Sri Madhira Eswar Venkata Prasad

II AJCJ, KDP.

Date: 5.12.20251O.S.No.929/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION) :: KADAPA

Present: Sri M. Eswar Venkata Prasad,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

Friday, this the 05 th day of December, 2025

O.S.No.929/2023

Between :

Shaik Absar Ahammad, S/o. Shaik Ameer Jan, Muslim, aged about 37 years, Private Employee, Permanent resident of D.No.21/506-2, Palem Papaiah Street, Kadapa city and District, Aadhar No.9333 2176 0429, Passport No.T2412509, presently residing on employment at Kuwait represented by his General Power of Attorney Holder Shaik Ameer Jan, S/o. Shaik Mahaboob Hussain, Muslim, aged about 68 years, Aadhar No.7872 2176 0429, residing at D.No.21/506-2, Palem Papaiah Street, Kadapa city and District.

...Plaintiff

And

1. Shaik Jafar, S/o. Shaik Mahaboob Sab, Muslim, Aadhar No.2471 6838 7335, business, residing at D.no.8/29, Marati Street, Akkayapalli, Kadapa city and District.

2.The Sub-Registrar (Urban), Stamps and Registration Department, Budha Township, Kadapa City and District.

...Defendants

This suit is coming on 28.11.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Mohan Krishna, Advocate for plaintiff and of defendants remained ex-parte; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants No.1 and 2 praying to direct defendant No.1 to execute a registered rectification deed with regard to the correct S.No.18/1 of Nagarajupalli village fields for

II AJCJ, KDP.

Date: 5.12.20252O.S.No.929/2023

the registered sale deed dated 09.02.2022 in favour of the plaintiff and further to direct defendant No.2 to permit defendant No.1 to execute a registered rectification deed with regard to the correct S.No.18/1 of

Nagarajupalli Village fields for the registered sale deed dated 09.02.2022 and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief is as follows:

(a)The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property having been purchased the same from its lawful owner namely

Shaik Jaffar who is defendant No.1 herein under a registered sale deed

dated 09.02.2022 vide Doc.No.2123/2022 with specific boundaries. Ever-

since the date of purchase plaintiff is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without objection from anybody.

(b) It is further submitted that originally the plaint schedule property belongs to Shaik Khader Valli and his wife Rajiya Begum and they have sold away the plaint schedule property to the vendor of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 01.10.2002 vide Doc.No.5731/2002 for a valid sale consideration and delivered the possession on the same day of sale and in turn the vendor of the plaintiff has sold away the same to the plaintiff and since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute right and title over the same with specific boundaries.

II AJCJ, KDP.

Date: 5.12.20253O.S.No.929/2023

(c)It is further submitted that original the plaint schedule house property bearing D.No.16/158 is situated in Sy.No.18/1 of Nagarajupalli village fields of Kadapa Mandal and District, but due to oversight the vendors of the vendor of plaintiff has executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by mentioning the survey number of plaint schedule house property as S.No.16/3A instead of S.No.18/1 and the vendor of plaintiff also has not noticed the same and inturn he also executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by mentioning the same wrong

S.No.16/3A instead of original S.No.18/1.

(d)It is further submitted that as the father of the plaintiff i.e., the

General Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff suffered with serious health problems a such the plaintiff intended to sell away the plaint schedule property to meet the medical expenses of his father and at that time plaintiff came to know about the wrong mentioning of the survey number and he requested defendant No.1 to rectify the same, defendant No.1 accepted the request of the plaintiff and both of them approached to defendant No.2 for executing a rectification deed with regard to the survey number of the suit schedule house property.

(e)It is further submitted that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 approached defendant No.2 and requested him to permit them to execute rectification deed for the registered sale deed dated 09.02.2022 executed by

II AJCJ, KDP.

Date: 5.12.20254O.S.No.929/2023

defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff, but defendant No.2 refused their request by stating that the vendors of the vendor of the plaintiff also has to execute their registered sale deed dated 01.10.2002 in favour of the plaintiff.

As executants of the registered sale deed dated 01.10.2002 were no more, the plaintiff requested defendant No.2 to permit defendant No.1 to execute the rectification deed, but defendant No.2 bluntly refused the request of plaintiff.

(f)It is further submitted that the plaintiff has made a representation to the Municipal Corporation, Kadapa to give a report where the plaint schedule house property is situated. On the representation made by plaintiff the Town Surveyor, Kadapa has conducted a survey and the

Assistant City Planner, Kadapa had given an endorsement in writing that the plaint schedule property is situate in S.No.18/1 of Nagarajupalli Village fields. It si further submitted that even the valuation certificate issued by the

Joint Sub Registrar, Kadpa also reveals that fact the suit schedule house property is situated in S.No.18/1 of Nagarajupalli village fields. It is further submitted that again the plaintiff has approached defendant No.2 by placing all the documentary evidence before him and requested to permit defendant

No.1 to execute rectification deed for the registered sale deed dated 09.02.2022, but defendant No.2 refused to comply the request of plaintiff and directed him to obtain suitable orders from the competent court of law.

Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

II AJCJ, KDP.

Date: 5.12.20255O.S.No.929/2023

3.The suit summons of defendants No.1 and 2 were served through court. On the date fixed for their appearance, defendants No.1 and 2 were called absent and there was no representation on their behalf.

Hence, defendants No.1 and 2 were set exparteand the matter was posted for plaintiff’s side evidence.

4.In support of his case, plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 and got marked besides examining one S.Ashwakullah as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8.

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

7. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the vendor of plaintiff i.e., defendant No.1 purchased the plaint schedule property from his vendors under registered sale deed dated 01.10.2002 vide

Doc.No.5731/2002 with wrong survey number and in-turn the vendor of plaintiff has executed a registered sale deed dated 09.02.2022 vide

Doc.No.2123/2022 in favour of plaintiff with same wrong survey number i.e., S.No.16/3A instead of S.No.18/1. The plaintiff approached his vendor i.e., defendant No.1 to rectify the survey number in registered sale deed and defendant No.1 agreed to rectify the same and they both approached

II AJCJ, KDP.

Date: 5.12.20256O.S.No.929/2023

defendant No.2 for execution of rectification deed with regard to survey number of the suit schedule house property, but defendant No.2 refused the same by stating that the vendors of the vendor of plaintiff also has to execute their registered sale deed date d01.10.2002 in favour of vendor of plaintiff. Further the plaintiff also made a representation to the Municipal

Corporation, Kadapa to give report where the plaint schedule house property is situated and the Town surveyor, Kadapa has conducted survey and the Assistant City Planner, Kadapa had given endorsement in writing that the plaint schedule property is situate in S.No.18/1 of Nagarajupalli village field, even valuation certificate issued by the Joint Sub Registrar,

Kadapa which also reveals that suit schedule house property is situate in

S.No.18/1 of Nagarajupalli village fields. Further the plaintiff and defendant

No.1 again approached defendant No.2 with documentary evidence and requested him to permit defendant No.1 to execute rectification deed for the registered sale deed dated 09.02.2022 but defendant No.2 refused to comply the request of the plaintiff and directed him to obtain suitable orders from the competent court of law.

8.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff No.1 got himself examined as PW-1 and besides examined one Shaik Ashawakullah as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. P.W.1 in his chief examination reiterated the contents of plaint. Ex.A1 is Ex.A1 is Original Special Power of

Attorney dated 8.7.2023 executed by the plaintiff in favour of his father and

II AJCJ, KDP.

Date: 5.12.20257O.S.No.929/2023

Holder of Power of Attorney namely Shaik Ameer Jan, Ex.A2 is Original

General Power of Attorney dt: 30.12.2021 issued through Consular Officer

Embassy of India at Kuwait executed by the plaintiff in favour of his father and Holder of Power of Attorney namely Shaik Ameer Jan, Ex.A3 is

Certified copy of Registered sale deed, dt: 9.2.2022 vide document

No.2123/2022 executed by Shaik Jaffar in fvour of the plaintiff, Ex.A4 is

Certified copy of Registered sale deed date 1.10.2002 vide document No.

5731/2002 executed by Late Shaik Khader Valli and his wife Rajiya Begum in favour of Shaik Jaffar, Ex.A5 is original Endorsement date 17.8.2022 issued by Assistant City Planner, Municipal Corporation, Kadapa to the plaintiff disclosing the plaint schedule property is situated in Sy.No.18/1,

Ex.A6 is original valuation certificate dated 22.8.2023 issued by Joint Sub

Registrar, Kadapa which reveals that the plaint schedule house property is situated in Sy.No. 18/1, Ex.A7 is Death certificate of Late Shaik Khader valli i.e., one of the vendor of the vendor of the plaintiff, Ex.A8 is Death certificate of Later Rajiya Begum i.e., another vendor of the vendor of the plaintiff.

9.In support of his case plaintiff got examined Shaik

Ashawakullah as P.W.2. P.W.2 in his chief examination testified that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having been purchased the same from defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed and ever since the purchase do the same plaintiff is in absolute possession and enjoyment

II AJCJ, KDP.

Date: 5.12.20258O.S.No.929/2023

of the suit schedule property without any let or hindrance from any body.

affidavit reiterated all the averments made in the plaint. He further testified that originally the suit schedule property bearing D.No.16/158 situate in

S.No.18/1 of Nagarajupalli village fields, but due to oversight the vendor of the vendor of plaintiff wrongly mentioned the survey number as 16/3A instead of 18/1. He further testified that when the plaintiff tried to sell away the suit schedule property the mistake crept in the survey number came to his notice. He further testified that the plaintiff approached defendant No.1 to rectify the survey number by executing rectification deed and defendant

No.1 accepted the request of plaintiff. He further testified that they both approached defendant No.2 for execution of rectification deed but he refused by stating that the vendor of defendant No.1 has to execute the same. He further testified that the vendors of defendant No.1 are no more and died long back and plaintiff and defendant No.1 requested defendant

No.2 to permit for rectification deed, but defendant No.2 refused the same.

He further testified that on the request of plaintiff, Kadapa Municipal authorities also conducted a survey and given endorsement that the suit schedule property is situate in S.No.18/1, inspite of the report of Municipal

Corporation authorities also defendant No.2 refused for execution of rectification deed.

10.On perusal of Ex.A.1 it reveals that plaintiff executed Special

Power of Attorney dt.8.7.2023 in favour of his father namely Shaik Ameer

II AJCJ, KDP.

Date: 5.12.20259O.S.No.929/2023

Jan to represent before the court on his behalf. Ex.A.2 is the General Power of attorney dated 30.12.2021 executed by the plaintiff in favour of his father namely Shaik Ameer Jan to change the the name of the house owner in to plaintiff’s name in electricity bills, water and property tax, to sign on his behalf on any property registration document concerning the needy before registering officer in the office of the Sub Registrar of assurance, to sign on his behalf on any Municipal Corporation document, any electricity document and to do Mee seva and what ever other acts and deeds required for the said purpose. Ex.A.3 reveals that Shaik Jafar i.e., defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed dated 9.02.2022in favour of Absar Ahammad Shaik.

On perusal of schedule in Ex.A.3 the Survey number was mentioned as 16/3A. Ex.A.4 reveals that one Shaik Khadervalli and his wife Rajijya

Begum executed registered sale deed dated 01.10.2022 in favour of vendor of plaintiff i.e., defendant No.1 Shaik Jaffar. On perusal of schedule of

Ex.A.4 it also shows that Survey number of suit schedule property as

S.No.16/3A. Ex.A.5 reveals that the Mandal Surveyor of Kadapa issued an endorsement stating that the town surveyor have proceeded to the house at

D.No.16/158, Masapeta, Kadapa and measured on ground and found that the above house site is located in Sy.No.18/1 of Nagarajupalli village of

Kadapa Mandal in the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, Kadapa.

Ex.A.6 is the Market value of the of the suit schedule house property is

II AJCJ, KDP.

Date: 5.12.202510O.S.No.929/2023

situated in Sy.No.18/1. Exs.A7 and Ex.A8 are the death certificates of vendors of defendant No.1 which shows that the vendors of defendant No.1 namely Shaik Khader Valli was died on 23.09.2018 and Shaik Raziya

Begum was died on 22.04.2018. From the above said discussion, the plaintiff proved his contention by filing Exs.A.1 to A.8. Admittedly, defendant

No.1 and 2 remained exparte as such the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with documentary evidence Exs.A.1 to A8 remains unchallenged.

Accordingly this point is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

In the result, this suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant

No.1 to execute a registered rectification deed with regard to correct

S.No.18/1 of Nagarajupalli village fields for the registered sale deed dated 09.02.2022 in favour of the plaintiff. Further defendant No.2 is directed to permit defendant No.1 to execute registered rectification deed with regard to the correct S.No.18/1 of Nagarajupalli village fields for the registered sale deed dated 09.02.2022 in favour of the plaintiff.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 05th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- M.Eswar Venkata Prasad,

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS: PW.1: S.Ameer JanNil.

II AJCJ, KDP.

Date: 5.12.202511O.S.No.929/2023

PW.2: S.Ashwakullah

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Original Special Power of Attorney dated 8.7.2023 executed by the plaintiff in favour of his father and Holder of Power of Attorney namely Shaik Ameer Jan. Ex.A2:Original General Power of Attorney dt: 30.12.2021 issued through Consular Officer Embassy of India at Kuwait executed by the plaintiff in favour of his father and Holder of Power of Attorney namely Shaik Ameer Jan. Ex.A3:Certified copy of Registered sale deed, dt: 9.2.2022 vide document No.2123/2022 executed by Shaik Jaffar in fvour of the plaintiff. Ex.A4:Certified copy of Registered sale deed dt: 1.10.2002 vide document No. 5731/2002 executed by Late Shaik Khader Valli and his wife Rajiya Begum in favour of Shaik Jaffar. Ex.A5:Original Endorsement dt: 17.8.2022 issued by Assistant City Planner, Municipal Corporation, Kadapa to the plaintiff disclosing the plaint schedule property is situated in Sy.No.18/1. Ex.A6:Original valuation certificate dt: 22.8.2023 issued by Joint Sub Registrar I Kadapa which reveals that the plaint schedule house property is situated in Sy.No. 18/1.

Ex.A7:Death certificate of Late Shaik Khader valli i.e., one of the vendor of the vendor of the plaintiff. Ex.A8:Death certificate of Later Rajiya Begum i.e., another vendor of the vendor of the plaintiff.

FOR DEFENDANTS: - NIL -

Sd/- M.Eswar Venkata Prasad,

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa.

II Addl.JFCM, Kadapa 1 C.C.No.622/2020

Dated:4.12.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, KADAPA.

PRESENT:-Sri M.Eswar Venkata Prasad, II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa

Thursday, this the 4th day of December, 2025.

C.C.No.622/2020

Between:

State: Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Kadapa Taluk P.S., .… Complainant.

-And-

Shaik Hussain Peera @ Gundu Peera , aged 57 years, Occ:Driver, Caste: Muslim, D.No.3/308, Nandyal Nagireddy Colony, Kadapa District. …. Accused No.1 and 2

This case is coming on 04.12.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

Complainant and of Sri A.S.Ravi Teja, learned Asst. Legal Aid

Counsel for the accused and having heard on both sides, today itself, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadapa Taluk P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.149/2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec.506, 509 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution as leveled in the charge sheet is as follows:

i) P.W.1/Patan Ammaji is the defacto complainant.

P.W.2/Patan Farida is the daughter of P.W.1. L.W.3/Shaik Dastagiri,

II Addl.JFCM, Kadapa 2 C.C.No.622/2020

Dated:4.12.2025

L.W.4/Shaik Rahamathulla, L.W.5/Shaik Baba Valli are eye witnesses to this case. P.W.3 is the investigating officer in this case.

ii) P.W.1 is residing in house bearing D.No.78/231

Nandyala Nagireddy, Kadapa District along with P.W.2. P.W.1 used to work as maid in houses and eke her livelihood. P.W.1 took divorce from her husband namely Rahamathulla and live her life.

P.W.1 has one daughter i.e., P.W.2 and one son and the son of

P.W.1 went to Saudi Arabi for his livelihood. The house of accused is located at the south side of house of P.W.1. The accused daily used to consume alcohol and used to quarrel in the street with all neighbours without any reason as such L.Ws.3, 4/S.Dastagiri and

S.Rahamathulla consoled several times. After lock down period the accused used to consume alcohol daily and used to sand infront of house of P.W.1 and used abusive words as such P.W.1 questioned accused as to why he is standing infront of her house and using abusive words towards her and asked the accused not to stand infront of her house. While so on 3.6.2020 at around night 8.00 p.m., accused consumed alcohol by standing infront of the house of P.W.1 used abusive words “Osai Ammaji bayataki raa’” loudly, then P.Ws.1 and 2 came out of their house and questioned accused as to why he used to consume alcohol and used to abuse her in filthy language for which accused abused P.W.1 by stating that “Mee intiki meku meku thelisnavaru yevaru vastu pothu vuntaru kada valu villu yenduku

II Addl.JFCM, Kadapa 3 C.C.No.622/2020

Dated:4.12.2025

pilusthay neynay vasta kada” and also abused her in filthy language.

P.W.1 asked accused to go away from her house for which accused abused her by stating that “ lanja nanu ikadi nunchi velli pomantava nenay ikkada leykunda chestha’’ and also threatened P.Ws.1 and 2 to see their end. Further the accused also threatened P.W.2 that to live this place along with P.W.1 otherwise he will see their end and also abused her in filthy language as such L.Ws.3 and 4/S.Dasthagiri and S.Rahamathulla intervened and reprimand the accused as such he went away from the scene of offence.

iii) Basing on the complaint of P.W.1 on 04.06.2020 at 1.00 p.m., P.W.3 registered a case in Cr.No.149/2020 U/Sec. 506, 509 IPC of Kadapa Taluk P.S., and investigated into.

iv) During the course of investigation, on 04.06.2020,

P.W.3 examined P.Ws.1 and 2 at police station and recorded their statements U/sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C.,, he visited the scene of offence and examined L.Ws.3 to 5/S.Dasthagiri, S.Rahamathulla and S.Baba valli examined them and recorded their statements U/sec.161 (3)

Cr.P.C., and also drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 5.6.2020 P.W.3 released the accused on station bail and directed him to appear before the Hon’ble Court as and when required.

Hence, the charge.

3. The offence was taken cognizance on file against the accused U/Sec.506, 509 IPC and issued summons to the accused.

II Addl.JFCM, Kadapa 4 C.C.No.622/2020

Dated:4.12.2025

4.On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., for which, he denied commission of the offence. Charges under

Sections 506, 509 IPC against the accused has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.3/Shaik Dastagiri, L.W.4/ Shaik Rahamathulla, L.W.5/Shaik

Baba Valli.

7. The defacto complainant/P.Ammaji was examined as P.W.1,

L.W.2 is examined as P.W.2, L.W.6/SKM Hussain is examined as

P.W.3. Ex.P.1 is signature of P.W.1 on report dated 4.6.2020 at

1.00 p.m., Exs.P.2 and P.3 are Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statements of

P.Ws.1 and 2, Ex.P.4 is written report of P.W.1, Ex.P.5 is FIR in

Cr.No.149/2020 U/Sec.506, 509 IPC and Ex.P.6 is rough sketch.

8. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., putting forth the incriminating material that appears against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied his guilt.

No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the defense.

II Addl.JFCM, Kadapa 5 C.C.No.622/2020

Dated:4.12.2025

9. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

10.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt

of the accused for the offence U/s.506, 509 IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

11.POINT:

It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 3.6.2020 at night at about 8.00 p.m., the accused consumed alcohol by standing infront of the house of P.W.1 used abusive words “Osai

Ammaji bayataki raa’” loudly, then P.Ws.1 and 2 came out of their house and questioned accused as to why he used to consume alchohol and used to abuse her in filthy language for which accused abused P.W.1 by stating that “Mee intiki meku meku thelisnavaru yevaru vastu pothu vuntaru kada valu villu yenduku pilusthay neynay vasta kada” and also abused her in filthy language. P.W.1 asked accused to go away from her house for which accused abused her by stating that “ lanja nanu ikadi nunchi velli pomantava nenay ikkada leykunda chestha’’ and also threatened P.Ws.1 and 2 to see their end. Further the accused also threatened P.W.2 that to live this place along with P.W.1 otherwise he will see their end and also abused her in filthy language as such L.Ws.3 and 4/S.Dasthagiri and

S.Rahamathulla intervened and reprimand the accused as such he went away from the scene of offence.

12.The learned A.P.P., submitted his arguments contending

II Addl.JFCM, Kadapa 6 C.C.No.622/2020

Dated:4.12.2025

that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, has clearly proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt as such the accused is liable to be convicted.

13.Per contra, it is the contention of learned counsel for accused that P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. He further contended that the prosecution failed to examine any eye witness of the incident. Further, he would contend that false case has been foisted against accused even though he never committed any offence. Therefore he would contend that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and they are entitled for benefit of doubt.

14.The defacto complainant PW.1/P.Ammaji is examined as

PW1. P.W.1 in her chief-examination deposed that she do not know anythign about the facts of this case. She further deposed that she never witnessed the occurrenceof any incident. She further deposed that police never examined her and never recorded her statement.

She further deposed that the signature shown to her on a preport

dated 4.6.2020 at 1.00 p.m., belongs to her. She further deposed

that on that day police obtained her signature on some written papers and she signed without knowing its contents and Ex.P.1 is her signature on report dated 4.6.2020 at 1.00 p.m.

15. P.W.2 in her evidence deposed that she do not know

II Addl.JFCM, Kadapa 7 C.C.No.622/2020

Dated:4.12.2025

anything about the facts of this case. She further dpeosed that she never witnessed the occurrence of any incident. She further deposed that police never examined her and never recorded her statement.

16. P.Ws.1 and 2 did not depose any incriminating evidence against the accused and they turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The learned APP sought permission of this court to treat the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 as hostile. Further the learned A.P.P.

was permitted to put the questions in the nature of cross- examination to P.Ws.1 and 2. In such cross-examination, the learned APP failed to elicit any incriminating evidence against the accused except posing suggestions and marking of the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 recorded their statements u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C under

Exs.P.2 and P.3.

17.P.W.3/SKM Hussain in his evidence deposed that on 4.6.2020 at about 1.00 p.m., while he was present in police station

P.W.1 came to police station and lodged a written report under

Ex.P.4. Basing on it he registered a case in Cr.No.149/2020 U/Sec.

506, 509 IPC and submitted original FIR to this Hon’ble Court and all other concerned Ex.P.4 is FIR in Cr.No.149/2020, that he examined

P.Ws.1 and 2 in police station and recorded their statements, he left police station and visited the scene of offence situated at Nagireddy colony and observed the scene and prepared rough sketch under

Ex.P.6. He further deposed that he secured the presence of

II Addl.JFCM, Kadapa 8 C.C.No.622/2020

Dated:4.12.2025

L.W.3/Shaik Dastagiri, L.w.4/Shaik Rehamathulla and L.W.5/Shaik

Baba valli examined them and recorded their statements. He further deposd that while he was present in police station on 5.6.2020 accused appeared before him and disclosed his identity particulars he enlarged him on bail after obtaining self bond and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. On perusal of cross-examination of P.W.3 nothing material evidence was elicited against the accused to prove the guilt of accused.

18.The prosecution has listed 06 witnesses in the charge sheet. But only three witnesses were examined. No other witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PWs 1 to 3 did not depose anything about the offences committed by accused. Further no incriminating material against the accused has arisen neither from the chief examination nor from the cross examination of P.Ws.1 to 3.

The evidence of L.Ws.3 to 5 were given up by learned APP. Under these circumstances as all main witnesses resiled from their statements this court is of the clear view that no incriminating material available on record to prove that the accused has committed the above said offences.

19.As already stated above, there is no incriminating evidence available on record and there is no chance for the prosecution to connect the accused with the above offences. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all

II Addl.JFCM, Kadapa 9 C.C.No.622/2020

Dated:4.12.2025

reasonable doubt. As such, the accused is not found guilty for the above offences. Point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution. Therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

20.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.506, 509 IPC and accordingly accused is acquitted of the same U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required

U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. Since no property has been seized and produced, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 4 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- M.Eswar Venkata Prasad,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kadapa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: P.Ammaji -None-

P.W.2: P.Faridha

P.W.3: SKM Hussain

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Signature of P.w.1 on report dt.4.6.2020 NIL at 1.00 p.m.,

Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1

Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P4: Written report of P.W.1

II Addl.JFCM, Kadapa 10 C.C.No.622/2020

Dated:4.12.2025

Ex.P5: FIR Cr.No.149/2020 U/sec.506, 509 IPC of Kadapa Taluk P.S.,

Ex.P6: Rough sketch.

Material Objects Marked:

NIL

Sd/- M.Eswar Venkata Prasad,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

II Addl.JFCM, Kadapa 11 C.C.No.622/2020

Dated:4.12.2025

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, KADAPA.

C.C.No.622/2020

1. Date of Offence: 03.06.2020

2. Date of Complaint or report: 04.06.2020

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : --

4. Date of release of accused : --

4. Date of commencement of trial : 25.11.2025

5. Date of close of trial : 24.11.2025

6. Date of Sentence or Order : 04.12.2025

7. Explanation of delay if any : --

COMPLAINANT:The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadapa Taluk P.S., Cr.No.149/2020

ACCUSED:

Shaik Hussain Peera @ Gundu Peera , aged 57 years, Occ:Driver, Caste: Muslim, D.No.3/308, Nandyal Nagireddy Colony, Kadapa District.

Offence : U/sec.506, 509 IPC

Finding of Court: Accused is found not guilty

Sentence/Order: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.506, 509 IPC and accordingly accused is acquitted of the same U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. Since no property has been seized and produced, no property order is passed.

Sd/- M.Eswar Venkata Prasad,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa Dis.No. Dated.

II AJCJ, Kdp 1 O.S.No.145/2022

Dt:05.12.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION) :: KADAPA

Present: Sri M. Eswar Venkata Prasad,

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa.

Friday, this the 5 th day of December, 2025

Original Suit No. 145/2022

Between:-

Kapil Chit Funds Pvt Ltd., Kadapa Branch Represented by its authorized by its Recovery Manager, G.Siva Rama Krishna, Hindu, aged about 38 years, who is authorized by the company Board of Directors by a Board resolutions. Zonal legal cell D.No.39/650/6-8, Near Gurukul, Vidyapeet School, Chinnachowk Kadapa.

…..Plaintiff

-Versus-

1. O.Guravaiah, S/o. Pitchaiah, aged about 66 years, Hindu, residing at D.No.7/334, New Krishna Nagar, Railway Koduru, Kadapa.

2. P.Surya Prakash Rao, S/o. Raghu Ramaiah, aged about 53 years,Hindu, Panchayat Secretary, Residing at Panchayath Secretary, MPDO Office, Railway Koduru, Kadapa.

3. K.Venkata Ramana, S/o. Venkataiah, aged about 44 years, Hindu, Residing at D.No.7/229, New Krishna Nagar, Railway Koduru, Kadapa.

4. G.Rajendra, aged about 53 years, Hindu, S.G.Assistant, MPP School, VPR Kandriga, Railway Koduru, D.No.7/630, Balaji Nagar, Railway Koduru, Kadapa.

5. V.Prabhakar, S/o. Chenchaiah, aged about 39 years, Hindu, S.G.Teacher, MPP School, RR puram, Railway Koduru, residing at D.No.11/287, New Krishna Nagar, Railway Koduru, Kadapa.

…..Defendants

This suit coming on 05.12.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri M.Nagi Reddy, Learned Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte, and having heard arguments of counsel for plaintiff, till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit filed for recovery sum of Rs.2,72,368/- (Rupees Two Lakhs seventy two thousand three hundred and sixty eight only) being the outstanding balance and

II AJCJ, Kdp 2 O.S.No.145/2022

Dt:05.12.2025

interest due on chit agreement dated 25.03.2009 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff’s company for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same as per terms and conditions of the agreement and for costs of the suit with future interest.

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

i) The plaintiff M/s. Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited Company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956 (Act 1 of 1956) having its registered office at 3-1- 631, Vijay Raghunadan Nagar, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh-505 002 and has been carrying business in chit funds having branches all over State of Andhra Pradesh and one among them such branch situate at Kadapa, Kadapa District, Represented by its Recovery Manager, G.Siva Rama Krishnaiah, S/o. Eswaraiah who has been authorized by the Company Board of Directors by a Board Resolution is the plaintiff.

ii) The 1st defendant joined as subscriber of chit fund scheme of the plaintiff company at its Kadapa, Kadapa District as per its rules and regulations which was furnished to him and subscribed for the Chit No.KPT 6J-23. The total value of the chit being Rs.5,00,000/- to be subscribed at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per installment for 50 months and signed an agreement chit on 25.03.2009 with the plaintiff company. The auction as per the rules and regulations of the chit on 27.09.2009, the 1st defendant participated and became successful bidder having agreed to forgo

Rs.2,00,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which was duly confirmed by the plaintiff company. From out of the forgo amount after deducting the company commission the balance was distributed among all the subscribers in the aforementioned series as dividend as per rules of said chit. In order to draw the prize money the successful bidder had to furnish guarantors/sureties to the satisfaction of plaintiff’s company. The 1st defendant paid Rs.90,000/- inclusive of dividend till the date of auction and his future liability in the said chit being Rs.4,10,000/- the 1st defendant as mentioned herein furnished guarantors who executed an agreement of guarantee dt.29.11.2009 in favour of plaintiff company agreeing to guarantee due payment of the amount due to the company by the 1st defendant. Thus, defendants

No.2 to 5 also became liable by virtue of the said agreement of guarantee jointly and severally for Rs.4,10,000/- being entire amount of future installments together with

II AJCJ, Kdp 3 O.S.No.145/2022

Dt:05.12.2025

interest at 12% p.a., in default made by the 1st defendant in payment of monthly installments. All the defendants executed a promissory note dated 29.11.2009 for

Rs.4,10,000/- in favour of plaintiff company as collateral security. The plaintiff company paid Rs.2,85,920/- by way of cheque bearing No.649136 and Rs.14,080/- by way of cheque bearing No.649137 to the defendant. Thus total amount paid is

Rs.3,00,000/- to the 1st defendant and the same is executed as cash voucher in support of the said payment.

iii) The 1st defendant in all paid 25 installment and 26th installment part payment of Rs.8050/- inclusive of dividends and thereafter committed default in paying the installment from February, 2011. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff company the defendants failed to pay the same. Finally the plaintiff company got issued legal notice dt.19.04.2012 of section 25 (1) of A.P. Chit Fund

Act for Rs.2,42,700/-. As the defendants did not pay any amount despite of issuing legal notice, the plaintiff company is obliged to file the suit for recovery of balance amount. Hence, the suit.

3.The suit summons to the defendants No.1, 3, 4 and 5 remained Exparte. As per docket order dt. 24.7.2025 suit against defendant No.2 is abated. As the defendants No.1,3 4 and 5 were set exparte and the matter was posted for plaintiff side evidence.

4.The plaintiff company to prove its case examined its Recovery Manager by name Sri G.Siva Ramakrishnaiah as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.11 on its behalf.

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the

defendants No.1, 3, 4 and 5 as prayed for”?

7.POINT:-

To prove the case of plaintiff’s company, P.W.1 who said to be the Manager of

Kapil Chit Fund Pvt Ltd., Kadapa Branch examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the

II AJCJ, Kdp 4 O.S.No.145/2022

Dt:05.12.2025

contents of the plaint and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.11. Ex.A.1 is certified copy of board resolution, Ex.A.2 is original chit agreement executed by the 1st defendant in favour the plaintiff Company dated 25.3.2009, Ex.A.3 isOriginal agreement of guarantee executed by the defendants2 to 5 favour the Plaintiff Company dated 29.11.2009, Ex.A.4 is Original promissory note executed by the defendants No.1 to 5 in fvour the plaintiff company dated 29.11.2009, Ex.A.5 is Original receipt voucher signed by 1st defendant, Ex.A.6 is Original copy of Legal notice dated 19.4.2012,

Ex.A.7 is Original unserved copy of 1st defendant, Ex.A8 is Original unserved copy of 2nd defendant, Ex.A9 is Original served copy of 3rd defendant, Ex.A.10 is Original served copy of 4th defendant and Ex.A11 is Original unserved copy of 5th defendant.

8. On perusal of Ex.A2 it shows that the 1st defendant executed an agreement of chit in favour of complainant company towards chit No.KPT6J-2023 for chit amount of Rs.5,00,000/- agreeing the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Ex.A.3 shows that defendant No.2 to 5 stood as guarantor to the 1st defendant towards chit amount. Ex.A.4 is the original promissory note which shows that defendants No.1 to 5 executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff company towards the balance chit amount. Ex.A.5 is the original receipt voucher signed by 1st defendant which shows that the 1st defendant being successful bidder in the auction held on 27.09.2009 for chit value of Rs.5,00,000/- the defendant received an amounts of Rs.14,080/- through cheque No.649137 and Rs.2,85,920/- through cheque No.649136 total defendant received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from plaintiff company. Ex.A.6 is the legal notice dt.19.4.2012 issued by plaintiff company to the defendants demanding for repayment of chit debt. Ex.A.7, A.8 and A.11 shows that legal notice was unserved upon defendants No.1, 2 and 5 and Exs.A.9 and 10 shows that the said legal notice was served upon defendant No.3 and 4. As stated supra, defendants No.1,3,4 and 5 remained exparte and failed to contest their case.

In view of the unchallenged testimony of the plaintiff as PW-1, coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to 11, the plaintiff company has successfully proved its claim. Hence, this court holds that the plaintiff company is entitled to recover the suit amount with costs from defendants No.1, 3, 4 and 5 as prayed for.

II AJCJ, Kdp 5 O.S.No.145/2022

Dt:05.12.2025

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendants No.1, 3, 4 and 5 jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.2,72,368/- (Rupees Two Lakhs seventy two thousand three hundred and

sixty eight only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the outstanding balance amount of Rs.2,72,368/-.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 05 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- M.Eswar Venkata Prasad,

II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION), KADAPA.

Appendix of Evidence (Witnesses examined for) Plaintiff:Defendants:

PW1: G.Siva Rama Krishnaiah Exparte Recovery Manager

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Certified copy of the Board Resolution. Ex.A2:Original chit agreement executed by the 1st defendant in favour the plaintiff Company dated 25.3.2009. Ex.A3:Original agreement of guarantee executed by the defendants2 to 5 favour the Plaintiff Company dated 29.11.2009. Ex.A4:Original promissory note executed by the defendants No.1 to 5 in fvour the plaintiff company dated 29.11.2009. Ex.A5:Original receipt voucher signed by 1st defendant. Ex.A6:Original copy of Legal notice dated 19.4.2012. Ex.A7:Original unserved copy of 1st defendant. Ex.A8:Original unserved copy of 2nd defendant. Ex.A9:Original served copy of 3rd defendant. Ex.A10 :Original served copy of 4th defendant. Ex.A11 :Original unserved copy of 5th defendant.

Exhibits marked for Defendants: Sd/- M.Eswar Venkata Prasad,

NIL II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION), KADAPA

II AJCJ/KDPPage 1 of 7O.S.No.1053/2023

Dated:01.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION) :: KADAPA.

PRESENT:-Sri M.Eswar Venkata Prasad,

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa

Friday, this the 1st day of May, 2026.

Original Suit No.1053/2023

Between:-

A.Srinivasula Reddy, S/o. A.C.V.Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged 46 years, Business, Residing at D.No.9/183, Nabikota, Ravindra Nagar post, Kadapa city, Y.S.R.District.

….. Plaintiff

-And-

S.S.Jitendra, S/o. Late S.J.P. Bhaskar, Hindu, working as Senior Assistant, O/o. Executive Engineer (R &B) Division Office, beside State Guest House, Kadapa city and District. Residing at Raja Reddy Street, Sionpuram, Kadapa city and District.

..... Defendant

This suit coming on 28.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Gnana Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and of

Sri M.V.Bali Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and upon perusing the records after hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,86,080/- (Rupees

Five Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand and Eighty only) being the principal and interest due on four promissory notes dated 05.07.2022 respectively executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.4,44,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- +Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.1,44,000/-) agreeing to

II AJCJ/KDPPage 2 of 7O.S.No.1053/2023

Dated:01.05.2026

repay the same with interest at 24 % per annum with future interest and for costs of the suit.

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

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-,

Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,44,000/- on 05.07.2022 respectively from the plaintiff for his family and legal necessities and in evidence thereof executed four promissory notes in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. Thereafter inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the debt covered under the aforesaid four suit promissory notes as such the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 20.07.2023 demanding the defendant to discharge the four suit promissory notes debt and the said notice was sent to the working address of the defendant and having received the same the defendant neither gave any reply nor paid any amount towards four promissory notes. Hence, the suit.

3.The averments of the written statement in brief are as follows:

i)The defendant denied all the allegations made in the plaint except those which are specifically admitted by him in his written statement. The defendant admitted that he is having monetary transactions with the plaintiff only on one occasion i.e., on 5.7.2022 the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed only Rs.1,00,000/- for his necessities and immediately after receipt of the consideration the defendant executed promissory note No.1 in

II AJCJ/KDPPage 3 of 7O.S.No.1053/2023

Dated:01.05.2026

favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., and at the time of execution of promissory note none were present except the plaintiff and defendant, that the plaintiff got obtained signatures of his henchmen by describing them as attestors before filing of this suit and the rest of the transactions under suit promissory notes No.2 to 4 are not executed by the defendant and the same are rank forged and fabricated by the plaintiff with the support of attestors, that the defendant never scribed the promissory notes No.2 to 4 with his own handwriting. It is further contended that as the defendant committed default in paying the interest for a period of three months under promissory note No.1, the plaintiff quarreled with defendant and warned that he will realize triple of the suit promissory note debt and hence with a view to succeeds his grudges, the plaintiff fabricated the signatures of defendant under the suit promissory notes No.2 to 4 with clear collusion of his henchmen who are the attestors. It is further contended that the defendant received legal notice which was sent by the plaintiff counsel and immediately he made mediation through elders and the plaintiff greed that he will not initiate any suit against the defendant, on that the defendant kept quite, but the plaintiff has not stood on his promise and filed this false suit by fabricating the suit promissory notes No.2 to 4 to get wrongful gain and to cause troubles to the defendant. Hence, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

II AJCJ/KDPPage 4 of 7O.S.No.1053/2023

Dated:01.05.2026

4.Based on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues are framed for trial:

(1) Whether the original suit promissory notes dated 5.7.2022 for

Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,44,000/- are true, valid and binding on the defendant?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

(3) To what relief?

5. To prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 besides examining attestor of suit promissory notes as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. In spite of sufficient opportunity given to defendant, the defendant neither choose to cross examine P.Ws.1 and 2 nor adduced any evidence, on his behalf. Hence, the evidence of defendant is treated as nil and closed and the matter was posted for arguments.

6. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the material on record.

7. Now the issues are answered as under:

Issue No.1 Whether the original suit promissory notes

dated 5.7.2022 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,44,000/- are true,

valid and binding on the defendant?

It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amounts of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and

Rs.1,44,000/- on 05.07.2022 respectively for his family and legal necessities from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or on his order and evidencing the same the defendant executed Ex.A1 to A4 on respective date in favour of plaintiff. Later,

II AJCJ/KDPPage 5 of 7O.S.No.1053/2023

Dated:01.05.2026

inspite of several demands and issuance of legal notice dated 20.7.2023/Ex.A.5 the defendant failed to pay any amount under Exs.A.1 to

A4.

8.It is pertinent to note that though the defendant filed written statement disputing execution of promissory notes Nos.2 to 4 alleging forgery and fabrication, he did not choose to step into the witness box nor subjected

P.Ws.1 and 2 to cross-examination. In law, failure to cross-examine a witness on material aspects amounts to acceptance of his testimony. Further, when execution of a negotiable instrument is proved or admitted, a statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises in favour of the holder that the instrument was made for consideration. The defendant, having admitted execution of one promissory note and having failed to rebut the evidence regarding the remaining promissory notes, has not discharged the burden cast upon him to prove the plea of forgery.

9.The plea of fabrication is a serious allegation, which requires strict proof by cogent evidence such as expert opinion or other reliable material. In the absence of any such evidence, the bare denial in the written statement cannot be accepted. Hence, this Court finds that the plaintiff has successfully proved the execution of all the four promissory notes and passing of consideration thereunder. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff holding that the suit promissory notes dated 05.07.2022 are true, valid and binding on the defendant.

II AJCJ/KDPPage 6 of 7O.S.No.1053/2023

Dated:01.05.2026

10.Issue No.2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

In view of the findings recorded on Issue No.1, it stands established that the defendant borrowed the suit amounts under the promissory notes and failed to repay the same. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover the principal amount covered under the four promissory notes. Accordingly, this issue is also answered in favour of the plaintiff.

11. Issue No.3: To what relief?

In view of the issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff, this issue is answered accordingly and this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.5,86,080/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty

Six Thousand and Eighty only) together with interest at 12% p.a., on a

principal sum of Rs.4,44,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- +Rs.1,00,000/- +

Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.1,44,000/-) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., from the date of decree till date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer Grade-III, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 1 st day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M.Eswar Venkata Prasad,

II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION) KADAPA.

II AJCJ/KDPPage 7 of 7O.S.No.1053/2023

Dated:01.05.2026

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined for)

Plaintiff: Defendant:

P.W.1: A.Srinivasula ReddyNIL

P.W.2: D.Sreenivasulu

Exhibits marked for

Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dated 5.7.2022 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2: Original promissory note dated 5.7.2022 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A3: Original promissory note dated 5.7.2022 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A4: Original promissory note dated 5.7.2022 for Rs.1,44,000/- executed bythedefendantinfavourofplaintiff.

Ex.A5: Office copy of legal notice dt.20.7.2023.

Ex.A6: Postal receipt.

Ex.A7: Postal acknowledgment.

Defendant:-Nil-

Sd/- M.Eswar Venkata Prasad,

II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION) KADAPA.

II Addl.JFCM, Kadapa 1 C.C.No.1306/2021

Dated:04.12.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, KADAPA.

PRESENT:-Sri M.Eswar Venkata Prasad, II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa

Thursday, this the 04th day of December, 2025

C.C.No.1306/2021

Between: State: Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Pendlimarri P.S., .… Complainant.

-And-

1. Manneti Chinna Malla Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, age 25 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ: Cultivation, D.No.1/8, Chennamrajupalli village of Pendlimarri Mandal, YSR District, Kadpa.

2. Manneti Ramudu, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Caste: Reddy, Occ: Cultivation, D.No.1/8, Chennamrajupalli village of Pendlimarri Mandal, YSR District, Kadapa. …. Accused No.1 and 2

This case is coming on 01.12.2025 for hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri G.Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 and upon hearing of both the counsels over he mediation report in receive No. Nil, dt. 01.12.2025 and upon consideration of the same, this court made the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T IN TERMS OF MEDIATION ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pendlimari P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No.151/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A, 324 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution as leveled in the charge sheet is as follows:

i) P.W.1/M.Jyothi is resident of Chennamarajupalli village, Pendlimarri Mandal and is living by doing cultivation. P.W.2 is

II Addl.JFCM, Kadapa 2 C.C.No.1306/2021

Dated:04.12.2025

foster mother of P.W.1. On 16/17.12.2020 P.W.2 celebrated the marriage of P.W.1 with accused No.1 and gave 2 cents of house site towards dowry, that at the time of marriage accused No.1 stated that he is working as welder in Siva Sai Electricals and welding shop at

Industrial estate, Kadapa and earning Rs.12,000/- p.m., that after marriage they spend their marital life happily for two months only by attending his job. Later accused No.1 raised suspicious over her fidelity that a boy of their opposite house is having affair with P.W.1 and then left the job and harassing her mentally and physically by beating and abusing her, then at the request of P.W.2, the village eldersi.e.,L.W.4/C.KammayagariPullaReddy,

L.W.5/C.Kammayagari Nageswara, L.W.6/ V.Siva Reddy and P.W.3 made negotiation in between them, but accused No.1 did not change his attitude. On 23.09.2021 at night accused No.1 came to home in drunken state and abused P.W.1 about her affair and asked her to register two cents of site on his name or to give money by selling the house site, but P.W.1 bear his words calmly. On 24.09.2021 at 11.00 a.m., while P.W.1 was at house, accused No.1 returned from fields pickup quarrel with her then beat her with a stick caught hold her tuft hair by pushed her in mire resulting which she received swelling injuries on her back, thighs and right hand fingers and bite all over her body, in meantime accused No.2 also came there and beat

P.W.1 with hands on her waist and back and caused contusions.

Later P.W.1 phoned to P.W.2, on that P.W.2 and L.W.3/K.Sulochana rushed to her and brought P.W.1 to police station and P.W.1 gave report.

ii) Basing on the written complaint of P.W.1, P.W.5 registered a case in Cr.No.151/2021 U/sec.498-A, 324 r/w 34 IPC of

Pendlimarri P.S., against accused No.1 and 2 on 24.09.2021,

II Addl.JFCM, Kadapa 3 C.C.No.1306/2021

Dated:04.12.2025

submitted FIR’s to all concerned officers and took up investigation.

iii) During investigation P.W.5 examined P.Ws.1, 2 and L.W.3/K.Sulochana at police station then forwarded P.W.1

before P.W.4 for treatment, then P.W.5 visited the scene of offence

andexaminedL.W.4/C.KammayagariPullaReddy,

L.W.5/C.Kammayagari Nageswara, L.W.6/ V.Siva Reddy and P.W.3 and recorded their statements besides inspecting the scene of offence.

iv)On 27.09.2021 P.W.6 SI of Police, Pendlimarri

P.S., assumed charge of Pendlimarri P.S., and continued investigation in this case. Later on 7.10.2021 P.W.6 served Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C., notice to accused No.1 and 2 and obtained acknowledgments. P.W.4 the medical officer, Govt hospital Vempalli who examined and treated P.W.1 opined that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 are simple in nature. During the course of further investigation on 18.10.2021 at 5.00 p.m., P.W.6 enlarged station bail to accused No.1 and 2 by taking sufficient sureties from two person.

Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance of the offence U/Section 498-A, 324 r/w 34 was taken against the accused No.1 and 2 and issued Summons.

4.During the course of proceedings while the case is coming up for cross-examination of P.W.1, on 27.11.2025 both parties called present. The counsel for complainant filed memo to refer the matter to mediation center. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Mediation Center/Lokadalath with a direction to both parties to appear before the Hon’ble Coordinator, Mediation Center,

Kadapa on 01.12.2025.

II Addl.JFCM, Kadapa 4 C.C.No.1306/2021

Dated:04.12.2025

5. Thereafter, this court received the report of mediation resolved in Mediation dt.01.12.2025 along with the letter of Hon’ble

Coordinator,MediationCenter,Kadapain

LR.Dis.No.4725/KMC/2025 dated 01.12.2025 with the terms and conditions of compromise/agreement settled between both parties to dispose of the matter in view of said terms.

6. Heard both sides, perused the terms and conditions of agreement enclosed with the report of Mediation stated supra.

7. Based on the above material, the petition is allowed as follows as per the terms and conditions of agreement settled between both partiesin the Mediation in C.C.No.1306/2021 on the file of this court.

(i) In view of the compromise in HMOP No.130/2023 the de- facto complainant, voluntarily agreed to withdraw the above case in

C.C.No.1306/2021 without compulsion from anybody as the HMOP

No.130/2023 was allowed on 09.09.2025.

(ii) Both parties voluntarily agreed not to file criminal and civil cases in future against each other.

(iii) That the compromise arrived at by the defacto complainant, accused No.1 and 2 are free and voluntary and there is no coercion or any compulsion to this effect.

(iv) In view of the aforesaid agreement entered into between the parties, the parties pray that the case may be disposed off, in terms of the aforesaid agreement. Accordingly this matter is disposed off.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 4 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- M.Eswar Venkata Prasad,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

II Addl.JFCM, Kadapa 5 C.C.No.1306/2021

Dated:04.12.2025

Appendix of Evidence

NIL

Sd/- M.Eswar Venkata Prasad,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kadapa.