Sri. Milind Kamble

1 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT: SRI MILIND KAMBLE,

VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Dated this the 7th Day of June, 2021

O.S.No. 1407 OF 2011

BETWEEN :

V. Devender S/o Late V. Vishwanatham, Aged 55 years, Occ: Vol. Retired, R/o H.No. 9-174/4/2, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad …Plaintiff

and

1. Vuddemarri Kesar Gandhi @ Vuddemarri Ramesh, S/o Late V. Viswanatham, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business

2. Smt Vuddemarri Krishna Veni W/o V. Kesar Gandhi, Aged about 40 years, Occ: House wife

3. Vuddemarri Nikithia D/o V. Kesar Gandhi, Aged about 23 years, Occ: Student

4. Vuddemarri Harini D/o V. Kesar Gandhi, Aged about 21 years, Occ: Student

All R/o H.No. 10-120/1, (Old Nos. 8-173/1 and 8-173/2), Ghatkesar Village and Grampanchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District – 501301 …Defendants

This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri D. Ravinder, Advocate for the defendants and upon hearing and perusal of the record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

1.Brief facts of the plaint are that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are brothers by blood and that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are joint 2 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

owners and possessors of immovable property bearing House

No. 8-173/1 and 8-173/2 together admeasuring 324sq.yards in survey

No. 469 situated at Ghatkesar Village, Ghatkesar Mandal and

Grampanchayat, Ranga Reddy District and the new Municipal bearing house No. 10-120/1 described as suit schedule ‘A’ property. The plaintiff is domicile at Hyderabad and defendant No. 1 has been exercising general administration of suit schedule ‘A’ property by occupying the front portion of the above plot extent facing eastern side and the western portion of the said plot remained open area for a considerable period. Thereafter, when plaintiff expressed his intention of occupying his share on the eastern side, the defendant No. 1 with the help of elders, well wishers of his family, convinced the plaintiff and urged the plaintiff to occupy the property on the western side and the said western side remained in the exclusive fold of the plaintiff with just two rooms structure with asbestos laid on it, built by the plaintiff which is now called as suit schedule ‘B’ property and the other part of the property is described as suit schedule ‘C’ property. In meantime, there occurred a revision in plot numbers constituting the Grampanchayat and the property shown in and marked as Block No. 8 was later designated as Block No. 10 and house numbers were allotted accordingly. Further, that off late defendant No. 1 showing his ill intentions of grabbing and usurping the entire extent of property to the detriment, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit property. As on date, there is no separation or severance of interest in respect of the suit schedule property except the temporary proclamation of eastern 3 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

and western sides accordingly between plaintiff and defendant No. 1.

2.Plaintiff submits that when he made enquiries on the record of the

Sub-Registrar, Ghatkesar and also by obtaining encumbrance certificate on 21-2-2010, through Grampanchayat, it made revelations that defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed apparently in the name of defendant No. 2 who is none other than his wife through a document bearing No. 176/2005 on 15-1-2005 registered with the Sub-Registrar,

Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy District and then after, defendant No. 2 on the behest of defendant No. 1 executed a Gift Settlement Deed in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 who are minor children of defendants

No. 1 and 2 represented by defendant No. 2. The said Deeds are nothing but sham, fraud and illegal void documents. The plaintiff keeping the longer family interest requested defendant No. 1 to undo all the above illegal documents and measure and demarcate his share of property inch by inch, but defendant No. 1 failed to do so. On the other hand, the defendant No. 1 quietly trespassed into his portion by letting out the eastern portion on rent basis @ Rs.1000/- per month.

The unending urge of defendants also led them to occupy the

Grampanchayat road on northern side and there appears complicity with the Grampanchayath officials. The above acts of the defendant

No. 1 sent tremors into the plaintiff life, as such, he suffered ill health.

Defendant No. 1 is causing threatening to the life and limb of the life of family members plaintiff.

4 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

3.Plaintiff submits that all the defendants are enjoying the fruits of his property by executing documents which have no legal sanctity. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 19-1-2011 through registered post calling upon defendants No. 1 to 4 to cancel the sale deed document No. 176/2005 and the Gift Deed document No. 1867/2009 and render an account of accretions enjoyed by the defendants and stop committing acts of waste etc. on the share of his property and further requested to divide the property within a span of seven days from the date of receipt of legal notice. The defendants having received the said legal notice on 24-1-2011 failed to met the demands of the plaintiff which was in the notice and the defendants continued to put the plaintiff in terrible loss, fear and untold misery. Therefore, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:

Partitioning house bearing No.10-120/1 (New), 8-1731/, 8-173/2 i.

(old), situated at Ghatkesar Village and Grampanchayat,

Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District which is suit schedule ‘A’ property.

By cancelling the registered sale deed vide document No. ii.

176/2005 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.

2 on 15-1-2005 with the Sub-Registrar, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District and further cancelling the Gift Settlement Deed document No. 1867/2009 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 with the Sub-Registrar, Ghatkesar

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

Directing the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the iii.

suit property preferably on the eastern side of the total area of the property shown as ‘C’ schedule property or even the ‘B’ schedule property.

To pay mesne profits @ Rs.1000/- per month from the date of iv.

filing of the suit till the delivery of the actual possession of the property to the plaintiff along with cost.

4.Defendants No. 1 and 2 jointly filed their written statement.

Defendants No. 3 and 4 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendants No. 1 and 2. In the written statement, the defendants averred that the suit filed by the plaintiff is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and liable to be dismissed and that the grounds shown in the plaint are false, fictitious, frivolous, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. The defendants averred that the plaintiff has filed the above said suit without any right or entitlement over the suit schedule property and also the suit is liable for dismissal on the ground that the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. The defendants averred that there is no joint family in existence as prayed in the plaint and that the plaintiff is not at all in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time much less on the date of filing of the suit. As such, the plaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.Further, the defendants admitted about the relationship between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 that both of them are real brothers, but, 6 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

however, defendants specifically denied that defendant No. 1 and plaintiff are joint owners and possessors of suit schedule ‘A’ property.

Further, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff has not filed any document to show that defendant No. 1 and plaintiff are joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule ‘A’ property.

6.The defendants specifically denied the averments that while the plaintiff domiciled at Hyderabad, defendant No. 1 has been exercising general administration of the suit schedule property by occupying the front portion and the remaining portion being an open plot for considerable period and thereafter plaintiff expressed his intention to occupy his share on the eastern side and that the defendant No. 1 with the help of elders and well wishers of his family convinced the plaintiff and urged the plaintiff to occupy the western side property which had two rooms structure with asbestos laid on it (suit schedule ‘B’ property).

7.The defendants averred that they are not aware that there occurred a revision in the block numbers of the Grampanchayat and that the suit schedule property shown in block No. 8 was designated as block No. 10 and house numbers were allotted. The defendants specifically denied that since defendant No. 1 being the brother of the plaintiff, keeping the same in view and the long family interest, the plaintiff requested the defendant No. 1 to undo all the illegal documents and similarly requested the defendants to measure and demarcate the plaintiff share property, but, however, the defendant No. 1 failed to do so. The defendants also denied about letting out part of the suit 7 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

schedule property on rent @ Rs.1000/- per month. The defendants also denied about the fact that as a gesture of protecting family image, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 19-1-2011 through Registered

Post with Acknowledgement Due calling upon defendants No. 1 to 4 to cancel Sale Deed and Gift Deed vide documents bearing No. 176/2005 and 1867/2009 respectively. The defendants averred that there is no truth in the above said facts.

8.The defendants further averred that originally, the defendant No. 1 is the owner of the suit schedule ‘A’ property and he constructed a house over it and the Grampanchayat, Ghatkesar assessed his property and allotted house No. 10-120/1 in the name of defendant No.

1. The defendant No. 1 sold the suit schedule ‘A’ property to defendant No. 2 vide registered sale deed document bearing No.

176/2005 dated 15-1-2005 and since the date of purchase, the defendant No. 2 is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that the defendant No. 2 out of love and affection towards her children executed the Gift Deed in favour of her minor children defendants No.

3 and 4, as such, all the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule ‘A’ property. Defendants submit that the plaintiff has no locus to file the present suit nor he is entitled to question/cancel the said documents. The enjoyment and ownership of the defendants over the suit schedule ‘A’ property developed eye sore to the plaintiff and the plaintiff turned dishonest and filed the present suit for wrongful gain and also cause wrongful loss to defendants. The documents that is 8 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

Sale Deed and Gift Deed are valid, genuine documents and the claim of the plaintiff is malafide one. The original link documents of suit schedule ‘A’ property were misplaced wherein the plaintiff has permitted his another brother Jagan to construct a house over the property where the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are joint owners of property admeasuring 365sq.yards situated near to the suit schedule ‘A’ property. The plaintiff obtained certain documents by influencing the

Grampanchayat officials and the said documents are not valid.

9.The defendants further averred that the cause of action shown in the plaint is a fictitious one for the purpose of filing the present suit and dates shown as cause of action is only the fertile imagination of the plaintiff. At no point of time and place, such cause of action arose to file the present suit. Since the plaintiff was never in possession over the suit schedule property, the question of plaintiff paying the court fee of Rs.200/- does not arise and further the plaintiff grossly under valued the suit reliefs and paid insufficient court fee. Therefore, the defendants pray to dismiss the suit with cost.

10. Having heard both sides and on perusal of the record, this court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of suit schedule property, allotment of share and separate possession thereof?

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled cancellation of document No. 176/2005 dated 15-1-2005 and document No. 1867/2009 of SRO, Ghatkesar?

9 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits @ Rs.1000/- per month from the date of filing the suit till the date of recovery of vacant possession of his share?

4. To what relief?

11. At the time of trial, plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and also got marked Ex.A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is Certified copy of sale deed document No. 176/2005 dated 15-1-2005, Ex.A2 is Certified copy of

Gift Settlement Deed document No. 1867/2009 dated 11-8-2009,

Ex.A3 is Certified copy of Encumbrance certificate for the period from 1-5-1995 to 20-12-2010, Ex.A4 is letter issued by Grampanchayat

dated 29-12-2010, Ex.A5 is Office copy of legal notice dated 19-1-

2011, Ex.A6 is Office copy of legal notice dated 19-1-2011, Ex.A6 is

Two postal receipts, Ex.A7 is Complaint to Post Master dated 21-2- 2011, Ex.A8 is Two Confirmation letters from Postal authorities of deliver of post of Ex.A5 and Ex.A9 is Market value certificate. Plaintiff also got examined PW2 in support of his case.

12. After closure of plaintiff’s evidence, the defendant No. 2 got examined herself as DW1 and also got marked Ex.B1 to B29. Ex.B1 is

Certified copy of sale deed document No. 176/2005 dated 15-1-2005,

Ex.B2 is Certified copy of Gift Settlement Deed document No.

1867/2009 dated 11-8-2009, Ex.B3 is Demand notice dated 29-9-2003,

Ex.B4 is Demand notice dated 23-6-2004, Ex.B5 is Demand notice

dated 3-9-2005, Ex.B6 is Demand notice dated 27-7-2006, Ex.B7 is

Demand notice dated 9-1-2008, Ex.B8 is Demand notice dated 21-8- 2008, Ex.B9 is Demand notice dated 31-12-2009, Ex.B10 is Demand 10 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

notice dated 25-8-2011, Ex.B11 is Property Tax Receipt dated 9-6- 2003, Ex.B12 is Property Tax Receipt dated 9-6-2003, Ex.B13 is

Property Tax Receipt dated 10-2-2006, Ex.B14 is Property Tax Receipt

dated 27-7-2006, Ex.B15 is Property Tax Receipt dated 26-7-2009,

Ex.B16 is Property Tax Receipt dated 20-2-2008, Ex.B17 is Property

Tax Receipt dated 20-2-2007, Ex.B18 is Property Tax Receipt dated 21-2-2008, Ex.B19 is Property Tax Receipt dated 19-3-2009, Ex.B20 is Property Tax Receipt dated 3-11-2009, Ex.B21 is Property Tax

Receipt dated 15-9-2011, Ex.B22 is Property Tax Receipt dated 4-12- 2011, Ex.B23 is Property Tax Receipt dated 9-4-2012, Ex.B24 is

Property Tax Receipt dated 30-5-2015, Ex.B25 is Property Tax Receipt

dated 17-11-2016, Ex.B26 is Property Tax Receipt dated 27-7-2018,

Ex.B27 is Original proceedings issued by Grampanchayat dated 27-7- 2018, Ex.B28 is Property Tax Receipt dated 28-3-2019, Ex.B29 is Four photographs along with CD. The defendants also got examined DW2 in support of their case.

13. On conclusion of trial, both sides filed written arguments.

14. Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of suit schedule property, allotment of share and separate possession thereof?

and

Issue No. 3: Whether plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits @ Rs.1000/- per month from the date of filing the suit till the date of recovery of vacant possession of his share?

Both the issues are decided together as they are inter-related to each other. Before looking into the issues, the admitted facts 11 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

in the case are that both plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are real brothers.

Documents Ex.A1 and A2 i.e. Sale Deed and Gift Deed respectively and the documents Ex.B1 and B2 are one and the same. In respect of issue No. 1, on whom the burden of proof lies, to substantiate this fact, the counsel for plaintiff relied upon a judgement [AIR 2019 Patna 218]

Shanti Devi through L.Rs and others v. Raj Kumar Gupta and another.

If the facts of the citation are perused, these facts in the said

judgement are totally quite different from that of the facts of this case.

In the said judgement, it was held that defendant claiming possession over suit property on basis of exchange and plaintiff establishing their title by virtue of partition decree, then the burden shifts on the defendant to prove factum of exchange and that the defendant is not the encroacher of the property of the plaintiff. In this present case, there is no question of plaintiff establishing his title by way of Partition

Deed because the relief sought by the plaintiff in the present case is itself for partition. Therefore, the citation is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of this case.

15. The second citation relied by the plaintiff is of [2013 (4) ALT 683 (D.B)] G.V.Deena Dayal and others v. A. Bhagirathgi and others.

Taking aid of this citation, the counsel for plaintiff argued that burden is on the defendant No. 1 in respect of issue No. 1. If the facts of the case cited are perused, the facts are quite different with the facts of the present case on hand. The facts of the case cited are that defendant

No. 1 being the brother of plaintiff did not deny the relationship and 12 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

also did not deny about defendant No. 1 and his deceased brother purchasing a property, but, however, defendant No. 1 has raised plea of ouster of the plaintiff for share in the property. In the present case on hand, there is no plea of ouster raised by the defendant No. 1, rather, the defendant No. 1 in this case has raised a plea that he is the exclusive and absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the citation relied upon by the plaintiff to show on to whom the burden lies cannot be taken into consideration.

16. On the other hand, the defendants have relied upon two citations.

First one is [2020 (3) ALT 241 (SC)] Bhagwat Sharan (Dead through

Lrs.) v. Purushottam and others. The facts of the said case are totally in respect of a Hindu undivided family. But, in the present case on hand, the plaintiff did not raise any plea about he and defendant No. 1 constitute a Hindu undivided family. Therefore, the citation relied upon by the defendants is also not applicable to the present case.

17. Apart from the above, the the defendants have relied upon second citation [2020 (6) ALT 141 (AP)] Rayadurgam Subramanyam (Died) and others v. Rayadurgam Gangaiah (died) and others. In the said authority, it was held that the initial burden to prove the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties is on the party who alleges that this excluded property from partition is a joint family property. This citation is also not applicable to the present case because nowhere the plaintiff or defendants raised a plea that they constitute joint family as on the date of filing of the suit.

13 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

18. On perusal of the pleading of the plaint, more particularly at para

No. 1, it is found that the plea of the plaintiff is that he and defendant

No. 1 are joint owners of suit schedule ‘A’ property. Once the plaintiff raises a plea of being a co-owner of the suit schedule ‘A’ property along with defendant No. 1, the burden is totally on the plaintiff to show that he and defendant No. 1 together purchased the suit schedule property and they are co-owners of the suit schedule ‘A’ property. On the other hand, the defendant No. 1 has categorically denied the plaintiff being the joint owner of the suit schedule ‘A’ property and has claimed that he is the exclusive owner of the suit schedule property.

19. To substantiate the fact that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are joint owners together, on entering to the witness box, the plaintiff who got himself examined as PW1 has introduced Ex.A1 to A9. In the written arguments, the plaintiff clearly argued basing on Ex.A4 (Certificate issued issued by Grampanchayat dated 29-12-2010), he could establish that he and defendant No. 1 are joint owners of the suit schedule ‘A’ property and except Ex.A4, there are no other documents to establish his joint ownership over the suit schedule ‘A’ property along with defendant No. 1.

20. The document Ex.A4 is nothing but a certificate issued by the

Executive Officer, Panchanyat Secretary, Grampanchayat, Ghatkesar, wherein the said certificate discloses that House tax revision Register for the year 1985-86 bearing house No. 8-173/1 stands in the name of

Vuddemarri Kesar Gandhi and the house bearing No. 8-173/2 stands in 14 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

the name of Vuddemarri Devender, but, however, the extent of land of the said above houses is not shown in the Register and further the

Register discloses that the Block No. 8 was converted into Block No.

10 and there is no entry of the said houses in the said Register in respect of the Block No. 10. Except the foregoing aspect, there is no mention of the extent of land, there is no full particulars of the plaintiff or defendant No. 1 in Ex.A4 nor there is any mention of the flow of title as how the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 became the owner of the suit schedule ‘A’ property. The contents of Ex.A4 at no point of time declares that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to be co-owners of the suit schedule ‘A’ property. A certificate issued by any Grampanchayat

Secretary will not confer title or ownership to a property.

21. In the written arguments, it is clearly argued by the plaintiff that except Ex.A4, there is no other document on his behalf to prove the co- ownership over suit ‘A’ schedule property. The other documents introduced by the plaintiff are i.e. Ex.A1 and A2, which are executed by defendants herein. Ex.A5 is a legal notice, Ex.A6 is postal receipt,

Ex.A7 is a complaint to the Post Master, Ex.A8 is confirmation letter given by postal authorities and Ex.A9 is Market value certificate. These documents does not in any manner helps the plaintiff’s case to prove the title of the plaintiff as co-owner in respect of the suit schedule ‘A’ property.

22. In the written arguments, the plaintiff argued that there are admissions on the part of DW1 during the course of his cross 15 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

examination which are as follows:

i) That the originals of Ex.B1 and B2 are lying with her, ii) There are no documents which show that her father-in-law owned two open plots, iii) Ex.B1 does not disclose when, where and how the consideration under Ex.B1 was paid, iv) In Ex.B1, it is mentioned that the suit schedule property was succeeded by her vendor as ancestral property and no document is filed in the proceedings to show that her vendor succeeded the suit schedule property as ancestral property.

Taking aid of the above cross examination of DW1, the plaintiff argued that he was successful in eliciting admission from DW1 and was successful in establishing his co-ownership in respect of suit schedule ‘A’ property.

23. Admissions are of two types i.e. i) Admission in pleadings and ii) Judicial admissions. The plaintiff is relying upon Judicial admissions. The judicial admissions by themselves are not conclusive proof. In this case, as discussed above, the plaintiff failed to introduce any document which establishes his co-ownership over suit schedule ‘A’ property. Admission means which suggest an inference. The above cross examination of DW1 does not suggest any inference that plaintiff is the co-owner of the suit schedule ‘A’ property.

24. Besides PW1, the plaintiff got examined PW2 who is none other than his brother and brother of defendant No. 1. The chief examination of PW2 supports the case of plaintiff showing that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are joint owners of the suit schedule ‘A’ property and 16 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

the same is reflecting in the records of Grampanchayat Office,

Ghatkesar and that half of suit schedule ‘A’ property was meant for plaintiff admeasuring 162sq.yards on eastern side and the other half meant to defendant on the western side, and that within the family, he and other elders, well wishers convinced plaintiff to occupy the western side and defendant to occupy eastern side of the property which was accepted by plaintiff and defendant, but, however, in the year 2010, when the plaintiff wanted to make construction, it was learnt by him that defendants created fabricated documents (i.e. Ex.B1, B2).

25. During the course of cross examination, PW2 categorically depose that there are no documents to show that the House No. 8- 173/1 fell to the share of plaintiff and that the plaintiff did not purchase the property. Similarly, further depose that there are no documents to show that eastern side property fell to the share of plaintiff and western side property fell to the share of defendant No. 1. He further depose that there was no village elders meeting to discuss the suit schedule property issues and that he does not know how many rooms are constructed by the plaintiff in the suit land and that he does not know how many schedules are there in the said property and that he doe not know in which year, the Grampanchayat number was allotted to the suit property.

26. The cross examination of PW2 clearly shows that PW2 has no idea of the suit schedule property and that he is a tutored witness. The 17 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

evidence of PW2 is of no help to the plaintiff case to believe that plaintiff is joint owner of suit schedule property.

27. Once the plaintiff failed to prove his case that he along with defendant No. 1 are joint owners of the suit schedule ‘A’ property, admittedly the case of the defendant has to be believed. Moreover, the defendant No. 2 (DW1) has produced Ex.B1 Certified copy of sale deed document No. 176/2005 dated 15-1-2005, Ex.B2 Certified copy of

Gift Settlement Deed document No. 1867/2009 dated 11-8-2009 and also the documents Ex.B3 to B26 and B28 which are nothing but, the property tax receipts for different years i.e. from the year 2005 to 2018 and Ex.B27 Proceedings issued by Panchayat Secretary, Ghatkesar

Mandal. These documents reflect the names of all the defendants and these documents are not at all disproved by the plaintiff in any manner.

Therefore, it is to be believed that the defendant No. 1 was the absolute owner of the suit schedule ‘A’ property. Besides DW1, another independent witness DW2 is examined on behalf of defendants, who categorically in his chief examination depose that he is resident of Ghatkesar Mandal, he knows defendants from past 30 years, his house is situated besides the house of defendant No.1 and that defendant No. 1 sold his house through registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 and that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are joint owners of land admeasuring 365sq.yards. He further depose that when plaintiff permitted his brother Jagan (PW2) to construct a house 18 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

over plaintiff land, later, Jagan refused to give the house to plaintiff, as plaintiff could not proceed against Jagan, this case is filed by plaintiff.

28. If the cross examination of DW2 is perused, only the identity of

DW2 was questioned in the cross examination, nothing much contradictions were elicited in cross examination of DW2 to disbelieve his evidence. Therefore, DW2 evidence is a good piece of evidence to believe that plaintiff is not a co-owner of the suit schedule ‘A’ property along with defendant No. 1. Once it is concluded that defendant No. 1 is the exclusive owner of the suit schedule ‘A’ property before execution of Ex.B1 and B2, then it is held that plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of partition.

29. Once it is concluded that plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of partition, accordingly, he is also not entitled for the relief of mesne profits as prayed for @ Rs.1000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till recovery of the vacant possession of his share.

30. Issue No. 2: Whether plaintiff is entitled cancellation of document No. 176/2005 dated 15-1-2005 and document No.1867/2009 of SRO, Ghatkesar?

The relief of cancellation is covered under Section 31 of Specific

Relief Act, but, however, on perusal of the plaint pleadings, it is found that the plaintiff has sought for cancellation of registered Sale deed and

Gift Deed holding that the said documents are illegal, void and unenforceable. This prayer also covered under provision of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. In support of his case, the plaintiff has relied 19 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

upon a citation [AIR 2001 MP 185] Kashi Prasad v. Banshidhar and others. In the said citation, it is held that the court’s power to declare declaratory decree is not limited to the terms of Section 34 of Specific

Relief Act, the declaratory decrees can well be made by the courts under the general provisions Code of Civil Procedure as Section 9 or

Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code.

31. The above citation clearly establishes that every person has a right to seek declaratory relief not only under Section 34 of Specific

Relief Act, the court can also invoke general provisions of Order 7,

Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure and can pass a relief of declaration.

The present issue is based on the fact that the plaintiff has claimed that he and defendant No. 1 are joint owners of the suit schedule ‘A’ property and he has a share in the suit schedule ‘A’ property and the defendant No. 1 without his knowledge has executed a document under Ex.B1 in favour of defendant No. 2 and further defendant No. 2 without his knowledge has executed a document Ex.B2 in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4.

32. In the foregoing issues No. 1 and 3, it is clearly concluded that plaintiff failed to prove or establish that he has a joint interest in the suit schedule ‘A’ property and he further failed to establish that he is the joint owner along with defendant No. 1 in the suit schedule ‘A’ property.

Once it is concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove his joint ownership in the suit schedule ‘A’ property, then he has no right to seek the relief of cancellation/declaring of the documents under Ex.B1 and B2 as null 20 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

and void and not binding on him and they are unenforceable under law.

Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of cancellation/declaration that the documents No. 176/2005 and 1867/2009 registered at SRO, Ghatkesar as null, void and unenforceable. Hence, the issue is answered accordingly.

33. Issue No. 4: To what relief?

The plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for.

34. In the result, the suit is dismissed with cost.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me on this the 7th day of June, 2021.

VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Corrections carried out:

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Sri V. Devender DW1: Smt V. Krishna Veni PW2: V. Jagan Mohan DW2: Sri B.V.Sabapathi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1: Certified copy of sale deed document No. 176/2005

dated 15-1-2005

Ex.A2: Certified copy of Gift Settlement Deed document No. 1867/2009

dated 11-8-2009

Ex.A3: Certified copy of Encumbrance certificate for the period from 21 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

1-5-1995 to 20-12-2010 Ex.A4: Letter issued by Grampanchayat dated 29-12-2010

Ex.A5: Office copy of legal notice dated 19-1-2011

Ex.A6: Two postal receipts

Ex.A7: Complaint to Post Master dated 21-2-2011

Ex.A8: Two Confirmation letters from Postal authorities of deliver of post of Ex.A5

Ex.A9: Market value certificate

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1: Certified copy of sale deed document No. 176/2005

dated 15-1-2005

Ex.B2: Certified copy of Gift Settlement Deed document No. 1867/2009

dated 11-8-2009

Ex.B3: Demand notice dated 29-9-2003

Ex.B4: Demand notice dated 23-6-2004

Ex.B5: Demand notice dated 3-9-2005

Ex.B6: Demand notice dated 27-7-2006

Ex.B7: Demand notice dated 9-1-2008

Ex.B8: Demand notice dated 21-8-2008

Ex.B9: Demand notice dated 31-12-2009

Ex.B10: Demand notice dated 25-8-2011

Ex.B11: Property Tax Receipt dated 9-6-2003

Ex.B12: Property Tax Receipt dated 9-6-2003

Ex.B13: Property Tax Receipt dated 10-2-2006

Ex.B14: Property Tax Receipt dated 27-7-2006

Ex.B15: Property Tax Receipt dated 26-7-2009 22 of 22 O.S.1407 of 2011

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

Ex.B16: Property Tax Receipt dated 20-2-2008 Ex.B17: Property Tax Receipt dated 20-2-2007

Ex.B18: Property Tax Receipt dated 21-2-2008

Ex.B19: Property Tax Receipt dated 19-3-2009

Ex.B20: Property Tax Receipt dated 3-11-2009

Ex.B21: Property Tax Receipt dated 15-9-2011

Ex.B22: Property Tax Receipt dated 4-12-2011

Ex.B23: Property Tax Receipt dated 9-4-2012

Ex.B24: Property Tax Receipt dated 30-5-2015

Ex.B25: Property Tax Receipt dated 17-11-2016

Ex.B26: Property Tax Receipt dated 27-7-2018

Ex.B27: Original proceedings issued by Grampanchayat

dated 27-7-2018

Ex.B28: Property Tax Receipt dated 28-3-2019

Ex.B29: Four photographs along with CD

VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

1 of 13 SC 253 of 2021

VIII AASJ RR DIST.

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

Present: Sri Milind Kamble,

VIII Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge,

Ranga Reddy District

Dated this the 14th day of July, 2021

SESSIONS CASE NO. 253 of 2021

Name of the The State of T.S. through Sub-Inspector of Police, Complainant P.S. Maheshwaram

Name of the Kavali Kumar @ Ramesh S/o Late Prabhaiah, AccusedAge : 25 years, Occ: Labour, R/o Nagaram (V), Maheshwaram (M) Charge U/Sec. U/s. 307 of IPC

Crime No.191/2020

Plea of the accused Not Guilty

Finding of the Court Not guilty

Sentence or OrderIN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases. MO1 Knife shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. Prosecution conducted Sri V. Ravi Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor by

Defence conducted bySri Subhash Chandra Bose, Advocate for accused

This case was committed by the XXVII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Maheshwaram, vide PRC No. 10/2020.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Ravi

Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Subhash Chandra Bose,

Advocate for accused and upon hearing and perusal of the record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2 of 13 SC 253 of 2021

VIII AASJ RR DIST.

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Maheshwaram Police Station/PW12 filed a charge sheet alleging that on 25-10-2020, he received a medico-legal case message from Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad regarding admission of male patient with the history of attack by known person, as such, he visited the Hospital and recorded the statement of the injured victim PW1, and that the injured victim stated that he along with his brother by name Ramesh alias Kumar are living with his mother Lalithamma/PW2 and that as accused was moving idle without any work, he reprimanded him. Keeping the same in mind, on 25-10-2020 at 18.30 hours while he along with his mother (PW2) were waiting near Shivaji statue to visit

Jammi Festival, at that time, accused attacked him indiscriminately with a knife with an intention to kill and stabbed below the left chest, stomach, in middle of back, back of the head and caused bleeding injuries and in the incident, PW2 also sustained bleeding injuries on her hand. The villagers came over there, on which, accused fled away. Then PW2 took him to Osmania General Hospital for treatment.

2.Basing on the statement of PW1, PW12 registered a crime No. 191/2020 for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and issued FIR and the statement of PW2 was recorded who supported the version of PW1. Later, PW12 visited the scene of offence situated at Shivaji statue of Nagaram Village and there, in the presence of

PW8 and LW9/Rasula Anjaiah, the scene of offence panchanama was conducted.

On the same day, PW12 examined and recorded the statements of independent eye witnesses PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7. On 27-10-2020, on credible information at morning 08.00 hours, accused was brought to police station and during the course of interrogation, accused confessed about the offence, as such, 3 of 13 SC 253 of 2021

VIII AASJ RR DIST.

confession statement of accused was recorded in the presence of mediators PW9 and PW10. Later, the confession lead to recovery of a knife (MO1) used by accused in the incident. As such, PW1 along with the same panchas PW9 and

PW10 went to the house of accused and recovered MO1 (knife) under the cover of panchanama. Later, accused was arrested and he was remanded to judicial custody. On collecting the wound certificate of PW1 issued by Doctor/PW11, the investigation was completed by PW12 and on completing the investigation, a charge sheet for the under Section 307 of IPC was filed against the accused.

3.This matter was committed from the court of XXVII Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at Maheshwaram vide PRC No. 10/2020 against accused.

4.On hearing the accused, the court framed the charge for the offence under

Section 307 of IPC against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused to which he denied. As such matter was posted for trial.

5.At the time of trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW12 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P10 and MO1. PW1 is Complainant and victim, PW2 is Eye witness and mother of PW1, PW3 to PW7 are Eye witnesses, PW8 is panch for scene of offence panchanama, PW9 and PW10 are panchas for confession and seizure panchanama, PW11 is Doctor who treated PW1 and PW12 is investigation officer.

Ex.P1 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3, Ex.P2 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4, Ex.P3 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5, Ex.P4 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6, Ex.P5 is Scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P6 is

Rough sketch, Ex.P7 is Seizure panchanama, Ex.P8 is Medico Legal Record,

Ex.P9 is Complaint of PW1 and Ex.P10 is First Information Report. MO1 is Knife.

4 of 13 SC 253 of 2021

VIII AASJ RR DIST.

6.After closure of trial, the accused was examined U/s 313 (b)Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence of prosecution in question form to the accused. He denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence. Hence matter was posted for arguments.

7.On closure of trial, arguments of both sides heard .

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

9.The case of the prosecution is that accused being the own brother of PW1 with an intention to kill PW1 attacked PW1 with a knife (MO1), due to which, PW1 sustained bleeding injuries and in the said incident, the mother of PW1 i.e. PW2 also sustained bleeding injuries on her hand. To substantiate this fact, the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW12. Among the said witnesses, PW3 to PW7 are cited as eye witnesses. The evidence of PW3 discloses that in the month of

October, 2020 at evening hours, he visited Hanuman temple of his village and while returning, he found a mob of people nearby his shop and also found blood stain on the earth and also saw PW1 with bleeding injuries, except this, he has no knowledge about this case. PW1 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

10.PW4 deposed that in the year 2020 on Dasara festival in the evening hours, he visited Hanuman temple of his village and while returning back to home, he saw accused fleeing away by holding a stick in his hand and he came to know that accused has attacked PW1 and he saw PW1 with bleeding injuries and on the next day evening, Sub-Inspector of Police visited his village and recorded his statement.

5 of 13 SC 253 of 2021

VIII AASJ RR DIST.

PW4 also did not support the prosecution case about he witnessing the incident with his own eyes.

11.PW5 deposed that in the year 2020 on Dasara festival in the evening hours, while he was going to visit Hanuman temple, he saw accused and PW1 quarreling and accused beating PW1 with a stick, as such, he intervened and took the stick from the hands of accused and accused left to his home and after returning back from the temple, at the shop of PW3, he found PW1 having bleeding injuries and he came to know that accused has stabbed PW1 with a vegetable cutting knife, as such, PW1 sustained bleeding injuries. He further deposed that he shifted PW1 to

Hospital in an Auto and on the next day morning, police visited his village and recorded his statement. PW5 also did not support the prosecution case in toto by deposing that he has witnessed accused stabbing PW1 with a knife.

12.PW6 deposed that on the last year Dasara festival, while he along with his villagers were returning from temple, near by the shop of PW3, he found PW1 having bleeding injuries and he came to know that accused stabbed with vegetable cutting knife in the chest of PW1, as such, PW1 sustained bleeding injuries. All these witnesses PW3 to PW6 categorically did not support the case of the prosecution to establish that they have witnessed accused stabbing PW1 and PW2 with MO1 (knife). As such, these witnesses were declared as hostile and the learned APPO sought permission to cross examine the witnesses PW3 to PW6, but, nothing could be elicited in favour of the prosecution when they were cross examined at length by the learned APPO.

13.If the evidence of PW2, PW4 and PW6 is looked into, it is concluded that they are not eye witnesses to the incident. Therefore, their evidence is of no help to the 6 of 13 SC 253 of 2021

VIII AASJ RR DIST.

prosecution case to prove the fact that accused attacked PW1 and PW2 with a knife (MO1).

14.PW7 in his chief examination deposed that he knows accused, PW1 and

PW2 because they belong to the same village and that in the year 2020, on the day of Dasara festival, he along with his villagers after returning from the temple near by the shop of PW3, he saw accused stabbing PW1 with a knife and PW1 sustained bleeding injuries in his stomach, chest and in the meantime, PW2 came over there and when she tried to intervene, the knife accidentally hit to PW2, as such, she sustained bleeding injury on her hand, then he intervened and accused ran away and on the same day, the Sub-Inspector of Police recorded his statement.

Immediately, when he was cross examined by the counsel for accused, PW7 categorically admitted that as he was participating in the Jammi Procession, as such he has not witnessed with his own eyes that accused stabbing PW1, and that he has just heard about the incident, as such, he went over there and by that time, accused left the place and he learnt that accused has left the place from there.

Further in the cross examination, PW7 admitted that police did not ask him in respect of alleged incident and he does not know anything about the case, further, he admitted that at the instance of PW1, he came to the court on that day to depose. In the cross examination, the counsel for accused was successful in eliciting the fact that PW7 is not a trustworthy witness and his evidence cannot be relied upon.

15.Now coming to the evidence of the victims i.e. PW1 and PW2 who are none other than the elder brother and mother of the accused. The case of the prosecution is that accused has stabbed PW2 with a knife, as such, she sustained injury on her hand. If the evidence of victim PW2 is perused, more particularly 7 of 13 SC 253 of 2021

VIII AASJ RR DIST.

chief examination, she did not depose about the accused stabbing her with a knife or the knife accidentally hit on her hand. The another victim PW1 also did not utter anything about PW2 sustaining any kind of injury in this alleged incident. The evidence of PW2 itself establishes that PW7 is speaking false.

16.The investigation officer PW12 in his cross examination categorically admitted that he came to know about PW2 sustaining injury on her hand, but, however, he did not sent her for hospital for treatment. No proper reasons are assigned by PW12 as to why he did not forward PW2 to a Hospital for treatment when she had stab injuries on her hand. This itself clearly goes to show that there is no substantial evidence either oral or documentary on behalf of the prosecution to prove that accused caused bleeding injury to PW2.

17.PW1 is the person who gave first information report to the police in this case and also a victim. The report which is given by PW1 is not got marked through him, rather, the same is marked as Ex.P9 through PW12 (the investigation officer).

If the evidence of PW1 is perused more particularly, the chief examination, his version is that during the Dasara festival, he has asked accused to attend work and keeping the same in mind, accused has attacked him with MO1, as such, he sustained stab injuries on back side of the body, stomach, chest area and neck.

Further, he deposed that the police examined his mother at Hospital and at that time, he was unconscious and when he became normal, the police has just obtained his thumb impression on the paper and the entire incident was told to police by his mother, but not by him. In these circumstances, the report was got marked through the investigation officer PW12 as Ex.P9. This fact itself clearly establishes that the words under the report Ex.P9 are not the words spoken by

PW1, rather, they are the words spoken out by PW2. Per contra, the investigation 8 of 13 SC 253 of 2021

VIII AASJ RR DIST.

officer PW12 in his evidence deposed that PW1 has given his statement and the same is recorded under Ex.P9. This is a majority discrepancy and Ex.P9 is under cloud.

18.According to PW1, he has sustained injuries on his back side of his body, stomach, chest area and neck, but, surprisingly, the Doctor/PW11 who treated

PW1 deposed that he has found only two injuries on the victim PW1 i.e. 1) Laceration injury below the left side of the rib cage and 2) Lacertation on the left hand. The wound certificate is marked as Ex.P8 and if Ex.P8 is perused, it is found that PW1 had only two injuries and no injuries are found on the stomach, neck and back side body of PW1. The Doctor/PW11 when she was cross examined by the counsel for accused, she admitted that she has not mentioned the age of the injury under Ex.P8 and as per Ex.P8, she cannot tell as for how many days the injured (PW1) was admitted as Inpatient in the hospital and she has not handed over the MLC under Ex.P8 to the police. The non-mentioning of the age of the injury creates a doubt on the injury shown in Ex.P8. Unless the age of the injury is proved by the prosecution witnesses, it cannot be believed that PW1 sustained the injuries on 25-10-2020. Apart from this, the prosecution first of all has to establish that accused with an intention tried to stab PW1. There is no proper clue from the evidence of PW1 or PW2 as to what was the intention of accused for stabbing PW1. None of the witnesses have spoken about the intention of accused.

PW1 merely deposed that as accused was sitting ideally without attending any work, he asked accused to attend the work to eke out his livelihood. Except this, there is nothing more in the evidence of PW1 to conclude the intention of accused to commit the alleged crime. Further, if the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is perused, they did not tell as to from which place accused picked up a knife (MO1) and 9 of 13 SC 253 of 2021

VIII AASJ RR DIST.

attacked PW1. Some of the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW4, PW5 deposed that accused was carrying only a stick in his hand. In such a case, PW1 sustaining the injuries which are shown under Ex.P8 is under cloud. Therefore, the injuries shown in Ex.P8 cannot be believed.

19.The Medical report under Ex.P8 could not be proved properly by the prosecution. The investigation officer of this case has got marked FIR as Ex.P10 which is outcome of Ex.P8 (report). But, Ex.P8 itself is under cloud and therefore,

Ex.P8 and Ex.P10 cannot be looked into. According to investigation officer/PW12, the statement of PW1 was recorded under Ex.P9, but, as discussed above, PW1 did not support about he giving any statement to police under Ex.P9.

20.Apart from these witnesses, one of the panch witness for scene of offence is examined as PW8. According to PW8, on the next day of Dasara of the year 2020, when he was standing near Nagaram Chowrastha of his village near Shivaji Statue, police came to the shop of PW3 and while conducting the panchanama, he was summoned by the police and he could see blood stain on the earth and the panchanama was conducted in his presence and the rough sketch was also drawn in his presence and later he signed on the panchanama. The scene of offence panchanama is marked as Ex.P5 and rough sketch is marked as Ex.P6.

21.The chief examination of PW8 clearly discloses that he has found blood stains on the earth at the scene of offence panchanama. The investigation officer

PW12 in his cross examination admitted that on reaching the alleged scene of offence panchanama, he found blood stains on the earth, but, he has not seized the blood stain as to forward the same to Forensic Lab to ascertain that the blood stain is of PW1. This aspect clearly raises the doubt on the prosecution case, as to 10 of 13 SC 253 of 2021

VIII AASJ RR DIST.

why the investigation officer has neither collected or forwarded the blood stains which are found at the scene of offence. This clearly goes to show that there is a lacuna on the part of the investigation officer in conducting the investigation. If the blood stains could have been forwarded, it could have probably strengthen the prosecution case to believe that the blood stains belong to the victim PW1 and the alleged incident took place, but, however, this was not done by the investigation officer.

22.The panch witnesses for the confession panchanama are examined as PW9 and PW10. The version of PW9 is that while he was working as Village Revenue

Assistant of Nagaram Village, at morning hours, he was summoned by Sub-

Inspector of Police to police station and along with him, PW10 also joined him and on reaching the police station, he found the accused and the Sub-Inspector of

Police questioned him whether he can identify the accused, on which, PW9 identified the accused as his villager and at the request of Sub-Inspector of Police, when he questioned the accused as to why accused was in police custody and accused confessed that he has stabbed his brother with a knife and the same has been hidden at his house. Further version of PW9 is that then the Sub-Inspector of

Police took PW9 and PW10 to the house of accused and on entering the house of the accused on the shelf of the house, the investigation officer/PW12 traced out one knife. The seizure panchanama is marked as Ex.P7.

23.PW10 in his chief examination deposed that on 20-10-2020, the Sub-

Inspector of Police has summoned him to police station and there he found PW9 and accused in the police custody and the Sub-Inspector of police informed him that there is a quarrel between accused and his brother and the same was confirmed by him and later, he along with Sub-Inspector of police, PW9 and 11 of 13 SC 253 of 2021

VIII AASJ RR DIST.

accused went to the house of accused and there accused told that he has stabbed his brother with a knife and kept the knife on the shelf. If the chief examination of

PW9 and PW10 is perused, it is clearly goes to show that the confession of accused is made when the accused was in police custody. Therefore, the confession of accused cannot be looked into nor proved against the accused as the same is hit under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Only the portion of recovery of MO1 is marked under Ex.P7. In the cross examination, PW9 clearly deposed that he has signed the panchanama at police station. PW10 in his cross examination admitted that whatever is disclosed by the Sub-Inspector of police was noted down under Ex.P7 and thereafter, he has just signed it.

24.From the cross examination of PW9 and PW10, it is clearly elicited that the panchanama was prepared at the behest of the police. The admission in the cross examination of PW9 and PW10 establish that they are planted witnesses. The seizure of MO1 was done on 27-10-2020. But, however, the same was deposited

before the court with a delay of 50 days and it was admitted by PW12 in hsi cross

examination. PW12 further admitted that on the alleged seizure of MO1, he has not taken any steps to forward the MO1 to the Forensic Science Laboratory to ascertain whether MO1 has any blood stains of accused or the victim PW1. The investigation has lots of lacunas and these lacunas are major discrepancies. The eye witnesses outrightly did not support the case of the prosecution. The victim

PW2 evidence is of no help to establish that she has sustained any injuries in the alleged incident. The evidence of PW1 does not help to establish the intention of accused to stab him nor it discloses that he (PW1) sustained injuries in the alleged incident on the alleged date. All these discrepancies are also major discrepancies which goes and cut the roots of the prosecution case and creates doubt on the 12 of 13 SC 253 of 2021

VIII AASJ RR DIST.

prosecution case. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

25.IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) of the

Criminal Procedure Code. Accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases. MO1 Knife shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Grade II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of July, 2021.

VIII Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District

Corrections carried out:

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : For Defence

PW1: K. Jangaiah -None- PW2: K. Lalithamma PW3: V. Vittal Goud PW4: M. Rajesh PW5: B. Lingam PW6: D. Pentaiah PW7: D. Yadaiah PW8: D. Srisailam PW9: K. Siddhaiah PW10: N. Laxman PW11: Dr. Padmaja PW12: V. Srinivas Reddy

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution : For Defence

Ex.P1: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 -Nil- Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 13 of 13 SC 253 of 2021

VIII AASJ RR DIST.

Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P5: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P6: Rough sketch Ex.P7: Seizure panchanama Ex.P8: Medico Legal Record Ex.P9: Complaint of PW1 Ex.P10: First Information Report

Material objects Marked

For Prosecution : For Defence

MO1: Knife -Nil-

VIII Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District

1 of 12 O.S.781 of 2014

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

PRESENT: SRI MILIND KAMBLE,

VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Dated this the 2nd Day of June, 2021

O.S.No. 781 OF 2014

BETWEEN :

M/s. Agarwal Industries, Represented by its Proprietor, Sri Satyanarayana Agarwal, S/o Late Rooplal Agarwal, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Business,

R/o 14-6-214, Begumbazar, Hyderabad...Plaintiff

and

M/s. Sri Nidhi Industries Represented by its Proprietor, R.Kishan Prasad, S/o Upendram, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No. 201, 2nd Floor, on 3-4-862, Harshadhama Apartments, Barkatpura, Hyderabad

R/o Mana Eight A-Block, 3rd Floor, Plot No. 302, Panchpati Layout, Manikonda, Hyderabad – 500089…Defendant

This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R. Anurag, Advocate for the plaintiff and defence of the defendant struck off and and upon hearing and perusal of the record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

1.The brief facts of the plaint is that the defendant is the tenant of plaintiff in the suit schedule property situated at Katedhan,

Rajendranagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District and the tenancy commenced from 16-3-2011 and expires on 1-2-2014 which is evident from the registered Lease Deed dated 16-3-2011, the monthly rent is of 2 of 12 O.S.781 of 2014

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

Rs.20,000/-. As per Clause-14 of the said Lease Deed, the tenancy is up to 1-2-2014 and the defendant shall vacate the suit schedule property and shall hand over the peaceful possession upon the expiry of Lease Deed. Before the expiry of the above said Lease period, the plaintiff issued prior intimation letter dated 28-12-2013 to the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property and hand over the peaceful possession to the plaintiff. The defendant gave a reply stating that he is not in a position to vacate the suit schedule property even after expiry of Lease Deed and requested the plaintiff to execute further additional

Lease Deed. The Lease Deed does not contain clause for extension of lease, therefore, the lease was not renewed. That apart, as per Clause 7 of the Lease Deed, the defendant has to abide the all laws and requisition of the Government for running Aluminium business in the suit property which the defendant breached without having valid license from the Inspector of Factories and without taking consent from the Pollution Control Board and violated the various laws as applicable in the business. The plaintiff is in need of the suit schedule property for running his Papad business and his requirement is bonafide requirement. Immediately, upon the expiry of Lease period, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property, the defendant orally intimated the plaintiff that he will vacate the suit schedule property i.e. in the month of March, 2014, but the defendant dodged the matter and did not vacate the suit schedule property. In view of the fact, the defendant is liable to be vacated from the suit schedule property. Notice under Section 106 of 3 of 12 O.S.781 of 2014

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

Transfer of Property Act is not required as the tenancy is determined and terminated by efflux of time as per Section 111(a) of Transfer of

Property Act and the defendant is in illegal possession of the property, as such, the plaintiff is entitled for damages @ Rs.5,000/- per day from the date of termination of tenancy from 1-2-2014. Therefore, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property and handing over it’s peaceful possession to the plaintiff and direct the defendant to pay future mesne profits and also to pay Rs.4,40,000/- towards past mesne profits i.e. from 2-2-2014 till filing of the suit @ Rs.5,000/- per day and to award the cost.

2.The defendant filed written statement. In the written statement, the defendant averred that the plaint filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous, speculative and misconceived with malafide intention and ulterior motives. The defendant denied all the adverse material allegations set out in the plaint. Defendant averred that the defendant’s Proprietor i.e. R. Kishan Prasad approached the plaintiff

Proprietor Satyanarayana Agarwal in the month of January, 2008 and requested to let out the suit premises for running Aluminum business at the rent of @ Rs.10,000/-, for which, the plaintiff Proprietor agreed and let out the said premises and executed a Lease Deed document bearing No. 368/2008 dated 24-1-2008. The tenancy commenced from 24-1-2008 and the rate of rent of Rs.10,000/- per month for a period of three years on 5% enhancement of rent every year and it is extended mutual consent of the parties. The plaintiff proprietor Satyanarayana 4 of 12 O.S.781 of 2014

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

Agarwal actually let out the suit property by agreeing to extend the lease after expiry of three years with enhanced rent of 5% per month and defendant has been paying the monthly rent @ Rs.10,000/- per month for a period of three years on 5% enhancement of rent every year and so far, the monthly rent is of Rs.11,025/- per month till 2011.

The defendant has borrowed huge amounts to develop it’s Aluminum

Sheets business by investing Rs.5,00,000/- for machineries and fixations with the agreement of six years without labour and have paid the huge amount of advances for six years to them at the time of commencing of tenancy and it was extended for further period also.

Since the tin shed was badly damaged, the defendant has changed all the tin sheets and also obtained the high power electricity supply at his own cost with the consent of the plaintiff. The defendant had requested the plaintiff proprietor Satyanarayana Agarwal in the first week of November, 2010 to extend further three year of tenancy, but, instead of to extend, the plaintiff got issued a notice on 12-11-2010 to the defendant without sufficient ground and have called upon to vacate the suit premises on or before 1-2-2011 or otherwise to pay charge of

Rs.3,000/- per day. Later, the defendant replied on 20-1-2011 through his counsel requesting that the defendant is entitled to continue for further tenancy and requested to extend the lease period with readiness to enhance 10% rent and to withdraw the notice dated 12- 11-2010. On 31-1-2011, the plaintiff Proprietor Satyanarayana Agarwal went with certain unsocial elements and attempted to dispossess the defendant’s machineries and raw material from the suit premises and 5 of 12 O.S.781 of 2014

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

on that the defendant has instituted a suit O.S.No. 271/2011 against the plaintiff’s Proprietor for mandatory injunction and the said suit pending on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District was settled between the parties and the plaintiff Proprietor

Satyanarayana Agarwal had executed another Lease Deed bearing document No. 980/2011 on 16-3-2011 in favour of defendant.

Thereafter, on 30-3-2011, the defendant had withdrawn the above said suit by filing a memo. Thus, the tenancy was extended for a period of three years and the rent per month was enhanced to Rs.20,000/- per month on 5% enhancement of rents on every year and the parties orally agreed that the tenancy may be extended by the mutual consent of the parties in accordance with the previous Lease Deed. Thus, the defendant has paid the monthly rents @ Rs.20,000/- per month for the period of three years on 5% enhancement of rents on every year till 1-2-2014. On 20-2-2014, the defendant’s Proprietor R. Kishan prasad again approached the plaintiff Proprietor Satyanarayana Agarwal with the proposal of extension of tenancy in accordance with the first Lease deed, but plaintiff Proprietor Satyanarayana Agarwal demanded more monthly rent and after negotiation, he accepted orally for Rs.22,050/- per month for a period of another three years on 10% enhancement of rents on every year. The defendant paid the said amount by way of money order in Khairatabad post office on 21-2-2014 vide receipt Nos.

EMOPNR No. 000001140221058587 to 000001140221058592 and the same was received by the plaintiff’s Proprietor on 25-2-2014 and acknowledged on the EMO receipts. Being so, the plaintiff’s Proprietor 6 of 12 O.S.781 of 2014

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

did not come forward to execute the fresh Lease Deed in accordance with the oral agreement dated 20-2-2014.

3.Defendant further submits that in the first week of March, 2014, he approached the plaintiff to execute a fresh Lease Deed, but however, the plaintiff’s Proprietor again demanded more money to execute a fresh Lease Deed and after negotiation, the defendant accepted same, without having any other option for a monthly rent of Rs.23,152/-. The defendant had once again deposited money order of Rs.23,152/- in

Hyderabad Jubilee Post Office on 15-3-2014 vide EMO Nos.

000031140315017551 to 000031140315017555 and the same was returned. Being so, the plaintiff filed the present false, frivolous, speculative and misconceived suit with malafide intentions and ulterior motives by gross misrepresentation and suppression of material facts.

Moreover, the defendant has instituted a suit O.S.No. 1826/2014 against the plaintiff vide O.S.No. 1826/2014 on the file of Prl. Senior

Civil Judge, Ragna Reddy District for specific performance of contract.

4.The defendant in his written statement admitted that he is the tenant of the plaintiff in the suit premises and about the exchange of notices between them. Defendant submitted that their Aluminum business is well populated in the local area and without the suit premises, their business cannot be run properly. After formation of separate Telangana State, the business of defendant has been running in heavy loss, taking advantage of the same, the plaintiff is blackmailing them to enhance the monthly rent up to Rs.40,000/- per 7 of 12 O.S.781 of 2014

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

monthly, which is highly impossible for them being a small scale industry. The question of illegal possession of defendant does not arise any time and the plaintiff is not entitled to any kind of damages.

There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit and the the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Hence, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit with cost.

5.Having heard both sides and on perusal of the record, this court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of suit schedule property as prayed for?

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

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for past mesne profits of Rs.4,40,000/- as prayed for?

4. Whether there is cause of action to file the suit?

5. To what relief?

6.In this case, at the inception of the suit, the plaintiff filed

I.A.No.544/2014 in which the respondent/defendant appeared and filed his counter and the application was filed under Order 15-A of Code of

Civil Procedure praying the court to direct the defendant to pay the admitted rents. The said application was allowed on 14-3-2015 directing the defendant to pay admitted rents @ Rs.20,050/- per month to the plaintiff towards monthly rent and pursuant to the orders passed in I.A.No.544/2014, the defendant failed to comply the said orders.

Even after the said order was passed, the defendant was irregular in payment of the admitted rents to the plaintiff. As the defendant failed to 8 of 12 O.S.781 of 2014

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

comply the orders in I.A.No.544/2014, the plaintiff filed another

I.A.No.1325/2019 in I.A.No.544/2014 bringing notice to the Hon’ble court about the irregular delay payment towards the admitted rents by the defendant herein, on which, this court on due contest allowed the application by striking down the defence of the defendant filed in the suit. As the written statement of the defendant was struck off, there was no pleadings on behalf of the defendant.

7.At the time of trial, plaintiff’s Proprietor got examined himself as

PW1 and he also got marked Ex.A1 to A10. Ex.A1 is Original registered Lease Deed vide document No. 980/2011 dated 16-3-2011,

Ex.A2 is Office copy of legal notice dated 28-12-2013, Ex.A3 is Reply notice dated 26-1-2014, Ex.A4 is Postal acknowledgement, Ex.A5 is

Legal notice dated 8-5-2018, Ex.A6 is Postal receipt dated 8-5-2018,

Ex.A7 is Postal acknowledgement, Ex.A8 is Bank statement dated 25- 1-2018, Ex.A9 is Bank statement from 1-4-2017 to 31-3-2018 and

Ex.A10 is Bank statement for the period 1-4-2018 to 29-7-2019.

8.After closure of plaintiffs evidence, defendant did not choose to cross examine PW1. Hence, the right of cross examining PW1 by defendant was forfeited on 8-3-2021.

9.On conclusion of trial, arguments of plaintiff’s counsel heard.

10. Issue No. 4: Whether there is cause of action to file the suit?

The Issue No. 4 arose on the plea taken by the defendant that there is no cause of action to the suit. But, whereas once the defence 9 of 12 O.S.781 of 2014

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

of the defendant is struck down, it is held that there is no factual aspect on behalf of the defendant. As per the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex court, cause of action is nothing but bundle of facts put together. The plaintiff in his plaint clearly pleaded about the defendant is being his tenant and the plaintiff letting out the suit schedule property to the defendant in the year 2011 on rent in terms and conditions as enunciated in Ex.A1 which is a registered Lease Deed. The plaintiff further pleaded that as the period of tenancy got expired in the year 2014, the defendant was supposed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property, but the defendant did not choose to do so, as such, the present suit is filed. All these factors put together are nothing but cause of action to file the suit. Therefore, it is held that there is a case of action in the plaint to file a suit. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

11. Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of suit schedule property as prayed for?

The plaintiff clearly pleaded that the suit schedule property was let out by him to the defendant and plaintiff and defendant have entered into registered Lease Deed under Ex.A1. On perusal of Ex.A1, it is clearly concluded that the Lease Deed was executed on 16-3-2011 with a condition that the lease shall commence on 16-3-2011 and further, the defendant shall vacate the premises and hand over it’s possession to the plaintiff on or before 1st February, 2014. The suit was filed against the defendant in the month of May, 2014 i.e. after expiry of the Lease Deed. This clearly goes to show that the suit was 10 of 12 O.S.781 of 2014

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

initiated after the efflux of time of the Lease period. Though the defendant has taken many pleas in his written statement, but as the defence of the defendant was struck off and the evidence of PW1 was not at all rebutted nor challenged by the defendant by cross examining

PW1, therefore, having considered the terms and conditions of Ex.A1, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for relief of eviction by evicting the defendant from the suit schedule property and taking it’s peaceful possession from the defendant. Therefore, Issue No. 1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

12. Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future mesne profits as prayed for?

and

Issue No. 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for past mesne profits of Rs.4,40,000/- as prayed for?

Both the issues are decided together as they are inter related to each other. In this case, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and defence of the defendant was struck down and there was no opportunity for the defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff shall file a separate application for the relief of future and present mesne profits against the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled for the relief of eviction by evicting the defendant from the suit schedule property. However, the plaintiff shall file a separate application under Order 20, Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking the relief of future and mesne profits. Therefore, issues No. 2 and 3 are answered accordingly.

11 of 12 O.S.781 of 2014

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

13. Issue No. 5: To what relief?

The plaintiff is entitled for the relief of eviction. Further, plaintiff shall file shall file a separate application for relief of mesne profits.

14. In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with cost by evicting the defendant from the suit schedule property with a direction that the defendant shall hand over the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within a span of three months from the date of

judgement. Further, the plaintiff shall file a separate application under

Order 20, Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking the relief of future and past mesne profits.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me, on this the 2nd day of June, 2021.

VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

PW-1: Sri Satyanarayana Agarwal-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1: Original registered Lease Deed vide document No. 980/2011

dated 16-3-2011

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 28-12-2013

Ex.A3: Reply notice dated 26-1-2014

Ex.A4: Postal acknowledgement 12 of 12 O.S.781 of 2014

VIII ASJ, RR DISTRICT

Ex.A5: Legal notice dated 8-5-2018

Ex.A6: Postal receipt dated 8-5-2018

Ex.A7: Postal acknowledgement

Ex.A8: Bank statement dated 25-1-2018

Ex.A9: Bank statement from 1-4-2017 to 31-3-2018

Ex.A10: Bank statement for the period 1-4-2018 to 29-7-2019

FOR DEFENDANT: -Nil-

VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Corrections carried out:

1 of 10S.C.No.653.2022

II ASJ RR DIST

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

Present: SRI MILIND KAMBLE, II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Dated this the 26th day of April, 2023

SESSIONS CASE NO.653 of 2022

Name of the The State of T.S. through Sub-Inspector of Complainant Police, P.S. Meerpet

Name of theA1. Gandla Saritha, W/o Sudhakar, Age: 41 Accusedyears, Occ:Tailoring, R/o Plot.No.16, Old Gayathri Nagar, Jillelaguda Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

A2. Kuncha Venkataramana, S/o Pentaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ:Business, R/o Gayathri Nagar, Jillelaguda, Village, Balapur mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

A3. Bijala Yadagiri, S/o Raghavaiah, Age: 51 years, Occ: Real Estate Business, R/o Plot No.337, Sagar Complex, Road No.11, Vanasthalipuram, Hayath Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

A4. Nelati Srinivasulu, S/o Venkataiah, Age: 51 years, Occ: Kirana Business, R/o Plot No.167, Dwaraka Hills, Badangpet Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

ChargesU/Sec. U/s. 370 (A) (2) of IPC and 3, 4 , 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)Act.

Crime No.457/2021

Plea of the accusedNot Guilty

Finding of the CourtNot guilty

Sentence or OrderIN THE RESULT, Accused No.1, 2, 3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offences under

Section 370 (A)(2) of Indian Penal Code and

Accused No.1 is found not guilt for the offence under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral

Traffic (Prevention) Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Bail 26.04.2023 2 of 10S.C.No.653.2022

II ASJ RR DIST

bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 stand cancelled as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

MO1, MO2, MO4, MO5, MO6 shall be sold in open auction and the sale proceeds shall be confiscated to the state, MO3 shall confiscated to the state, MO7 shall be destroy, MO8 which is under return to its original owner through Crl.M.P.No.1179/2021 order dated 5.8.2021 shall made absolute.

The order in respect of Mos 1 to 8 shall be come into force after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution SmtS. Komalatha, Addl. Public Prosecutor conducted by

Defence conducted by Sri G.Mahatma, Counsel for accused No.1 Sri P.Venkateshwar Rao, Counsel for accused No.2 to 4

This case was committed by the VI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, at L.B.Nagar vide PRC 114/2021

This case is coming for for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt Komalatha, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G.Mahatma, Counsel for accused No.1 and of Sri. P.Venkateshwar Rao, Counsel for accused No.2 to 4 and upon hearing and perusal of the record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The brief facts of the case: The Inspector of Police, Meerpet filed charge sheet stating that Accused No.1 is organizer of a brothel house, Accused No.2 to 4 are the customers. Accused No.1 approached

PW2 and obtained her house on rent for running brothel house, the house is situated at Plot No.16, Old Gayatri Nagar, Jillelaguda Village, Balapur

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Accused No.1 used to engage victims and call customers to her house for prostitution and she also used to hire sex workers and they were running the brothel house by collecting Rs.2,000 to 26.04.2023 3 of 10S.C.No.653.2022

II ASJ RR DIST

3,000/- each customer and was living on the earnings. Accused No.1 was exploiting the victims. As usually on 28-6-2021 at 15.00 hours accused

No.1 called the customers accused No.2 to 4 and was indulged in prostitution business by engaging the service of PW3 and PW4 victim girls, and at that time the first investigation officer PW6 along with his team raided the said house of accused No.1 and caught all the accused

Redhandedly and conducted confession and seizure panchanama and recovered One white Colour Vivo Mobile phone and One Blue colour

Samsung Mobile Phone from the possession of Accused no.1, an amount of

Rs.10,380/- from accused No.1, One Blue Colour Vivo mobile phone from the possession of accused No.2, One Silver Colour Vivo Mobile Phone and

One Maruti Suzuki Breeza car, Br.No.TS 07 GD 5598 from the possession of

Accused No.3, One Silver Colour MI Mobile phone from the possession of

Accused No.4, (7) Condoms from scene of offence. The entire panchanama was recorded in the presence of two mediators PW5 and LW9/G.Shiva

Kumar. Then PW6 return back to police station along with the accused, victim girls, material objects, and handed over the same to PW7 and also gave the report in respect of this case to PW7, basing on report given by

PW6, the 2nd investigation officer PW7 registered the crime and issued First

Information Report , then he examined and recorded the statement of PW6,

PW4, PW3, PW1 and LW4/B.Bal Reddy, LW6/Kum.P.Mamatha, thereafter he arrested accused no.1 to 4 and forwarded to accused and victim PW3 and

PW4 to court for judicial custody and on the same day he collected lease deed executed between accused No.1 and PW2, and filed charge sheet for the offences under section 370(A)(2) and sections 3, 4 , 5 and 7 of Immoral

Traffic (Prevention) Act.

26.04.2023 4 of 10S.C.No.653.2022

II ASJ RR DIST

2.This matter was committed from the court of VI Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar against the accused No.1 to 4 vide PRC

No.114/2021.

3.On hearing the accused No.1 to 4, the court framed the charges against accused No.1 to 4 for the offences under Section U/S 370(A)(2) of

Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act against Accused No.1. The charges were read over and explained to accused No.1 to 4 on which they denied. As such matter was posted for trial.

4.At the time of trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7 and MO1 to MO8.

5.After closure of trial, the accused were examined U/s 313 (b) Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence of prosecution in question form to the accused No.1 to 4. They denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence. Hence matter was posted for arguments.

6.On closure of trial, arguments of both sides heard .

7. Now the point for determination is:

whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 beyond reasonable doubt?

8The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 was involved in prostitution business ans she use to engage the services of PW3 and PW4,

On 28.06.2021 she called the customers i.e. accused No.2 to 4 to her 26.04.2023 5 of 10S.C.No.653.2022

II ASJ RR DIST

house, and all was caught redhandedly by the police personals and his team. To substantiate this fact the first investigation officer is examined as

PW6 his version is that on 28-06-2021 he received a credible information about the illegal activity of prostitution at Plot No.6, situated at Gayatri

Nagar, Jillelaguda (V), as such he obtained written permission from

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram for causing raid.

Immediately he secured the presence of his staff LW4/Balreddy Sub-

Inspector of Police, PW1 and LW6/Kum.P.Mamatha, Women Police

Constable. He also secured presence of two mediators PW5 and

LW9/G.Shiva Kumar, then he along with the staff and mediators proceeded to the house and on reaching the house accused No.1 opened the door then he entered the house and found accused No.2, 3, 4 and also victim PW3 and PW4. During the course of investigation accused No.1 to 4 have confessed about their illegal activity as such he recorded the confession of accused No.1 to 4 in presence of two mediators PW5 and LW9/G.Shiva

Kumar and also recovered MO1 to MO8 under cover of panchanama and return back to police station and gave report to second Investigation officer

PW7 in this case.

9. The second Investigation officer PW7 basing on the report of PW6 under Ex.P6, he has registered the crime and issued First Information report and examined and recorded the statement of witnesses and also victim girls. He arrested the accused no.1 to 4 and forwarded the accused, victims

PW3 and PW4 to court for judicial custody and deposited the case property and filed charge sheet against the accused.

10.From the reading of the evidence of PW6 and PW7 it is concluded 26.04.2023 6 of 10S.C.No.653.2022

II ASJ RR DIST

that basing on the confession and seizure panchanama this case against accused No.1 to 4 was set into motion. But subsequently the confession panchanama of accused no.1 to 4 was not brought on record. According to

PW6 the Investigation officer, the confession of accused was recorded in presence of the police. Any confession made by the accused while in police custody cannot be use against the accused and the same is hit under section 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Except the recovery portion of the panchanama in the case the recovery portion of panchanama is marked as

Ex.P4. To prove Ex.P4 first of all the mediators have to support the prosecution case. According to PW6 in presence of two mediators he has conducted recovery panchanama of MO1 to MO8. But only one mediator was examined by the prosecution and other witness LW9/G.Shiva Kumar was given-up. The only mediator is examined as PW5. He categorically deposed that in the year 2017 he visited Meerpet Police station at that time police obtained his signature on a written paper and without knowing the contents of paper he has signed on it. PW5 identified his signature of Ex.P4 and the same is marked as Ex.P3. PW5 did not support the case of prosecution as such he was cross-examined by learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor but nothing could be brought on record to prove that PW6 conducted the recovery panchanama of MO1 to MO8 in presence of PW5.

11.PW2 is the owner of the alleged house where alleged scene of offence occurred. But according to PW2 originally the house at plot No.6,

Old Gayathri Nagar, Kharmanghat belongs to her brother by name Anand

Murthy and as her brother was residing at Canada and she was care taker of the house and that, in the month of June, or July one person by name

G.Sudhakar approached her over phone and the said premises was let out 26.04.2023 7 of 10S.C.No.653.2022

II ASJ RR DIST

to G.Sudhakar. According to PW2, Sudhakar informed her that he is staying with is wife along with two children at that house and in the month of June 2021, she received a call from police who informed her about the illegal activity which was going in that house.

12.If the evidence of PW2 is perused according to her the house belongs to her brother by name Anand Murthy, when the investigation officer PW6 was cross examined as to who is the owner of the said house the investigation PW6 deposed that PW2 is the owner. The evidence of PW2 and PW6 which very much contrary with each other on this point. PW6 investigation officer in his chief examination categorically deposed he has found all the victim PW3 and PW4 and accused No.1 to 4 found at plot

No.6. But in the cross examination PW2 categorically deposed that the house owned by her brother is situated at Plot No.16 but not at plot No.6.

The contradiction evidence of PW2 and PW6 shows that there is no proper investigation in this case and the entire investigation suffers with lacuma.

13. The crucial witness in this case are the victim girls who are examined as PW3 and PW4. According to PW3 she got acquaintance with one Saritha at Hyderabad, on the request of Saritha she visited the house of

Saritha for purchasing Saree at that time police caught her. PW3 did not support the case of prosecution. PW4 deposed that about one year back

PW3 informed her that one lady by name Jyothi is selling sarees at

Kharmanghat area as such she visited the shop of Jyothi at that time police caught her and she was shifted to rescue home. Both PW3 and PW4 did not support the case of the prosecution. When they were cross examined at length by learned Additional Public Prosecutor nothing could be brought on 26.04.2023 8 of 10S.C.No.653.2022

II ASJ RR DIST

record from them to establish that accused No.1 got engaged their services and forced them to indulge in the illegal activity of prostitution and that on 28-6-2022 they were caught hold by police at the house of accused No.1.

14.Above discussion shows that PW2 is untrustworthy witness and

PW3 and PW4 who are victim did not support the prosecution case. PW5 the mediator in whose presence the recovery panchanama was conducted also did not support the case of the prosecution. Now the remaining witness is

PW1 who is assisted PW6 the first investigation officer in conducting the raid. If PW6 evidence is looked into according to him he has obtained the permission from Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram for causing raid which is under Ex.P5. On perusal of Ex.P5 the permission is granted by Assistant Commissioner of Police, L.B.Nagar but not Assistant commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram which shows that PW6 is deposing false. According to PW6 the alleged incident took place at the house situated at plot No.6 which belongs to PW2, however PW2 in her cross examination deposed that the alleged house is situated in plot No.16. There is a lots of contradictions in the material witnesses PW3, PW4 and PW2 and investigation officer PW6. Once it is concluded that there is a lots of contradictions in the evidence of the material witnesses. The said contradictions are major contradictions which cuts the root of the prosecution case and prosecution failed to bring out the nexus between the accused and crime. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

15.IN THE RESULT, Accused No.1, 2, 3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offences under Section 370 (A)(2) of Indian Penal Code and Accused 26.04.2023 9 of 10S.C.No.653.2022

II ASJ RR DIST

No.1 is found not guilt for the offence under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 stand cancelled as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

MO1, MO2, MO4, MO5, MO6 shall be sold in open auction and the sale proceeds shall be confiscated to the state, MO3 shall confiscated to the state, MO7 shall be destroy, MO8 which is under return to its original owner through Crl.M.P.No.1179/2021 order dated 5.8.2021 shall made absolute.

The order in respect of Mos 1 to 8 shall be come into force after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of April,2023.

II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : For Defence

PW1: P.Sunitha-None-

PW2: M.vani

PW3: B.Rajitha

PW4: G.Renuka

PW5: E.Karunakar

PW6: G.Venkat Reddy

PW7: M.Mahender Reddy

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW4 26.04.2023 10 of 10S.C.No.653.2022

II ASJ RR DIST

Ex.P3: Signature of PW5 on scene cum Seizure cum confession panchanama

Ex.P4: Recovery portion of panchanama of Accused No.1 to 4

Ex.P5: Search proceedings issued by ACP, Vanasthalipuram

Ex.P6: Report

Ex.P7: First Information report

For Defence : None

Material objects Marked

For Prosecution : For Defence

MO1: White Colour Vivo Mobile phone - None-

MO2: Blue Colour Mobile Phone

MO3: Net cash of Rs.10,380/-

Mo4: Blue Colour Vivo mobile phone

MO5: Silver Colour Vivo Mobile Phone

MO6: One Silver Colour MI Mobile phone

MO7: 7 Condom pockets

MO8: Breeza car, Br.No.TS 07 GD 5598 ( which under return to its owner through Crl.M.P.No.1179/2021, dated 05-08-2021).

II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Corrections carried out:

26.04.2023

1 of 9S.C.No.556.2019

II ASJ RR DIST

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

Present: SRI MILIND KAMBLE, II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Dated this the 21st day of April, 2023

SESSIONS CASE NO.556 of 2019

Name of the The State of T.S. through Sub-Inspector of Complainant Police, P.S. L.B.Nagar

Name of theA1. Pasarla Jyothi, W/o Late Shivaraj, Age: 35 Accusedyears, Occ:House wife, R/o H.No. 12-1-469/1/A, Road No.8, Vasanth Vihar Colony, Madhura Nagar, Nagole, LB Nagar, N/o Kannekal, Nidmanoor (M), Nalgonda Dist.

A2. Shila Bibi W/o Mulla Bablu, Age: 36 years, Occ: House wife, R/o Boduppal, Uppal, Medchal Dist, N/o Musheerabad, Kandi Thana, Kolkata, West Bengal

A3. Bosi Harinath Babu, S/o Purna Chander Rao, Age: 36 years, Occ: Builder, R/o Medibavi Colony, Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad, N/o Garapadu (V)m Ungutoor (M), Krishna Dist.

(Case against accused No.2 split up)

ChargesU/Sec. U/s. 370 (A) of IPC and 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)Act.

Crime No.1050/2018

Plea of the accusedNot Guilty

Finding of the CourtNot guilty

Sentence or Order IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 370(A) of Indian Penal Code and sections 3,4 and 5 of Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of accused No.1 and 3 shall stands cancelled as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. There shall be no order in respect of MOS 1 to 9 as the case against accused No.2 is split up.

21.04.2023 2 of 9S.C.No.556.2019

II ASJ RR DIST

Prosecution Smt S. Komalatha, Addl. Public Prosecutor conducted by

Defence conducted Sri M.Sudhakar Reddy , Counsel for accused byNo.1 Sri Narsimha Reddy, Counsel for accused No.2 (case against Accused No.2 split up)

Sri Naveen Kumar, Counsel for accused No.3

This case was committed by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar vide PRC 22/2019.

This case is coming for for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt Komalatha, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Sudhakar Reddy, Counsel for Accused No.1 and of Sri. Narsimha Reddy, Counsel for Accused No.2 and of Sri Naveen Kumar, Counsel for accused No.3 and upon hearing and perusal of the record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The brief facts of the case: The Inspector of Police, L.B.Bagar filed charge sheet alleging that on 03-09-2018 while PW6 (Investigation officer) was working as Inspector of Police, he received information about illegal activity of prostitution at Door.No.12-1-469/1/A, Road No.8, Madhura

Nagar, Nagole, L.B.Nagar. Immediately he obtained permission from

Assistant Commissioner of Police, L.B.Nagar, for conducting raid and on receiving the permission, he secured the presence of two mediators PW3 and PW4 and also he secured the presence of staff LW2/Upender Goud, police constable, LW3/Suresh, Home Guard, PW1 and LW5/Smt.R. Ashalatha

Women Homeguard, then all proceeded to the above said house and on reaching the place PW6 knocked the door of the house on which accused

No.1 opened the door and on entering the house PW6 found one lady i.e.

accused No.2 and in the another room of the house he found accused no.3 and also the victim by name LW6/Smt.Riya and LW7/Smt.Nandyala

Nagalaxmi, then he recorded the confession and seizure panchanama of 21.04.2023 3 of 9S.C.No.556.2019

II ASJ RR DIST

accused No.1 to 3, LW6/Riya and LW7/Naga Laxmi and recovered MO1 one

Nokia Black keypad cell phone, MO2 One Samsung black colour cell phone,

MO3 One Vivo black colour cell phone, MO4 one Samsung gold colour cell phone, MO5 one Nokia black keypad cell phone, MO6 One Vivo black keypad cell phone, MO7 Kamasutra condom packet contains 3 satchets and

Kamasutra separate condom sachet and return back to police station along with the accused, victims, seized material and material papers and handover the same to PW5 the Inspector of Police, L.B.Nagar.

2.PW5 on further investigation basing on the panchanama he registered the crime No.1115/2018 and issued First Information Report, and later examined and recorded the statement of LW1/Narsimha, Sub

Inspector of Police LW2/ G.Upender Goud, Police Constable, LW3/ M.Suresh,

Homeguard PW1, LW5/Asha Latha, Women Homeguard. He also examined and recorded the statement of LW6/Riya and LW7/N.Nagalaxmi. Later he arrested accused No.1 to 3 and forwarded them to court for judicial custody and also forwarded the victim LW6/Riya and LW7/Nagalaxmi to the court for judicial custody and on his transfer the Compact Disk file to his handover to

PW7.PW7 on further investigation he deposited the case property and filed charge sheet for the offence under section 370 (A) of Indian Penal

Code and section 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral traffic and prevention act against accused No.1 to 3 and he also deposited the Net cash of Rs.3400/- recovered from accused No.1 and Net cash of Rs.1600/- recovered from accused No.3.

3.This matter was committed from the court of II Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar against the accused No.1 to 3 vide PRC

No.22/2019.

21.04.2023 4 of 9S.C.No.556.2019

II ASJ RR DIST

4.On hearing the accused No.1 to 3, the court framed the charges against accused No.1 to 3 for the offence under Section U/S 370(A) of

Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4, and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act . The charges were read over and explained to accused No.1 to 3 on which they denied. As such matter was posted for trial.

5.At the time of trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1 to MO9.

6.The case against accused No.2 splitup and new case Number 234/2023 was allotted.

7.After closure of trial, the accused No.1 and 3 were examined U/s 313 (b) Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence of prosecution in question form to the accused No.1 and 3. They denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence. Hence matter was posted for arguments.

8.On closure of trial, arguments of both sides heard .

9. Now the point for determination is:

whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 3 beyond reasonable doubt?

10.The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 being organizer of the illegal activity of prostitution at his house which obtained on lease.

Accused No.3 supplied the victim to accused No.1 and accused No.3 to satisfy their sexual need, the customer used to visit the house of accused

No.1. To substantiate this fact the investigation officer was examined as

PW6. According to PW6 on receiving the credible information about illegal 21.04.2023 5 of 9S.C.No.556.2019

II ASJ RR DIST

activity Door.No.12-1-469/1/A, Road No.8, Madhura Nagar, Nagole,

L.B.Nagar, as such he along with his staff and two mediators i.e. PW3 and

PW4 went to the above said house there they found accused No.1 to 3 and victim PW3 and PW4 and they all have confessed the committing the offence.

11.To prove the accused No.2 have confessed that he committed the offence, the prosecution got examined the mediators in whose presence the panchanama was conducted. According to PW6 the Investigation Officer the confession, and recovery panchanama was conducted in presence of two mediators i.e. PW3 and PW4. PW3 in his evidence categorically deposed that one day when he was at his officer his co-employee by name Alekya asked him to accompany him to a house at Madhura nagar as such he went along with her and there he found police and the police have seized six cell phones in his presence and obtained signatures on 3 to 4 blank papers.

PW1 to 3 categorically deposed that he does not know accused No.1 and 2 and he never seen them. PW3 did not support the case of the prosecution.

12.PW4 another mediator in whose presence scene of offence panchanama was conducted. According to PW4 on 13-9-2018 when she was at her office, PW3 informed him that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal informed him to visit the house bearing No.12-1 of Madhura Nagar, Vasanth

Vihar Colony, along with her as such she along with PW3 went to the place on reaching the place she found police perssonals and one male police constable knocked the door of the house on which one lady opened the door and she along with her PW3 also entered into the house and they found another two ladies in the house, immediately she came out of the house and later she along with PW3 went to police and signed on six written 21.04.2023 6 of 9S.C.No.556.2019

II ASJ RR DIST

papers after going through the contents of the paper, she learned that the panchanama was conducted by police in respect of three women except this, she does not know about the involvement of accused No.1 to 3 in this case.

13.PW2 deposed that he owned a house bearing No.12-1-469/A/A situated at Madura Nagar, Bandlaguda, and he has let out his house to one female person in the year 2018 for an amount of Rs.6500/- towards rent. In the same year once police visited house as the women was carrying on the business of female persons and raid was caused at his house and in this regard police examined him. PW2 deposed that he can identify the women to whom the house was let out but he did not support the case, as such he was cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor at that time he admitted that he let out his house on monthly rent to Pasarla

Jyothi. PW2 was cross-examined by counsel for accused No.1, in the cross- examination PW2 admitted that there was no rental agreement between him and Jyothi, and before letting the house to Jyothi he did not collect any documentary proof from her. Further he deposed that he has not handover any document to police to show that he is the owner of the alleged place of incident. The evidence of PW2 is not trust worthy because first of all the prosecution has to prove that PW2 is the owner of the alleged hous. But there is no any such evidence. There is no evidence to show that PW2 let out the house on rent to the accused.

14.The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the contention as a recovery panchanama. According to PW6 (the Investigation officer) he has recorded the confession of accused No.1 to 3. The confession panchanama of accused No.1 and accused No.3 was not brought on record as the 21.04.2023 7 of 9S.C.No.556.2019

II ASJ RR DIST

confession panchanama of accused No.1 and 3 was recorded when accused No.1 and 3 were in police custody. As per section 26 of Indian

Evidence Act any confession made by accused while in police custody cannot be proved against accused only the remaining portion of the recovery panchanama was marked as EX.P4. The evidence of

PW6(Investigaion Officer) disclose that he has recovered Rs.3400/- and two cell phone from accused No.1 and Net cash of Rs.1600/- one cell phone from accused No.3 and three cell phones from the possession of accused

No.2 in presence of two mediators i.e. PW3 and PW4.

15.PW3 categorically deposed that four years back his co-employee asked him to accompany him as such he accompanied her and went to a house and there the police have seized six cell phones, thereafter police and obtained his signatures. PW3 did not support the case of the prosecution. The another mediator is examined as PW4 he deposed that on 13-09-2018 on the directions of Mandal revenue Officer, Uppal he along with PW3 visited a house bearing No.12-1 of Madura Nagar, Vasanth Vihar

Colony, and he found police personnel over there and they all entered the house and found two ladies in the said house, later he along with PW3 went to police station and on reaching the police station he signed on six written papers. PW4 also did not support the case of the prosecution. As

PW3 and 4 did not support prosecution case as such the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor cross-examined both PW3 and PW4 but nothing could be elicited from them to prove that Ex.P4 was conducted by PW6 in their recovery and Mos 1 to 9 were recovered form the possession of Accused.

Except the police personals no other independent witness have support the prosecution case stating that the MO1 to 9 were recovered from the possession of accused No.1 and 3.

21.04.2023 8 of 9S.C.No.556.2019

II ASJ RR DIST

16.If prosecution case is perused only basing on the confession cum recovery panchanama of the accused the crime was initiated against accused, but none of the material witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution to show that MO1 to 9 were recovered from the possession of accused No.1 and 3. Apart from this the house owner PW2 did not support the case of prosecution to believe that the alleged offence took at the alleged place of incident. PW6 the investigation officer evidence suffer with lacuma. There is no proper investigation by PW6 to prove that PW2 is the owner of the alleged place of incident. The confession recorded by PW6 is hit by section 26 of Indian Evidence Act. All these factors raises doubt on the prosecution case. Hence prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

17.IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 370(A) of Indian Penal Code and under sections 3,4 and 5 of Immoral Prevention of Trafficking Act. Accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 3 shall stands cancelled as per section 437-A of

Cr.P.C. There shall be no order in respect of Mos 1 to 9 as the case against accused No.2 is split up.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of April,2023.

II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar 21.04.2023 9 of 9S.C.No.556.2019

II ASJ RR DIST

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : For Defence

PW1: N.Anuradha -None- PW2: C.S. Narayana reddy PW3: D.Swamy PW4: A.Naga laxmi PW5: P.Kasi Reddy PW6: G.Narsimha PW7: V. Ashok Reddy

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on confession cum Seizure Panchanama of Accused No. 1 to 3 Ex.P2: Signature of PW4 on confession and recovery Panchanama of Accused No. 1 to 3 Ex.P3: First Information Report Ex.P4: Recovery portion of the panchanama of accused No.1 to 3 Ex.P5: permission of Assistant Commissioner of Police

For Defence : None

Material objects Marked

For Prosecution : For Defence

MO1: one Nokia Black keypad cell phone, MO2: One Samsung black colour cell phone, MO3: One Vivo black colour cell phone, MO4: one samsung gold colour cell phone, MO5: one Nokia black keypad cell phone, MO6: One vivo black keypad cell phone, MO7: Kamasutra condom packet contains 3 satchets and kamasutra m separate condom sachet MO8: Net cash of Rs.3400/- recovered from accused No.1 MO9: Net cash of Rs.1600/- recovered from accused No.3

II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Corrections carried out:

21.04.2023