theft of.

c)On 08.10.2015, the Inspector of Police, Rural by name Sri M. Muni arrested A1 to A3 in this case and recorded their confessional statements in the presence of two mediators. Then, A1 to A3 confessed about the commission of offence in this case, in pursuance of their confession, they led the police party to the house of A1, where, the Inspector of Police, Rural seized the stolen car in front of the house of A1 under cover of a panchanama.

Therefore, the accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC.

2. The learned I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, took the case on file under Section 395 IPC, against the accused Nos.1 and 2 only and split up the case against the accused No.3 vide PRC No.14/2016. On production of the accused persons before the Court, the learned I Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, furnished the copies of documents to

them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and later, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nizamabad, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., and the Hon'ble Prl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, took the case on file for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC, and made over the same to this

Court for disposal according to law.

3.On production of the accused Nos.1 and 2, charge for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC was framed against them, read over and explained to them in vernacular language, who having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

26/04/2017 ASJ 4SC.NO.229 of 2016

4.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined Pws 1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 documents.

5.The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in brief, is as follows:

a)PW1-Katkam Bhoomaiah, who is the defacto complainant, deposed that on the intervening night of 12/13-06-2015, at about 2.30 a.m., while he was sleeping in his house, six persons armed with knives and sticks, forcibly came to his house by breaking open the door with big stone and threatened them to give the gold chain of his wife; that his wife gave her gold pustela taadu of 3 tulas, one pair of ear studs and one gold ring and they also committed theft of cash of Rs.80,000/- from almirah; that he again says that firstly the assailants entered the houses of LW3-Mallesh and LW4-G.Srinivas and from their house, they came to his house along with them. He further deposed that after committing theft of gold ornaments and cash, they kept him, his wife and Lws 3 and 4 in the bath room and closed it from outside and went away. He further deposed that he can identify those six persons if shown to him and both the accused present in the Court were two persons that entered his house on that day. He also deposed that on the next day, their house owner namely Shanker came and opened the door at 6.00 a.m. and they informed him about the incident. He gave Ex.P1 written complaint to the police Town-III, Nizamabad. He further deposed that their lost gold and cash property was not recovered by the police.

b)PW2-Katkam Padmavathi, who is the wife of the defacto complainant and one of the witnesses, deposed that on the intervening night of 12/13-06-2015, at about 2.30 a.m., while herself and her husband were sleeping in their house, six persons armed with knives and sticks, forcibly came to her house by breaking open the door way, which is in between her house and that of LW3-Mallesh and LW4-G. Srinivas and threatened them on 26/04/2017 ASJ 5SC.NO.229 of 2016 the point of knives and sticks and asked them to sit in the hall of her house; that they robbed her gold chain of 3 tulas, pair of ear studs and one gold ring from her person, and also committed theft of cash of Rs.80,000/- from almirah; that the six persons also brought Lws 3 and 4 to her house along with them. She further deposed that after committing theft of gold ornaments and cash, they kept her, her husband and Lws 3 and 4 in the bath room and closed it from outside and went away. She further deposed that she can identify those six persons if shown to her and both the accused present in the Court were two persons that entered her house on that day among six persons.

c)PW3-Gajula Srinivas, who is one of the witnesses, deposed that on the intervening night of 12/13-06-2015, there was rain, so to get fresh air, they opened their main door; that at about 2.30 a.m., four persons entered their house armed with knives and sticks; that they woke up them and committed theft of purses and mobiles of himself and LW3-Mallesh and they checked their room for some other valuable items; that after that those four persons broke open the door way, situated in between his portion and that of

Pws 1 and 2 with a big stone, threatened them to sit on a cot and after that, they robbed the gold chain, gold ear studs and gold ring of PW2-Padmavathi and also committed theft of cash of Rs.80,000/- from almirah in the house of

PW1; that after committing theft of gold ornaments and cash, they kept him,

LW3-Mallesh and Pws 1 and 2 in the bath room and closed it from outside and went away; that on the cries raised by them, their house owner Shanker came and opened the door and they came out of the house and found missing of his

Car bearing No.AP 09L 8010; that the owner of the house telephoned about the incident to police and police came and then PW1 gave report to the police.

He further deposed that he can identify those four persons if shown to him and both the accused present in the Court were two persons that entered his 26/04/2017 ASJ 6SC.NO.229 of 2016 house on that day among four persons. He further deposed that the said

Maruthi 800 originally belonged to one Rafi and he purchased it from him, but did not get it transferred to his name by the date of incident, so he did not take back the property from the police. He also deposed that he came to know that after recovery of the said car, the number of vehicle was changed as MH 26L 1295 and he can identify the car if shown to him; that Ex.P2 is the two photographs of his car that was committed theft of by the accused and others on the date of incident.

d)PW4-P.Ramdas, who is one of the mediators for scene of offence panchanama, deposed that about two years ago, he heard that a theft took place in the house of Bhoomaiah, situated in Gouthamnagar, Nizamabad; that police came in the morning, and he went there at about 11.00 a.m., police prepared Ex.P3 crime details form along with rough sketch with regard to theft of property in his presence and one Ramarao.

e)PW5-V.Ravi Kumar, who is one of the mediators for confessional and recovery panchanama, deposed that on 08.10.2015, on the instructions of their Tahasildar, he and LW10-Saibaba, VRO, went to bypass road, Nizamabad, where Rural CI, SI and some Constables of Nizamabad were present along with four persons; that then SI informed him that on that day, in the morning, when they were doing vehicle checkup, two persons did not stop their bike and then they chased their bike and detained them and seized some gold and silver ornaments from their possession; that the SI showed both the accused, who were detained by the police and the accused also confessed before them that they committed thefts in Gangastan, Yellammagutta, Gouthamnagar etc.; that police also showed the gold, silver ornaments seized from the accused, and the accused also confessed that they committed theft of one Maruthi 800 Car and kept it at A1 Dandla Babu's house; that the accused also led them to the 26/04/2017 ASJ 7SC.NO.229 of 2016 house of A1, situated at Manik Bandar, Nizamabad and they found one

Maruthi 800 Car in front of the house of A1 with Maharastra series number; that they noticed AP series number under Maharastra series number; that then Inspector seized the said car under cover of Ex.P4 relevant portion of the panchanama. He further deposed that he and Saibaba signed in Ex.P4 panchanama. Ex.P2 is two photos of the said car.

f)PW6-Yuvaraja Karingula, J.F.C.M. (Spl. Mobile Court), Nizamabad, deposed that he was in full additional charge of the post of II Addl. J.F.C.M.,

Nizamabad, during February, 2016. He further deposed that on 20.02.2016, as per the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nizamabad, he conducted

Test Identification Parade of suspects namely A1 Dandla Babu, A2 Mitkar

Laxman and A3-Jogudandi Vikas, in Cr.No.137/2015 of PS Town-III, Nizamabad, through the witness LW2-Katkam Padmavathi; that on 20.02.2016, he conducted T.I. Parade in the Dist. Jail premises, Nizamabad after following the due procedure as contemplated under Rule 33 of the Criminal Rules of

Practice; that in the T.I. Parade, the witness Padmavathi identified only A3 i.e.

J. Vikas and she did not identify A1 and A2. Ex.P5 is the proceedings prepared by him.

g)PW7-T.Srihari, S.I. of Police, PS Town-III, Nizamabad, deposed that on 13.06.2015, at 9.00 a.m., one Katkam Bhumaiah came to PS and gave

Ex.P1 complaint statement to him, which was reduced into writing, he registered it as a case in Cr.No.137/2015, U/s.395 IPC and issued Ex.P6 FIR to all concerned and the further investigation was taken up by the C.I.

h)PW8-M.Muni, the then SHO, PS Nizamabad Rural, deposed that on 08.10.2015, at about 5.00 hours, he along with SI Ravindra Naik and other staff were conducting vehicle raids at bypass X roads, Kanteshwar, 26/04/2017 ASJ 8SC.NO.229 of 2016

Nizamabad, at about 5.45 hours, they found two persons were coming on motorcycle Hero Honda Passion Pro bearing No.TN-16-EE 7346 black colour from Nizamabad town and they stopped them and asked their identity proof and vehicle documents; that then those persons frightened and tried to skulk away; that on his instructions, his staff chased them some distance, caught them and produced before him and on check up, he noticed some gold and silver articles in their possession. Immediately he secured PW5-V.Ravi Kumar and LW10-A. Saibaba; that meanwhile, A1 and A2 disclosed that their companion by name A3-Vikas was near Nizamabad Railway Station; that then they went there and caught hold of A3, and A3 was in possession of a bag containing some gold and silver ornaments; that they brought A1 and A2 along with A3 to Narasimha Apartments, situated near bypass road,

Kanteshwar. He further deposed that in the presence of above said panch witnesses, they recovered the confessional statements of A1 and A2 and also

A3 and recovered the case property pertaining to 19 cases belonging to various police stations and also pertaining to this case i.e. Maruthi 800 Car, in pursuance of the confession of A1 and seized the said Car at the house of A1, situated near Vagugadda, Manikbandar; that the admissible portion of the panchanama is Ex.P4; that he noticed the car and found that it is Maruthi 800 white car bearing No.MH 26L1295 and under the said number, they noticed the old number i.e. AP 09L 8010; that he informed about the arrest of the accused and seizure of the said Car to SHO Town-III, Nizamabad.

i)PW9-G.Goverdhana Giri, the then Incharge SHO of PS Nizamabad town circle, deposed that on 13.06.2015, he received telephonic information from T.Srihari, SI of Police, PS Town-III, Nizamabad, about reporting of grave crime; that immediately, he rushed to the scene of offence, situated at

Gouthamnagar of Nizamabad town, took over the investigation from LW12- 26/04/2017 ASJ 9SC.NO.229 of 2016

T.Srihari, secured the presence of Pws 1 to 3 and LW3-T.Mallesh and recorded their statements; that he secured the presence of PW4 and LW8-B.Ramarao and conducted Ex.P3 scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the crime details form and handed over further investigation to LW15-

N.Yadaiah.

j)PW10-N.Yadaiah, the then Inspector of Police, Nizamabad town circle, deposed that on 15.06.2015, he received the CD file concerned to

Cr.No.137/2015 of PS Town-III, Nizamabad; that after verifying it, he visited the scene of offence, re-examined Lws 1 to 6, recorded their statements; that during re-examination, the witnesses stated that the gold and jewelery was also committed theft of in the incident; that his investigation revealed that they lost only rold gold ornaments and not gold ornaments. He further deposed that on 08.10.2015, he received information from LW14-Muni,

Inspector of Police, Nizamabad, that he arrested A1 and A2 along with A3 in this case and recovered one Maruthi Car from their possession. He also deposed that after collecting documents from the said Inspector, he applied for issuance PT warrant, secured A1 and A2 along with A3 under PT warrant on 14.12.2015, he filed requisition for conducting TI parade through concerned

Magistrate and after collecting TI parade report and recovery of case property,

he filed charge sheet in this case.

6.After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and stated that they are falsely implicated in this case.

7.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'Addl. P.P.') and the learned Advocate for the accused.

26/04/2017 ASJ 10SC.NO.229 of 2016

8.The point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable

under Section 395 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

9. POINT:The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on the intervening night of 12/13-06-2015, A1 to A3 and four others, gained entrance into the house of one Gajula Srinivas (PW3), situated at

Gouthamnagar, Nizamabad and committed theft of the purses and cell phones of Gajula Srinivas and Peddamalla Mallesh and then, they entered the house of

PW1 Katkam Bhumaiah, by breaking open the door way, situated in between the houses of Gajula Srinivas and Katkam Bhumaiah and robbed the rold gold pustela taadu, rold gold ear studs and rold gold ring from the wife of PW1 and cash of Rs.5,000/- from their house and while leaving their house, they committed theft of one Maruthi 800 Car belonging to PW3 Gajula Srinivas. In order to prove the said charge, the prosecution has placed reliance on the oral testimony of Pws 1 to 10 and Exs.P1 to P6.

10.The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW1 gave a false complaint to the police about theft of gold ornaments; that though, PW3 deposed that the alleged stolen car belonged to him, but prosecution did not adduce any evidence in that regard and so, the prosecution has failed to establish about the theft of the property.

11.PW1 is the defacto complainant in this case. With regard to the incident, he deposed that on the intervening night of 12/13-06-2015, at about 2.30 a.m., while he was sleeping in his house, six persons forcibly came to their house by breaking open the door with big stone; that they threatened him and his wife with knives and sticks and robbed gold pustela taadu of 3 tulas, one pair of ear studs and one gold ring from his wife and cash of 26/04/2017 ASJ 11SC.NO.229 of 2016

Rs.80,000/- kept in the almirah. He also deposed that before entering their house, the assailants entered the house of PW3-G.Srinivas and Mallesh, who are in their adjacent portion and committed theft of some property from them.

He also deposed that the assailants kept him, his wife, Gajula Srinivas and

Peddamalla Mallesh in their bath room and locked it from outside and on the next day morning, their house owner Shanker opened the door at 6.00 a.m., and then he went to PS and gave Ex.P1 report to the police.

12.The above evidence of PW1 is corroborated by Pws 2 and 3 in toto.

However, the Investigating Officer in this case, who is examined as PW10, deposed that his investigation revealed that Pws 1 and 2 lost only rold gold ornaments and not gold ornaments.

13.Though, it is the specific case of the prosecution that one Maruthi

Car bearing No.AP09L 8010 belonging to PW3 Gajula Srinivas was also committed theft of by the assailants, PW3 in his evidence deposed that he purchased the said car from one Rafi, but did not get it transferred in his name by the date of incident. The prosecution did not examine the said Rafi to prove the ownership of the car. The prosecution also did not file any documentary evidence to establish that the original owner sold the car to PW3

Gajula Srinivas and issued any certificate in his name to get the car transferred in the name of Gajula Srinivas. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that AP09L 8010 Car belonged to PW3 and it was committed theft of.

14.However, the evidence of PW1 with regard to giving Ex.P1 report to the police is corroborated by PW7-T.Srihari, the S.I. of Police, PS Town-III,

Nizamabad, who deposed that he received Ex.P1 from PW1, registered it as a case in Cr.No.137/2015, under Section 395 IPC and issued Ex.P6 FIR.

26/04/2017 ASJ 12SC.NO.229 of 2016

15.The evidence of PW7 is supported by the oral testimony of PW9-

G.Goverdhana Giri, the then Inspector of Police, who deposed that he took up investigation in this case, examined Pws 1 to 3 and others and prepared Ex.P3 crime details form including rough sketch. The evidence of PW9 is corroborated by the independent testimony of PW4 and duly supported by the contents of Ex.P3 panchanama and rough sketch.

16.The evidence of Pws 6 and 9 further gains support from that of

PW10, the then Inspector of Police, Town Circle, Nizamabad, who conducted further investigation in this case.

17.The above evidence of Pws 1 to 4, 7, 8 and 10 and Exs.P1, P3 and

P6 establishes that some unknown offenders gained entrance into the houses of Pws 1 and 3 on the intervening night of 12/13-06-2015 and committed theft of some rold gold articles and cash.

18.Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has established by cogent and convincing evidence that the accused Nos.1 and 2 are some of the assailants that entered the houses of

Pws 1 and 3 and committed decoity, as stated above.

19.Pws 1 to 3 are said to be the direct witnesses to the occurrence.

They deposed in one voice that the incident occurred on the intervening night of 12/13-06-2015, at about 2.30 a.m., while they were sleeping in their houses. Though, it is specific in the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 that the assailants threatened them with knives and after committing the offence, they kept them in a bath room and locked it outside and went away, did not depose whether they have prior acquaintance with those persons. Usually, while sleeping, persons will switch off the lights and some persons will keep bed 26/04/2017 ASJ 13SC.NO.229 of 2016 light with dim lighting. It is also not in the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 that lights were glowing in their houses at the time of incident.

20.However, Pws 1 to 3 specifically deposed that they can identify the assailants and all of them deposed that both the accused persons in the

Court hall were some of the assailants that committed decoity in their houses, which was denied by both the accused during cross-examination and also when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The incident occurred on the intervening night of 12/13-06-2015. Pws 1 to 3 gave evidence before this

Court on 13.03.2017 i.e. one year nine months after the alleged incident.

According to Pws 1 to 3, the incident occurred in the midnight while they were sleeping. Pws 1 to 3 during cross-examination stated that they saw the accused for the first time on the date of incident and later, on the date of their evidence before the Court. These circumstances, creates a doubt as to whether Pws 1 to 3 have really identified the accused and whether A1 and A2 really entered the houses of Pws 1 to 3 on the date of incident.

21.The Investigating Officer in this case got conducted Test

Identification Parade (hereinafter referred to as 'the T.I. Parade') of A1 to A3 through PW6-K.Yuvaraja, the Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Spl. Mobile Court),

Nizamabad. PW6 deposed that on 20.02.2016, he conducted T.I. Parade of A1 to A3 in this case in the premises of Dist. Jail, Nizamabad after following the due procedure as contemplated under Rule 33 of the Criminal Rules of

Practice. He also deposed that in the T.I. Parade, the witness Padmavathi (PW2) identified only A3 J. Vikas, but did not identify A1 and A2 and Ex.P5 is the identification proceedings prepared by him. The prosecution could not explained as to why they did not seek identification of the accused through

Pws 1 and 3 and got conducted T.I. Parade only through PW2. Even PW2 did not identify A1 and A2 at the earliest point of time, but she stated before this 26/04/2017 ASJ 14SC.NO.229 of 2016

Court after long lapse of time that both the accused present in the Court were the assailants. In the circumstances, it is highly unsafe to believe the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were the assailants that entered the houses of Pws 1 to 3 on the alleged date of incident.

22.PW9 is said to have arrested A1 to A3 and recorded their confessional statements and in pursuance of their confession, recovered the alleged stolen Car bearing No.AP09L 8010. PW8 supported the prosecution case by deposing that on 08.10.2015, while conducting vehicle check ups, at

Kanteshwar X Roads, Nizamabad, he arrested A1 to A3 in suspicious circumstances and recorded their confessional statements in the presence of mediators V.Ravi Kumar (PW5) and A.Saibaba (LW10) and then A1 to A3 confessed about the incident in this case and in pursuance of their confession,

A1 led them to his house and produced Maruthi 800 car, which was seized by him under cover of a panchanama, which is Ex.P4 (admissible portion); that he noticed car and found that it is Maruthi 800 white car bearing No.MH26L 1295 and he also noticed the old number i.e. AP 09L 8010 under the said number.

During cross-examination, he denied a suggestion that A1 to A3 did not confess anything and he did not seize the said car in pursuance of the alleged confession of A1 to A3.

23.Though, the evidence of PW8 is corroborated by the oral testimony of PW5 in toto, as already stated, the prosecution failed to establish that it failed to prove that the said car was stolen, by taking any complaint from its original owner and though, the prosecution examined that PW3 is its owner, failed to prove that he purchased it from the original owner. In the circumstances, the evidence of Pws 5 and 8 will be of no help to the prosecution to establish the offence under Section 395 IPC.

26/04/2017 ASJ 15SC.NO.229 of 2016

24.In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that though the prosecution has prima-facie established that some unknown offenders gained entrance in the houses of Pws 1 to 3 on the intervening night of 12/13-06-2015, around 2.30 a.m., and robbed some rold gold ornaments, cash and cell phones, failed to establish that A1 and A2 in this case were some of the assailants that participated in that crime, by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. In the circumstances, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal for the offence under 395 IPC. The point is accordingly answered.

25.In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC, with which they were charged and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for the said charge. The accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other cases.

The property disposal order will be passed in the split up case against the accused No.3.

Partly dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and partly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 26th day of April, 2017.

FAC: Asst Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1(LW1)Katkam Bhumaiah.Defacto complainant. - None - PW2(LW2)Smt.Katkam Padmavathi. Witness and wife of PW1. PW3(LW4)Gajula Srinivas.Witness. PW4(LW7)Pendepuwar Ramdas.Mediator for scene of offence panchanama. PW5(LW9)Vurati Ravi Kumar.Mediator for confessional and recovery panchanama.

26/04/2017 ASJ 16SC.NO.229 of 2016

PW6(LW11)Yuvaraja Karingula,Conducted T.I. Parade of A1 J.F.C.M. (Spl. Mobile), to A3. Nizamabad. PW7(LW12)T. Srihari, S.I. of Police.Investigating Officer. PW8(LW14)M. Muni, Inspector of Investigating Officer. Police. PW9(LW13)Govardhanagiri,Investigating Officer. Inspector of Police. PW10 (LW15)N.Yadaiah, C.I. of Police.Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MAKED

(On behalf of)

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1:Complaint. -Nil- Ex.P2:Photographs (2 in Nos.) of the stolen car. Ex.P3:Crime details form including rough sketch. Ex.P4:Relevant portion of confessional and recovery panchanama of A1. Ex.P5:T.I. Parade proceedigs of the accused. Ex.P6:First information report.

MOs MARKED

- Nil -

FAC: Asst Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

26/04/2017 ASJ 17SC.NO.229 of 2016 :: C A L E N D E R ::

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, AT NIZAMABAD

Sessions Case No.229 of 2016

Police Station : The State through Circle Inspector of Police, Nizamabad Town.

1. Sessions Case No.: 229 of 2016.

2. Name of the P.S. & Cr.No.: 137 of 2015 of PS Town-III, Nizamabad.

3. Full description of Accused :

A1:Dandla Babu @ Babu Balaji Gaekwad S/o Balaji, age 31 years, Caste: Vaddera, Occ: Labour/Driver of Lorry N/o. R/o. Mahalaxminagar, Vagugadda Manikbhandar Shivar Makloor Mandal, N/o. Khanapur Paata, Degloor Tq., Nanded Dist. A2:Mitkar Laxman @ Lkahna S/o Peeraji, age 27 years, Caste: Vaddera, Occ: Stone Cutter, R/o. Nanduga (Vill), Ardapoor Tq., Nanded Dist. A3:Jogudandi Vikas S/o Peeraji, age 28 years, Caste: SC (Mala), Occ: Driver, R/o. Sath Namdevnagar, Danoora Road, Beed Town & District.

(*The case against A3 is split vide PRC.No.14/2016).

4. Date of offence: On the intervening night of 12/13-06-2015.

5. Date of complaint:13.06.2015.

6. Date of apprehension:A1 & A2: 14.12.2015.

7. Date of release: --

8. Date of commitment:03.10.2016.

9. Date of commencement of trial:13.03.2017.

10. Date of closure of trial:24.04.2017.

11. Date of Judgment:26.04.2017.

12. Explanation of delay: -

FAC: Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

26/04/2017 ASJ

1OS.No.25/11 & 2/12

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC),

NIZAMABAD AT ARMOOR

Present: Sri M.V. Harinath,

Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

FAC: Addl. Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Nizamabad at Armoor.

Friday, the 11th day of August, 2017

O.S.No.25 of 2011

Donpal Ashok, S/o: Bhagwanth Rao, Age: 42 years, Occu: Proprietor of Santhosh Kirana Shop at Armoor, R/o: H.No.1-1-27/1/1 to 4 at New Bus Stand, Armoor Town. Proper and Mandal Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad District .. Plaintif

Vs.

Amer Bin Mohammed, S/o: Late Mohammed Bin Sayeed, Age: 71 years, Occu: Business, R/o: H.No.1-1-27, Behind S.B.H. Armoor Town Proper and Mandal Armoor, Nizamabad District

.. Defendant

This suit coming before me on 28-07-2017 for hearing in the presence of Sri Mohd. Tajuddin, Advocate for plaintif, and of Sri G.V. Ranga Reddy, Advocate for defendant, and having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivers the following:-

O.S.No.02 of 2012

Ameer Bin Mohammed, S/o: Late Mohammed Bin Sayeed, Aged: 71 years, Occu: Business, R/o: H.No.1-1-27, behind S.B.H. Armoor Town Proper and Mandal Armoor, District Nizamabad. Presently R/o: H.No.8-1-348/A/6, Jankinagar, Gate No.2, Tolichowki, Hyderabad ...Plaintif

Vs.

Donpal Ashok, S/o: Bhagwanth Rao, Age: 42 years, Occu: Prop. Kiranashop at Armoor, R/o: H.No.1-1-27/1 to 4, New Bus Stand Armoor Town Proper and Mandal Armoor, District Nizamabad

.. Defendant

This suit coming before me on 28-07-2017 for hearing in the presence of Sri G.V. Ranga Reddy, Advocate for plaintif, and of Sri Mohd. Tajuddin, Advocate for defendant, and having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivers the following:-

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

O.S. No.25/2011:This is a suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the

defendant, his family members etc. from interfering with the plaintif's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing

Date 11/08/2017 ASCJ

2OS.No.25/11 & 2/12 No.1-1-27/1/124 situated at New Bus stand at Armoor (hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property) and for costs.

2.The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

a)The defendant and one Syeed Bin Mohammed are the owners of the suit schedule property. The plaintif is the tenant of the suit schedule property, containing first and second floors, from the year 2004.

b)The defendant is not the sole owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant, one Syeed Bin Mohammed, Osman Bin Abdullah are the owners of the suit schedule property. The defendant issued a false legal notice dated 12-01-2011 with false and baseless allegations to vacate the suit schedule property.

c)In the year 2003, the defendant and his co-owners approached the plaintif and handed over the suit schedule property in vacant possession with an agreement that the plaintif has to invest a sum of

Rs.10,52,000/- for construction of building therein, agreeing to sell the same to the plaintif and at the time of sale, the total cost of construction and interest therein will be adjusted in the sale consideration. Accordingly, the plaintif got constructed the building by expending Rs.10,52,000/- and interest on the said amount from 2003 to 31-12-2010 is Rs.7,41,845/-, total comes to Rs.17,93,845/-. They received the amount from the plaintif i.e. for ground floor Rs.2,80,000/- in the year 2003 and 2004, the said portion was handed over to the plaintif on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- only, for first floor Rs.2,80,000/- in the year 2004 and 2005 and the same was handed over to the plaintif on monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- only, total rent was

Rs.5,000/- only and for the second floor Rs.4,85,000/- in the year 2006-2010 and the same portion was handed over the plaintif. At present the rent of the suit schedule property is Rs.10,000/-, which is not the nominal rent, but beyond the market value. The plaintif was prompt in payment of rent. The

Date 11/08/2017 ASCJ

3OS.No.25/11 & 2/12 defendant issued a legal notice dated 12-01-2011 for execution of fresh licence deed, for which the plaintif issued a reply dated 18-01-2011 refusing the same.

d)The defendant along with some unsocial elements come to the suit schedule property and demanded the plaintif to vacate the same. The defendant also used force by throwing out all the goods and furniture from the suit schedule premises. On 17-01-2011 at 7.00 p.m. some unsocial elements about 10 persons came to the suit schedule premises and threatened the plaintif to vacate the same and tried to dispossess him, but the plaintif resisted their illegal acts. Having no other alternative remedy, the plaintif filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant.

3.The defendant filed a written statement admitting that the plaintif is the tenant of the suit schedule premises, issuance of legal notice

dated 12-01-2011 by him to the plaintif and receiving of reply notice dated

18-01-2011, denying the rest of the plaint averments and contending as follows:-

a) The plaintif is willful defaulter from May, 2010. The defendant, after completion of eleven months period i.e. 30-11-2010, contacted the plaintif to have a negotiation to decide the new terms and conditions of the new licence deed. The plaintif had refused to negotiate with the defendant.

The defendant obtained interest free advance from the plaintif. The allegations of the plaintif that he paid Rs.19,93,845/- is totally baseless.

This is a suit for perpetual injunction, but the plaintif converted it as a suit for money by making mathematical calculations. The contention of the plaintif that there are two other owners to the suit schedule property is wrong. The plaintif negotiated and entered into the lease only with the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit is misconceived and therefore it is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

Date 11/08/2017 ASCJ

4OS.No.25/11 & 2/12

4.On the above pleadings the following issues have been settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5.O.S. No.2/2012:- This is a suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, to past mense profits at Rs.80,000/- and future mense profits at Rs.50,000/- per month from 01-10-2011 and for costs.

6.The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

a)The plaintif leased out the suit schedule property to the defendant on 01-01-2010 for a period of 11 months by executing a licence deed. The rent for the suit schedule property is Rs.10,000/- per month.

Even after expiry of the lease period, the defendant did not come forward for execution of a renewal deed. After expiry of the license period i.e. 30-11- 2010, the defendant is bound to hand over vacant possession of the same to the plaintif on 01-12-2010, but the defendant did not do so. Therefore, the defendant is in unauthorized possession of the suit schedule property from 01-12-2010 and so he has to pay damages at Rs.20,000/- per month with efect from 01-04-2011 to 30-09-12011 and from 01-10-2011 the defendant has to pay the damages at Rs.50,000/- per month till the date of eviction.

b)The suit schedule property is situated in highly potential marketability area.

c)The plaintif got issued a legal notice dated 12-01-2011 to the defendant calling upon him to vacate the suit schedule property, by giving three months time, which expires by 31-03-2011. The defendant gave a reply dated 18-01-2011 creating a new story of false and baseless allegations. Therefore, the defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit

Date 11/08/2017 ASCJ

5OS.No.25/11 & 2/12 schedule property. The defendant is also liable to pay past and future mense profits.

7.The defendant filed a written statement admitting that he is the licensee of the suit schedule property, denying the rest of the plaint averments and contending as follows:-

a)In the year 2003, the plaintif and his co-owners Syeed Bin

Osman and their family members handed over the suit schedule property in vacant possession and thereupon he got constructed the building therein by incurring huge expenditure of Rs.10,52,000/-. Presently the rent for the suit schedule premises is Rs.10,000/-. This defendant filed suit in OS 25/2011 for perpetual injunction. The door numbers of the suit schedule house are not mentioned correctly in the license deed. This defendant did not execute any license deed in favour of the plaintif at any time and it is a fabricated document. The defendant never delayed the payment of rent at any time.

The plaintif and his co-owners promised that when they want to sell the suit schedule premises they will sell the same to the defendant only and on that agreement he got constructed the building in the suit schedule property by incurring huge expenditure. In the circumstances, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

8.On the above pleadings the following issues have been settled for trial.

1. Whether the alleged deed of license dated 01-01-2010 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit property is true, valid and binding on the parties to suit ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek eviction of the defendant and to recover vacant possession of the suit property as prayed for ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount

of Rs.80,000/- towards costs, mesne profits @

Rs.20,000/- per month from 01-04-2011 to 30-09-2011 ?

Date 11/08/2017 ASCJ

6OS.No.25/11 & 2/12

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future mesne profits as prayed for ?

5. To what relief ?

9.As per the orders in I.A. 3/2015, both the suits were clubbed and the evidence is recorded in OS 2/2012. It was ordered in IA 3/2015 that the evidence recorded in OS 2/2012 shall be read as the evidence in the OS 25/2011.

10.For the sake of convenience, I intend to refer the parties as licensor and licensee or landlord and tenant.

11.The licensor examined two witnesses in support of his case apart from marking Exs.A1 to A3 documents. On behalf of the licensee, two witnesses were examined and Exs.B1 to B28 were marked.

12.Issue Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.2/2012 :- The learned counsel for the licensor argued that the licensee entered into a lease deed for a period of eleven months on 01-01-2010 and it expires by 30-11-2010. He also argued that after expiry of the lease, the licensee has to vacate the suit schedule property and in spite of issuance of legal notice, did not vacate the property and so he filed the suit.

13.On the other hand the learned counsel for the licensee argued that the licensee himself got constructed the ground, first and second floors by incurring an expenditure of Rs.10,52,000/- on the oral understanding between him, the licensor and his co-owners namely Sayeed Bin Mohammed and Osman Bin Abdulla that the licensee has to purchase the suit schedule property whenever the licensor intends to sell the same. The above argument of the licensee is denied by the licensor.

14.Though it is the case of the licensee that apart from the licensor there are two other owners for the suit schedule property, the licensor as

Date 11/08/2017 ASCJ

7OS.No.25/11 & 2/12 Dw.1 during cross examination admitted that he has been paying the rent to the landlord/licensor.

15.The landlord/licensor in order to prove the license deed, examined himself as Pw.1 and on oath he deposed that the licensee executed Ex.A1 license agreement in his favour on 01-01-2010. A perusal of Ex.A1 license agreement discloses that it is an unregistered document.

However, it was impounded by the land lord/licensee by paying stamp duty and penalty before the District Registrar, Nizamabad. Therefore, the license deed can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose of proving possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the licensee and nothing more than that.

16.It is the case of the licensee that he received the suit schedule property in vacant possession on the oral understanding that he has to construct the buildings therein and whenever the landlords intend to sell the same, they will sell the same to the licensee. The licensee examined himself as Dw.1 and on oath he supported his version. He also got marked

Exs.B1 to B28 in support of his case. Out of them Exs.B1 and B2 are the electricity receipts for the suit schedule property, Exs.B3 and B4 are the legal notice issued by the landlord and reply given by him (Dw.1) and Exs.B5 to B27 are the cash receipts allegedly issued by the plaintif. A perusal of the allegedly cash receipts discloses that on some receipts there is endorsement to the efect that received rupees from the licensor towards rent and on some other receipts it was mentioned that received rupees from the licensee for construction of first floor, second floor etc. These receipts disproves the case of the licensee that he himself got constructed the ground, first and second floors.

17.With regard to the case of the licensee that there is oral understanding between him and the landlord and his co-owners namely

Date 11/08/2017 ASCJ

8OS.No.25/11 & 2/12 Sayeed Bin Mohammed and Osman Bin Abdulla that when they intend to sell the suit schedule property, they have to sell the same to the licensee, though the licensee as Dw.1 supported his version on oath and also got examined another witness as Dw.2 in support of his case, the evidence of

Dws.1 and 2 in this regard is denied by the licensor in toto. In support of their respective version, they did not adduce any documentary evidence. If really there is such an understanding between the licensor and licensee, definitely the licensee would have taken a written document from the licensor because even for payment of trivial amounts like Rs.5,000/-, the licencee/tenant obtained stamped receipts from the licensor. If that was the attitude of the licensee, non obtaining of any document from the licensor disproves the case of the licensee that there was any mutual understanding between the licensor and licensee that the licensee shall continue in the suit schedule property and will purchase the same whenever the licensor intends to sell the same.

18.The licensor as Pw.1 deposed that he issued a quit notice to the licensee on 12-01-2011 to vacate the suit schedule property by the end of

March, 2011. He got marked the legal notice as Ex.A2 and the reply notice given by the licensee is marked as Ex.A3. The licensee as Dw.1 also got marked the same documents as Exs.B3 and B4 respectively. Therefore, there is clear admission from the licensee that he has received quit notice from the landlord that he has to vacate the suit schedule property by the end of March, 2011.

19.In this connection the learned counsel for the licensor placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Mangal

Amusement Park (P) Ltd. and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

and others (AIR 2012 SC 3325), wherein it was held that the licensee cannot continue in the property without renewal of the license deed.

Date 11/08/2017 ASCJ

9OS.No.25/11 & 2/12

20.In another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the licensor reported in Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Medak Vs H.S.

Sudhindra Aras (AIR 2006 Andhra Pradesh 2007), while dealing with a similar case our Hon'ble High Court held that when once license was revoked by operation of law, it cannot be revived simply by paying license fee regularly. It is also held that after issuance of termination notice, the licensee has no right to continue in the licensed premises after expiry of license period.

21.In view of my foregoing discussion and in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and our Hon'ble High Court (cited supra), I find that the licensor successfully proved that the licensee entered into an agreement of license with him on 01-01-2010 and even after expiry of the license period i.e. 30-11-2010 and even after issuance of Ex.A2 legal notice, did not vacate the same and so licensor is entitled for the relief of eviction as prayed for. Issue Nos.1 and 2 in OS No.2/2012 are accordingly found in favour of the licensor and against the licensee.

22.Issue No.3 in OS No.2/2012:-In this case the licensor has claimed past mense profits at Rs.20,000/- per month from 01-04-2011 to 30- 09-2011 @ Rs.20,000/- per month i.e. for six months. At that rate the total past mense profits comes to Rs.1,20,000/- but he claimed only Rs.80,000/-.

In the plaint he gave the clarification that he received rent from 01-04-2011 to 30-09-2011 at Rs.10,000/- per month and so he deducted the same from the total amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and claiming Rs.80,000/- towards damages.

23.In Ex.A2 legal notice, the licensor gave time to the licensee till the end of March, 2011 for vacating the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the licensee did not vacate the property. Therefore, the licensor is entitled for damages. Though the licensor claimed Rs.20,000/- per month towards

Date 11/08/2017 ASCJ

10OS.No.25/11 & 2/12 paste mense profits, in his evidence as Pw.1 or in the plaint he did not mention as to how he arrived at the past mense profits at Rs.20,000/- per month. Further he stated that he received rent up to July, 2011 at

Rs.10,000/-. Further it is the case of the defendant that he paid license fee continuously even after filing the suit till October, 2014. The evidence of

Dw.1 in this regard is supported Ex.B28 and that the same is not denied by the plaintif. In the circumstances, I find that the licensor has failed to prove that he is entitled for any past mense profits. This issue is accordingly answered.

24.Issue No.4 i n OS No. 2/2012 :-In this case the licensor is seeking future mense profits at Rs.50,000/- per month. He did not adduce any evidence with regard to the alleged future mense profits at Rs.50,000/-.

In the decision reported in Oasis Bar and Restaurant and others v.

P.Umabala (2002 (4) ALD 508)while dealing with a similar case our

Hon'ble High Court held that in a suit for possession after terminating the

lease and also for recovery of future mesne profits, Court cannot pass a decree for future mesne profits, for the periods subsequent to the termination of lease and it can be determined only under Order XX Rule 12 of the C.P.C. Therefore, the plaintif/landlord has to file a separate application for determining the future mense profits. This issue is accordingly answered.

25.Issue No.1 in OS No.25/2011:-In this case the licensee is claiming perpetual injunction against the licensor. Admittedly the licensee is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit.

However, since issuance of Ex.A2 legal notice by the licensor terminating the license and directing the licensee to vacate the suit schedule property by the end of March, 2011 is admitted by the licensee and he also issued a reply notice to it, which is marked as Ex.A3, the licensee failed to prove his

Date 11/08/2017 ASCJ

11OS.No.25/11 & 2/12 legal possession over the suit schedule property after termination of the license. Therefore, from 01-04-2011 even though the licensee is in possession of the suit schedule property, his possession is not legal as he did not get any renewal license from the licensor for his possession.

26.In this connection the learned counsel for the licensor has placed reliance on the decision of our Hon'ble High Court reported in

K. Ankaiah and others Vs. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams and

others (AIR 2002 NOC 204 Andhra Pradesh), wherein it was held as follows:- “…The person not having any legal right over disputed property, even if he is in possession of the disputed property, when such a person is not lawfully entitled to continue in possession of the disputed property and any person whose possession is to be treated as illegal or unlawful possession, will not be entitled to seek the relief of injunction against the true owner”.

27.The learned counsel for the licensor also placed reliance on the decision of our Hon'ble High Court reported in Mohd. Saleem Khan Vs.

Depot Manager of A.P.S.R.T.C., Banswada and another (2000 (2) ALT 613), wherein it was held that “after expiration of the license deed if no fresh license is renewed, the licensee has no right to continue in occupation of the demised premises”.

28.In this case, though the plaintif by his oral evidence as Pw.1 and also by the evidence of an independent witness who is examined as Pw.2 tried to prove that there is oral understanding between him and the licensee that he can continue in the suit schedule property as licensee and that the licensor has to sell the suit schedule property to him, the same is denied by the licensor and in proof of the same the licensee failed to adduce cogent and convincing evidence.

29.In view of my foregoing discussion and in view of the decisions of our Hon'ble High Court (cited supra), I find that though the licensee has

Date 11/08/2017 ASCJ

12OS.No.25/11 & 2/12 proved that he has been in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit, his possession is unlawful since the license was terminated by the licensor by Ex.A2 legal notice with efect from 30-04- 2011. Therefore, the licensee is not entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. This issue is accordingly answered.

30.Issue No.5 in OS No.2/2012 :- In the result,the suit is decreed with costs. The defendant shall vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintif within two months from today. The claim of the plaintif with regard to past mense profits is dismissed. The plaintif is entitled for future mense profits. However, he has to file a separate application under Order XX Rule 12 of the CPC for determining the future mense profits.

31.Issue No.2 i n OS No.25/2011 :-In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs. However, the plaintif shall not be evicted for two months in view of the judgment in OS 2/2012, wherein two months time is granted to the plaintif to vacate the suit schedule property and to hand over the vacant possession of the same to the licensor.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court, on this the 11th day of August, 2017.

FAC: Addl. Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Nizamabad at Armoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF(S)FOR DEFENDANT(S)

PW1: Omer Bin AmerDw.1: Donpal Ashok PW2: M.A. HaleemDw.2: Jindam Bhumeshwar

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of the)

FOR PLAINTIFF(S)

Ex.A1: License deed dated 01-01-2010 Ex.A2: Legal notice dated 12-01-2011 Ex.A3: Reply notice dated 18-01-2011

Date 11/08/2017 ASCJ

13OS.No.25/11 & 2/12

FOR DEFENDANT(S)

Ex.B1: Original electric cash paid receipt issued by NPDCL SC No.11619

dated 28-01-2011

Ex.B2: Original electric cash paid receipt issued by NPDCL SC No.11407

dated 20-12-2011

Ex.B3: Legal notice dated 12-01-2011 Ex.B4: Reply notice dated 18-01-2011 Ex.B5: Original cash receipt for Rs.9,500/- dated 25-06-2003 Ex.B6: Original cash receipt for Rs.85,500/- dated 11-08-2013 Ex.B7: Original cash receipt for Rs.5,000/- dated 05-09-2009 Ex.B8: Original cash receipt for Rs.30,000/- dated 07-09-2003 Ex.B9: Original cash receipt for Rs.40,000/- dated 17-10-2003 Ex.B10: Original cash receipt for Rs.50,000/- dated 10-11-2003 Ex.B11: Original cash receipt for Rs.30,000/- dated 03-12-2003 Ex.B12: Original cash receipt for Rs.30,000/- dated 20-12-2003 Ex.B13: Original cash receipt for Rs.50,000/- dated 31-01-2004 Ex.B14: Original cash receipt for Rs.25,000/- dated 26-04-2004 Ex.B15: Original cash receipt for Rs.50,000/- dated 11-05-2004 Ex.B16: Original cash receipt for Rs.50,000/- dated 02-08-2004 Ex.B17: Original cash receipt for Rs.50,000/- dated 29-09-2004 Ex.B18: Original cash receipt for Rs.50,000/- dated 08-12-2004 Ex.B19: Original cash receipt for Rs.10,000/- dated 14-09-2005 Ex.B20: Original cash receipt for Rs.2,000/- dated 05-07-2005 Ex.B21: Original cash receipt for Rs.5,000/- dated 30-03-2006 Ex.B22: Original cash receipt for Rs.15,000/- dated 25-03-2006 Ex.B23: Original cash receipt for Rs.15,000/- dated 20-09-2008 Ex.B24: Original cash receipt for Rs.50,000/- dated 01-07-2008 Ex.B25: Original cash receipt for Rs.25,000/- dated 21-07-2008 Ex.B26: Original cash receipt for Rs.2,50,000/- dated 09-05-2010 Ex.B27: Original cash receipt for Rs.1,25,000/- dated 10-05-2010 Ex.B28: Postal receipts from February, 2011 to November, 2014

FAC: Addl. Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Nizamabad at Armoor.

Date 11/08/2017 ASCJ

1SC.NO.174 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri M.V. Harinath, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Nizamabad, FAC: Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Wednesday, the 26th day of April, 2017

Sessions Case No.174 of 2016

Name of complainantThe State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, Nizamabad Town.

Name of AccusedA1:Sugand Rao Bosle S/o Vasanth Rao Bosle, age 40 yrs, Caste: Gay Pardi, R/o. Mallapur (V), U/PS Madnoor of Nizamabad Dist.

A2:Shankar Chowan @ Santhosh Chowan S/o Neelba @ Nooliya, age 45 yrs, Caste: Gay Pardi, R/o. Tamblur (V), U/PS Degloor of Nanded Dist. (Maharastra State).

A3:Sarja Chowan W/o Neelba @ Nooliya, age 38 yrs, Caste: Gay Pardi, R/o. Tamblur (V) of U/PS Degloor.

A4:Raju Chowan S/o Neelba @ Nooliya, age 25 yrs, Caste: Gay Pardi, R/o. Tamblur (V), U/PS Degloor.

*A5:Areleey Ravi Kumar S/o Arelooy Gangadhar, age 23 yrs, Caste: Gay Pardi, R/o. Saibabagally, Metpally of Karimnagar Dist., Now at present Tamblur(V),U/Ps Degloor.

A6:Araloo Raja Sindhe S/o Veelas Sindhe, age 25 yrs, Caste: Gay Pardi, R/o. Ahmadabad of Badoda District of Gujarath State.

A7:Smt. Vijaya Laxmi Bosle W/o Sugunda Rao Bosle, age 25 yrs, Caste: Gay Pardi, R/o. Mallapur (V), U/Ps Madnoor.

A8:Vasanth Rao Bosle S/o Sonepath, age 55 yrs, Caste: Gay Pardi, R/o. Mallapur (V), U/PS Madnoor.

A9:Erkani Bai W/o Vasanth Rao Bosle, age 50 yrs, Caste: Pardi, R/o. Mallapur (V), U/PS Madnoor.

A10:Ippawar Naganath @ Babu Sawkar S/o Kalingam, 48 yrs, Gandla (Teli), Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.5-4-71, Deshpande Galli, Degloor (V) of Nanded District, MH State.

26/04/2017 ASJ 2SC.NO.174 of 2016 (The case against A1, A7, A8 and A9 was split up vide PRC.No.85/2008 and numbered as SC.No.33/2009 and also disposed on 02.09.2009) (Separate charge sheet will be filed against A2, A3, A4 and A6) (The case against A10 was split up vide PRC.No.95/2008andnumberedas

SC.No.108/2011 and also disposed on

02.05.2012) *This case is being tried only against

A5.

ChargeUnder Section 395 IPC read Section 397 IPC.

Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.

FindingAccused No.5 is found not guilty.

Sentence or OrderAccused No.5 is acquitted.

Prosecution conducted bySri R. Rathnakar Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad.

Accused defended bySri R.Ganga Prasad, Legal Aid Counsel.

This case was committed by the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, in PRC No.9 of 2011 (Cr.No.129/2006 of PS Town-III, Nizamabad).

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Rathnakar Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and that of Sri R.Ganga Prasad, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused No.5, this Court delivers the following:

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

The Circle Inspector of Police (hereinafter referred to as 'the CI of

Police') Nizamabad Town, filed a charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and against the accused No.10 for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC, alleging as follows:

26/04/2017 ASJ 3SC.NO.174 of 2016

a)On the intervening night of 05/06-06-2006, some unknown offenders gained entrance into the house of one M.Narsimha Chary, situated at Dubba of Nizamabad, beat him and his wife Vimala indiscriminately and robbed their gold, cash and clothes and fled away. On the report given by the brother of M.Narsimha Chary by name T.Venkat Narsimha Chary (PW1), a case in Cr.No.129/2006, under Section 397 and 411 IPC was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, on 23.11.2006, at about 7.10 p.m., the Inspector of Police, Nizamabad, arrested A7 to A9 at

Mahalaxmi Temple, Dubba and recorded their confessional statements in the presence of two mediators, in which they have confessed that they along with A1 to A6 and A10 committed various offences including the offence in this case and in pursuance of their confession, he seized gold and silver articles pertaining to other cases. On 21.04.2007, A5 was arrested by the

Inspector of Police, Bodhan and recorded his confessional statement in the presence of mediators, wherein, he admitted to have committed this offence. However, no property relating to this case was recovered from his possession. Therefore, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Section 397 and 411 IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.

2. The learned I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, took the case on file under Section 395 and 411 IPC, against the accused

Nos.1 to 10 and split up the case against A1, A7 to A9 vide PRC No.85/2008 and also split up the case against A10 vide PRC No.95/2008. This case is split up vide PRC.No.9/2011. On production of the accused No.5 before the

Court, the learned I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, furnished the copies of documents to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and later, committed the case to the Court of Sessions,

Nizamabad, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., and the Hon'ble Prl. Sessions

Judge, Nizamabad, took the case on file for the offence punishable under

26/04/2017 ASJ 4SC.NO.174 of 2016

Section 397 and 411 IPC, and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

3.On production of the accused No.5, charge for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC read with Section 397 IPC was framed against him, read over and explained to him in vernacular language, who having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined Pws 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 documents.

5.The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in brief, is as follows:

a)PW1-T.Venkata Narasimha Chary, who is the defacto complainant, deposed that on 06.06.2006, at about 8.00 a.m., when he was in Ramalayam of Subashnagar, Nizamabad, one Sulochana, who is maid servant of Narasimha Chary, informed him by phone that some unknown offenders beat LW2-M.Narasimha Chary, who is his co-brother, and LW3-

Vimala, who is the wife of LW2; that immediately, he went to the house of

LW2, then ambulance came there and took Lws 2 and 3 to Pragathi Nursing

Home, Nizamabad; that he saw bleeding injuries on the heads of Lws 2 and 3; that he also went to the hospital along with them, from there, he took them to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad; that the police Town-III, Nizamabad came to hospital and took Ex.P1 his complaint statement. He further deposed that LW2 became sick due to the said incident and died about 3 or 4 years ago.

b)PW2-M.Vimala, who is one of the victims and wife of LW2-

M.Narasimha Chary, deposed that about 10 or 11 years ago, at about 10.00 p.m., herself and her husband LW2 slept in their house, situated at Dubba, in the midnight, thieves entered their house and beat her on the right side of her forehead with stones, as a result, she sustained bleeding injuries and 26/04/2017 ASJ 5SC.NO.174 of 2016 also beat LW2 and caused injuries to him; that LW2 died about 6 years ago; that after beating herself and LW2, thieves committed theft of her gold pustela taadu, gold ear studs, gold ring and gold nose screw, totaling to 4 ½ tulas; that she lost consciousness and she regained consciousness in

Yashoda Hospital after one month.

c)PW3-Thondu Ashok, who is one of the mediators for scene of offence panchanama, deposed that about 10 years ago, at the request of police, PS Town-III, Nizamabad, he went to Vidyanagar colony, Nizamabad; that police observed the house of Narasimha Chary of Dubba, found blood stains on two cots, two big stones and also blood stains on the walls; that police prepared Ex.P2 scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P3 rough sketch and he along with one Sharath Kumar signed on Exs.P2 and P3.

d)PW4-V.Ravi Kumar, the then Inspector of Police, Bodhan, deposed that as part of investigation in Cr.No.32/2007 of PS Varni, on reliable information, on 21.04.2007, he apprehended the accused No.5 and another person and on interrogation, A5 along with another confessed the offence; that he secured one Santhosh Patni and Anjaneyulu, conducted confessional panchanama of both the persons; that during panchanama, A5 confessed several offences including the one in this case, however, he could not recover any property pertaining to this case from the accused No.5; that he sent him and another person to remand, later, he informed the concerned SHOs about the arrest of A5 for taking further action.

6.After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused No.5 was examined under Section 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and stated that he is falsely implicated in this case.

26/04/2017 ASJ 6SC.NO.174 of 2016

7.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'Addl. P.P.') and the learned Advocate for the accused.

8.The point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of

the accused No.5 for the offence punishable under

Section 395 IPC read with Section 397 IPC beyond

reasonable doubt?

9. POINT:It is the case of the prosecution is that, on the intervening night of 05/06-06-2006, some unknown offenders gained entrance into the house of one M.Narsimha Chary, situated at Dubba,

Nizamabad, beat him and his wife Vimala (PW2) indiscriminately and robbed their gold and silver ornaments and left with the booty.

10.In order to prove the charge under Section 395 IPC read with

Section 397 IPC against the accused No.5, the prosecution has placed reliance on the oral testimony of Pws 1 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P3 documents.

PW1 is the defacto complainant. PW2 is the victim. PW3 is a witness for observation of the scene of offence and PW4 is the Investigating Officer, who allegedly arrested the accused (A5) and recorded his confessional statement.

11.The evidence of PW1 is only to the effect that on 06.06.2006, at about 8.00 a.m., he heard that some unknown offenders went into the house of PW2-Vimala on the previous night and committed theft of her gold ornaments after severely beating her and her husband and thereupon, he went there, took the injured to the hospital and later, gave Ex.P1 report to the police. This evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged.

12.PW2, the alleged victim in this case, deposed that about 10 or 11 years ago, at about 10.00 p.m., herself and her husband M.Narsimha

Chary slept in their house, situated at Dubba; that in the midnight, thieves 26/04/2017 ASJ 7SC.NO.174 of 2016 entered their house and beat her on the right side of her forehead with stones, as a result, she sustained bleeding injuries; that the thieves also beat her husband and caused injuries to him and committed theft of her gold pustela taadu, gold ear studs, gold ring and gold nose screw, totaling to 4 ½ tulas. She also deposed that she cannot identify the assailants as in the incident, she lost consciousness and regained consciousness in the hospital after one month. She also deposed that her husband died about six years ago. The evidence of PW2 also remained unchallenged. However, her evidence only establishes that on the midnight of 05/06-06-2006, some unknown offenders entered their house, beat her and her husband severely and robbed her gold ornaments.

13.PW3 is said to be a panch witness, who was present when police observed the scene of offence and prepared Exs.P2 and P3 panchanama and rough sketch. This evidence of PW3 was subjected to cross-examination, but it remained unshaken. This evidence of PW3 establishes about taking place of theft in the house of PW2.

14.In order to connect the accused with the said offence, the prosecution has placed reliance on the oral testimony of PW4, the then

Inspector of Police, Bodhan. PW4 deposed that on 21.04.2007, when he was conducting investigation in Cr.No.32/2007 of PS Varni, he apprehended the accused No.5 in this case and during interrogation in the presence of two panch witnesses namely Santhosh Patni and Anjaneyulu and A5 confessed to have committed several offences, including the crime in this case. He also deposed that he could not seize any material object pertaining to this case from A5. The alleged admission made by A5 before PW4 comes under the purview of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is not admissible. If PW4 would have recovered any material object from the accused No.5 in pursuance of his confession, the same would be admissible 26/04/2017 ASJ 8SC.NO.174 of 2016 under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the evidence of

PW4 that he arrested A5 and recorded his confessional statement that he involved in this case, cannot be used against A5 in view of the Bar under

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

15.Some witnesses in the remaining list of witnesses were reported dead and the whereabouts of the remaining are not known, as per the memo filed by the police. In view of the evidence available on record, the learned Addl. P.P. rightly closed the evidence of the remaining witnesses as no useful purpose will be served by examining them.

16.In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused No.5 for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC read with Section 397 IPC against the accused No.5 beyond all reasonable doubt and in the circumstances, the accused No.5 is entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal for the said charge. The point is accordingly answered.

17.In the result, the accused No.5 is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC read with Section 397 IPC, with which he was charged and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure for the said charge. The accused No.5 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

Since the case is pending against some other accused persons, the property disposal order will be passed in the split up case.

Partly dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and partly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 26th day of April, 2017.

FAC: Asst Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

26/04/2017 ASJ 9SC.NO.174 of 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1(LW1)T.Venkat Narsimha Defacto complainant. - None - Chary. PW2(LW3)Smt. M. Vimala.Victim and wife of LW2. PW3(LW7)Thondu Ashok.Mediator for scene of offence panchanama. PW4(LW17)V. Ravi Kumar, Investigating Officer. C.I. of Police.

EXHIBITS MAKED

(On behalf of)

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1:Complaint. -Nil- Ex.P2:Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P3:Rough sketch.

MOs MARKED

- Nil -

FAC: Asst Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

26/04/2017 ASJ 10SC.NO.174 of 2016 :: C A L E N D E R ::

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, AT NIZAMABAD

Sessions Case No.174 of 2016

Police Station : The State through Circle Inspector of Police, Nizamabad Town.

1. Sessions Case No.: 174 of 2016.

2. Name of the P.S. & Cr.No.: 129 of 2006 of PS Town-III, Nizamabad.

3. Full description of Accused :

A1:Sugand Rao Bosle S/o Vasanth Rao Bosle, age 40 yrs, Caste: Gay Pardi, R/o. Mallapur (V), U/PS Madnoor of Nizamabad Dist. A2:Shankar Chowan @ Santhosh Chowan S/o Neelba @ Nooliya, age 45 yrs, Caste: Gay Pardi, R/o. Tamblur (V), U/PS Degloor of Nanded Dist. (Maharastra State). A3:Sarja Chowan W/o Neelba @ Nooliya, age 38 yrs, Caste: Gay Pardi, R/o. Tamblur (V) of U/PS Degloor. A4:Raju Chowan S/o Neelba @ Nooliya, age 25 yrs, Caste: Gay Pardi, R/o. Tamblur (V), U/PS Degloor. *A5:Areleey Ravi Kumar S/o Arelooy Gangadhar, age 23 yrs, Caste: Gay Pardi, R/o. Saibabagally, Metpally of Karimnagar Dist., Now at present Tamblur (V), U/Ps Degloor. A6:Araloo Raja Sindhe S/o Veelas Sindhe, age 25 yrs, Caste: Gay Pardi, R/o. Ahmadabad of Badoda District of Gujarath State. A7:Smt. Vijaya Laxmi Bosle W/o Sugunda Rao Bosle, age 25 yrs, Caste: Gay Pardi, R/o. Mallapur (V), U/Ps Madnoor. A8:Vasanth Rao Bosle S/o Sonepath, age 55 yrs, Caste: Gay Pardi, R/o. Mallapur (V), U/PS Madnoor. A9:Erkani Bai W/o Vasanth Rao Bosle, age 50 yrs, Caste: Pardi, R/o. Mallapur (V), U/PS Madnoor. A10:Ippawar Naganath @ Babu Sawkar S/o Kalingam, 48 yrs, Gandla (Teli), Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.5-4-71, Deshpande Galli, Degloor (V) of Nanded District, MH State. (The case against A1, A7, A8 and A9 was split up vide PRC.No.85/2008 and numbered as SC.No.33/2009 and also disposed on 02.09.2009) (Separate charge sheet will be filed against A2, A3, A4 and A6) (The case against A10 was split up vide PRC.No.95/2008 and numbered as

SC.No.108/2011 and also disposed on 02.05.2012)

*This case is being tried only against A5.

4. Date of offence: Intervening night of 05/06-06-2006.

5. Date of complaint:06.06.2006.

6. Date of apprehension:21.04.2007 & 17.06.2016.

7. Date of release: Escaped on 26.11.2007 & ----.

8. Date of commitment:04.08.2016.

9. Date of commencement of trial:23.01.2017.

10. Date of closure of trial:26.04.2017.

11. Date of Judgment:26.04.2017.

12. Explanation of delay: -

FAC: Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

26/04/2017 ASJ

1SC.NO.69 of 2010

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, BODHAN

Present: Sri M.V. Harinath,

Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Nizamabad, FAC: Asst. Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Thursday, the 22th day of December, 2016

Sessions Case No.69 of 2010

(Split up from SC.No.230/2007)

Name of complainantThe State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, PS Bodhan.

Name of AccusedA1. Arelly ravi Kumar S/o Arelly Gangadhar, Age: 23 years, Hay Pardi, R/o Sai babagally of Metpally of Karimanagar Dist., now at present Tamblur village of Degloor Tq., Nanded Dist. of Maharastra state.

ChargeUnder Section 397 I.P.C.

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

FindingIn the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the said offence. Accused shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case.

Sentence or OrderAcquitted.

Prosecution conducted bySriE.Poshetty,Addl.Public Prosecutor, Bodhan.

Accused defended bySri M. Gangareddy, Legal Aid Counsel

for accused.

This case was committed by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan, in PRC No.44 of 2007 (Crime No.333/2006 of PS Bodhan).

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri E.Poshetty,Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and that of Sri M. Gangareddy, Legal Aid Counsel

for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day,

this Court delivers the following:

22.12.2016 ASJ, Bodhan 2SC.NO.69 of 2010

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

The Inspector of Police, Bodhan, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 397 IPC alleging as follows:

a) On the intervening night of 03/04.08.2006, A1 to A4 gained entrance into the house of one A. Uma Rani (LW.2) situated at

Narsapur village, Bodhan mandal by removing the tin shed roof and committed robbery of cash, gold and silver ornaments from the said

Uma Rani and when she obstructed, they also caused grievous hurt to her with deadly weapons like axe and fled away with the booty.

b) On the report given by the Sarpanch of the village by name

G. Vasram (PW.1), a case in Cr.No.333/2006 of Police station, Bodhan was registered U/sec.397 IPC and investigated into by the Circle

Inspector of Police, Bodhan. During the course of investigation, the

Inspector of Police, Bodhan arrested A1 and A2 on 21.04.2007 at 2-00 pm at new Bus stand, Bodhan and recorded their confessional statements which revealed that themselves along with A3 and A4 committed the offence in this case. In pursuance of confessional statements of A1 and A2, the Inspector of police, Bodhan seized one pair of gold ear tops weighing about half tula from A1 and one pair of silver leg chains weighing about 40 grams from A2 under cover of a panchanama. Therefore, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Sections 397 IPC.

2. The learned Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan, before whom, the charge sheet was filed, took cognizance against A1 to A4 for the offence punishable U/sec.397 IPC and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nizamabad, against the accused, and the

Hon'ble Prl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, took the case on file for the

22.12.2016 ASJ, Bodhan 3SC.NO.69 of 2010 offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC, and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

3. On appearance of the accused, charge for the offence punishable under Section 397 the IPC was framed against him, read over and explained to him in vernacular language, who having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Pws 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8.

5.The evidence of prosecution witnesses, in brief, is as follows:

a)PW.1, Vasuram, who is the defacto complainant, deposed that in the year 2006 on one day in the morning time, somebody informed him that the kirana shop of Smt. Uma was found pell-mell.

Immediately, he went to the kirana shop and could not enquiry as nobody was available and so he informed about the incident to the police. Police came there and inspected the scene of offence. He gave report to the police Ex.P1

b)PW.2, Kanakaiah, who is mediator for the scene of offence, deposed that in the year 2006 on one day in the morning time, somebody informed him that a theft took place in the kirana shop of one Addam Srinivas (LW.3). He found the wife of Srinivas by name

Uma in unconscious state and he found the articles in the kirana shop in pell-mell condition. Police observed the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P2 and P3 scene of observation panchanama and rough sketch respectively in the presence of himself and Rajanarsu.

c)PW.3, T. Anjaneyulu, who is one of the mediator for confession and recovery panchanama, deposed that about 10 years ago he went to Bodhan Police station in connection with some other 22.12.2016 ASJ, Bodhan 4SC.NO.69 of 2010 work and then police directed him to sign on some papers and he did so. Therefore, he was declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case.

d)PW.4, Umarani, who is the victim-injured, deposed that about 10 or 11 years ago during night time, she was sleeping in her house with her baby aged 4 months, as her husband went to

Hyderabad. Then, somebody beat her on the left side of her head, as a result, she lost consciousness. She regained consciousness after two months, but she could not get her talking power. She cannot identify her assailant as it was dark. Her gold pusthela thadu, gold ear studs, matees, gold vanka ring and silver leg chains and cash of Rs.10,000/- were committed theft of in the incident. Her ear was also cut for removing matees.

e) PW.5, Srinivas, who is husband of PW.4/victim, deposed that about 10 or 11 years ago, he went to Hyderabad for the purpose of his business. On the same night, their villagers informed him by phone that a theft took place in his house, wherein his wife died. He was also told that his wife was at the stage of death and she was being shifted to Hyderabad hospital. Then, he waited at Hyderabad and admitted his wife in Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad. On verification, he found that gold pusthela thadu, gold ear studs, matees, gold vanka ring and silver leg chains and cash of Rs.40,000/- or Rs.50,000/- were committed theft of in the incident.

f)PW.6, V. Ravi Kumar, who is one of the investigating officers, deposed that on 04.08.2006, on receipt of express FIR Ex.P4 from the SI of Police, Bodhan, he took up investigation, examined PW.1 and recorded his statement. He visited the scene of offence and secured two mediators namely Kanthaiah and Raja Narsu and 22.12.2016 ASJ, Bodhan 5SC.NO.69 of 2010 conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence and have drawn rough sketch in the scene of offence panchanama. From the scene of offence, sent the victim PW.4 to Government hospital, Bodhan for treatment. On 05.01.2007, he recorded the statements of PW.4 and PW.5. He also deposed that while the investigation was in progress, on 21.04.2007, at 2.00 pm, on reliable information, he along with his staff rushed to New Bus stand, Bodhan and apprehended A1 and A2 in suspicious circumstances. Then, he secured two mediators namely Santosh Patni and Anjaneyulu (PW.3) and conducted confession and recovery panchanama and recovered one pair of gold ear tops wg.half tula from A1, one pair of silver leg chains wg.40 grams from A2. After completion of confession and recovery panchanama, A1 and A2 were brought to CI office and effected their arrest and remanded them to judicial custody. He also deposed that during further investigation, he arrested the third accused in this case on 04.05.2007 at Saloora Check post and recovered one silver kumkuma bharani and silver agarbathi stand from A3 under cover of a panchanama in the presence of two mediators namely Venkateshwar

Rao and Hanmanth Rao. Later, he sent A3 for remand. During the course of investigation, he received the wound certificate of Umarani from the Government hospital, Bodhan, after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused No.1 was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the entire prosecution evidence and stated that he has no defence witnesses.

7.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned

Legal Aid Counsel for the accused.

22.12.2016 ASJ, Bodhan 6SC.NO.69 of 2010

8. The point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of

the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

9. POINT:The prosecution examined PW.1 to 6 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P8 in support of its case.

10.In order to prove the said charge U/sec.397 IPC against the accused, the prosecution has placed reliance on the oral testimony of

PW.1 to 6 and Ex.P1 to P8 documents. With regard to the alleged incident, PW.4 Uma Rani deposed that about 10 or 11 years ago during night time, when she was sleeping in her house along with her baby, aged 4 months as her husband went to Hyderabad, somebody beat her on the left side of her head, as a result, she lost consciousness and regained consciousness 2 months later, but she could not get her talking power. She also deposed that she cannot identify her assailants as it was dark. She also deposed that her pusthela thadu, gold ear studs, matees, gold vanka ring and silver leg chains and cash of Rs.10,000/- were committed theft of in the incident. She also deposed that her ear was also cut for removing matees.

11.The above evidence of PW.4 is corroborated by the oral testimony of PW.5 Srinivas, who is no other than the husband of PW.4.

He deposed that about 10 or 11 years ago, he went to Hyderabad for the purpose of his business; that he received a phone call that a theft took place in his house, wherein his wife dead; he also deposed that he was told that his wife was being shifted to Hyderabad hospital and so he waited at Hyderabad and got admitted his wife in Gandhi Hospital,

Hyderabad. He also deposed that on verification, he found gold pusthela thadu, gold ear studs, matees, gold vanka ring and silver leg 22.12.2016 ASJ, Bodhan 7SC.NO.69 of 2010 chains and cash of Rs.40,000/- or Rs.50,000/- were committed theft of in the incident.

12.The above evidence of PW.4 and 5 is corroborated by oral testimony of PW.1, the Ex-Sarpanch of Achanpally village. He found that in the year 2006 on one day in the morning hours, somebody informed that the kirana shop of Smt. Uma (PW.4) was found pell-mell; that he went there and found none and so he informed the above incident to the police and gave Ex.P1 report. This evidence of PW.1 also remained unchallenged.

13.With regard to the theft in the house of PW.4, PW.2 deposed that in the year 2006 on one day in the morning time, he heard a theft took place in the kirana shop of PW.4, he went there and found PW.4 Uma in unconscious state and found the articles in the kirana shop in pell-mell condition and that police observed the scene of offence in his presence and prepared Ex.P2 and P3 panchanama and rough sketch. During the course of cross examination, he denied the suggestion that no panchanama and rough sketch were prepared in his presence.

14.The above evidence of PW.1 and 2 and PW.4 and 5 supported by

Ex.P1 report establishes that on the intervening night of 03/04..08.2006 some unknown offenders entered the kirana shop of

PW.4 Uma and committed theft of her gold and silver ornaments and cash of Rs.10,000/- after causing grievous hurt to her.

15.In order to connect the accused with the said charge, the prosecution placed reliance on the oral testimony of PW.3 and 6. PW.6 is the investigation officer in this case. He deposed that on 04.08.2006 he received Ex.P4 original FIR in this case, examined PW.1 and recorded his statement, visited the scene of offence and prepared

Ex.P2 and P3 panchanama and rough sketch, sent the victim Uma to 22.12.2016 ASJ, Bodhan 8SC.NO.69 of 2010

Government Hospital for treatment. He also deposed that on 21.4.2007 at 2.00 pm, on reliable information, himself and his staff went to New Bus stand, Bodhan and apprehended A1 and A2 in suspicious circumstances and then, he secured two mediators namely

Santosh Patni and Anjaneyulu (PW.3) and conducted confession and recovery panchanama. He deposed that he seized one pair of gold ear tops wg.about half tula from A1 and one pair of silver leg chains wg.40 grams from A2 under Ex.P4 and P6 (admissible portions in the confession panchanama). He also deposed that on 04.05.2007 he arrested A3 and seized one silver kumkuma bharani and silver agarbathi stand from his possession under Ex.P7 (admissible portion in the confessional panchanama). He also deposed that after receipt of

Ex.A8 wound certificate of PW.4, he filed charge sheet in this case.

16.According to the evidence of PW.6, he recorded the confessional panchanama of A1 on 21.04.2007 at 2-00 pm at New Bus stand,

BOdhan and in pursuance of his confession, he seized one gold ear top weighing about 1/2 tula from A1. However, the above evidence of

PW.6 is not corroborated by the only panch witness examined by the prosecution as PW.3. PW.3 specifically deposed that about 10 years ago when he went to Bodhan Police station in connection with some other work, police have obtained his signature on some papers. During the cross examination, he denied a suggestion that on 21.04.2007 at

New Bus stand, Bodhan, the accused and some other persons were arrested by the police and seized some silver leg chains, cash of

Rs.5,000/-, gold ear studs, one gold pusthela thadu from their possession and that he is deposing false to help the accused. The prosecution could not try to examine the other alleged panch witness since PW.3 did not support the prosecution case. Since the evidence of

PW.5 with regard to arrest of A1 and seizure of gold ear top from his 22.12.2016 ASJ, Bodhan 9SC.NO.69 of 2010 possession in pursuance of his alleged confession is not corroborated by the alleged panch witness, who is examined as PW.3, it is highly unsafe to believe the evidence of PW.6 that he really arrested A1 and seized gold ornaments pertaining to this case in pursuance of his alleged confession.

17.In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that though the prosecution could able to establish that robbery took place in the house of PW.4 on the intervening night of 03/04.08.2006 at Narsapur village by causing grievous hurt to her, failed to establish that the accused himself was one of the culprits in that crime, beyond all reasonable doubt. In the circumstances, A1 is entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

18. In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the said offence. Accused shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 22nd day of December, 2016.

Sd/-

FAC: Asst. Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1(LW1)Guguloth VasramDefacto complainant - None - PW2(LW4)KankaiahPanch for scene PW3(LW7)T.Anjaneyulu Panch for confession of A1 PW4(LW2)Arddam Uma Rani Injured PW5(LW3)SrinivasCircumstantial witness PW6 (LW12) V. Ravi KumarInvestigation officer 22.12.2016 ASJ, Bodhan 10SC.NO.69 of 2010

EXHIBITS MAKED

(On behalf of)

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1:Complaint filed by PW.1. - Nil - Ex.P2:Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3:Rough sketch Ex.P4:First Information Report Ex.P5:Admissible portion in confession panchanama of A1 Ex.P6:Admissible portion in confession panchanama of A2 Ex.P7:Admissible portion in confession panchanama of A3 Ex.P8:Wound certificate of Umarani

MOs MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/-

FAC: Asst. Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

22.12.2016 ASJ, Bodhan