Sri Mohd Abdul Javeed Pasha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT MANTHANI

PRESENT:­ SRI MD.ABDUL JAVEED PASHA,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

MANTHANI.

MONDAY, THIS THE 19 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2019

O.S.NO. 52 OF 2012

Between:

Kankanala Aruna W/o Ravinder Reddy, Aged 31 years, Occu: Agriculture R/o Mahadevpur village & Mandal.

…Plaintiff

// AND //

1. Seerla Pochi Reddy S/o Buchaiah, Aged 45 years, Occu: Agriculture;

2. Seerla Laxmi W/o Pochi Reddy, Aged 40 years, Occu: Agriculture;

Both are r/o Bommapur village of Mahadevpur Mandal.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 04.07.2019 in the presence of Sri A.Ramesh Babu, Counsel for the plaintiff and Sri M.A.Baig, Counsel for defendants and upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property i.e., land to an extent of

Ac.2­04 gts in Sy.No.98/B situated at Bommapur village of Mahadevpur

Mandal, with costs.

2

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

(a)The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the land bearing

Sy.No.98/B to an extent of Ac.2­04 gts situated at Bommapur village of

Mahadevpur Mandal. The husband of the plaintiff/Kankanala

Ravinder Reddy made gift of the suit land to the plaintiff vide Registered

Gift Deed bearing document No.5/2009 dt.2.1.2009 and handed over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff on the date of gift itself.

From 2009 onwards, the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land and she got implemented the registered gift deed in

Revenue Office, Mahadevpur and obtained pattadar pass book and her possession was recorded in pahanies.

(b)The husband of the plaintiff/Kankanala Ravinder Reddy got the suit land from his own brother/Sanjeeva Reddy vide a Registered

Gift Deed bearing document No.1733/2008 dated 11.11.2008 and received possession of the suit land on the date of gift itself. The said

Ravinder Reddy enjoyed the suit land for one year and thereafter he gifted the same to his wife i.e., plaintiff. The plaintiff has been enjoying the suit land since 2009 onwards by raising different dry crops in the suit land. The defendants who have got no right but they are constantly interfering with the possession of the suit land by laying false claims over the suit land. The plaintiff is facing much difficulty in foiling the attempts of defendants who are bent upon to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. The defendants are influential persons and they are also planning to create false documents with the help of lower revenue officials.

3

(c)As a matter of fact, Kankanala Sanjeeva Reddy orally leased out the suit land to the defendants from 1999 to 2004 on yearly basis and the defendants as leaseholders cultivated the suit land from 1999 to 2004 and with an ulterior motive got their names incorporated in possessory column from 1999 to 2004 and now on the strengthen of the said pahanies, the defendants are creating false documents with the help of lower revenue authorities to grab the suit land of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 8.9.2012 to the Tahsildar,

Mahadevpur, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani and District

Collector, Karimnagar to check the illegal attempts of lower revenue officials who are planning to create false documents in favour of the defendants by spelling a doom to the legitimate interest of the plaintiff over the suit land. The defendants are unauthorizedly interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land hence the present suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants.

3.The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing their written statement. The brief averments of written statement filed by the defendants are as follows:

(a)One Kankanala Sanjeeva Reddy sold away the land in favour of the defendant No.1 on 12.5.1998 for a consideration of

Rs.43,500/­ per acre by delivery of possession, on the same day

Rs.9,000/­ was paid, subsequently on 15.5.1998 Rs.16,000/­ was paid and on 25.5.1998 Rs.45,000/­ was paid. Rs.20,000/­ was paid to

Nagarapu Pochi Reddy S/o Venkaiah R/o Bommapur village towards the suit land which is called as “Ravichettu chenu” and the 4 “Girvipatramu” mortgage deed was recovered from him on 23.7.1997 and possession was also taken by him. The total sum paid by defendant No.1 to the said land is at Rs.90,000/­ to Kankanala

Sanjeeva Reddy and enjoying the suit land called “Ravichettu chenu” from 12.5.1998 to this day, 

(b)The sale deed dt.12.5.1998 executed by Sanjeeva Reddy S/o

Lingaiah in favour of the defendant No.1 is signed by Kankanala

Lingaiah, Kankanala Ravinder Reddy and Kankanala Sanjeeva Reddy attested as witnesses in the simple sale deed dt.12.5.1998. The said

Kankanala Sanjeeva Reddy promised to convey the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1 whenever defendant No.1 summon him to execute the registered sale deed of the suit land called “Ravichettu chenu” bearing Sy.No.98/B situated at Bommapur revenue village of

Mahadevpur Mandal. Therefore the said Sanjeeva Reddy is bound to execute registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1 in performance of his part of contract. The defendant No.1 is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract as per the agreement

dated 12.5.1998 and the defendants several times requested to

K.Sanjeeva Reddy to execute a valid registered sale deed in their favour in pursuance of the contract.

(c)The dispute between the plaintiff and defendants was carried before the Tahsildar, Mahadevpur in Prajavani to settle the dispute forever. The Tahsildar, Mahadevpur conducted an enquiry in the village and inspected the spot over the suit land and issued a possession certificate holding that since 1998 till 24.9.2012 the 5 defendants are in physical possession and enjoyment over the suit land.

In view of the enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar, Mahadevpur and the certificate dt.25.9.2012 in file No.B/302/2012 clearly established that the plaintiff is never in possession either on the date of the suit or earlier to it. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of injunction, hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, one of my learned predecessors settled the following issues for trial:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(ii) To what relief?

5.In support of her contention, the plaintiff herself examined as

Pw­1 and also examined PW­2 and got marked Exs.A­1 to A­30 on her behalf. Though the chief examination affidavit of Pw­3 filed but he failed to appear before this court to adduce his evidence hence at the request of counsel for the plaintiff, chief examination of Pw­3 is eschewed. In rebuttal, the defendant No.1 himself examined as DW­1 and got marked Exs.B­1 to B­10.

6.Heard both sides. The counsel for the plaintiff also filed his written arguments. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the plaintiff filed memo by giving notice to counsel for the defendants stating that there is no counter claim exists in this case.

6

ISSUE NO.1:

7.The contention of the plaintiff is that the brother of her husband by name Kankanala Sanjeeva Reddy was the original owner of the suit land who gifted the same to her husband under Ex.A­7/Gift Settlement

Deed and later her husband gifted the said land to her under Ex.A­ 6/Gift Settlement Deed in the year 2009 and the revenue authorities got mutated her name in the revenue records, issued pattadar pass book and title deed in her favour and she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

The further contention of the plaintiff is that the brother of her husband/Sanjeeva Reddy orally leased out the suit land to the defendants from 1999 to 2004 on yearly basis and the defendants as leaseholders cultivated the suit land for the said period but with ill­ motive the defendants got their names entered in revenue records as “possessors” and on the strength of the said pahanies, the defendants are creating false documents with the help of lower revenue officials to grab the suit land of the plaintiff, for that the plaintiff got issued the legal notice to the Tahsildar, Mahadevpur, the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Manthani and District Collector, Karimnagar to check the illegal acts of lower revenue officials in helping the defendants.

8.On the other hand, the contention of the defendants is that the defendant No.1 purchased the suit land from the brother of husband of plaintiff/Sanjeeva Reddy under simple sale deed dt.12.5.1998 for a consideration of Rs.43,500/­ per acre which was mortgaged to one

Nagarapu Pochi Reddy and after redeeming the said land, the defendant 7

No.1 is enjoying the suit land. The further contention of the defendants is that upon presentation of the petition by the defendant No.1 in

Prajavani programme the Tahsildar conducted spot inspection of the suit land and issued proceedings and possession certificate under

Exs.B­1 & B­2 holding that the defendant No.1 is in physical possession of the suit land.

9.To prove her contention, the plaintiff herself examined as Pw­1 and also examined her husband as Pw­2 and got marked Exs.A­1 to 

A­30.

Ex.A­1 is order copy of Hon'ble High Court in WPMP No.41107 of 2012 in W.P.No.32245 of 2012 dt.15.10.2012 wherein the Hon'ble High

Court ordered for interim suspension of the operation of proceedings passed by the Tahsildar, Mahadevpur in file No.B2/302/2012 dt.25.9.2012 and consequential proceedings No.B2/302/2012 dt.25.9.2012 for the suit land.

Ex.A­2 is Office copy of petition presented by the plaintiff to the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani for cancelling the order of

Tahsildar, Mahadevpur dt.25.9.2012 issued vide file No.B2/302/2012 and restore her name as possessor for the suit land in the records of 2011­12. 

Ex.A­3 is pattadar pass book stands in the name of the plaintiff wherein the entry related to the suit land is appearing as the said land was acquired by the plaintiff through Gift Settlement Deed vide document No.5/2009 dated 2.1.2009; Ex.A­4 is pattadar pass book in 8 the name of husband of the plaintiff; Ex.A­5 is pattadar pass book and

Title deed stands in the name of brother of husband of plaintiff by name

Kankanala Sanjeeva Reddy wherein the land to an extent of Ac.2­04 gts in Sy.No.98/B at Bommapur village i.e., suit land is appearing.

Ex.A­6 is original Gift Settlement Deed vide document No.5/2009

dated 2.1.2009 through which the husband of the plaintiff gifted the

suit land and other lands to the plaintiff; Ex.A­7 is original Gift

Settlement Deed vide document No.1733/2008 through which the brother of husband of the plaintiff by name Kankanala Sanjeeva Reddy gifted the suit land and other lands to the husband of the plaintiff i.e.,

Kankanala Ravinder Reddy.

Ex.A­8, A­11, A­13, A­15 to A­27 are certified copies of

Adangals/pahanies. On perusal of Ex.A­8 and A­13 i.e., computarized copies of pahanies obtained from Mee Seva for the fasli years 1422 and 1425 respectively shows the name of plaintiff as pattadar as well as possessor for the land to an extent of Ac.2­04 gts in Sy.No.98/B at

Bommapur village i.e., suit land. Ex.A­11, A­25 to A­27 i.e., Certified copies of Adangals/pahanies for the years 2014­15, 2008­09, 2009­10 and 2010­11 respectively wherein in pattadar/ khatedar column for the suit land the name of plaintiff is appearing and in possession column it is mentioned as self (Swantham) for the suit land. 

On perusal of Ex.A­15, A­16, A­18 to A­20 i.e., Certified copies of

Adangals/pahanies for the years 1995­96, 1997­98, 1999­2000, 2001­ 02, 2002­03 respectively wherein the name of Kankanala Sanjeeva 9

Reddy i.e., brother of husband of plaintiff is appearing as pattadar and in possession column it is mentioned as “Swayam”.  In Ex.A­17, the

CC of Adangal/pahani for the year 1998­99 the name of father of

Sanjeeva Reddy by name Lingaiah is shown as possessor and the name of Sanjeeva Reddy is appearing as pattadar. Ex.A­21 to A­24 i.e.,

Certified copies of Adangals/pahanies for the years 2004­05, 2005­06, 2006­07, 2007­08 respectively wherein the name of Kankanala

Sanjeeva Reddy i.e., brother of husband of the plaintiff shown as pattadar but in possession column the name of Cheerla Laxmi i.e., defendant No.2 is appearing. 

Ex.A­12 and A­14 i.e., Copy of 1­B Namuna (ROR) for the year 2014­15 and computarized copy dt.29.10.2015 respectively, the name of plaintiff is appearing as pattadar for the suit land; Ex.A­28 is copy of order in I.A.No.337/2012 in O.S.No.52/2012 on the file of this court;

Ex.A­29 is copy of order in CMA No.9/2012 on the file of Hon'ble VI

Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani; Ex.A­30 is Copy of order of Joint Collector at Jayashankar Bhupalpalli in Revision petition

No.E/411/2017 dt.28.8.2017.

10.On the other hand, to prove the contention of the defendants, the defendant No.1 is examined as DW­1 and got marked Exs.B­1 to B­10.

On perusal of Ex.B­1 it is the Possession Certificate dt.25.9.2012 issued by the Tahsildar, Mahadevpur vide in file No.B/302/2012 in favour of defendant No.2; Ex.B­2 is proceedings of the Tahsildar, 10

Mahadevpur in file No.B/302/2012 dt.25.9.2012 for deleting the name of plaintiff from possession column in the pahani.

On perusal of Exs.B­3 to B­6 i.e., Certified copies of

Adangals/pahanies for the years 2007­08, 2006­07, 2005­06, 2004­05 respectively wherein the name of brother of husband of plaintiff i.e.,

Kankanala Sanjeeva Reddy is appearing as pattadar/khatedar and the name of defendant No.2 i.e., Cheerla Laxmi is appearing as possessor for the suit land i.e., for the land an extent of Ac.2­04 gts in Sy.No.98/B at Bommapur village.

Ex.B­7 is CC of W.P.No.32245/2012 filed by the plaintiff before the Hon'ble High Court; Ex.B­8 is the counter affidavit in

W.P.No.32245/12 on the file of Hon'ble High Court; Ex.B­9 is

Proceedings/Order of Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani in appeal

No.1180/2012 dated 27.8.2013 in which the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Manthani held that as appellants approached the Civil Court at

Manthani and Hon'ble High Court of A.P at Hyderabad by filing

W.P.No.32245/2012 and as a matter is seized by the court, hence do not want to interfere in the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar,

Mahadevpur dt.25.9.2012; Ex.B­10 is order of Revenue Divisional

Officer­cum­Sub­Divisional Magistrate at Manthani in file

No.A/221/2013 dated 25.11.2013 in which it is ordered to cancel pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of the plaintiff.

11.On simultaneously perusal of Exs.A­21 to A­24 and Exs.B­3 to

B­6 i.e., Adangals/pahanies for the years 2004­05, 2005­06, 2006­07, 11 2007­08, the name of brother of husband of the plaintiff by name

Kankanala Sanjeeva Reddy is appearing as pattadar/khatedar whereas the name of Cheerla Laxmi i.e., defendant No.2 is appearing as possessor/enjoyer. The main contention of the defendants is that the defendant No.1 purchased the suit land from one Kankanala Sanjeeva

Reddy for a consideration of Rs.43,500/­ per acre on 12.5.1998 and redeemed the mortgage of the suit land from one Nagarapu Pochi reddy.

But the defendants not filed any document to prove their contention that the defendant No.1 has purchased the suit land and also redeemed it from one Nagarapu Pochi Reddy.

The further contention of the defendants is that the Tahsildar,

Mahadevpur conducted spot inspection and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff never in possession of the suit land and issued Ex.

B­1/Possession Certificate in favour of defendant No.2 and also the proceedings under Ex.B­2 vide file No.B/302/2012 for cancellation of the name of plaintiff on that year pahani. Moreover, the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Manthani vide orders in file No.A/221/2013 dt.25.11.2013 under Ex.B­10 cancelled the pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the plaintiff.

But, on perusal of Ex.A­30 i.e., order of Joint Collector in Revision petition challenging the orders under Ex.B­9 and B­10, the Joint

Collector set aside the order of Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani in file No.A/221/2013 and cancelled the pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the defendants and the Joint Collector further ordered to restore the pattadar pass book and title deed to the plaintiff and restore 12 the entries in all revenue records in the name of plaintiff while deleting the name of defendants.

Even as per the orders of Hon'ble High Court in WPMP

No.41107/2012 in W.P.No.32245/2012 under Ex.A­1 there shall be interim suspension of operation of proceedings of Tahsildar,

Mahadevpur issued in file No.B2/302/2012 dt.25.9.2012 and consequential proceedings No.B2/302/2012 dt.25.9.2012 issued under

Exs.B­1 and B­2. The defendants have not submitted any information with regard to present status of the above writ petition under Ex.A­1.

In these circumstances, as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court under Ex.A­1 and in view of orders of Joint Collector under Ex.A­30, proceedings under Exs.B­1 and B­2 stands cancelled and the name of plaintiff is restored in revenue records with regard to possession over the suit land.

12.As this is a suit for perpetual injunction, this court has to see the incidental title of the parties to the suit schedule property and to see who is in legal possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff filed Exs.A­6 and A­7/Registered Gift Settlement Deeds to show her title to the suit land. But the defendants have not placed any document to show their title to the suit schedule property except pleading that the defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule property from Kankanala

Sanjeeva Reddy. It is pertinent to note that as per pleadings of the defendants in their written statement one Kankanala Sanjeeva Reddy sold away the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 for a consideration of Rs.43,500/­ per acre. But, in his cross­examination DW­1 13 categorically admitted that as per the contents under Ex.B­2 his wife/Cheerla Laxmi purchased the suit schedule property. The pleadings of defendants quite contradictory to the evidence of DW­1 in his cross­examination. All these facts and circumstances establishing that the defendants failed to prove their incidental title to the suit schedule property and on the other hand, the plaintiff proved the same in her favour.

13.Now coming to the oral evidence on behalf of plaintiff, in the cross­examination of Pws­1 and 2 no useful material could be elicited which goes into the roots of the case of the plaintiff. Though in the cross­examination of Pws­1 & 2, it is suggested that intentionally they are deposing to the ignorant of writ petition filed by the defendants challenging the proceedings of Joint Collector. But the defendants have not filed any material showing that they challenged the proceedings of

Joint Collector under Ex.A­30 and status of the said case, if any, filed by them. In absence of any such material, the contention of the defendants cannot be considered. The oral evidence either side buttercing the case of the plaintiff.

14.In view of my above discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the entire material on record it is clearly establishing that the plaintiff is in legal possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule prperty. In this case, the prepondarance of probabilities are in favour of the plaintiff and as such

I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction. This issue is answered accordingly.

14

ISSUE NO.2:

15.In view of my findings in issue No.1, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction. 

16.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs granting perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 19 th the day of August, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE 

MANTHANI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

PW­1 Kankanala Aruna DW­1 Cheerla Pochi Reddy

PW­2 Kankanala Ravinder Reddy

Pw­3 Kankanala Sujatha (eschewed)

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANT:

Ex.A-1Order copy of Hon'ble High CourtEx.B-1Possession certificate issued by in WPMP No.41107/12 in WP Tahsildar Mahadevpur No.32245/12 dt.15.10.2012.dt.25.9.2012 Ex.A-2Office copy of petition Ex.B-2Proceedings of Tahsildar dt.25.9.2012 in file No.B/302/12 Ex.A-3Possession pass bookEx.B-3CC of pahani for the year 2007-08 Ex.A-4Titla pass bookEx.B-4CC of pahani for the year 2006-07 Ex.A-5 Pass book of K.Sanjeeva ReddyEx.B-5CC of pahani for the year 2005-06 Ex.A-6 Original Regd.Gift Deed Ex.B-6CC of pahani for the year 2004-05 dt.2.1.2009 15

Ex.A-7 Original Regd.Gift Deed Ex.B-7 CC of W.P No.32245/12 filed by dt.11.11.2008.plaintiff Ex.A-8CC of Adangal/pahani for the yearEx.B-8CC of counter affidavit in WP 2011-12 issued by Mee SevaNo.32245/12 by Tahsildar, Mahadevpur Ex.A-9 Valuation certificateEx.B-9 Order passed by the RDO Manthani dt.27.8.2013 in appeal No.1180/12. Ex.A-10 Legal notice Dt.8.9.12Ex.B-10True copy of order passed by the RDO Manthani dt.25.11.2013 in file No.A/221/13. Ex.A-11 CC of pahani for the year 2014-15 Ex.A-12 CC of 1-B (ROR) for the year 2014-15 Ex.A-13 CC of Mee Seva pahani fasli 1425 Ex.A-14 CC of computarized generated 1-B Namuna dt.29.10.2015 Ex.A-15 CC of pahani for the year 1995-96 Ex.A-16 CC of pahani for the year 1997-98 Ex.A-17 CC of pahani for the year 1998-99

Ex.A-18 CC of pahani for the year 1999- 2000 Ex.A-19 CC of pahani for the year 2001-02 Ex.A-20 CC of pahani for the year 2002-03 Ex.A-21 CC of pahani for the year 2004-05 Ex.A-22 CC of pahani for the year 2005-06 Ex.A-23 CC of pahani for the year 2006-07 Ex.A-24 CC of pahani for the year 2007-08 Ex.A-25 CC of pahani for the year 2008-09 Ex.A-26 CC of pahani for the year 2009-10 Ex.A-27 CC of pahani for the year 2010-11 Ex.A-28 Order copy in I.A.No.337/12 in

OS No.52/2012 on the file of this

court Ex.A-29 Attested copy of CMA No.9/2012 on the file of Hon'ble VI ADJ, Godavarikhani dt.22.7.2013. Ex.A-30 Attested copy of order of Joint Collector, in file No.E/411/2017 dt.28.8.2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

MANTHANI

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT MANTHANI

PRESENT:­ SRI MD.ABDUL JAVEED PASHA,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

MANTHANI.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 20 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2019

O.S.NO. 10 OF 2015

Between:

Domakonda Mangaiah S/o Nagaiah R/o Q.No.CT2­148, Centenary Colony, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District. …Plaintiff

// AND //

Vannapuram Sangamaiah S/o Veerabhadraiah, Aged 36 years, Photographer R/o Post: Kamanchikal, Mutyalagudem village, Khammam Mandal & District.

...Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 23.07.2019 in the presence of Sri C.Ramana Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri K.Sadan Kumar, Advocate for defendant and upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,96,000/­ along with future interest and costs of the suit.

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

(a)The defendant is close relative of the plaintiff working as a

Photographer. On 15.10.2013 the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him for a hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/­ (Rupees Four lakhs 2 only) to fullfil his financial needs and promised to repay the amount within a period of six months with a monthly interest @ 1.5% per month. Upon considering the request of the defendant, the plaintiff has given the said hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/­ (Rupees Four lakhs only) to the defendant and having received the same from the plaintiff, in turn as collateral security, the defendant has executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/­ (Rupees Four lakhs only) on 15.10.2013.

(b)The defendant has failed to keep his promise in repaying the above said sum to the plaintiff within the period of six months. The plaintiff approached the defendant in several occasions and asked him to repay the amount taken by him. But the defendant avoided the repayment of loan amount in all occasions on one pretext or other by making false promises. By vexing the attitude of the defendant the plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the defendant on 12.11.2014 asking him to repay the amount taken by defendant but the defendant refused to take the legal notice sent by the plaintiff. As the defendant failed to pay and trying to escape from his liability, hence the present suit for recovery of amount.

3.In rebuttal, the defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff and filed his written statement. The brief averments of the written statement are as follows:

The plaintiff is the maternal uncle as well as the brother­in­law of defendant but the defendant never borrowed an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on 15.10.2013 as such the question of repaying the said amount with interest does not arise. The plaintiff is not having any financial capacity to lend the suit amount to the defendant and there is no necessity to borrow such huge amount to the defendant from the plaintiff. In the month of September, 2014 the defendant requested the plaintiff to arrange an amount of Rs.30,000/­ (Rupees Thirty thousand only) from the financiers and on that the plaintiff obtained the blank signed promissory note from the defendant 3 to arrange the amount of Rs.30,000/­, thereafter the plaintiff informed that inspite of best efforts he could not arrange the amount as required by the defendant and thereafter the defendant requested the plaintiff to return the above said blank signed promissory note but the plaintiff did not return the same and informed to the defendant that the said blank signed promissory note was misplaced and could not traced and promised that he will return the same as and when he found the said blank signed promissory note to the defendant. Subsequently there arose some family dispues in between the plaintiff and defendant, taking the advantage of the blank signed promissory note in his custody, the plaintiff hatched a plan to harass and to extract money from the defendant, hence he fabricated the above said blank signed promissory note in his own choice with the help of his interested persons who are cited as alleged witnesses on the said promissory note and basing on such fabricated pronote he got filed the present suit against this defendant. The suit is barred by limitation hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, one of my learned predecessors settled the following issues for trial:

(i) Whether the suit pronote is genuine and whether the defendant executed suit pronote having borrowing Rs.4,00,000/­?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount?

(iii) To what relief?

5.In support of his contention, the plaintiff himself examined Pw­1.

Though the chief examination affidavits of Pws­2 and 3 filed but Pw­2 has not appeared before this court and at the request of counsel for the plaintiff, the chief examination affidavit of Pw­2/N.Venkateshwarlu is eschewed. In rebuttal, the defendant not entered into the witness box and not deposed his evidence. On behalf of the plaintiff, he got marked

Exs.A­1 to A­3.

4

6.Heard both sides.

ISSUES NO.1 & 2:

7.The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant who is his close friend approached him on 15.10.2013 for a hand loan of

Rs.4,00,000/­ for his financial needs and by considering his request, the plaintiff advanced an amount of Rs.4,00,000/­, after receiving the said amount the defendant executed Ex.A­1/promissory note on the same day with a promise to repay the same within six months but later the defendant avoided the repayment of the loan amount in one pretext or the other by making false promises.

The further contention of the plaintiff is that by vexing with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the defendant under Ex.A­2 on 12.11.2014 asking him to repay the loan amount under Ex.A­1 but the defendant refused to take the legal notice, even after refusing the legal notice the defendant not repaid the loan amount to the plaintiff hence the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of amount under Ex.A­1 along with interest.

8.On the other hand, the contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff is his maternal uncle and in the month of September, 2014 the defendant requested the plaintiff to arrange an amount of Rs.30,000/­ from the financiers, on that the plaintiff obtained a blank signed promissory note from the defendant, thereafter the plaintiff failed to arrange the amount to the defendant.

The further contention of the defendant is that when he asked the plaintiff to return his blank signed promissory note he informed to him that the said blank signed promissory note was misplaced, not traced out and as and when the same is found he will return to the defendant.

Subsequently, there arose family disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant, taking advantage of blank signed promissory note, the plaintiff fabricated the said blank signed promissory note in his own 5 choice and got filed the present suit to extract money from the defendant hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

9.To prove his contention as stated supra, the plaintiff himself examined as Pw­1 and examined one of the attestors of Ex.A­1/ promissory note as Pw­3. On perusal of the evidence of Pw­1, in his chief examination affidavit he reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint. In the cross­examination, Pw­1 stated that the defendant is his nephew and he advanced the suit amount to the defendant in the year 2013 and no one stood as guarantor to the defendant. One Komuraiah was scribe of Ex.A­1/promissory note and Kamaeshwar Rao was scribe of another promissory note executed by Gurunatham. The name of

Komuraiah is not written at the foot of Ex.A­1 but he made his signature as attestor. The denomination of currency notes are of

Rs.500/­ and there are eight bundles in number. Pw­1 further stated that he advanced the loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/­ to the defendant at

Centenary colony, he is working as Welder in SCCL company and out of his savings he advanced the loan amount to the defendant. He admitted that the year in Ex.A­1 was shown as 20013 but he denied that Ex.A­1 belongs to 2001 but for the purpose of limitation he added number three. Pw­1 denied that he did not advance an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/­ to the defendant, but the defendant borrowed only

Rs.30,000/­ and he took blank promissory note with the signature of the defendant.

10.On perusal of the evidence of Pw­3, in his chief examination affidavit he mentioned that himself and plaintiff are friends since long time, he know the defendant who is brother­in­law of the plaintiff. On 15.10.2013 the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him for a hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/­ to fullfil his financial needs, upon which the plaintiff gave the said amount and after receiving the same from the plaintiff, as a collateral security the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, upon which himself and

N.Venkateshwarulu have signed as witnesses.

6

During his cross­examination Pw­3 stated that he made the signature on promissory note as attestor on 15.10.2013 and the defendant is nephew of the plaintiff. On the same day when the promissory note was executed by the defendant at 6.30 a.m the amount was advanced to the defendant, he cannot say the names of other attestors. The denomination of the suit amount is Rs.500/­ notes/bundles eight in number, his house is infront of the house of plaintiff. Pw­3 denied that he is deposing false to help the plaintiff because he is his neighbour.

11.In this case, the main contention of the defendant is that he never borrowed any amount, never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and no consideration is passed under Ex.A­1/promissory note but taking advantage of his signature on blank promissory note which he gave to the plaintiff in the month of September, 2014 for arranging an amount of Rs.30,000/­ from financiers, he fabricated

Ex.A­1/ promissory note in his own choice and filed the present suit.

In this case, the defendant admitted his signature on Ex.A­1/ promissory note, when the defendant admits his signature then the presumption under section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act comes in favour of the plaintiff. Then the burden is on the defendant to prove that Ex.A­1/promissory note was not supported by consideration and it came into existence in the circumstances stated by the defendant in his written statement. But, in this case, the defendant failed to prove that the consideration is not passed under Ex.A­1/promissory note. Even the defendant not entered into the witness box and not adduced any evidence to substantiate his contention.

12.At this juncture, I deem it appropriate to refer to the observations of our Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision between

Vidhyadhar Vs Manik Rao reported in 1999 Law Suits (SC) 316,

wherein it is observed that “Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not 7 offer himself to be cross­examined by other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.”

In view of legal the position in the above referred judgment as the defendant failed to enter into witness box to depose his own case, hence the defence set up by him cannot be considered. 

13.Here, it is pertinent to note that during the course of cross­ examination of Pw­1 it is suggested that Ex.A­1 belong to the year 2001 but for the purpose of limitation he added number three and hence Ex.A­1 was shown as 20013. But, Pw­3 one of the attestors of

Ex.A­1/promissory note in his cross­examination also categorically stated that he made his signature on Ex.A­1/ promissory note as attestor on 15.10.2013 and on the same day the promissory note was executed by the defendant and amount was advanced to the defendant.

This evidence of Pw­3 was not denied by the defendant. Hence, in these circumstances the contention of the defendant cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover, before filing of the suit the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant and the same is returned under Ex.A­3/ postal cover as refused. On perusal of the evidence of Pw­1 and 3 coupled with Exs.A­1 to A­3, it is clearly appearing that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed

Ex.A­1/promissory note in his favour.

14.In view of my above discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that in this case the preponderance of probabilities are in favour of the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim. These issues are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.3:

15.In view of findings in issues No.1 & 2, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim.

8

16.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,96,000/­ (Rupees Four lakhs ninety six thousand only) with future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% per annum till realization on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/­ (Rupees Four lakhs only).

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 20 th day of August, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE 

MANTHANI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE DEFENDANT:

PW­1 Domakonda Mangaiah DW­1 Perala Somaiah

PW­2 Nallapu Venkateshwarlu (eschewed)

PW­3 Kamini Komuraiah

E XHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANT:

Ex.A­1 Original promissory note dt.15.10.2013 ­NIL ­

Ex.A­2 Office copy of legal notice dt.12.10.2014.

Ex.A­3 Returned R.P Cover

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

MANTHANI

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT MANTHANI

PRESENT:­ SRI MD.ABDUL JAVEED PASHA,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

MANTHANI.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 29 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2019

O.S.NO. 3 OF 2015

Between:

Kalikota Venkataiah S/o Rathnam, Aged 63 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Garepally village of Kataram Mandal, Dist.Karimnagar.

…Plaintiff

// AND //

Kamtala Suresh S/o Rajesham, Aged 38 years, Occu: Business, R/o Garepally village of Kataram Mandal, Dist.Karimnagar.

...Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 31.07.2019 in the presence of Sri S.Chandra Shekar, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri A.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for defendant and upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of

Rs.3,44,000 /­ from the defendant, along with costs of the suit.

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

The plaintiff is an agriculturist having close relationship with the defendant obliged the request of the defendant to give the loan of

Rs.1,00,000/­ each for his paddy business purpose and executed two 2 promissory notes one was at the morning and second was at the evening. The defendant received the loan amount Rs.1,00,000/­ each and executed two promissory notes in the presence of the attestors and promised to pay with 2% interest as mentioned in the promissory notes.

Later, the defendant turned down and evading to return the loan amount as mentioned in the promissory notes with interest. On his insistence, the defendant issued two cheques of Rs.1,00,000/­ each to the plaintiff for the return of the loan amounts mentioned in the promissory notes. The said cheques bounced in the State Bank of

Hyderabad, Kataram Branch stating that the defendant is not having account and he closed the account with a fraudulent intention to deprive the legitimate rights to return the amount as mentioned in the cheques and promissory notes. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of amount under the promissory notes.

3.In rebuttal, the defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff and filed his written statement. The brief averments of the written statement are as follows:

The plaintiff and the defendant do not have any close relationship as stated in the plaint but they being from the same community just has acquaintance with each other. The defendant never borrowed

Rs.2,00,000/­ (or) any amount from the plaintiff nor he executed two promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant never executed any pronote either on 2.4.2012 or any other day nor he borrowed Rs.2,00,000/­ in two transactions one in the morning and one in the evening as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff long back closed his paddy business and now he is idle. The plaintiff did paddy business about six years back and closed the same about four years back. The defendant long back closed his account and as such the question of giving two cheques to the plaintiff does not arise. As a matter of fact, the defendant has got no necessity to issue any cheques to the plaintiff as absolutely there was no transaction of money in between the plaintiff and defendant as alleged by the plaintiff. As such 3 the defendant is not concerned with the bouncing of cheques as they were not issued by him towards any discharge of legally payable debt.

The defendant still wonders as to how the plaintiff could procure obsolete cheques from the house of the defendant, hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, one of my learned predecessors settled the following issues for trial:

(i) Whether the suit pronotes are genuine and executed by the defendant?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount?

(iii) Whether the defendant issued two cheques?

(iv) To what relief?

5.In support of his contention, the plaintiff himself examined as

Pw­1 and also examined another witness as Pw­2 and got marked

Exs.A­1 to A­7 on his behalf. On behalf of the defendant, DW­1 is examined and no documents were marked.

6.Heard both sides.

ISSUES NO.1 to 3:

7.The contention of the plaintiff is that having close acquaintance with the defendant, on 20.4.2012 he gave loan of Rs.1,00,000/­ each to the defendant on his request for his paddy business purpose, having received the loan amounts one in the morning and another in evening, the defendant executed two promissory notes under Exs.A­1 and A­2 in favour of the plaintiff but later avoided to return the amount covered under Exs.A­1 and A­2. The further contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant on his insistance issued two cheques under Exs.A­5 and

A­6 but the said cheques issued by defendant became bounced as the defendant is not having account and he closed the account in the bank.

4

Hence, the present suit for recovery of amount under Exs.A­1 and A­2 along with interest.

On the other hand, the contention of the defendant is that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, never executed any promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and never given any cheques to the plaintiff.

8.To prove his contention, the plaintiff himself examined as Pw­1, examined one of the attestors of Exs.A­1 and A­2/promissory notes as

Pw­2 and got marked Exs.A­1 to A­7. On perusal of the evidence of

Pw­1, in his chief examination affidavit he reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint. In his cross­examination, Pw­1 stated that he has not filed any document to show the proof that the defendant was doing paddy business and not mentioned about the details of cheques i.e., numbers etc., in the plaint. He denied that he fabricated Exs.A­1 and A­2/promissory notes, falsely filed this case against the defendant and the defendant never executed any promissory notes nor issued any cheques.

9.On perusal of the evidence of Pw­2, in his chief examination affidavit he mentioned that he was present at the time of execution of promissory notes one at the morning and another at the evening duly executed by the defendant on 20.4.2012 in favour of the plaintiff and after receiving the said amount the defendant executed two promissory notes in his presence and he signed on two promissory notes along with one K.Gopal Reddy as attestors to the said promissory notes. In his cross­examination, Pw­2 stated that in Exs.A­1 and A­2/promissory notes, the place of transaction is not mentioned and in the receipt column on Exs.A­1 and A­2/promissory notes was kept empty. In his evidence Pw­2 admitted that the defendant is having a house at

Kataram village worth of Rs.70 lakhs and having landed property worth of Rs.30 lakhs. Pw­2 denied that as the defendant is affluent person hence he was no necessity to borrow the money from the plaintiff.

5

10.Now coming to the evidence of the defendant side, DW­1 in his chief examination affidavit reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement and further mentioned that the two promissory notes are fabricated one and signatures appearing on the promissory notes are not of the defendant, if the defendant issued cheques to the plaintiff, the plaintiff would have filed the case u/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument

Act against him but only to grab his house and landed property situated at Kataram village the plaintiff filed this false case against him.

In his cross­examination, DW­1 stated that he is not doing any business and previously he did not do any business but worked as

Gumastha/Clerk, he has not filed any document either the income tax returns or revenue records or Grampanchayat records to show that he has lands and house property worth of Rs.1 Crore. He denied that the signatures on Exs.A­5 and A­6/Cheques and signature on the written statement and signatures on Exs.A­1 and A­2/promissory notes are one and the same and belongs to him. He further denied that though he borrowed the amount from the plaintiff, he is deposing false as he is affluent person and no need to borrow any amount.

11.In this case, the defence taken by the defendant is that the signatures on Exs.A­1 and A­2/promissory notes are not belongs to him and the said promissory notes are fabricated one. When the defendant has denied his signatures on Exs.A­1 and A­2/promissory notes then the initial burden to prove Exs.A­1 and A­2/promissory notes is on the plaintiff. To discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff himself examined as Pw­1 and got examined one of the attestors of Exs.A­1 and A­2/ promissory notes as Pw­2. The evidence of Pw­2 is supporting the contention of the plaintiff that on 20.4.2012 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ each on two occasions one in the morning and another in evening and executed Exs.A­1 and A­2/promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. In the cross­examination of Pw­2, no useful material could be elicited to disprove the execution of Exs.A­1 and A­2/ promissory notes. No motive is attributed to Pw­2 for giving false evidence against the defendant. The evidence of Pws­1 and 2 with 6 regard to execution of Exs.A­1 and A­2/promissory notes is corroborating with each other. The evidence of Pws­1 and 2 not shaken at any point of time with regard to factum of borrowing the amount by the defendant and execution of Exs.A­1 and A­2/promissory notes, thus, the plaintiff discharged his initial burden of proving the

Exs.A­1 and A­2/ promissory notes.

Once the plaintiff proved that the defendant has executed the

Exs.A­1 and A­2/promissory notes, the burden shifts on the defendant to prove that the Exs.A­1 and A­2/promissory notes are fabricated one and signatures therein not belong to him. Though the defendant denied his signatures on Exs.A­1 and A­2/promissory notes but he has not taken any steps to send the Exs.A­1 and A­2/promissory notes to

Handwriting Expert to prove that the signatures on Exs.A­1 and A­2/ promissory notes are not belongs to him. The defendant has not taken any steps to disprove the signatures on Exs.A­1 and A­2/promissory notes not belongs to him. Moreover, the defendant has not denied that

Exs.A­5 and A­6/Cheques not belongs to his bank account and he also failed to explain as how these cheques were went into the hands of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the defendant failed to discharge his burden to prove his contention.

12.In view of my above discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered opinion that in this case, the preponderance of probabilities are in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff proved his case. These issues are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.4:

13.In view of findings in issues No.1 to 3, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim.

14.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,44,000/­ (Rupees Three 7 lakhs forty four thousand only) with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization, on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ (Rupees Two lakhs only).

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 29 th day of August, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE 

MANTHANI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE DEFENDANT:

PW­1 Kalikota Venkataiah DW­1 Kamutala Suresh

PW­2 Keerthi Srinivas

E XHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANT:

Ex.A­1 Original promissory note dt.20.4.2012 ­NIL­

Ex.A­2 Original promissory note dt.20.4.2012

Ex.A­3 Bank memo of return of cheque dt.27.2.2015

Ex.A­4 Bank memo of return of cheque dt.27.2.2015

Ex.A­5 is original cheque bearing No.659350 of SBH, Kataram dt.27.2.2015.

Ex.A­6 is original cheque bearing No.659351 of SBH, Kataram dt.27.2.2015.

Ex.A­7 is original Encumbrance certificate dt.6.2.2015.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

MANTHANI

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE 

AT MANTHANI

PRESENT: SRI MOHD.ABDUL JAVEED PASHA,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

Wednesday, this the 28th day of August, 2019

SESSIONS CASE NO. 103 OF 2019

(On committal made by the learned Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani vide PRC No.4/2019 )

Name of the Complainant:The State represented by the Sub­ Inspector of Police, Manthani Police Station (Cr.No.149/2018 of P.S. Manthani).

Name of the Accused :1. Sykam Narendar Reddy, S/o Raghava Reddy, Aged 26 years,

2. Sykam Pushpa W/o Raghava Reddy, Aged 42 years, 

Both are r/o Uppatla village of Manthani Mandal.

Charges:u/secs.307, 447, 427, 290, 323 r/w 34 IPC

Plea of the Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Not guilty

Sentence or Order :In the result, accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 307, 447, 427, 290 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as per Sec.437­A Cr.P.C. Unmarked case property i.e., one rock stone which was deposited vide CPR No.11/19 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 27.08.2019 in the presence of Sri K.Venkata Ram Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri S.Bhaskar Reddy, Counsel for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:­ 2

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The accused have arraigned before this Court for the offences punishable under sections 307, 447, 427, 290 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC of

Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

(a)The Sub­Inspector of Police, Police Station, Manthani has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging therein that on 04.08.2018 afternoon at about 1500 hours, the defacto complainant/Chinthalapudi

Devender Reddy and his wife/Chinthalapudi Kalpana along with

Chakinarapu Ramulu were attending the works at the agricultural fields of the defacto complainant then accused keeping previous land disputes in mind with an intention to kill the defacto complainant, illegally trespassed into his land, abused him in filthy language by saying that why they were cultivating the land and accused No.2 beat the defacto complainant with slippers and accused No.1 beat the defacto complainant with hands and kicked with the legs, for which the defacto complainant fell on the ground.

On that accused No.1 with an intention to kill the defacto complainant lifted up a big rock stone and while trying to throw on the head of the defacto complainant, Chakinarapu Ramulu managed to rescue the defacto complainant for which the rock stone fell aside from the hands of accused

No.1. Accused No.1 also snatched the mobile phone from the hands of wife of the defacto complainant by name Chinthalapudi Kalpana, who was recording the incident in the mobile phone and damaged the same by throwing it on the road. This incident was witnessed by neighbouring agriculture workers i.e., Jadi Komala, Jadi Laxmi and Jadi Usha.

3

(b)Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, Sri

A.Mahender Reddy, the Sub­Inspector of police, Police Station Manthani registered this case in Cr.No.149/2018 under sections 307, 447, 427, 290, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and took up the investigation.

(c)During the course of investigation, the Sub­Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statements of witnesses,visited the scene of offence and seized the rock stone and drafted rough sketch of the scene

before the mediators. On 11.2.2018 on the reliable information, the Sub­

Inspector of Police and his men rushed to Uppatla village and apprehended the accused in their house at 1300 hours, on interrogation when they about to confess about the commission of offence, the Sub­Inspector of

Police secured the presence of two mediators and recorded the confessional statements of the accused, later effected their arrest and remanded him to judicial custody. After receipt of Medical certificate and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3.This case was taken cognizance against accused for the offences punishable under sections 307, 447, 427, 290 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC by the learned Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani vide

P.R.C.No.4 of 2019 and on appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C. As the offence u/sec.307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, this case was committed to the Honourable Court of Sessions, Karimnagar u/s. 209 Cr.P.C and subsequently, the case was made over to this Court for trial and disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of accused, charges have been framed against accused for the offences punishable under sections 307, 447, 427, 290 4 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC, read over and explained the contents of the same in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Pws­1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 on its behalf. As there is no incriminating material against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. 

6.Heard arguments of both sides.

7.Now the point that arise for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused 

for the offences punishable under sections 307, 447, 427, 290, 

and 323 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

8.Unfolding the case of the prosecution, Pw­1 deposed that about one year ago when he was at his agricultural fields at Uppatla village he fell down and sustained the injuries on his chest but at that time he felt that somebody pushed him from his back and he informed the same to the police then police obtained his signature on some paper. He further deposed that he does not know the contents of the said paper drafted by the police as he is an illiterate person but he has not presented any report to the police against the accused. Pws­2 to 6 are projected eye witnesses, among them Pw­2 is the wife of the injured/Pw­1; Pw­7 is the panch witness for Crime Details Form.

9.Coming to the appreciation of evidence of material on record, the case of the prosecution is that on 04.08.2018 at about 1500 hours the accused persons keeping previous land disputes assaulted the Pw­1 with rock stone and also with slippers, beat him with hands, kicked with legs 5 with an intention to kill him. In this case, Pw­1 who is the defacto complainant and injured deposed before this court that when he was at his agricultural fields he fell down and sustained the injuries but at that time as he got suspicion that somebody pushed him from the back hence he informed the same to the police then the police obtained his signature on some paper. Pw­1 even not supported the version of the prosecution with respect to presentation of any report to the police as he simply stated that he has not presented any report to the police against the accused and police obtained his signature on some paper but he does not know the contents of the said paper as he is an illiterate person. Pw­2/wife of the injured who was beside the injured/Pw­1 at the time of this incident deposed that she does not know the facts of this case and not witnessed any disputes between the accused and Pw­1 and her husband/Pw­1 fell down at the agriculral fields but he has not sustained any injuries.

10.Pws­3 to 6 who are projected eye witnesses and said to be the neighbouring farmers deposed in a consistent manner that they do not know the facts of this case and not witnessed any disputes between the accused and Pw­1. Pw­7 is one of the panch witnesses for Crime Details

Form also not supported the case of the prosecution as he simply stated that about two years back the police came to their village and obtained his signature on some paper with respect to the dispute between the accused and Pw­1 but he does not know the contents of the said paper. As Pws­1 to 7 not supported the version of the prosecution, they were declared as hostile witnesses. As Pws­1 to 7 not supported the case of the prosecution, the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor given up rest of the witnesses i.e., one of the mediators for Crime Details Form, panch witnesses for confessional statements of accused No.1 and 2, Medical 6

Officer who treated Pw­1 and Investigating Officer who investigated this crime.

11.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material placed

before this court and in view of my above discussion, it can be said that

there is no iota of material to connect the accused with the alleged crime, hence the accused are entitled for acquittal. Point is accordingly answered.

12.In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 307, 447, 427, 290 and 323 r/w 34 of

IPC and they are acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C for the said offences.

The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as per Sec.437­A Cr.P.C. Unmarked case property i.e., one rock stone which was deposited vide CPR No.11/19 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 28 th day of August, 2019.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MANTHANI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

Pw­1 Chinthalapudi Devender Reddy ­Nil­

Pw­2 Chinthalapudi Kalpana

Pw­3 Chakinarapu Ramulu

Pw­4 Jadi Komala

Pw­5 Jadi Laxmi

Pw­6 Jadi Usha

Pw­7 P.Ramana Reddy 7 : : EXHIBITS MARKED ::

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1 Signature of pw­1 on report ­NIL­

Ex.P.2 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw­1

Ex.P.3 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw­2

Ex.P.4 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw­3

Ex.P.5 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw­4

Ex.P.6 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw­5

Ex.P.7 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw­6

Ex.P.8 Signature of Pw­7 on Crime Details Form

Material Objects Marked:

­NIL­

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MANTHANI

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT MANTHANI

PRESENT: SRI MOHD.ABDUL JAVEED PASHA,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

Monday, this the 26 th day of August, 2019

SESSIONS CASE NO. 269 OF 2018

(On committal made by the learned Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani vide PRC No.58/2016 )

Name of the Complainant:The State represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Kamanpur Police Station (Cr.No.96/2016 of P.S.Kamanpur).

Name of the Accused :Bhukya Jampaiah S/o Sammaiah, Aged 33 years, R/o Shivaramnagar, Centenary colony.

Charges:u/sec.307 of IPC

Plea of the Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Not guilty

Sentence or Order :In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e., one knife which was deposited vide CPR No.10/19 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 22.08.2019 in the presence of Sri K.Venkata Ram Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri K.Sadan Kumar, Counsel for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

The accused has arraigned before this Court for the offence punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

2

(a)The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kamanpur has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging therein that Islavath Rajesh is the brother of the defacto complainant/Islavath Tirupathi. The defecto complainant and

Islavath Rajesh are the brothers of Bhukya Sunitha and also brothers-in-law of the accused. The accused used to consume liquor and beat Bhukya Sunitha regularly.

On 17.7.2016 evening Islavath Rajesh went to Centenary colony to pay interest amount, on the way, went to the house of his sister/Bhukya Sunitha and at around 8.00 p.m while the accused was abusing Bhukya Sunitha, Islavath Rajesh asked the accused as why he is abusing his sister, on that the accused picked up quarrel with Islavath Rajesh, got annoyed and challenged to kill him and picked up a knife available in the house, attacked on Islavath Rajesh with an intention to kill and stabbed him on the right side of abdomen, left upper arm and caused bleeding injuries.

(b)Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, Sri A.Pradeep

Kumar, the then the Sub-Inspector of police, Police Station, Kamanpur registered this case in Cr.No.96/2016 under Sections 307 of IPC and took up the investigation.

(c)During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch in Crime Details Form before the mediators. On 01.08.2016 at 1015 hours Sri T.Kaladhar Reddy, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of

Police, PS Kamanpur apprehended the accused at his house at Vakilpalli plots at

Centencary colony and secured the presence of mediators, on interrogation before the mediators accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence then he recorded the confessional statement of the accused and seized one knife which was used by the accused under cover of panchanama before the mediators, later he effected the arrest of the accused and remanded him to judicial custody. After completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3

3.This case was taken cognizance against accused for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC by the learned Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Manthani vide P.R.C.No.58/2016 and on the appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C. As the offence u/sec.307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, this case was committed to the Honourable Court of Sessions, Karimnagar u/s. 209 Cr.P.C and subsequently, as per the orders of Hon'ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge,

Karimnagar vide orders Dis.No.5018/Tr.of cases/2019/ADM/DCK, dt.8.7.2019 this case was transferred to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of accused, charge has been framed against accused for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC, read over and explained the contents of the same in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Pws-1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 on behalf of the prosecution.

6.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

8.Now the point that arise for determination is:

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

offence punishable under section 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?”

POINT:

9.Unfolding the case of the prosecution, Pw-1 deposed that the accused is his brother-in-law, he does not have good acquaintance with his brother/Islavath 4

Rajesh hence he does not know how he sustained the injuries. In the year 2016 or 2017 on the instructions of the police, he signed on a white paper as police informed him that his brother/Islavath Rajesh is undergoing treatment at the hospital but he does not know how his brother sustained the injuries, even he has not visited the hospital to see his brother. Pws-2 to 5 projected eye witnesses to the case of the prosecution; Pw-6 is the injured; Pw-7 is the Investigating Officer who investigated this crime.

10.Coming to the appreciation of the evidence of material on record, the case of the prosecution is that the accused assaulted Pw-6 with an intention to kill him when Pw-6 questioned the accused about abusing his sister i.e., Pw-2. In this case, Pw-1 who is the defacto complainant and one of the brothers of Pw-2 though deposed that the accused is his brother-in-law and Pw-6 is his younger brother but his version is that he does not have any good acquaintance with his brother/Pw-6 and he does not know how he sustained the injuries. Pw-1 even not supported the version of the prosecution with respect to presentation of any report to the police as he simply stated that in the year 2016 or 2017 on the instructions of the police he signed on a white paper as police informed him that his brother/Islavath Rajesh is undergoing treatment at the hospital but he does not know how his brother/Pw-6 sustained the injuries. Pws-2 to 5 who are said to be the eye witnesses to this incident, in a consistent manner deposed that they do not know the facts of the case and do not know how Pw-6/ Islavath Rajesh sustained the injuries and they have not witnessed the disputes between Islavath Rajesh/Pw-6 and the accused.

Pw-6 is the injured deposed that about 2 years back when he went to Pw-2's house he fell down from the bike and sustained injuries on his left hand and cheek but nobody beat him. Pw-6 further stated that he does not know about the presentation of any report by Pw-1 as at that time he was in the hospital undergoing treatment. As Pws-1 to 6 not supported the case of the prosecution they were declared as hostile witnesses. Though Pw-7/Investigating Officer 5 deposed about examination of witnesses, drafting of Crime Details Form and apprehension of the accused but the said acts are after registering of this crime with regard to manner of conducting of the investigation. Hence, the evidence of

Pw-7/Investigating Officer is no way useful to the case of the prosecution to sustain the conviction against the accused in the absence of any incriminating material in the evidence of material witnesses i.e., Pws-1 to 6.

11.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material placed before this court and in view of my above discussion, it is held that there is no material on record to sustain the conviction against accused. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

12.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e., one knife which was deposited vide CPR No.10/19 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 26 th day of August, 2019.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MANTHANI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

Pw-1 Islavath Tirupathi -Nil-

Pw-2 Bhukya Sunitha

Pw-3 M.Keshav

Pw-4 Maloth Munni 6

Pw-5 Bandi Saraiah

Pw-6 Islavath Rajesh

Pw-7 T.Kaladhar Reddy, the ASI of Police, Kamapur PS : :EXHIBITS MARKED::

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1 Signature of pw-1 on report -NIL-

Ex.P.2 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-1

Ex.P.3 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-2

Ex.P.4 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-3

Ex.P.5 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-4

Ex.P.6 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-5

Ex.P.7 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-6

Ex.P.8 First Information Report

Ex.P.9 Crime Details Form

Ex.P.10 Confession and seizure panchanama

Material Objects Marked:

-NIL-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MANTHANI