Muzeeb Pasala Syed

APAN100004532023 1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PENUKONDA

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda,

Monday, the 24th day of March, 2025

CALENDER CASE No.292 of 2023

Between: C.Ram Prasad, age about 62 years, S/o Late Lingappa, Door No.1-542-5, Opposite to BSNL Office, Railway Station Road,

Penukonda Town, Sri Sathya Sai District.... Complainant

And:

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana, S/o Not known, Door No.6-1-136/3, Walkar Town, Padmarao Nagar,

Secunderabad-500025.... Accused

This case is coming before me on 19.03.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Madan Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri R.Sreekanth Reddy, Advocate for the accused, and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

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

1) This case arises out of the private complaint, filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (In short N.I. Act, 1881).

2. a) As glean from the complaint, it is the case of the complainant that the accused approached him through his relatives for the purpose of borrowing amount for his urgent need for family necessities and that the accused promised to repay the debt after three months from the date of borrowing and accordingly the accused borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- in cash from him with interest @ 24% p.a. and that on 14.11.2022 the accused met him and gave cheque bearing No.805006 drawn on account No.38407792899 of State Bank of India, (40617), RT Nagar, 2nd Main,

APAN100004532023 2

No.48, 2nd cross, Muthappa Block, Ganganagar, R.T.Nagar Post, Bengaluru- 560032, IFSC Code SBIN0040617 and that on 04.02.2023 he had presented the said cheque in Andhra Pragathi Gramin Bank, Penukonda town and Mandal, Sri

Sathya Sai District and the said cheque was returned vide memo for funds insufficient in the account of accused.

b) The complainant submitted that the accused had issued the said cheque with fraudulent intention to defraud the complainant by not keeping sufficient funds in his account and that the accused issued the said cheque for discharging of legally enforceable debt but the accused did not maintain sufficient funds in the account to defraud and evade the payment of debt to him and that he issued legal notice on 11.02.2023 but the accused did not prefer to repay the legally enforceable debt amount and that there is no similar case filed or pending before any Court regarding this cheque. Hence the complaint.

3) This case was taken on file, for the offence punishable under Sec.138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act, 1881 against the accused and issued summons.

4) On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents, on which the complainant intends to rely upon, were furnished to the accused, in terms of

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5) The accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act, 1881 and the same was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language and having understood the same, he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) To prove his case, the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and also got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.805006 issued by the accused dt.14.11.2022. Ex.P2 is the return memo issued by the APGB,

Penukonda dt. 04.02.2023, Ex.P3 is the office copy of legal notice dt.11.02.2023 and Ex.P4 is the postal receipt dt.11.02.2023. On the other hand the accused himself is examined as R.W.1 and also got marked Exs.D1 and D2. Ex.D1 is the canceled cheque bearing No.805007 and Ex.D2 is the partnership amendment

APAN100004532023 3 deed changing partnership firm name from M/s Meher Engineerings to M/s M.V.V.

Sathyanarayana.

7) After closure of the complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material evidence against him, in the evidence of complainant and for which he denied the same as false andreported defense evidence.

8) Heard arguments. Both the counsel have fervently argued in tune with their respective pleadings and evidence. For the sake of brevity felt expedient not to extract the arguments as it is as both counsel argued the matter with conscious of their pleadings and evidence. This Court has perused the Judgment of Smt

R.Venkatamma V/s State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor Hyderabad and another, 2024 (3) ALT (Crl.) 311 (T.S.)relied by the learned counsel for complainant. This

Court has also perused the Judgments of 1) Jugesh Sehgal V/s Shamsher Singh

Gogi, 2009 (5) Supreme 320, Vinod Tanna V/s Zaheer Siddiqui, 2001 0 Supreme (SC) 1290 and Saroj Kumar Poddar V/s State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, 2007 0

Supreme (SC) 56relied by the learned counsel for accused.

9) Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the complainant brought home the guilt of accused for

the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument

Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. To fasten the liability of the accused, the complainant shall prove that he presented the Ex.P1 cheque for collection within the limitation period and after dishonor of the same he got issued statutory legal notice within the stipulated period under law to the accused and the accused received the said legal notice and he failed to pay the dishonored cheque amount within the stipulated period to the complainant. The complainant also shall prove that he filed this complaint before

APAN100004532023 4 the court having jurisdiction within the period of limitation and shall also prove that the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque for discharge of legally enforceable debt.

11. To prove the same, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1. He filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief reiterating the contents of complaint. Through him Exs.P1 to P4 are received in evidence. In the cross examination P.W.1 deposed that he had seen the accused in the end of 2021.

P.W.1 deposed that the accused was working at Penukonda for Railway contract works. P.W.1 admitted that he do not have business transactions with accused.

P.W.1 admitted that he do not have blood relationship with accused. P.W.1 deposed that the name of the person who is standing in the Court hall as accused is M.V.V.Sathyanarayana. P.W.1 deposed that as per the cheque given by the accused his name is M.V.V. Sathyanarayana and he do not know the actual name or otherwise of the accused. P.W.1 deposed that he had filed this complaint against

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana. P.W.1 deposed that the signature on the cheque might be of M.V.V.Sathyanarayana. P.W.1 deposed that the Ex.P1/Cheque is current account cheque. P.W.1 deposed that the M.V.V.Sathyanarayana issued cheque on behalf of firm. P.W.1 admitted that the Bheema Shankar does Railway contract work on behalf of firm. P.W.1 deposed that he had issued legal notice in the name of M.V.V.Sathyanarayana as he do not know about the firm.

12) When Ex.P1/Cheque is confronted to the P.W.1 he admitted that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in words and letters is with one ink and the name of

Chandragiri Ramprasad is with another ink. P.W.1 deposed that Janardhan Reddy resident of Shapuram field. Ex.P1 cheque at Andhra Bank, Penukonda Branch.

P.W.1 admitted that State Bank of India and Andhra Bank are both separate entities. P.W.1 deposed that he had verified return memo issued by Bank authorities prior to sending of legal notice to accused. P.W.1 deposed that he had issued legal notice to the accused stating that cheque returned due to funds insufficient. When Ex.P3 is confronted to P.W.1, he admitted that he had mentioned son of Sathyanarayana as not known in it. P.W.1 deposed that the legal notice sent

APAN100004532023 5 to accused was not returned unserved and that he had received acknowledgment card. P.W.1 admitted that he had issued legal notice to the accused with insufficient address. P.W.1 admitted that M.Bheema Shankar engaged Prathap Reddy as site incharge in the Railway contract works. P.W.1 deposed that he had acquaintance with the Prathap Reddy during regular walk and apart from that he do not have business transactions with him. P.W.1 deposed that he do not have clarity about the name of the Bank of dishonored cheque and it might be of State Bank of India.

When Ex.P1 is confronted to P.W.1 he admitted that it is written on the back side of it as it is for security purpose.

13) In the cross examination P.W.1 deposed that the Andhra Pragathi

Grameena Bank issued Ex.P2 return memo as funds insufficient in the account of drawer of cheque. P.W.1 deposed that he is B.Com graduate. When Ex.P2 was confronted to P.W.1 he admitted that the bank authorities did not round off for any of the 20 reasons mentioned in the said memo and that it is written on it as kindly contact drawer, drawee bank please present again and having admitted the P.W.1 further stated that he had presented the cheque for three times and the bank authorities issued written memo with the above same reasons. P.W.1 admitted that he had not got mentioned in his complaint and chief affidavit that he had presented the cheque for three times. P.W.1 deposed that the bank authorities did not issue him the return memo of presentation of cheque for 2nd and 3rd times. P.W.1 deposed that he had issued legal notice to the accused after presentation of the cheque for the 3rd time. P.W.1 admitted to the suggestion that the Prathap Reddy gave Ex.D1 cheque to him in regard to their money transactions which was given to him by

Bheema Shankar for security purpose and that he filled up the said cheque after the death of Prathap Reddy and filed this false complaint against

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana.

14) During the Sec.313 Cr.P.C. examination the accused reported that there is evidence on his behalf and accordingly he had filed an application U/Sec.315 of

APAN100004532023 6

Cr.P.C. and the same is allowed vide Crl.M.P.No.303/25 on 19.02.2025 granting permission for the accused to give his evidence.

15) The accused is examined himself as R.W.1. He deposed in his evidence in chief that the complainant had filed this complaint against him stating that he gave cheque to the complainant and infact he did not give any cheque to the complainant and that they have not received any amount from the complainant and that he is working as Railway contractor since 25 years in the name of the firm M/s

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana having 5 members as partners namely

1) M.V.V.Sathyanarayana, 2) M.Meher Mallikarjuna, 3) V.Parvathi, 4) M.Sathya

Kumari and 5) M.Bheema Shankar and that he is authorized signatory of their firm to sign the agreements between their firm and Indian Railways for executing contract works and to open the Bank accounts on behalf of their firm and that he had issued Ex.P1 cheque to Prathap Reddy who was site incharge for Railway works at Penukonda Railway Station as security and they give cheques to the material suppliers as part of their business and he gave another cheque also to

Prathap Reddy and that the said Prathap Reddy died about two years ago and that among said two cheques one was misplaced with Prathap Reddy and his wife returned Ex.D1 cheque to him and that the another cheque which was misplaced was not traced out and therefore he had made requisition with his bank to stop payment for Ex.P1 cheque and that he had seen complainant only on the date when the Prathap Reddy was died and that he had not received any amount from the complainant. Through him Exs.D1 and D2 are received in evidence.

16) In the cross examination R.W.1 deposed that their firm is partnership firm. R.W.1 admitted that the partners are himself, his father

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana, his mother M.Sathya Kumari, his paternal junior uncle

M.Meher Mallikarjuna and his grandmother V.Parvathi. R.W.1 admitted that he is the power of attorney holder of their firm. R.W.1 admitted that as per the said power of attorney he is authorized person to issue cheque and to receive cheque on behalf of their firm and also he appear on behalf of the firm if any cases before

APAN100004532023 7

Courts of Law and before any authority for submitting bills. R.W.1 deposed that they have done Railway contract works at Penukonda Railway Station from 2017 to 2021-2022. R.W.1 admitted that the account No.38407792899 of State Bank of

India belongs to their firm and it is their actual account of State Bank of India,

R.T.Nagar, Bangalore. R.W.1 deposed that they are maintaining two current bank accounts for their firm one at R.T.Nagar and another at State Bank of India,

Secunderabad Branch and they showed the said two accounts in their audit. R.W.1 deposed that he had not shown the Ex.P1 and Ex.D1 cheques to their auditor in their audits. R.W.1 admitted that the signatures on Ex.P1 and Ex.D1 are of him.

R.W.1 admitted that the signature on the Vakalat filed on behalf of the accused is of him.

17) In the cross examination R.W.1 deposed that he know the cheque amount for cheque bearing No.805006. R.W.1 deposed that he do not know when was said cheque was presented and as to when it was bounced. R.W.1 admitted that there is no word M/s at the signatory column of the said Ex.P1 and Ex.D1 cheques when the same were confronted to him had further stated that they have opened the said account in the name of their firm and it is the bank who issued the cheque books as such it is not his fault if the Bank authorities had not printed M/s on the cheques. R.W.1 deposed that he had not filed any record before this Court to show that he gave Ex.P1 and Ex.D1 cheques to Prathap Reddy. R.W.1 denied to the suggestion that as M.V.V.Sathyanarayana is his father as such he is deposing false evidence about Ex.P1 cheque.

18) The counsel for the complainant argued that he had lent money to the accused and that the accused issued Ex.A1/Cheque to him and that the accused had not issued reply notice and that the wife of Prathap Reddy is not examined and that the complainant filed all the required documents within time and they clearly established the factum of legally enforceable debt and the failure of the accused in discharging the debt. The counsel for the complainant further argued that even considering that M.V.V.Sathyanarayana is a firm and that Sec.141 of N.I.Act is

APAN100004532023 8 applicable to this case as the Bheema Shankar who is representative of

M,V.V.Sathyanarayana firm had admitted his signature on the Ex.A1/Cheque as such he is liable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.

19) The counsel for the accused argued that this complaint is filed in individual capacity but not in representative capacity as such it is not accordance to

Sec.141 of N.I. Act. This complaint is filed against wrong person. The endorsement of kindly contact drawer, drawee bank please present again do not attract

U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. That it is clearly written on the back side of Ex.A1/Cheque that it is issued for security purpose and that the legal notice was not properly served and the same is admitted by P.W.1. The counsel for the accused further argued that generally individual cheques will be issued for savings account but not current account. The counsel for the accused argued that Ex.P1 and Ex.D1 cheques were issued to site manager Prathap Reddy by Bheema Shankar as security in connection with Railway contract works and that the accused misused the said cheque after the death of Prathap Reddy. The counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the Sec.141 of N.I. Act is not complied with and that the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I. Act are not been proved as such this complaint is liable to be dismissed and the accused herein is representative of M.V.V.

Sathyanarayana is entitled to be acquitted.

20) The main ingredients to attract offence U/Sec.138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act are that:

1) The drawing of a cheque by a person on an account maintained by him with the Banker for the payment of any amount of money to another from that account.

2) The cheque being drawn for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability.

3) Presentation of the cheque to the Bank,

4) The return of the cheque by the drawee bank as unpaid either because the amount of money standing to the credit of that amount is insufficient to

honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from

that account,

APAN100004532023 9

5)A notice by the payee or holder in due course making a demand for payment of the amount to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of the information from the Bank in regard to the return of cheque

and

6) The drawer of the cheque failing to make payment of the amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.

21) In the case on hand the very identity of the accused and association of the complainant with the accused is at doubt. The complainant in his complaint had mentioned that the accused M.V.V.Sathyanarayana had approached him through his relatives for the purpose of borrowing amount for his family necessities in urgency and thereby the accused M.V.V.Sathyanarayana had borrowed

Rs.10,00,000/- from him in cash. It is to be seen that the complainant is the resident of Penukonda Town and the accused is the resident of Hyderabad. The complainant failed to mention his relative through whom he got acquaintance with the accused. It has also come on record from the evidence of P.W.1 that he do not have business transactions with the accused. The complainant had not clarified and proved his acquaintance with the M.V.V.Sathyanarayana. It is so surprisingly that the complainant failed to identify M.V.V.Sathyanarayana. The complainant when asked about the identification of the person who is in the Court hall he had deposed that the name of the person who is standing in the Court hall as accused

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana. But infact the person who was standing at the Court hall deck was M.Bheema Shankar. Even much startling to this Court the complainant evidenced that he only know the name of the accused as M.V.V.Sathyanarayana from the cheque as it has come on record from the evidence of P.W.1 that as per the cheque given by the accused his name is M.V.V.Sathyanarayana and that he do not know the actual name or otherwise of the accused. The complainant had further deposed that the signature on the cheque might be of

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana. The complainant could not identify the person to whom he had lent a huge amount of Rs.10,00,000/-.

APAN100004532023 10

22) The amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is not a small denomination to part away with. It is also not the case of the complainant that he is an uneducated person. If at all the complainant had lent such huge amount of Rs.10,00,000/- he would have definitely known the name of the person to whom he had lent and his address. The complainant would have had good association with the person to whom he had lent money as it is huge sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. The complainant had barely mentioned that the M.V.V.Sathyanarayana borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from him for family necessities. The appearance of M.Bheema Shankar who is representative of

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana firm is not objected by the complainant or his counsel at the stage of his first appearance, Sec.251 Cr.P.C. examination, Trial, Sec.313 Cr.P.C.

examination and till posting the matter for the Judgment that he is not

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana. The counsel for the complainant had cross examined

Bheema Shankar at length during his evidence as R.W.1. This manifestly goes to show that the case of the complainant is of falsehood.

23)If the complainant had given amount to M.V.V.Sathyanarayana and if there were monetary transaction between both of them as evidenced by the complainant that the M.V.V.Sathyanarayana received money from him several times and returned to him, the complainant would have known

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana well and that the M.V.V.Sathyanarayana would have issued the cheque in his name.

24) The complainant and his learned counsel through complainant evidence, cross examination of R.W.1 and his argument had clearly admitted that the cheque was issued on behalf of firm but not by M.V.V.Sathyanarayana in his individual capacity. Therefore, the complainant failed to establish his acquaintance with

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana and M.V.V.Sathyanarayana said to have borrowed

Rs.10,00,000/- from him.

25)When the complainant had stated that the accused/

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana had issued cheque in his individual capacity, it is starling to hear from the complainant that the M.V.V.Sathyanarayana issued cheque on behalf

APAN100004532023 11 of firm. Even the counsel was not sure about the case that he filed. The counsel for the complainant having filed this complaint as the M.V.V.Sathyanarayana being the accused that too in the individual capacity, had drawn attention of this Court with his feeble way of his cross examination of R.W.1. The counsel for the complainant despite of culling out as the M.V.V.Sathyanarayana being signatory of cheque and he is the person who issued cheque to complainant had made M.Bheema Shankar to admit his signature on Ex.P1 to be of him and Bheema Shankar admission of signature on Ex.P1 goes contrary to the case of complainant. The way in which the complainant gave his evidence and the ineffective way of cross examination of counsel for complainant made this Court to believe the probable defense raised by the Bheema Shankar. The Bheema Shankar raised defense that he issued Ex.P1 and Ex.D1 cheques written in two cheques as security purpose to Prathap Reddy as security purpose. The acquaintance between complainant and Prathap Reddy is established. Admittedly the Bheema Shankar engaged Prathap Reddy to his firm contract works at Penukonda. The death of Prathap Reddy is admitted. The complainant could not establish as to who is M.V.V.Sathyanarayana and that it is given by M.V.V.Sathyanarayana. The defense of Bheema Shankar is more believed to be probable when on perusal of Ex.P1 and Ex.D1 cheques.

26) A perusal of Ex.P1 and Ex.D1 cheques it was written on the back sides as for security purpose. When M.V.V.Sathyanarayana gave the cheque in discharge of legally enforceable debt why would he issue the cheque as for security purpose. The complainant no where in his complaint or chief affidavit had tried to explain as to why security purpose was written on Ex.P1 cheque. Hence the issuance of cheque by M.V.V.Sathyanarayana for the legally enforceable debt stands not proved.

27) The complainant in his complaint and chief affidavit that the Bank authorities issued return memo as the Ex.P1/Cheque due to insufficient funds. But a perusal of return memo it is mentioned that kindly contact drawer, drawee bank please present again. The said writing prima-facie do not indicate that the cheque is

APAN100004532023 12 dishonored. Such endorsement on a return cheque indicates that the cheque needs to be re-represented after contacting the drawer or the drawee bank for clarification or processing. Undoubtedly the said endorsement would also indicate for insufficient funds. But in the present case it is no so. As admitted the Ex.P1 cheque is issued on behalf of firm. The Bheema Shankar who is representative of firm had also evidenced that he instructed his banker to stop payment for Ex.P1/Cheque as it is misplaced. There is every chance that the Bank authorities would have returned the cheque for two reasons (1) For incorrect information as the cheque belongs to the firm or (2) For stop payment as the Bheema Shankar instructed his banker to stop payment for Ex.P1/Cheque as it is misplaced. The complainant deposed that he had presented the Ex.P1/Cheque for thrice. But he did not produce the return memos for his previous two presentations. Leaving it apart for a while, considering that the complainant presented the cheque thrice and as that the bank authorities returned with the very same reason all the time, there is no evidence as to what are steps taken by the complainant for honoring the cheque when such an endorsement by made by the Bank authorities.

28) The complainant immediate action would be to contact the drawer and seek the drawer to rectify if there is any defect and resolve the issue so that the cheque can be processed. There is no evidence on record to show that soon after getting the said endorsement the complainant had approached

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana alleged to be drawer of cheque and informed the return of cheque with the said endorsement and get it rectified if there are any curable defects or that he had obtained fresh cheque for honour. It is also not the case of complainant that if the M.V.V.Sathyanarayana had declined to his request, the complainant had approached drawee bank of which the cheque is drawn to understand the reason for the return of cheque and had known the rectification to be done and that he acted accordingly. The complainant nowhere in his legal notice, complaint and chief affidavit had mentioned that the endorsement of kindly contact drawer, drawee bank please present again would amounts to funds

APAN100004532023 13 insufficient and that his banker returned the cheque with that endorsement as there were insufficient funds in the drawers account. The complainant had barely mentioned as the cheque/Ex.A1 was dishonored due to funds insufficient but it is not the case so. Since the Ex.P1/Cheque was misplaced and that the M.Bheema

Shankar evidenced that he had instructed his banker to stop payment for the said cheque, the said probable defense cannot be ruled out as the cheque belongs to the firm but not of M.V.V.Sathyanarayana personally. In Smt. R.Venkatamma V/s

State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor Hyderabad and another, 2024 (3) ALT

(Crl.) 311 (T.S.) relied upon by the counsel for the complainant the crux of the matter was altogether different with the present factual matrix. In the above case all the cheques were returned with a clear endorsement of insufficient funds which is not the case in the present case. Further the presumption and genuinity of Bank slip and memo is discussed as contemplated U/Sec.146 of N.I. Act. Whereas in this case the Bank memo is not in question. Hence the Judgment relied upon by the counsel for the complainant is of no avail to the present case. In this way of the matter also the complainant failed to prove his case.

29) The case of the complainant is that the M.V.V.Sathyanarayana had issued Ex.P1 cheque in order to discharge his debt of Rs.10,00,000/-. No doubt the Bheema Shankar admitted his signature as drawer of the cheque. The contention of the Bheema Shankar is that the cheque is in the name of

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana firm and that he is representative of M.V.V.Sathyanarayana firm and that he issued the said cheque along with another cheque i.e., Ex.D1 to

Prathap Reddy who is site incharge during his Railway contract works at

Penukonda and that the said two cheques were misplaced with Prathap Reddy after his death and that one cheque i.e., Ex.D1 was returned to him by the wife of

Prathap Reddy and another cheque was not traced out and it is Ex.P1 cheque and that the complainant misplaced the said cheque. This probable defence raised by

Bheema Shankar.

APAN100004532023 14

30) The point for consideration is that whether the Ex.P1 cheque is of

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana firm. The complainant himself deposed that the

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana issued cheque on behalf of firm. The P.W.1 deposed that he had issued legal notice in the name of M.V.V.Sathyanarayana as he do not know about the firm. The complainant admitted that M.Bheema Shankar engaged

Prathap Reddy as site incharge in Railway contract works. The acquaintance of the complainant with Prathap Reddy is admitted. The death of Prathap Reddy is also admitted. The Bheema Shankar engaging Prathap Reddy as site incharge in his

Railway contract works at Penukonda is also admitted. The Bheema Shankar had categorically deposed that he gave Ex.P1 and Ex.D1 cheques to Prathap Reddy.

The said factum could not be disproved by the complainant. The R.W.1 admitted that the account No.38407792899 of State Bank of India belongs to their firm and it is current account of State Bank of India, R.T.Nagar Branch, Bangalore. R.W.1 admitted that the signatures on Ex.P1 and Ex.D1 are of him. R.W.1 admitted that he is the Power of Attorney of their firm. R.W.1 admitted that as per the said Power of Attorney he is the authorized person to issue cheques and to receive cheques on behalf of their firms and also appearing on behalf of the firm for any cases before the Court of Law and before any authority for submitting bills. The way in which the counsel for the complainant had cross examined the Bheema Shankar it itself goes to show that the complainant admitted that the Ex.P1 cheque is of

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana firm. As has stated above the complainant himself deposed that M.V.V.Sathyanarayana issued cheque on behalf of the firm.

APAN100004532023 15

138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.— Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless—

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b)the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and

(c)the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.]

APAN100004532023 16

Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

141. Offences by companies. — (1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence:

Provided further that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or employment in the

Central Government or State Government or a financial corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State

Government, as the case may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution under this Chapter.

(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Explanation.—

For the purposes of this section,—

(a)“company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other

APAN100004532023 17 association of individuals; and

(b)“director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.

31) From the conjoint reading of ss.138 and 141 of N.I. Act It is clear that if cheque is issued on behalf of the company/firm then primarily the company/firm should be prosecuted on fulfilling the condition mentioned U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act and if it is in the case of firm apart from the firm the partner who was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of business of the firm may also be prosecuted vicariously for the prosecution of the company/firm U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act and firm should be arraigned as prime accused in the complaint and unless the firm/company arraignedin the complaint, cognizance of the complaint U/Sec.142 of

N.I. Act for the offence U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act cannot be taken. If the concerned

Court has mistakenly taken cognizance against Director of the company on the basis of complaint in which the company/firm was not impleaded as accused, then such cognizance U/Sec.142 of N.I.Act could be absolutely illegal as the proceedings cannot come on against the Director, partner or the employee of the company vicariously in the absence of the company as the cognizance of the offence can be taken against the drawer of the cheque and in case of cheque is issued on behalf of the company the drawer of the cheque would be company. The counsel for the complainant had also filed provision of Sec.141 of N.I. Act stating as to liability of companies clearly says that company includes a firm. Therefore going by his contention also it is culled out that the cheque is issued by the firm but not

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana in personal capacity and therefore the firm has to be made primary accused. The complainant neither made M.V.V.Sathyanarayana firm as an accused nor its representative as another accused for vicariously liability which amounts this complaint not to be maintainable.

APAN100004532023 18

In Aneeta Hada V/s Godfather Travels and Tours

Pvt., Ltd., 1 2012 5 SCC 661 it was held that the criminal liability on account of dishonor of cheque primarly falls on drawer of company and extends to its Officers only when the condition stated in Sec.141 of N.I. Act are fulfilled. The arraignmentof the company as accused U/Sec.141 of N.I. Act is mandatory.

In Himanshu V/s B.Shivamurthy, 2 2019 3 SCC

797 the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that in the absence of the company being arraignedas a accused, the prosecution of the Director of the company for the cheque bounce U/Sec.138 of N.I.

Act was not maintainable.

In Dilip Hariramani V/s Bank of Baroda 3

2002 SCC online SC579 wherein it was held by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that a Director or partner cannot he held vicariously liable for a criminal offence U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act merely because of being a Director or Partner of company or firm, unless the company or firm is made an accused in the criminal proceedings and prevent to for committing offence of cheque bouncing as

principal accused.

1 2012 5 SCC 661 22019 3 SCC 797 32002 SCC online SC579

APAN100004532023 19

32) In the case on hand the complainant had himself admitted that the

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana had issued cheque on behalf of firm. The complainant failed to arrive the M.V.V.Sathyanarayana firm as prime accused. Thus, this complaint is contrary not in accordance with Sec.141 of N.I.Act and it is not maintainable.

33) The complainant said to have issued legal notice to

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana which is marked under Ex.P3. As could be seen from Ex.P3 the same is issued to a person by name M.V.V.Sathyanarayana and without proper address and there is no father’s name of M.V.V.Sathyanarayana. The prime contention of the counsel for Bheema Shankar that the Bheema Shankar had not received the mandatory notice contemplated U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. As could be seen from the record there is no evidence that the accused M.V.V.Sathyanarayana or M.V.V.Sathyanarayana firm had received legal notice. The counsel for the complainant had not filed any delivery acknowledgment card or any proof to show that the legal notice was served to M.V.V.Sathyanarayana. The counsel for the complainant had relied upon online copy of track consignment from India Post

Department. Even perusal of the same the consignment tract record dated 09.03.2023 shows that item redirected to Gandhi Nagar, Sub Post Office for the reason of insufficient address. The complainant himself admitted that he had issued legal notice to the accused with insufficient address. When a notice is returned with insufficient address it indicates that the Postal service could not locate or deliver the notice to the intended recipient, potentially due to an incorrect or incomplete address. Therefore there was no valid notice even to

M.V.V.Sathyanarayana as per Sec.138 of N.I. Act. As could be seen that the cheque is issued by M.V.V.Sathyanarayana firm. Hence it is also mandatory to issue notice to the firm U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. In the very same Judgment of Aneeta

Hada case,4 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the notice contemplated

U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act is mandatory to firm as it being primary accused.

4Supra 1

APAN100004532023 20

34) Therefore from the above discussion the complainant failed to prove the legally enforceable debt, that the accused or the M.V.V.Sathyanarayana Firm issued cheque for discharge of any debt or liability, that the cheque dishonored for funds insufficient or that the cheque exceeded the amount arranged to be paid from that account, mandatory notice to the actual accused. The counsel for accused rightly relied upon Jugesh Sehgal V/s Shamsher Singh Gogi 2009 (5) Supreme 320 that all the ingredients are to be satisfied for the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. The complainant failed to prove all the ingredients against the accused to establish that he had committed offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. The complainant who should be vigilant of his rights had been careless by not following the procedure

U/Sec.141 of N.I. Act too. Resultantly, the complainant failed to establish the guilt of M.V.V.Sathyanarayana and also M.V.V.Sathyanarayana Firm for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.

35) IN THE RESULT, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed. The accused and M.Bheema Shankar representative of M.V.V.Sathyanarayana Firm are hereby acquitted U/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of

N.I. Act.

Partly dictated and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of March, 2025

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Penukonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Complainant:Accused:

P.W.1: C.Ram PrasadR.W.1 Bheema Shankar

APAN100004532023 21

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Complainant :

Ex.P1: Cheque bearing No.805006 issued by accused dt.14.11.2022.

Ex.P2: Return memo issued by APGB, Penukonda dt.04.02.2023.

Ex.P3: Office copy of legal notice dt.11.02.2023.

Ex.P4: Postal receipt dt.11.02.2023.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Defence:

Ex.D1 : Canceled cheque bearing No.805007. Ex.D2 : Partnership amendment deed changing partnership firm name from M/s Meher Engineerings to M/s M.V.V. Sathyanarayana.

AJMFC/Penukonda

APAN100004532023 22

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANATHAPURAM

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT PENUKONDA

Date ofDate ofAppreheDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport ornsion ofreleasedcommenceclose ofsentence complaintaccusedon bailment of trialtrialor order 1234567 14.11.2212.04.23----19.08.2419.03.2524.03.25

Explanation of delay and remarksNIL. JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NUMBER 292/2023 ON THE FILE OF

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT PENUKONDA.

COMPLAINANTC.Ram Prasad, age about 62 years, S/o Late Lingappa, Door No.1-542-5, Opposite to BSNL Office, Railway Station Road, Penukonda Town, Sri Sathya Sai District. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Father’s Sex /Age Calling Village Mandal accused name ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M.V.V.Sathyanarayana, S/o Not known, Door No.6-1-136/3, Walkar Town, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad-500025. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCEU/Sec. 138 of N.I.Act. FINDINGAccused found not guilty. IN THE RESULT, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed. SENTENCEThe accused and M.Bheema Shankar representative of M.V.V.Sathyanarayana Firm are hereby acquitted U/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.

SEAL: ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PENUKONDA.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur . CALENDER CASE NUMBER292/2023 DATE OF JUDGMENT 24-03-2025 DATE OF DISPATCH OF CALENDAR 24-03-2025

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: PENUKONDA

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda

Tuesday, the 27th day of February, 2024

MAINTENANCE CASE No.21 of 2019

Between :

1) N.Swethasree W/o Subbarayudu, aged 28 years, House Wife.

2) G.Nihal, S/o G.Subbarayudu, aged about 2 years, Minor, Both are residing at H.No.2/1108, RMS Colony, Gorantla Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, A.P.

Petitioner No.2 is being minor, representing by his mother i.e., petitioner No.1. …. Petitioners.

And

G.Subbarayudu S/o Late Sreenivasulu, Assistant Manager in Syndicate Bank, Kadapa District, R/o Vadlabala street, Veparala Village, Mylavaram Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, A.P. …. Respondent.

This petition coming on 23.02.2024 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri V.Prabhakar Reddy and Sri Md.Asif, Advocates for the Petitioners and of Sri. M.Rajendra Prasad Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent, and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

O R D E R

1) This is maintenance case filed U/Sec.125 Code of Criminal Procedure (In short Cr.P.C.) by the petitioners against the respondent for grant of maintenance amount.

2

2) a) As glean from the petition it is the case of the petitioners is that, the first petitioner is legally wedded wife of respondent and respondent is working as Assistant

Manager in Syndicate Bank, SME Branch, Railway Station road, Kadapa and that the first petitioner and respondent are close friends and they loved each other and they convinced their parents to perform their marriage and that the first petitioner belongs to SC Mala caste and respondent belongs to Togata (Weavers community) i.e., B.C.B by caste and that their marriage was performed on 08.08.2016 in the presence of caste and community people at Avadootha Dathapeetam Kalyanamandapam,

Tirumala, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh and that at the time of marriage the first petitioner’s parents presented 15 lakhs in cash and 20 tulas of golden jewelries to the respondent as dowry and that soon after the marriage the first petitioner joined with the respondent at the matrimonial house, Veparala Village, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR

Kadapa District and that they both lived together happily only for a period of nine months and that out of their wedlock the first petitioner gave birth to male child by name Nihal on 05.07.2017.

(b) The petitioners submitted that nine months after the marriage the respondent addicted to bad vices and used to harass her with the support of his family members i.e., mother/G.Ramalakshmamma, brother/G.Nagendra, paternal aunt/Krishnaveni, sister/G.Nagamani, brother-in-law/D.Suresh and sister-in-law/P.Puspalatha and they all used to beat her, harass her, threaten her and abuse her in unparliamentary language and on her caste for every silly reasons and they use to torture her mercilessly and that the respondent used to suspect her fidelity and that the respondent and his family members with pre-plan demanded the first petitioner to bring additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- or otherwise they won’t allowed her to share with respondent and that the respondent had also forcibly demanded the first petitioner to consent for second marriage in his relatives and that the other family members of the respondent also demanded her to give divorce to the respondent and allow him to perform second marriage in their caste or otherwise to bring additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- from her parents.

3

(c) The petitioners submitted that whenever the first petitioner used to question about the attitude of the respondent, they abuse her by using her caste name i.e.,

Mala Lanja, Mala Lanjamunda, Malamunda etc., and that the respondent and his family members failed to provide proper nutrition food to her child and that the respondent and his family members together forcibly driven out her from matrimonial house about 10 months ago and that since then the petitioners are residing at first petitioner’s parents house at Gorantla village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District,

Andhra Pradesh and that on 15.04.2018 the respondent and his all family members came down to Gorantla Village at about 10-30 A.M. and forcibly trespass into the first petitioner house with an intention to cause hurt to her and her family members, second petitioner and they abuse her mother stating that “Eme Mala lanja nee pillalu chinna jathiki chendinavaru malantivaru meelanti kulam pillanu intilo vunchukoni kapuram cheyalentey” and they demanded her mother to give Rs.3,00,000/- as

additional dowry by threatening her that they will perform second marriage to the

respondent in their caste.

(d) The petitioners submitted that the respondent and his family members pelted stones on first petitioner’s house and got damaged the doors of their house and they also threatened the first petitioner and her family members with dire consequences stating that if they make any complaint to the police they will see their end and since the date of incident the respondent and his family members used to send new persons to her house at Gorantla Village with an intention to kidnap the petitioners and to do away with their lives and after coming to know about the attempts, the first petitioner apprehends that her life is in danger and that few days ago the petitioners enquired about the respondent and came to know that he is an illegal affair and relationship with some one and the same is being continued to till date.

(e) The petitioner submitted that the first petitioner’s in-laws are treating her as a slave and servant and not giving proper food and not allowing her to live peacefully and treating like her an untouchable person and that the respondent and his family members tried to kill the petitioners at several times at first petitioner’s parents house, 4

Gorantla Village and that the family members of the respondent removed servant maid who was working in the house with an intention to get all domestic house hold work done by the first petitioner and that they never allow the first petitioner to relax even for a minute after 10-00 P.M. though she was tired of doing house hold works and that she was not allowed to eat and wear proper cloths and that the first petitioner and her family members convened panchayath but in vain and that the respondent and his family members continued to demand additional dowry and that the first petitioner kept quiet and calm with patience despite of torture and harassment as her life is in danger.

(f) The petitioners submitted that the first petitioner approached concerned police several times and lodged complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Gorantla Police Station on 16.04.2018 and Inspector of Police, Kothacheruvu on 28.04.2018 but they did not take any action as such she made complaint to Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Dharmavaram on 28.04.2018 and to Superintendent of

Police, Ananthapuramu on 24.04.2018 but so far no action have been taken against the respondent and that the Police did not take any action against the respondent though they have recorded the statements of first petitioner. The petitioners submitted that the respondent never gave any financial support to them and that the respondent as a employee and they are very well settled family and that the petitioners are being maintained by mother of first petitioner and that the respondent had disrespected, tortured, degraded and insulted the petitioners at each and every point of time intentionally. The petitioners submitted that the respondent is earning Rs.90,000/- per month and also having movable and immovable assets of own houses at Vadlabala street, Veparala Village, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh and that the first petitioner is unemployed and she is house wife having no source of income and not in a position to maintain herself and second petitioner and that the first petitioner mother is unable to maintain the petitioners and that the respondent is also not having any dependents.

5

(g) The petitioners submitted that the respondent intentionally refusing to look after them and he failed to provide maintenance to them to meet their day to day needs as such he is liable to pay maintenance to them and that the respondent is having capacity to maintain the petitioners and that the respondent deserted the petitioners without any reasonable cause and has been neglecting to provide any maintenance to the petitioners and that the petitioners required an amount of

Rs.40,000/- per month towards their maintenance of food, education expenses and also for medical expenses to the second petitioner. The petitioners submitted that the respondent is neglecting to provide maintenance to them though he is having sufficient means. Therefore the petitioners requested this Court to grant maintenance amount of Rs.40,000/- per month i.e., Rs.20,000/- per month to each petitioner from the date of filing of this petition. Hence the petition.

3) a) The respondent through his counter admitted the factums of his marriage with first petitioner, fathering second petitioner, working as Assistant Manager in

Syndicate Bank and place of performance of their marriage and the respondent denied all the rest of the allegations and averments made by the petitioners in their petition. The respondent submitted that D.Suresh is working as Assistant Manager,

Karur Vysya Bank, K.K. Nagar, Chennai and G.Nagamani is the wife of his neighbor and there is no relationship with him and that the first petitioner purposefully dragged his neighbors in family matters with an intention to humiliate and cause mental agony to him and his family members. The respondent submitted that he and the first petitioner did not live with his parents at any point of time as he is Branch Manager and it is condition precedent with every officer cadre employee in the Bank to have his/her residents within 15 km of radius to the working branch as such question of harassment by the family members of the respondent will not arise. The respondent submitted that the first petitioner got her pregnancy confirmation in the month of

November while he and first petitioner were residing at Rayochoti and that the first petitioner used to vomit whenever she had food and any liquids and that the

Ramulammathe maid servant used to clean all the things including watching of cloths 6 and that the respondent used to clean all the things whenever the first petitioner vomits during the night in the absence of maid servant and that due to illness the first petitioner did not attend the house works and that the respondent used to get food, juices and all other nutrition food from out side which are required to the pregnancy.

(b) The respondent submitted that the allegations levelled against him and his family members are only invented for the purpose of filing this unjust petition of claiming maintenance. The respondent submitted that during the pregnancy of first petitioner she threatened him to get Thali Bottu Saradu (Chain) Wg. 50 grams along with jewel Peacock dollar, if he fails to get it for her she would abort her pregnancy and that the mother of first petitioner also threatened him through phone to get

Thalibottu (Chain) Wg.50 grams to the first petitioner. The respondent submitted that the marriage of elder sister of first petitioner was performed in the month of October, 2016 as per Christian tradition in the Church of Gorantla and all the expenses were borne by him by borrowing monies from money lenders in Rayachoti by executing promissory notes i.e., Rs.5,00,000/- from Aila Peddi Reddy and Rs.2,00,000/- from

Madhan Mohan Reddy for the respective amounts agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. as per the request of mother of first petitioner and thus he helped in performing marriage of elder sister of first petitioner.

(c) The respondent submitted that his mother is a widow and she is depending on him and added to it his brother is also unemployee and all of them are dependents on him and that his mother is suffering from old age ailments and he is looking after financial expenses of his old aged mother and that the first petitioner filed a complaint against him, his mother and some others U/ss.448, 324, 498-A IPC r/w Sec. 34 IPC and ss.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and Sec.3 (1) (X) of S.C. and S.T.Act. The respondent submitted that the petitioner has completed M.Sc. Computers Science, M.A. English

Literature, Bachelor of Education and Teacher training Course (TTC) and that the first petitioner is well education having capacity of earning herself without the dependence of others and that the first petitioner is working in Kasthuriba School near by Gorantla.

The respondent submitted that the first petitioner herself voluntarily deserted him 7 without any fault on his part and that he had conducted many panchayats and requested the first petitioner to joint with him and that he had also issued legal notice

dated 15.02.2018 calling upon the first petitioner and she issued a reply notice on

01.03.2018 through her counsel with false allegations and after receipt of reply notice he called the first petitioner through phone requesting her to come and join him as he was busy in Bank work for which the first petitioner came to Rayachoti and demanded to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and 15 tulas of gold for maintaining by conducting a panchayath in the presence of A.Peddi Reddy and

Madan Mohan Reddy and promised to file a divorce petition.

(d) The respondent submitted that he paid Rs.7,00,000/- and 15 tulas of gold as full and final settlement of maintenance claim of the petitioners in the presence of

A.Peddi Reddy and Madan Mohan Reddy and that the first petitioner promised to make fixed deposit in the name of second petitioner who is minor as such he paid

Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and Rs.2,00,000/- by way of R.T.G.S. transfer to the account of first petitioner and the same was reduced into writing and mutually agreed for terms and conditions mentioned in the document and they signed in the document in the presence of above said elders and therefore the petitioners lost their right to claim maintenance from him. The respondent submitted that subsequently on enquiry he came to know that the first petitioner failed to make fixed deposit in the name of second petitioner and therefore he filed custody petition in GWOP No.19/2019 on the file of Hon’ble District Judge’s Court, Kadapa seeking custody of second petitioner and that the first petitioner converted into Christian community and donating all the money to Christian missionaries and to local church at Gorantla without looking welfare of minor child. The respondent submitted that the first petitioner had also made a condition that he should discharge an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- due to A.Peddi

Reddy and Madan Mohan Rddy which was spent for conducting her elder sister’s marriage and that the said debts are still subsisting and that he is paying the interest regularly to the above said persons @ 24% p.a.

8

(e) The respondent submitted that the first petitioner is well educated lady and she can stand on her own legs and that his income is not sufficient to look after needs of his parents and to discharge loans incurred by him and that due to adamant behavior of the first petitioner he was depressed in his life and that there are no movable and immovable properties of him and that the first petitioner left his company and deserted him as such he is not liable to pay any maintenance. The respondent submitted that the husband is not obliged to maintain his wife, if without justification she is unwilling to live with him and discharge her marital obligations and that the first petitioner made a false complaint against the respondent and his family members only with a view to keep them behind the bars and make them to listen her words of changing their community into Christianity and that unable to withstand the torture of the first petitioner in all the angles the respondent filed a petition to dissolve their marriage on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Cuddapah and the same is pending for adjudication. The respondent submitted that it is settled Law that a wife who is well educated or qualified and capable of earning livelihood cannot sit idle at home and claim maintenance and the Provision of Section 125 Code of Criminal

Procedure is widely misused in today's world and that it was observed by the Hon’ble

High Court in cases where the wife is well educated and qualified enough to earn her livelihood one cannot impose burden on the husband to provide maintenance to such qualified wife who is sitting idle at home and that the first petitioner is not entitled to claim any maintenance from him as she is living separately with the respondent without any reason.

(f) The respondent submitted that as per Sub Section 4 of Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C.

the first petitioner is not entitled to maintenance as she refused to live with the respondent and deserted him without any reasonable and probable cause or reason and that if the first petitioner do not insist the respondent to give donations to Christian charitable trusts, he is ready and willing to take the petitioners into his holds and to lead marital life and that no young newly married couple i.e., husband throws the wife and that most probably no disputes will or would enter between the young couple 9 within a span of month because the young couple desires to enjoy the life so affectionately and no spouse will dare or desire to disturb the same. The respondent submitted that the institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country and that

Sec. 498-A of IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman in the hands of her husband and family members and that

Sec.498-A IPC is cognizable and Non-Bailable offence which has lent it a dubious place for bride as a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives as a simplest way to harass the husband and his relatives and get them arrested and that in number of cases, bedridden grand fathers and grandmothers of the husband and husband and their sisters living abroad for decades are being arrested. The respondent submitted that the Law do not help indolent as well as does not want an army of self made lazy idles and that every one has to earn for the purpose of his or her maintenance or atleast they have to make sincere efforts in that direction and that Sec.125 of Cr.P.C.

cannot be treated as a Aim and Goal and it is indirectly against the society and that it is enacted for the needy persons who inspite of sincere efforts are unable to maintain themselves and who are required to fight out for maintenance. Therefore the respondent prayed this Court to dismiss this petition.

(4) Heard arguments. Perused the material available on record. Both the counsel had argued in tune with their respective pleadings and evidence. For the sake of brevity felt expedient not to extract the arguments as it is as both counsel argued the matter with conscious of the pleadings and evidence. This Court has also gone through the Judgments of 2017 (1) Crl.297 (A.P.), 2003 (2) A.L.T. Crl.765 (S.C.),

2014 (5) Supreme 324 and Smt Mamta Jaiswal V/s Rajesh Jaiswal relied by the

respondent.

(5)Now the point for consideration:-

Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of maintenance against the

respondent?

10 (6) POINT:- During the course of enquiry on behalf of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The brother of

P.W.1 is examined as P.W.2/N.Dinakar. The respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and no documents are marked on behalf of the respondent.

(7) (a) The first petitioner filed her chief affidavit in lieu of her examination in chief reiterating the contents of maintenance petition. Through her Exs.P1 to P3 are received in evidence. In the cross examination P.W.1 deposed that she filed this petition seeking maintenance for her and her son from her husband i.e., respondent.

P.W.1 deposed that she studied up to M.Sc., B.Ed., T.T.C. and M.A. Literature.

P.W.1 deposed that at present I am not doing any job. P.W.1 deposed that my priority is to look after my child as such I am not having any job as of now. P.W.1 deposed that her son is aged about six years. P.W.1 deposed that she and the respondent done degree course and Post graduation together and that they fell in love in the year 2010. P.W.1 admitted that their marriage was performed with the consent of their elders. P.W.1 denying to the suggestion that after the marriage they started living at

Rayachoti had further stated that till one month after the marriage they lived at the house of respondent and thereafter they lived at Rayachoti. P.W.1 deposed that from

September, 2016 they lived together for about nine months.

(b) The P.W.1 admitted that after giving birth to her son she went to the house of respondent at Rayachoti in the month of August, 2017. P.W.1 denying to the suggestion that the respondent never suspected her fidelity had further stated that after giving birth to her son when she called the respondent, the respondent told that the son is not born to her with him and that he is born to her with some other persons and asked to call the person to whom the son was born. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the respondent never forced her to give him consent to second marriage had further stated that the respondent threatened her that he will leave her and her son only after signing on Rs.200/- stamp papers and he obtained her signature on the said stamp papers. P.W.1 deposed that if the respondent guarantees to her life and her son life she is ready to join with him even now and that she have no 11 confidence upon respondent as he beat her and necked her out when ever she went to live with him. P.W.1 deposed that she had not responded to the wish of respondent at their wedding anniversary as the respondent beat her and necked her out just two days prior to wishing her for wedding anniversary. P.W.1 deposed that the respondent never used to sent money to her.

(c) In the cross examination P.W.1 deposed that her marriage was performed earlier to the marriage of her elder sister as to respondent was only remaining to get married in his family and that her father-in-law was severely sick and that the Doctors declared that there are no chances of him living as such their their marriage was performed earlier to the marriage of her elder sister. P.W.1 deposed that her father- in-law died one month after the marriage. P.W.1 deposed that after the death of her father-in-law, her Mother-in-law, Brother-in-law used to instigate that the respondent that she belongs to S.C. community and that she is of low caste person and that they used to harass her for giving mutual consent divorce or otherwise the respondent demanded her to bring additional dowry. P.W.1 deposed that her husband is working as Branch Manager. Further the cross examination of P.W.1 proceeded on the lines of suggestions to which she denied.

(8) The brother/N.Dinakar of first petitioner is examined as P.W.2. He filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief stating his relationship with the petitioners, marriage of first petitioner with the respondent, respondent working as

Branch Manager in Syndicate Bank, Kadapa station road branch, Kadapa, about the performance of the marriage of first petitioner with the respondent, respondent fathering of second petitioner harassment and cruelty meted out to the first petitioner by the respondent and his family members, inability of the petitioners to maintain themselves and financial viability of the respondent or capacitated the respondent to pay maintenance amount to petitioners. In the cross examination P.W.2 deposed that he and his sister are living in the same premises and that his sister is living in another portion of their house and that house number ought to have been /A or /1.P.W.2 deposed that they are ready to send P.W.1 along with the respondent if he is ready to 12 accept her. Further the cross examination of P.W.2 proceeded on the lines of suggestions to which he denied.

(9) The respondent is examined as R.W.1. He filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief reiterating the contents of his counter. In the cross examination R.W.1 deposed that he studied up to M.C.A. R.W.1 deposed that at present he is working as Manager, Zonal Inspectorate Center, MSME section, Canara

Bank, Chennai. R.W.1 deposed that he married the first petitioner at Tirumala on 08.08.2016. R.W.1 deposed that he and first petitioner studied together at Sai

ParameswaraDegree college, Jammalamadugu and they do Management course in the same college but in different departments. R.W.1 admitted that after coming to know about the caste of first petitioner he married her. R.W.1 deposed that he is getting monthly salary of Rs.21,500/-. R.W.1 deposed that he did not file any document before this Court to show that the first petitioner was converted into

Christianity. R.W.1 deposed that he had not mentioned the dates of borrowing and the documents under which he had borrowed Rs.7,00,000/- from Madan Mohan Reddy and A.Peddi Reddy. R.W.1 deposed that he had not filed any document before this

Court stating the source of income of first petitioner. R.W.1 admitted that it is his duty to maintain second petitioner as the first petitioner is looking after him the whole day as such she is unable to do job. R.W.1 deposed that his mother and brother are white card holders and that they will be getting Government benefits and that he supply food grains to them and give Rs.10,000/- monthly to them for their livelihood. R.W.1 deposed that he is ready to accept the petitioners for looking after them. Further the cross examination of R.W.1 proceeded on the lines of suggestion to which he denied.

(10) For grant of maintenance U/Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. the three factors have to be looked into.

1) The relationship between the parties.

2) Neglect or refusal on the part of the respondent in maintaining the petitioners.

3) The financial viability of the respondent.

13 (11) In this case there is no dispute as to the respondent marrying the first petitioner and fathering the second petitioner.

(12) It is the plight of the petitioners that the respondent and his family members harassed the first petitioner physically and mentally as she belongs to low caste community and for want of additional dowry and that the respondent did not provide proper food, shelter and basic amenities to them (Petitioners) for their survival and that the respondent and his family members necked them out and that the respondent used to suspect the fidelity of the first petitioner. Admittedly the marriage between the first petitioner and respondent is inter-caste marriage. The respondent know that the first petitioner belongs to S.C. Mala community prior to their marriage. The respondent married the first petitioner having knowledge of her caste and community. All was well till the death of father-in-law of first petitioner. There was no dispute or the harassment of any kind to the first petitioner during the life time of father of respondent. After the death of respondent the respondent and his family members started harassing the first petitioner by pointing out her caste and for want of

additional dowry. The caste is become barrier for the happy marital life of first

petitioner. It is not that the respondent had married the first petitioner without knowledge of her caste and community. As gathered from the record the respondent and his family members to get away with the first petitioner had made demand for

additional dowry. The respondent forced the first petitioner to give her consent for

performing the second marriage in his community. The respondent and his family members went to the parents house of first petitioner and he abused the first petitioner and her family members by caste and threatened them of dire consequences.

(13) The respondent wanted to part away with the first petitioner and second petitioner only for the fact that the first petitioner belongs to low caste community.

Before the caste and religious came into existence the people are called as human

being. The human being did not come into existence based on caste and religious.

We are in 21st century where every one are treated as equal and that our Indian 14

Constitution give equal rights to every citizen irrespective of their caste, creed, race and religious. As could be seen the first petitioner and respondent are well educated.

The respondent is working as a Manager in a Nationalized Bank. It is not expect from an educated person to treat his wife indiscriminately basing on her caste especially when he married her knowing about her caste.

(14) The respondent and his family members created an atmosphere whereby they all tortured the first petitioner for additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and abused her in filthy language with her caste and that treated her as a bonded labor by making her to perform domestic work mercilessly and driven out the petitioners from their house forcibly goes to show the negligence and careless attitude on the part of respondent in maintaining the petitioners.

(15) The respondent is working as a Bank Manager, Zonal Inspectorate Center,

MSME Section, Canara Bank, Chennai. The counsel for the respondent argued that it is the first petitioner who had left the company of respondent without any reason and that the first petitioner is well educated person having done Post Graduate course.

The first petitioner is having capacity and ability to do job and to maintain herself.

The first petitioner is sitting idle by taking advantage of Sec. 125 Cr.P.C to have maintenance amount from the respondent. Therefore the first petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance. The counsel for the respondent relied upon Judgments of 2017 (1) Crl.297 (A.P.), 2003 (2) A.L.T. Crl.765 (S.C.), 2014 (5) Supreme 324 and Smt

Mamta Jaiswal V/s Rajesh Jaiswal to make believe this Court that the first petitioner is not entitled to the maintenance as she voluntarily deserted the respondent and that she is having capacity to maintain herself. The factual matrix of the present case is different. As seen from the record the respondent developed hated against the first petitioner with the influence of his family members as she belongs to lower community. The way in which the respondent treated the first petitioner mercilessly and by abusing her by naming her caste and subjecting her to torture and cruelty for

additional dowry and to give her consent for his second marriage in his community

and driven out the petitioners to their destiny shows that it is not the first petitioner 15 who left the company of the respondent and that it is respondent who parted with the first petitioner.

(16) Further it is no doubt that the petitioner is educated person. The reason why the first petitioner is unable to work has to be culled out. The respondent has created such a situation which affected the health of first petitioner and also made her not to move out freely as it has come on record from the evidence of first petitioner/P.W.1 that the respondent beat to her head several times consequent to which she get frequent headache and that the respondent fractured her right leg as such she cannot lift weight and do any job properly and that he/respondent used to threaten her with rowdies demanding to give mutual consent divorce and they were instigating that she could not go out because of fear meted out by the respondent against her and he/respondent also threatened to kill her and her son if she does not give him mutual consent divorce. In such a hapless situation it is not expected from a lone lady like the first petitioner to go out in fear and to earn bread for survival of her and her son.

(17) Further the second petitioner is aged about six years. The first petitioner contended that her top priority is to take care of her son/second petitioner but not doing job. The first petitioner who is wife to the respondent is also a mother to the second petitioner. Taking care of a child by a mother is a blessed and onerous duty which has to be respected. A mother leaves everything for her child same is in this case. The second petitioner who is a minor needs due care from the first petitioner.

The first petitioner is graciously performing her duty as a mother. A dutiful mother is on a high pedestal than the dutiful wife. The taking care of child by the mother is a full time job. The mother had to attend every need of a minor child as he could not do it by his own. A wife who is also a mother of minor child takes his care and protection cannot be said to be lazing around and not earning. The wife as a homemaker and a mother works tiredlessly all the day and that the husband cannot be seen to contend that the wife is lazing around and not earning money as she stated that it is her top priority to take care of second petitioner. As has stated supra the taking care of child 16 for a mother is a whole time job. Therefore the submission and the Judgments made by the counsel for the respondent/husband are rejected and thereby they are negated.

(18) The respondent submitted that he performed the marriage of elder sister of first petitioner by borrowing monies from Mr. Madan Mohan Reddy and A.Peddi

Reddy and that he executed promissory notes in their favour and still he is paying debt to them only to repose confidence upon this Court that he is taking care of first petitioner and her family. The respondent neither placed the promissory notes nor got examined the said Mr. Madan Mohan Reddy and A.Peddi Reddy so as to believe his contentions. There is also no evidence to show that the the first petitioner donating money to Churches. It is not as if the first petitioner is alleging something casually as a case is pending against husband and his family members itself shows the agony of the wife amidst her helplessness in maintaining herself and her son. Thus, negligence on the part of the husband to maintain the petitioners has been proved.

(19) As has stated above the respondent/husband is working as a Manager in a

Nationalized Bank i.e., Canara Bank. The respondent deposed that he is getting monthly salary of Rs.25,000/- and odd. The reluctant answers made by the respondent during his cross examination as to submitting his pay particulars only goes to show his attitude of concealing his real salary. Further the respondent did not file his affidavit of assets and liabilities though this Court has granted nine adjournments and when the counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no affidavit of assets and liabilities of respondent and the same may be treated as nil only goes to show his attitude of evading to pay maintenance to the petitioners.

(20) On perusal of the above discussion the petitioners succeeded in proving the negligence on the part of respondent to them and claiming maintenance from the respondent. The respondent failed to adduce the case of petitioners.

(21) This Court is conscious about the social and financial status of the parties, therefore felt expedient to award maintenance amount to the petitioners accordingly.

17 (22) IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed granting maintenance to a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per month to the 1st petitioner and

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month to the 2nd petitioner payable by the respondent in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 as maintenance amount. This order shall come into effect from the date of this order viz., Dt.27.02.2024. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27 th day of February, 2024.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Penukonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for :

PetitionersRespondent

PW.1N.SwethasreeRW1 : G.Subbarayudu

PW.2N.Dinakar

Exhibits marked for the Petitioners

Ex.P1 : Wedding card dt.08.08.2016. Ex.P2 : 2nd petitioner school bill receipt dt. 13.09.2021. Ex.P3 : 2nd petitioner school bill receipt dt. 25.10.2021.

Exhibits marked for the Respondent : - NIL -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Penukonda.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PENUKONDA

Present : Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Penukonda.

Friday, the 7th day of February, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT No.42 of 2018

Between: S.Riyaz Basha, S/o S.Khaleel Sab, age 34 years, Door No.4/36, Business, Thimmapuram,

Penukonda Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. …..Plaintiff.

And

1) S.Ramachandrappa, S/o S.Kristappa, age 45 years, Agriculturist, Door No.8-23, Nallagondrayunipalli, Somandepalli Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

2) B.Lakshminarayana S/o B.Kondaiah, age 46 years, Business, Door No.1/957, Near Vanshika Function Hall,

Kothapeta, Penukonda Town and Mandal. ….. Defendants.

This suit is coming on 21.01.2025 for final hearing in presence of Sri. Md.Asif, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri G.Madan Mohan Reddy, Advocate for Defendants and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1) This is a suit filed for specific performance of contract of sale directing the defendant No.1 to execute a Registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2) a) As glean from the plaint, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaint schedule property belongs to the defendant No.1 and that the defendant No.1 infused confidence upon him that the plaint schedule property belongs to him and he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same and that he made proposals to sell away the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff as he was in need of money to meet his family expenses and that by believing the words of defendant 2

No.1 and after due negotiations the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the plaint schedule property for consideration of Rs.2,15,800/- and that on 05.11.2016 the plaintiff had paid Rs.50,000/- as part of sale consideration amount to the defendant

No.1 and agreed to pay the remaining sale consideration amount of Rs.1,68,500/- on or before 05.03.2017 and get the registered sale deed executed in his name or somebodies name on his behalf at his expenses and that it is also agreed that if the plaintiff fails to pay the remaining sale consideration amount within the said period and get the registered sale deed executed from the defendant No.1, the advance amount will be forfeited and that if the defendant No.1 fails to come forward to execute registered sale deed, inspite of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration amount and getting the registered sale at his expenses the plaintiff will be at liberty to get the same done through the process of law and accordingly agreement of sale was executed between the parties on 05.11.2016.

b) The plaintiff submitted that after the execution of said agreement of sale he had arranged balance of sale consideration amount and demanded defendant

No.1 to come and perform his part of contract as he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract but the defendant No.1 used to postpone the same on some pretext or the other. The plaintiff submitted that on 21.03.2017 the defendant No.1 received Rs.80,000/- in order to meet his family expenses and endorsed the same on the back side of agreement of sale though he was ready to pay the entire sale consideration amount and get endorsement of the same and on 03.05.2017 the defendant No.1 had received Rs.75,000/- and on 06.05.2017 he had received

Rs.13,500/- towards part of sale consideration amount and endorsed the same on the back side of agreement of sale and agreed to execute the registered sale deed whenever the plaintiff demands and that the plaintiff had paid entire sale consideration amount to the defendant No.1 as such the time shall not be treated as essence of contract.

3

c) The plaintiff submitted that an amount of Rs.25,000/- is also paid with regard to some other land by mistake and ignorance the same was endorsed on this agreement of sale and that the said amount is not concerned with the present agreement of sale transactions. The plaintiff submitted that he had demanded the defendant No.1 several times to come forward and perform his part of contract but the defendant No.1 had been postponing the same on some pretext or the other and assuring the plaintiff not to worry about the registration of plaint schedule property that he will certainly perform his part of contract as promised but since 15 days the defendant No.1 have been giving evasive answers and avoiding to perform his part of contract and that the plaintiff learnt from reliable sources that the defendant No.1 has been seriously planning to alienate the said property to third parties particularly defendant No.2 who is his close associate by concealing the existence of present agreement of sale to have wrongful gain and that the defendants have no right to do so and it amounts to cheating and criminal breach of trust for which the defendants are liable to be prosecute besides Civil liability and that if the defendants bring any documents in the existence in favour of anybody or already executed with regard to plaint schedule property are part of it, the alleged documents are not valid will not have any sanctity in the eye of Law.

d) The plaintiff submitted that he had always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract from the inception but the defendant No.1 has been postponing to perform his part of contract on the lame excuses and that the defendant No.1 had received amounts from the plaintiff whenever he required without specifying time to perform his part of contract and that by smelting the illegal endeavors of the defendant No.1 the plaintiff had issued a legal notice to him on 12.02.2018 demanding him to perform his part of contract as the plaintiff has always ready to perform his part of contract but the defendant No.1 did not respond positively inspite of receipt of said notice and that he had also not replied to do and that the plaintiff waited for defendant No.1 at Sub-Registrar Office,

Penukonda on 15.02.2018 but the defendant No.1 failed to perform his part of contract.

4

e) The plaintiff submitted that he had understood from the behavior of the defendant No.1 that when the defendant No.1 has been intentionally evading and refusing to perform his part of contract to get wrongful gain that he breached the contract and that the plaintiff is entitled for the enforcement of agreement of sale against the defendant No.1 and that the plaintiff is ready to pay the stamp duty and penalty on the present sale agreement if any required at the time of tendering the said document for marking in evidence during the trial. The plaintiff submitted that he learnt that very recently the defendant No.1 had created a document in favour of defendant No.2 with non existing rights without any consideration only with a dishonest intention to defraud the plaintiff and to get wrongful gain and that the defendant No.2 have played pivotal role in bringing the alleged document into existence with regard to plaint schedule property inspite of having knowledge about present agreement of sale and that in order to avoid multiplicity of litigations the defendant No.2 is added as necessary party. Hence the suit.

3) a) The defendant No.1 filed his written statement and defendant No.2 filed adoption memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.1. The defendants through the written statement of defendant No.1 had admitted that the plaint schedule property belongs to defendant No.1 and denied rest of the allegations and averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint. The defendants submitted that the defendant No.1 never intended to sell the plaint schedule property as he was not in any need or necessity to sell the same and that the the defendant No.1 never executed any agreement of sale dated 05.11.2016 and that it is forged and fabricated document created to knock away the plaint schedule property. The defendants submitted that when defendant No.1 did not execute any agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff, question of making payments of Rs.80,000/- on 21.03.2017, Rs.75,000/- on 03.05.2017 and Rs.13,500/- on 06.05.2017 does not arise and that all the above endorsements are created for the purpose of making false claim over the plaint schedule property and to make unlawful gain.

5

b) The defendants submitted that the plaintiff is very familiar in creating false and fictitious documents and grab the properties from true owners and that the alleged agreement of sale and payment endorsements are created to knock away the plaint schedule property as such the defendant No.1 is not in any obligation to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff for plaint schedule property and that the plaintiff got issued notice to blackmail the defendant No.1 and that the defendant

No.1 is innocent and helpless person and taking advantage of his innocence the plaintiff created the agreement of sale and got issued notice with false and frivolous allegations and filed the present unjust suit. The defendants submitted that the defendant No.1 issued reply notice for the said notice and that the defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property as such he has every right to alienate the plaint schedule property to whomever he wishes and therefore the defendant No.1 sold the plaint schedule property to defendant No.2 and he has no exclusive possession with his full rights.

c) The defendants submitted that the plaintiff filed the present suit basing on forged and fabricated documents and with false allegations by suppressing the material facts and that the plaintiff did not approach this Court with clean hands as such he is not entitled for equitable relief or specific performance and that there is no cause of action for the suit and the cause of action alleged in the suit is false and that there is every necessity to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs, otherwise the defendants will suffer great and irreparable loss and injustice. Therefore the defendants prayed this Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

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

(1) Whether the plaintiff is in entitled to the relief of specific performance of suit agreement?

(2) Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of

the contract? (3) To what relief ?

5)During the course of trial on behalf of the Plaintiff, himself examined as

P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A6 are received in evidence. Ex.A.1 is the agreement of sale 6 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff dt.05.11.2016. Ex.A2 is the endorsement with particulars of payments written on the back side of second page of agreement of sale dt. 06.05.2017. Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice dt.

12.02.2018. Ex.A4 is the served R.P. acknowledgment of defendant No.1 dt.

13.02.2018. Ex.A5 is the empty non Judicial stamp paper of Rs.10/- dt.15.02.2018 and Ex.A6 is the 1-B namoona of schedule property stands in the name of defendant No.1 dt.21.02.2018. The attestor S.Azad is examined as PW.2. On the other hand the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 but not adduced any documentary evidence.

6) Heard on the both sides and this court have perused the material available on record and exhibits marked on both sides, so also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the counsel. This Court has also gone through decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K.S.Sathyanarayana

V/s V.R.Narayana Rao AIR 1999 SC 2544 relied upon by learned counsel for plaintiff.

7) Issues No.1 and 2 :

(1) Whether the plaintiff is in entitled to the relief of specific performance of suit agreement?

(2) Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of

the contract?

In order to avoid conflict of finding and repetition of facts and evidence in this case issues Nos.1 and 2 are jointly taken up for consideration.

The plaintiff is examined as P.W.1. He filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief reiterating the contents of plaint. Through him Exs.A1 to A6 are received in evidence. In the cross examination P.W.1 deposed that while executing Ex.A1, Azad, Nanda Krishna and Fareed {Scribe} were present and apart from them no were present. P.W.1 deposed that the Ex.A1 was executed in the premises of Sub-Registrar Office, Penukonda at 12-00 P.M. P.W.1 deposed that the defendant No.1 signed on Ex.A1 as Ramachandrappa and at the time of Ex.A2 he signed as Ramachandra. P.W.1 deposed that he had entered into Ex.A1 after 7 knowing that it is in the name of Ramachandrappa. The P.W.1 deposed that he is not doing real estate business. P.W.1 deposed that the time period mentioned in agreement is five months. P.W.1 deposed that in the period of 5 months he had not requested in writing to the defendant No.1 to execute registered sale deed as he is ready to perform his part of contract had further stated that he had orally stated to the defendant No.1 that he is ready to perform his part of contract. P.W.1 deposed that he know the adhesive stamps on Ex.A1 and those are of Rs.50/-. The P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that in order to defraud the defendants he had filed the suit.

8) The Azad who is one of the attestors to Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 is examined as

P.W.2. He filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief stating that he know both the parties, the plaint schedule property being owned by defendant

No.1, the defendant No.1 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property to plaintiff and executing agreement of sale by receiving Rs.50,000/- as part of sale consideration on 05.11.2016, the plaintiff making part payments under Ex.A1 on different dates, the defendant No.1 failing to perform his part of contract, the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in performing his part of contract, that

Rs.25,000/- which was related to other transactions being mentioned on the back side of Ex.A2 and with other part payments and that the Ex.A1 transactions taking place in the presence of him, N.Nanda Krishna, Fareed and that he and Nanda

Krishna being the attestors and Fareed being the scribe to Ex.A1 and that the entire transaction of Ex.A2 taking place in the presence of him, N.Kambalarayudu and G.Allabakash and that he scribing and attesting Ex.A1 and that the plaintiff sending legal notice and the plaintiff waiting at the Sub-Registrar Office,

Penukonda for the defendant No.1 to get the registered sale executed in his favour and as the defendant No.1 failed to perform his part of contract the plaintiff filing the present suit. In the cross examination P.W.2 deposed that the plaintiff, defendant

No.1 and themselves talked to each other and got prepared Ex.A1 near Fareed who is scribe. P.W.2 deposed that the contents of Ex.A1 were read over to the defendant No.1 in his presence. P.W.2 deposed that he know the details of plaint 8 schedule properties as on the date of Ex.A1. P.W.2 admitted that he had not put his signatures on the different dates of endorsements. P.W.2 admitted that he had put his signature only for the part payments of Rs.13,500/- dated 06.05.2017.

9) The defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1. He filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief reiterating the contents of his written statement. In the cross examination D.W.1 admitted that the plaint schedule property belongs to him. D.W.1 admitted that the plaintiff issued legal notice/Ex.A3 to him prior to filing of suit and he received it. D.W.1 deposed that he had not issued any reply notice after receiving Ex.A3/Legal notice. When Vaklath and

Written Statement filed on behalf of defendant No.1 are confronted to him he denied his signatures as deponent. D.W.1 admitted that after receiving Court summons from the Court in this case he had engaged counsel on his behalf.

D.W.1 admitted that he had filed his written statement in this case through his

Advocate. D.W.1 admitted that he had not got written in his written statement that he do not know the plaintiff and that the plaintiff did not issue any reply to him and that he had not received any legal notice from the plaintiff. The D.W.1 denied his signatures as deponent in his own chief affidavit when the same was confronted to him. D.W.1 deposed that he do not know the contents of his chief affidavit. D.W.1 deposed that he had not got written in his chief affidavit that the plaintiff is very familiar in creating fake and fictitious documents and grabbing the properties of true owners. The D.W.1 admitted his signatures as executant of Ex.A1 when the same was confronted to him.

10) In the cross examination D.W.1 deposed that he had no disputes with

P.W.2. The D.W.1 admitted that he know the plaintiff and that he had executed

Ex.A1/Agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff had further stated that he had not received advance amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff. D.W.1 admitted that he had not got issued reply notice to the plaintiff admitting that he had executed

Ex.A1/Agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff but he had not received advance amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff. D.W.1 admitted that he had not got 9 mentioned in his written statement and chief affidavit that he had executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff but he had not received advance amount of

Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff. D.W.1 deposed that he do not know second defendant. D.W.1 deposed that he had not executed any registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of plaint schedule property. D.W.1 deposed that he is ready to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property if the plaintiff grants him two months of time.

11) In this matter the defendant No.1 said to have agreed to sell the suit schedule property and accordingly he had executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale and said to have received entire consideration amount by the time of filing of the suit as

Rs.50,000/- at the time of execution of Ex.A1 and the balance amount under Ex.A2 itself. The plaintiff in his evidence categorically deposed that the Ex.A1 was executed in the premises of Sub-Registrar Office, Penukonda at about 12-00 P.M.

The plaintiff evidenced that while executing Ex.A1 Azad, Nanda Krishna and

Fareed {Scribe} were present and that apart from them none were present. The

Azad who is one of the attestors to agreement of sale had examined himself as

P.W.2. He categorically deposed that the defendant No.1 had executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff by receiving Rs.50,000/- as advance amount. The P.W.2 deposed that the contents of Ex.A1 were read over to the defendant No.1 in his presence. The P.W.2 deposed that he know the details of plaint schedule property as on the date of Ex.A1. The defendant No.1 could not discredit the evidence of plaintiff. It is no doubt that the evidence of plaintiff is cogent and convincing. The execution of Ex.A1 is admitted by defendant No.1 itself. It has come on record from the evidence of D.W.1/ defendant No.1 that he know the plaintiff and he admitted he had executed Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property but had denied receiving of

Rs.50,000/- advance amount.

12) The defendant No.1 made a clever attempt to deny the case of plaintiff.

The defendant No.1 having admitted that he had executed Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff had denied receiving of advance amount of Rs.50,000/-. The defendant 10

No.1 no where in his written statement or in his chief affidavit had averred that he had executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff but he had not received the advance amount of Rs.50,000/-. It is also not the case of the defendant No.1 that soon after receiving Ex.A3 legal notice he had issued reply notice to the defendant No.1 stating that though he had executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff but he had not received advance amount of Rs.50,000/-. It has come on record from the evidence of defendant No.1 himself that he had not got mentioned in his written statement and chief affidavit that he had executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale infavour of plaintiff but he had not received advance amount of

Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 further evidenced that he had not issued reply notice to the plaintiff admitting that he had executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff and denying receiving of advance amount of

Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff. The P.W.1 categorically deposed that the defendant

No.1 had received amount of Rs.50,000/- at the time of execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale. The case of plaintiff gained strengthen as P.W.2 who is the attestor to Ex.A1 had also deposed that the defendant No.1 had received advance amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff. The defendant No.1 had admitted his signatures on Ex.A1 as executant when the same was confronted to him. The defence that he had not received advance amount of Rs.50,000/- is of no avail when the same was not pleaded in his pleadings and chief affidavit. There is also no evidence on record to show that the defendant No.1 had not received advance amount of Rs.50,000/- under Ex.A1. There is ample evidence on the side of plaintiff that the Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 had received advance amount of Rs.50,000/-.

13) Further no pleas greater than admission. The defendant No.1 admitted his signatures on Ex.A1 and he had also admitted execution of Ex.A1. Thus the execution of Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff by the defendant No.1 and the defendant 11

No.1 receiving advance amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 stands proved.

14) Since the execution of agreement of sale is proved, now it is the turn to see whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. In

Mallireddy Buthiramanna Dora & Anr. V/s Dasari Veerabhadra Rao & Anr, AIR

2012 AP52Wherein it was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh that one of the indicators to know whether or not the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is willing to perform his part of contract, is his conduct or the steps taken by him, ensure that the transactions is completed within time. The readiness and willingness need not be specific words but the same can be gathered from the totality of circumstances. The same was held in Nagabushana Gupta V/s

Venkateswara Rao, 1996 (3) ALT 100, that a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance who always treat the contract as still subsisting, he has to prove his continuous readiness and willingness from the date of the contract to the time of the hearing of the suit to perform his part of contract.

15) In the case on hand the plaintiff said to have made payments of

Rs.80,000/-on 21.03.2017, Rs.75,000/- on 03.05.2017 and Rs.13,500/- on 06.05.2017 and thereafter by 06.05.2017 the plaintiff had paid the entire consideration amount to the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 denied the said part payments and that the signature on the said part payments is not of him. The defendant No.1 only to deny the part payments had denied his own signatures on

Ex.A4, acknowledgment card of registered post of summons sent through Court,

Court summons through Process Server, Written Statement filed on his behalf and also the chief affidavit. The denial of his own signatures on the above entire documents only goes to show the evading attitude of the defendant No.1. As could be seen from the Ex.A4 and acknowledgment card of registered post of summons sent through the Court the defendant No.1 signed in them as

S.Ramachandra. The defendant No.1 signed on Ex.A2 as S.Ramachandra. As could be gathered from Ex.A4 and acknowledgment card of Court summons it is culled out that the defendant No.1 also signed as S.Ramachandra. Admittedly 12

Ex.A3 was served on the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 would have issued reply notice denying the part payments under Ex.A2 and that they are forged one.

The defendant No.1 did not take any steps as to filing of private complaint or preferring a report in the jurisdictional Police Station against the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff created Ex.A2 and fabricated the said documents. The falsity in the case of defendant No.1 is clearly reflects when he deposed that he do not know who brought Ex.A3 legal notice to him and that the person who brought Ex.A3 legal notice to him did not obtain his signature on any paper and at another point of time he had admitted that the plaintiff issued legal notice/Ex.A3 to him prior to filing of the suit and he received it. The defendant No.1 having received Ex.A3 legal notice goes on to deny the receipt of same by giving in consistent answers. Admittedly it is the defendant No.1 who had received Ex.A3 legal notice and that the Ex.A3 legal notice was sent through registered post with due acknowledgment and the said acknowledgment card is nothing but Ex.A4 document. Wherein the defendant

No.1 signed as S.Ramachandra. Thus is is very evident that the defendant No.1 had received total sale consideration amount under Ex.A2 payments.

16) Further it is to be seen that the defendant No.1 having admitted his execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff had only denied his receipt of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff in his cross examination. The defendant

No.1 never evidenced in his cross examination admitting the execution of Ex.A1 had denied the receiving of advance amount of Rs.50,000/- and also the Ex.A2 part payments. Had the defendant No.1 not received the part payments also he would have admitted the execution of Ex.A1 and deny the receiving of advance amount of

Rs.50,000/- and Ex.A2 part payments. The defendant No.1 himself voluntarily deposed that if the plaintiff grants two months of time to him he is ready to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property. The defendant No.1 had not deposed that he is ready to execute registered sale deed if the plaintiff pays the balance of sale consideration amount and grants two months of time. If the defendant No.1 had not received total consideration amount he 13 would never evidenced to register sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Thus this manifestly goes to show that the defendant No.1 had received balance of sale consideration amount under Ex.A2 in the respective dates.

17) The plaintiff did not kept quiet and after keeping to know that the defendant No.1 trying to alienate the plaint schedule property to third parties more particularly to defendant No.2. The plaintiff sent legal notice which is marked as

Ex.A3 to the defendant No.1 on 12.12.2018 demanding the defendant No.1 to execute registered sale deed in his favour in respect of plaint schedule property and that the plaintiff called upon the defendant No.1 to the Sub-Registrar Office,

Penukonda on 15.02.2018 to get registered sale deed in his favour with his own expenses in respect of plaint schedule property. The said legal notice was served on the defendant No.1 as admitted by him. It is seen that the plaintiff had purchased Non Judicial Stamp paper on 15.02.2018 which is marked as Ex.A2 to show that he went to Sub-Registrar Office, Penukonda to get registered sale deed.

But the defendant No.1 failed to go to the Sub-Registrar Office, Penukonda on 15.02.2018 to execute registered sale deed in respect of plaint schedule property infavour of plaintiff. As the defendant No.1 did not execute registered sale deed infavour of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property the plaintiff immediately filed the present suit on 22.02.2018 vide C.F.No.305. It is not the case that the plaintiff kept quite for three long years or more or less to three years to show that the plaintiff approached this Court belatedly and thus his case is of falsehood. The plaintiff after coming to know about the deceiving attempts of the defendant No.1 had immediately issued a legal notice and he had purchased Non Judicial stamp paper and waited at Sub-Registrar Office, Penukonda to get the registered sale deed executed in his favour with his own expenses from defendant No.1. It is the defendant No.1 who failed to go to Sub-Registrar Office,Penukonda to execute registered sale deed in respect of plaint schedule property infavour of plaintiff despite of receiving legal notice. From the entire evidence on record the conduct of plaintiff is unblemished. The plaintiff made every effort relentlessly and without any delay to get the registered sale deed in his favour in respect of plaint schedule 14 property. The above circumstances and efforts of the plaintiff shows his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. It is the defendant No.1 who had failed to perform his part of contract by not executing registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff.

18) As could be seen from Ex.A6/1-B ROR the plaint schedule survey

No.708-1 land to an extent of Ac.0-39 cents still stands in the name of defendant

No.1. The defendant No.1 too accepted that he is ready to execute the registered sale deed in respect of plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiff, if the plaintiff grants two months time to him. The same was deposed by the defendant No.1 in his cross examination on 04.10.2024 by reckoning the same now it has passed four months as today is 07.02.2024. But considering the request of the defendant No.1 this Court grants one month of time to the defendant No.1 to execute registered sale deed in respect of plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiff.

19) It is settled law that in a suit for specific performance of contract decreeing a suit directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed and after execution of registered sale deed the delivery of possession is automatic and that there is no need of specific direction in regard of the same. Therefore in view of the above discussion, these two issues are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

20) ISSUE No.3 : To what relief?

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs;

i) Directing the defendant No.1 to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of agreement of sale dated 05.11.2016 within 1 month (One month) from the date of this Judgment. ii) If the defendant No.1 fails to register the agreement of sale the plaintiff is at liberty to get it executed by the process of law.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 7th day of February, 2025.

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Penukonda.

15

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For plaintiff: For defendant:

P.W.1S.Riyaz BashaD.W.1S.Ramachandrappa P.W.2S.Azad

Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff:

Ex.A1 :Agreement of sale executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff dt.05.11.2016. Ex.A2 :Endorsement with particulars of payments written on the back side of second page of agreement of sale dt. 06.05.2017. Ex.A3:Office copy of legal notice dt. 12.02.2018. Ex.A4:Served R.P. acknowledgment of defendant No.1 dt. 13.02.2018. Ex.A5:Empty non Judicial stamp paper of Rs.10/- dt.15.02.2018 Ex.A6:1-B namoona of schedule property stands in the name of defendant No.1 dt.21.02.2018.

Exhibits marked on behalf of defendant: - NIL -

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Penukonda.

16

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PENUKONDA

Present : Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Penukonda.

Friday, the 7th day of February, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT No.42 of 2018

Between: S.Riyaz Basha, S/o S.Khaleel Sab, age 34 years, Door No.4/36, Business, Thimmapuram,

Penukonda Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. …..Plaintiff.

And

1) S.Ramachandrappa, S/o S.Kristappa, age 45 years, Agriculturist, Door No.8-23, Nallagondrayunipalli, Somandepalli Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

2) B.Lakshminarayana S/o B.Kondaiah, age 46 years, Business, Door No.1/957, Near Vanshika Function Hall,

Kothapeta, Penukonda Town and Mandal. ….. Defendants.

This is a suit filed for specific performance of contract of sale directing the defendant No.1 to execute a Registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented and numbered on : 22.02.2018

Value of the suit :

Value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.2,18,500/- and a

Court fee of Rs.4,626/- is paid under section 39 (a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

The cause of action for the suit arose on 05.11.2016 when the defendant No.1 has executed suit agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff after agreeing to sell away the schedule mentioned property for a consideration of Rs.2,18,500/- for which the plaintiff agreed and when the plaintiff paid Rs.50,000/- to defendant No.1 as part of sale consideration amount and subsequently when the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract on or before 05.03.2017 and when defendant No.1 has postponed to perform his part of contract and when defendant No.1 has received Rs.80,000/- on 21.03.2017 and Rs.75,000/- on 03.05.2017 and Rs.13,500/- on 06.05.2017 received Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff as part of sale 17 consideration amount and when the defendant No.1 failed to perform his part of contract inspite of receipt of notice and on 15.02.2018 when the plaintiff waited for defendant No.1 and when the defendant No.1 breached the said agreement of sale deliberately and when the defendant No.1 said to have created a document in favour of defendant No.2, all at and the suit schedule mentioned property is situated within the village fields limits of Somandepalli Village and Mandal within the jurisdiction of this Court. This suit is coming on 21.01.2025 for final hearing in presence of Sri. Md.Asif, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri G.Madan Mohan Reddy, Advocate for Defendants and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:-

i)That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs. ii)i) Directing the defendant No.1 to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of agreement of sale dated 05.11.2016 within 1 month (One month) from the date of this Judgment. iii) If the defendant No.1 fails to register the agreement of sale the plaintiff is at liberty to get it executed by the process of law. iv)That the defendant No.1 do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.12,708/- (Rupees Twelve thousand seven hundred and eight only) towards the cost of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this the 7th day of February, 2025.

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PENUKONDA.

TABLE OF COSTS

Plaintiff Defendants Stamp on plaint - Rs 4626-00-- Stamp on Vakalath - Rs2-002-00 Process - Rs(As claimed) 80-00-- Typing charges - Rs---- Writing charges - Rs ---- Advocate Fee - Rs(As claimed) 8000-00-- TOTAL - Rs 12708-00 2-00 (F.C. Memo filed)

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PENUKONDA.

18

S C H E D U L E

The property is situated within the RD of Hindupur, SRD of Penukonda and within the revenue village and G.P. limits of Somandepalli, Somandepalli Mandal with the following particulars.

Sl.No. Classification Survey Number Extent

1.Govt.Dry 708-1Ac.0-39 cents pyki Ac.0-19 cents or 0.076 hectors

Bounded by : East : Land of Sanjeevappa, West : Road, North : Land of defendant No.1 in same survey number, South : Land of S.Gopalappa.

(This property acquired and possessed by Defendant No.1 through patta No.997)

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PENUKONDA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PENUKONDA

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Penukonda

Thursday, this the 25th day of January, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No.27 of 2018

Between :

Papannagari Lakshmi Narasamma W/o Narayanappa, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Agriculturist,

Guthivaripalli, Gorantla Mandal. ... Plaintiff.

-Versus-

Pujari Narasimhappa S/o Chinna Narasappa, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Agriculturist,

Guthivaripalli, Gorantla Mandal. ... Defendant.

This suit is presented before me on 23.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Sreekanth Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri C.R.Nagarjuna, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till today and the Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit filed for permanent injunction directing the defendant, his men and agents restraining in any manner from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2. a) As glean from the plaint, it is the case of the plaintiff that Papannagari

Narasappa and his wife Narasamma owned and possessed the plaint schedule property and that Papannagari Narasappa was unsound minded as such he 2 was under the custody of his wife Narasamma and that Papannagari Narasappa and his wife Narasamma had only daughter by name Ademma and that the plaintiff is the only issue to her mother Ademma and that the plaintiff is the grand daughter of Papannagari Narasappa and his wife Narasamma as such out of love and affection Papannagari Narasamma representing her husband

Narasappa as guardian gifted the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff under registered gift deed dated 20.04.1977 and inducted the plaintiff into possession over the plaint schedule property as the plaintiff executed the gift and plaint schedule property.

b) The plaintiff submitted that she filed registration extract of gift deed

dated 20.04.1977 as the original gift deed is destroyed. The plaintiff submitted

that since the date of purchase she has been in possession and enjoyment and enjoyment of plaint schedule property by raising crops and that she was also granted pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of plaint schedule property and that she obtained loan from Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,

Budili by depositing her title deeds of plaint schedule property as a security.

The plaintiff submitted that her name was mutated in revenue records and by mistake name of P.Adeppa was shown in 1-B for Ac.0-05 cents though the plaintiff is in possession of entire plaint schedule property and that P.Adeppa was in possession of Ac.0-05 cents of land in another survey number and that there is no dispute between the plaintiff and P.Adeppa in enjoying the plaint schedule property and that the plaintiff sunk bore well in another plot in survey

No.549 and laid pipeline to the plaint schedule property for irrigating and that 3 the plaintiff is also paying electricity charges regularly and service connection is No.401. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant is stranger to the plaint schedule property and that he has no right, title or possession over it as such he has no right to obstruct the plaintiff in enjoying he plaint schedule property.

c) The plaintiff submitted that the defendant is adamant natured and that he is very powerful person in the village and that there are several grudges between the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant is having large following in the village and that he is supported by antisocial elements and that the defendant is using force with the support of antisocial elements and trying to dispossess the plaintiff from plaint schedule property in order to knock away it as it is very potential land as such the plaintiff needs immediate protection from this Court. Hence the suit.

3. (a) The defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff in her plaint. The defendant submitted that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to 1) Pujari Narasappa gari Pujari Adeppa and 2) Sajjannagari Guthivaripalli Papanna and that they are having half share each in it and that Pujari Narasappa gari Pujari Adeppa got two sons by name

1) Pujari Pedda Narasappa and 2) Pujari Chinna Narasappa and that Pujari

Pedda Narasimhappa got four sons by name 1) Pujari Narasimhappa, 2) Pujari

Narasimhappa, 3) Pujari Narasimhappa and 4) Pujari Narasimhappa and that

Pujari Chinna Narasimhappa got two sons namely 1) Pujari Chinna

Narasimhappa (Defendant herein) and Pujari Adeppa and that in family settlement the half of the plaint schedule property fell to the share of Pujari 4

Chinna Narasimhappa. The defendant submitted that after the death of Pujari

Chinna Narasimhappa his half share fell to the share of defendant and that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.50 cents in plaint schedule property and that the revenue authorities also issued pattadar pass book and title deed book in his favour for the said extent in plaint schedule property. The defendant submitted that he sunk bore well in the said extent of

Ac.0.50 cents of plaint schedule property with service connection No.35 and that the Surveyor also measured and demarcated Ac.0.50 cents of his possession and enjoyment as per field measurement book and therefore the defendant is in exclusive possession of Ac.0.50 cents in plaint schedule property.

(b) The defendant submitted that the plaintiff suppressed all the material facts and filed this present suit and that the plaintiff is not entitled for any injunction and that the plaintiff is not absolute owner of plaint schedule property and that it is the duty of the plaintiff to explain how the Papannagari

Narasappa is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and that the registration holders certified copy clearly goes to show that Pujari Adeppa and

Sajjannagari Guthivaripalli Papanna are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and that the genealogy issued by the Village Revenue

Officer, Budili clearly goes to show that this defendant is the legal-heir of Pujari

Narasappagari Adeppa and that the said fact is enough to dismiss the present suit and that the plaintiff has no right over the plaint schedule property. The defendant submitted that Papannagari Narasappa and his wife has no right to 5 execute gift deed dated 20.04.1977 in favour of plaintiff and it is no way effected to defendant’s Ac.0.50 cents of land. The defendant submitted that when Papannagari Narasappa and his wife Narasamma are not the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property how can they convey better title to the plaintiff and that the very donor has no better title, they cannot convey better title to the donee.

(c) The defendant submitted that the gift deed is fabricated one with an intention to get wrongful gain and that the plaintiff knows the facts very well but then she suppressed all material facts and filed this suit with all false and frivolous allegations and that the plaintiff managed the revenue officials and mutated her name into revenue records. The defendant submitted that our

Hon’ble Apex Court also says for several times that only on the basis of

revenue records we cannot decide the title of the property as such the 1-B and

Adangal is noway helpful to the plaintiff in the present suit as the plaintiff has no absolute title to the plaint schedule property. The defendant submitted that he is specifically denying the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property as the plaintiff is not absolute owner of it and that the plaintiff has no title, right or possession over it.

(d) The defendant submitted that the plaintiff filed the present suit with all false and frivolous allegations with a view to knock away the plaint schedule property and that in any injunction suit the plaintiff must specify the Courts by establishing good title and good possession and in the present suit the plaintiff has no good title and possession over the plaint schedule property as such she 6 is not entitled in any injunction for the plaint schedule property. The defendant submitted that there is no cause of action for the suit and the cause of action mentioned in paragraph No.8 of the plaint is not correct and they have invented for the purpose of the suit. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff has suppressed all the material facts and filed the present suit and on that ground alone this suit is liable to be dismissed. The defendant submitted that he is a Law abiding citizen and he is purely an agriculturist. Therefore the defendant prayed this Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

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

(1) Whether the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the

plaint schedule property?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as

prayed? (3) To what relief ?

5. During the course of trial on behalf of the Plaintiff, herself examined as

P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A5 are received in evidence. Ex.A1 is the original registered gift deed executed by P.Narasamma in her favour (The said document is torn condition and some of the sentences in the body of the document are not visible), Ex.A2 is the Registration extract gift deed executed by P.Narasamma in her favour of P.Narasamma in her favour, Ex.A3 is the

Pattadar pass book issued in the name of plaintiff, Ex.A4 is the 1-B issued in the name of plaintiff dt. 22.01.2018 and Ex.A5 is the Adangal for the fasli year 7 1428 issued in the name of plaintiff dt. 22.01.2018. The third party

K.Thippanna is examined as P.W.2.

6. On the other hand the defendant/P.Narasimhappa is examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B9 are received in evidence. Ex.B1 is certified copy of registration holders certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Chilamathur, Ex.B2 is the Pattadar pass book in his name i.e., Pujari Narsimhappa, Ex.B3 is the

Genealogy issued by the Village Revenue Officer, Budili, Gorantla Mandal,

Ex.B4 is the F.M.B. issued by the Surveyor, Ex.B5 is the Electricity payment receipt dt. 24.11.2017 for RCPT No.12000243373, Ex.B6 is the Electricity payment receipt dt. 24.11.2017 for RCPT No.12000243372, Ex.B7 is the

Electricity bill demand notice for the month of October - 17-November-2017,

Ex.B8 is the Electricity bill demand notice for the month of August- 17-

September-2017 and Ex.B9 is the Electricity bill demand notice dt. 01.12.2017.

The third party T.Ramanji is examined as D.W.2.

7. This Court has heard the arguments of both counsel at length. This court has perused the depositions of witnesses, and exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant and also Judgments of Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of

Andhra Pradesh in 1) Ediga Ranganayakulu (Died) per L.Rs. V/s

B.Venkatesu and others, 2015 (3) ALT 481 and 2) Ramavath Hasala

naik V/s Sabahavath Gomli Bai, 2011 (2) ALT 690 relied by the counsel

for the plaintiff and Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

P.Kishore Kumar V/s Vittal K.Patkar, Civil Appeal No.7210 of 2011

8 relied by the counsel for the defendant, so also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the counsel in this case.

8. Issues No.1 and 2:

(1) Whether the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the

plaint schedule property?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as

prayed?

These two issues are taken up together for consideration in order to avoid the repetition of facts and conflict of findings.

(a) This is the suit for permanent injunction. In a suit for permanent injunction possession place major role, in order to prove plaintiffs’ possession, the plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and also got examined P.W.2 and Ex.A1 to A5 are received in evidence.

(b) The plaintiff examined herself as PW.1. She filed her chief affidavit in lieu of her examination in chief reiterating the contents of plaint. Through her

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 are received in evidence. In the cross examination PW.1 admitted that plaint schedule property is in the name of P.Narasappagari Pujari

Adeppa and S.Goothivaripalli Papanna as per the diglot record of holdings and that they both are having half share each in the plaint schedule property. P.W.1 admitted that Adeppa is having two sons namely P.Pedda Narasappa and

P.Chinna Narasappa. P.W.1 admitted that P.Pedda Narasappa is having four sons with same name of P.Narasimhappa. P.W.1 admitted that P.Chinna

Narasappa is having two sons by name P.Chinna Narasimhappa (Defendant) 9 and P.Adeppa. Further the cross examination of P.W.1 proceeded on the lines of suggestions to which she denied.

9) The K.Thippanna is examined as P.W.2. He filed his chief affidavit stating his acquaintance with the plaintiff, Papannagari Narasappa and his wife

Narasamma and that he had seen the plaint schedule property and that the plaint schedule property belongs to Pappannagari Narasappa and that

Narasappa was not in sound state of mind as such he was under custody and care of his wife Narasamma and that they both had only daughter by name

Ademma and that he had seen Ademma and that the plaintiff is the daughter of Ademma and grand daughter of Narasamma and that Narasamma had executed registered gift deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property and that P.W.2 further stated as to possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, installing bore well in Sy.no.549 by the plaintiff and main pipeline to the plaint schedule property for irrigating it and that the defendant has no right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property. In the cross examination P.W.2 admitted that P.N.Pujari Adeppa have got two sons by name P.Pedda Narasappa and P.Chinna Narasappa. P.W.2 admitted that the defendant and P.Adeppa are the sons of P.Chnna

Narasimhappa. P.W.2 deposed that he do not know whether P.N.Pujari Adeppa and S.G.Papanna were the diglot pattadars of plaint schedule property and that they are having half share in the plaint schedule property. P.W.2 deposed that he do not know whether the half share in the plaint schedule property fell to 10 the father of defendant i.e. P.Chinna Narasappa. Further the cross examination of P.W.2 proceeded on the lines of suggestions to which he denied.

10) The defendant P.Narasimhappa is examined as D.W.1. He filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief reiterating the contents of written statement. Through him Exs.B1 to B9 are received in evidence. In the cross examination D.W.1 deposed that he had filed record of holdings/Ex.B1 to show that Pedda Narasappa and Chinna Narasappa got divided their properties. D.W.1 deposed that he came to know about the Gift deed when his name was not reflected in adangal in respect of plaint schedule property. The

D.W.1 having admitted that Ex.A3 was given to plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property and further deposed that he has also given the pattadar pass book to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in plaint schedule property. The D.W.1 admitted that except Ex.B2 there is no document to show that he is having right in the plaint schedule property. Further deposed that his grandfather is having right in the plaint schedule property as such he is having right in the plaint schedule property as his successor. Further the cross examination of

D.W.1 proceeded on the lines of suggestion to which he denied.

11) The T.Ramanji is examined as D.W.2. He filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief stating that he know the plaint schedule property and that he is third party to the suit proceedings and that the defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in an extent of Ac.0-50 cents though revenue authorities issued pattadar pass books and title deed book in favour of defendant for an extent of 11

Ac.0-50 cents of plaint schedule property and that the defendant also sunk a bore well in the said extent of Ac.0-50 cents with service connection No.35 and that the Surveyor measured as per the F.M.B. (Field Measurement Book) and demarcated an extent of Ac.0-50 cents as defendant is in possession and enjoyment. In the cross examination D.W.2 deposed that he know the plaint schedule property. D.W.2 deposed that the extent of plaint schedule property is Ac.1-00 cents. D.W.2 deposed that the boundaries of plaint schedule property is to East : Land of Budili Bavanna, West : Land of Nadipi

Narasimhappa, North : Land of T.Sivappa and South : Land of Narayanappa to the plaint schedule property. The D.W.2 deposed that the plaint schedule survey number is 548-4. Further the cross examination of D.W.2 proceeded on the lines of suggestion to which he denied.

12) a) Having heard the rival contentions of both the parties, it is the case of the plaintiff that she have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since the date of gift deed which was executed by

Narasamma W/o Narasappa in her favour gifting the plaint schedule property.

The plaintiff pleaded that the plaint schedule property originally owned and possessed by Pappannagari Narasappa and his wife Narasamma and that

Narasappa was in unsound mind and that they had only daughter Ademma who is mother of plaintiff and that the Narasamma who is a guardian of

Narasappa said to have gifted the plaint schedule property to plaintiff out of love and affection as the plaintiff is their grand daughter. The plaintiff in order to prove her possession had placed Exs.A1 to A5 documents. Ex.A1 is the 12 original gift deed and Ex.A2 is the registration extract of gift deed which is said to have executed in favour of plaintiff gifting the plaint schedule property and

Ex.A3 is pattadar pass book and that Ex.A4 is the 1-B ROR which stands in the name of plaintiff which shows only to the extent of Ac.1-00 cents of plaint schedule survey number and that Ex.A5 is the adangal for the Fasli year 1427 which shows Ac.1-00 cents of plaint schedule survey number to be in the name of plaintiff.

b) The defendant on the other hand contended that he is not at all is stranger to the plaint schedule property and that he acquired Ac.0-50 cents in the plaint schedule property through his father and grandfather as original the plaint schedule property belongs to Pujari Narasappa gari Pujari Adeppa (Grandfather of defendant) and 2) Sajjannagari Guthivaripalli Papanna and that they are having half share each in the plaint schedule property and that Puraji

Narasappagari Adeppa who is grandfather of the defendant has two sons 1)

Pujari Pedda Narasappa and 2) Pujari Chinna Narasappa and that Pujari Chinna

Narasappa had two sons who is defendant herein and Pujari Adeppa and that after the death of his father the Ac.0.50 cents in the plaint schedule property fell to him in family settlement. The defendant to prove his possession had placed certified copy of Register of Holdings which shows Pujari Narasappagari

Pujari Adeppa and Sajjannagari Guthivaripalli Papanna as the holders on total extent of plaint schedule property and pattadar pass book of the defendant in which land to an extent of Ac.0-50 cents in plaint schedule property stands in the name of defendant and that electricity demand notices belongs to show 13 that the defendant is having bore well in his extent of plaint schedule property. The defendant having placed oral and documentary evidence pleadings cloud over the title of plaintiff and disputing possession of plaintiff in the total extent of plaint schedule property.

c) The grant of permanent injunction is a discretionary relief. The Courts have to be circumspect and judicious while exercising discretionary relief. In a suit for permanent injunction the Courts have to considered only as to the aspect of possession of the disputed property. The plaintiff must establish his legal right and also his exclusive possession to have the relief of injunction. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove his possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. An injunction as well known is an cultivable remedy and the maxima of equity that he who seeks equity must do equity is applicable to a case in which such an equitable remedy is prayed for. The plaintiff pleaded that she acquired plaint schedule property from her maternal grand parents as gift. The plaintiff submitted that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since the date of gift as she executed the gift and that her name was mutated in the revenue records in respect of plaint schedule property and that she was granted pattadar pass book, 1-B ROR Namuna and Adangal for the plaint schedule property. Though the pattadar pass book shows the total extent of plaint schedule property to be in the name of plaintiff, but the 1-B marked under Ex.A4 and adangal for the

Fasil year 1427 marked under Ex.A5 goes to show that an extent of Ac.1-00 cents only stands in the name of plaintiff and that the another Ac.0-05 cents of 14 plaint schedule property stands in the name of P.Adeppa. The plaintiff tried to convince this Court stating that though 1-B and Adangal shows an extent of

Ac.1-00 cents in her name, she is in possession and enjoyment of total extent of plaint schedule property and moreover the said P.Adeppa has no objection to it.

d) As has stated above the defendant has also come up with the evidence that he is having right over the Ac.0-50 cents of plaint schedule survey number as being acquired the said extent from his grandfather and father. The defendant has placed Ex.B1 which is the certified copy of register of holdings issued by Sub-Registrar Officer, Chilamathur wherein the name of grandfather of defendant and one Sajjannagari Guthivaripalli Papanna having ownership over the plaint schedule property. The defendant to prove his possession over the Ac.0-50 cents of plaint schedule property had placed his pattadar pass book and clearly goes to show that land to an extent of Ac.0-50 cents in plaint schedule survey number stands in the name of defendant. The defendant contended that there is no evidence on record as to how the maternal grand parents of the plaintiff acquired the plaint schedule property and that he had shown that he had acquired Ac.0-50 cents in plaint schedule property through his grandfather. The defendant disputed the very title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property by placing register of holdings. There is no evidence on record to show as to how the grand parents of plaintiff acquired the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff in her cross examination admitted that the plaint schedule property is in the name of 1) Pujari Narasappa gari Pujari 15

Adeppa and 2) Sajjannagari Guthivaripalli Papanna as per the diglot record of holders and they both are having half share each in the plaint schedule property and that Adeppa is having two sons namely 1) Pujari Pedda

Narasappa and 2) Pujari Chinna Narasappa and Pedda Narasimhappa and that

Pujari Chinna Narasimhappa is having two sons by name Pujari Chinna

Narasimhappa (Defendant) and Pujari Adeppa. The plaintiff in her cross examination further admitted that as per the record of holdings issued by Sub-

Registrar, Chilamathur Pujari Adeppa and Sajjannagari Guthivaripalli Papanna are the owners of plaint schedule property. When the plaintiff seeking for equitable relief of permanent injunction she should able to show that she has come to Court with clean hands and that she has to show her exclusive possession over the plaint schedule property. When the defendant disputed the very title of the plaintiff and title of her predecessor she is not entitled for relief of permanent injunction. The same was held in M/s. Durga Matha

Building Constructions Co-op. Housing Society Ltd & Anr. V/s Sada

Yellaiah & Ors., AIR 2010 AP 231;

“That where the plaintiff failed to establish that his

predecessor-in-title had better title over the

defendants and the defendants established their

possession over the plaint scheduled property, such

plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent

injunction”.

16

e) The plaintiff claimed to be in exclusive possession and enjoyment of entire extent of plaint schedule property. She has placed pattadar pass book, 1-B ROR namoona and Adangal to show her possession. A perusal of 1-B ROR

Namoona and Adangal for the Fasili year 1427 shows that land only to the extent of Ac.1-00 cents stands in the name of plaintiff. The plaintiff stated that though Ac.0-50 cents is reflected in the name of P.Adeppa but she is in possession and enjoyment of entire plaint schedule property. The plaintiff failed to examine the said P.Adeppa to show that he has no objection to the possession of plaintiff over Ac.0.05 cents of land of plaint schedule property and that his name is wrongly mutated in the revenue records. If relief of permanent injunction is granted infavour of plaintiff for the while extent of plaint schedule property when she is otherwise not entitled to it would deprive the right and possession of P.Adeppa also. The plaintiff must show her lawful possession over the entire extent of plaint schedule property. Leaving apart, the defendant had also disputed the very possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff had placed his pattadar pass book to show his possession over the Ac.0.50 cents of land in the plaint schedule property. The pattadar pass book of the defendant clearly reflects Ac.0.50 cents of land to be in his possession of plaint schedule property. Therefore it is culled out that the plaintiff is not in exclusive possession and enjoyment of entire extent of plaint schedule property.

f) The counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant has not placed any record to show his title over the Ac.0.50 cents in plaint schedule 17 property and that he could not show that he is the only successor of P.Adeppa and S.Papanna and that the pattadar pass book of the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule survey number was cancelled. The plaintiff did not file any record before this Court to show that the mutation to the property of plaint schedule survey number of defendant was cancelled by the revenue authorities.The Judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra

Pradesh in 1) Ediga Ranganayakulu (Died) per L.Rs. V/s B.Venkatesu

and others, 2015 (3) ALT 481 and 2) Ramavath Hasala naik V/s

Sabahavath Gomli Bai, 2011 (2) ALT 690 are of no help to the plaintiff

as the plaintiff could not prove her possession even from her own

documents including revenue records. The defendant has raised cloud over the title of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property which needs thorough enquiry. When the title and possession of the plaintiff over plaint schedule property is in dispute, a suit for bare injunction is not maintainable.

The plaintiff cannot make a suit for permanent injunction platform to decide her title over the plaint schedule property. In Hon’ble Apex Court in

Anathula Sudhakar V/s P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs and others, AIR

2008 Supreme Court 2033.

“Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of 18 injunction. Where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction”.

13) This is not the stage to make roving enquiry as to the title of the parties over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff has to file a comprehensive suit with appropriate reliefs for deciding her title over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff could not able to establish her title and possession over the plaint schedule property.

14) In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff failed in establishing her exclusive possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and that the defendant has become successful in disputing the title and possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. Accordingly these issues are answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

15. Issue No.3 :

To what relief?

IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25th day of January, 2024.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Penukonda.

19

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For plaintiffs: For defendants:

P.W.1P.Lakshmi NarasammaD.W.1P.Narasimhappa P.W.2K.ThippannaD.W.2T.Ramanji

Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 :Original registered gift deed executed by P.Narasamma in her favour (The said document is torn condition and some of the sentences in the body of the document are not visible). Ex.A2 :Registration extract gift deed executed by P.Narasamma in her favour of P.Narasamma in her favour. Ex.A3:Pattadar pass book issued in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A4 :1-B issued in the name of plaintiff dt. 22.01.2018. Ex.A5 :Adangal for the fasli year 1428 issued in the name of plaintiff dt. 22.01.2018.

Exhibits marked on behalf of defendants:

Ex.B1 :Certified copy of registration holders certificate issued by the Sub- Registrar, Chilamathur. Ex.B2 :Pattadar pass book in his name i.e., Pujari Narsimhappa.

Ex.B3 :Genealogy issued by the Village Revenue Officer, Budili, Gorantla Mandal. Ex.B4 :F.M.B. issued by the Surveyor.

Ex.B5 :Electricity payment receipt dt. 24.11.2017 for RCPT No.12000243373.

Ex.B6 :Electricity payment receipt dt. 24.11.2017 for RCPT No.12000243372.

Ex.B7 :Electricity bill demand notice for the month of October – 17- November-2017. Ex.B8 :Electricity bill demand notice for the month of August- 17-September- 2017. Ex.B9 :Electricity bill demand notice dt. 01.12.2017.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Penukonda.

20

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PENUKONDA

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda

Thursday, this the 25th day of January, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No.27 of 2018

Between :

Papannagari Lakshmi Narasamma W/o Narayanappa, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Agriculturist,

Guthivaripalli, Gorantla Mandal. ... Plaintiff.

-Versus-

Pujari Narasimhappa S/o Chinna Narasappa, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Agriculturist,

Guthivaripalli, Gorantla Mandal. ... Defendant.

This is a suit filed for permanent injunction directing the defendant, his men and agents restraining in any manner from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented and numbered on : 31.01.2018.

Value of the suit :

Value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.10,000/- and a court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under section 26 (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act, 1956.

The cause of action for the suit arose about when the defendant have has intensified his threats to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule 21 property and the plaint schedule property is situated at Guthivaripalli H/o Budili

Revenue village of Gorantla Mandal which is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit is presented before me on 23.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Sreekanth Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri C.R.Nagarjuna, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till today and this COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:-

a) That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed. And;

b) That do and hereby there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this the 25th day of January, 2024.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Penukonda.

TABLE OF COSTS

Plaintiff Defendant Stamp on plaint - Rs 786-00-- Stamp on Vakalath - Rs2-002-00 Process - Rs(As claimed) 100-00-- Typing charges - Rs---- P.W. charges - Rs---- Commissioner Fee - Rs---- Advocate Fee - Rs5000-00-- TOTAL - Rs 5888-00 2-00 (F.C. Memo filed)

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Penukonda.

22

SCHEDULE

The Property is situated within the RD of Hindupur, S.R.D. of

Chilamathur and within the limits of Budili Revenue Village of Gorantla Mandal with the following particulars.

S.No.BabuS.No.Extent 1Govt.Dry548-4Ac.1-05 cents

Within the following boundaries :

East : Land of Bavanna West : Land of Pannagari Nadipi Narasimhappa North : Land of Tatheppa South : Land of Pannagari Narayanappa.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Penukonda.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PENUKONDA

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda,

Monday, the 13th day of March, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.287 of 2022

State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Gorantla Police Station. (Cr.No.345/2021, Cr.No.346/2021 and Cr.No.380/2021).

… Complainant -Versus.

Talari Narasimhulu, age 29 years, S/o Late Talari Obulesu, B.C. Colony, Kothacheruvu Village and Mandal. … Accused

This case is presented before me on 9th day of March, 2023 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B.Abubakar and Sri B.Krishna Murthy, Advocates for accused and upon hearing on both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Gorantla Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.345/2021 for the offence U/Sec. 380 of Indian Penal Code (In short IPC), Cr.No.346/2021 for the offence U/ss.457 and 380 of IPC and

Cr.No.380/2021 for the offence U/ss.457 and 380 of IPC.

2) (a) As glean from the charge sheet, it is the case of the prosecution that the three crimes involved in this calendar case of house breaking by night and committing theft and that the first crime i.e., Cr.No.345/2021 was occurred between 13.09.2021 at 10-00 P.M. and 14.09.2021 at 7-00 P.M. registered in Police station on 15.09.2021 at 10-00 A.M. and the second crime i.e., Cr.No.346/2021

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD

2 occurred between 13.09.2021 at 5-00 P.M. and 14.09.2021 at 7-00 A.M. and the same is reported in Police station on 15.09.2021 at 11-00 A.M. and third crime in

Cr.No.380/2021 occurred between 08.10.2021 at 9-30 P.M. and 09.10.2021 at 11- 30 A.M. and reported the same in Police station on 09.10.2021 at 11-30 A.M.

wherein the accused gained entrance into the temples by breaking open the main locks of concerned temples and committed theft of cash by break opening the

Hundies in temples from gods and goddess and fled away with them.

(b) On the reports lodged by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 the Investigating

Officers have registered F.I.Rs and that P.W.9 took further investigation in above said three cases.

(c) During the course of investigation on receipt of credible information on 11.10.2021 P.W.9 arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.5 and

L.W.13/P.Jagadeesh Kumar and on examining the accused in the presence of above said mediators he voluntarily confessed that he is living by doing labor work by loading soil into the tractors and that he addicted to liquor and that his earning from labor work is not sufficient for spending for his bad vices and that he decided to commit thefts in the temples while none were present and that he confessed thefts committed by him in the presence of mediators which was recorded under Ex.P5.

(d) That the P.W.9 seized silver umbrella, silver namamu, silver nose, silver mustaches and silver lips and identified the said property to be involved in crime No.147/2021 of Puttaparthi Police Station, seized five bronze bells pertaining the Crime No.346/2021 of Gorantla Police station and in

Cr.No.345/2021 seized four small bronze bells and seized silver crown, two bronze lamps in Cr.No.380/2021 of Gorantla P.S. under the cover of confession, seizure

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD

3 and arrest mahazarnama in the presence of above said mediators and that P.W.9 handed over the case property in Cr.No.147/2021 to Station House Officer,

Puttparthy for further proceedings.

(e) That during the course of investigation on 20.10.2021 P.W.9 conducted property identification parade with P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 in the presence of P.W.7 under the cover of identification mahazarnamas and that the accused is habitual offender and that he is involved in the several property offences of

Cr.No.56/2016, 57/2016 and 58/2016 of Somandepalli Police Station and

Cr.No.147/2021 of Puttaparthy Rural P.S. and suspect sheet was also maintained in his name in Kothacheruvu Police Station vide Suspect No.65/AN. After completion of investigation P.W.9 filed charge sheet.

3) Cognizance of the offence U/ss. 380 and 457 of IPC against accused was taken and proceeded.

4) The accused was served with copies of case documents as contemplated under section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.).

5) The accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the accusation leveled against him, for which he denied the same. On that charges

U/ss. 457 and 380 alternatively 411 of IPC against him have been framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9, marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 and M.Os.1 to 12. The learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor (in short A.P.P.) has given up the evidence of

L.W.5/S.Gangappa, L.W.6/P.Dasthagiri, L.W.7/S.Gopal, L.W.8/K.Narendra Reddy,

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD

4

L.W.9/G.Eswara, L.W.10/K.Govinda Reddy, L.W.11/K.Chinna Gangappa,

L.W.12/P.Naresh and L.W.13/T.Jagadeesh Kumar.

7) After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances against the accused was read over and explained to him. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8) Heard arguments. Perused the material available on record.

9) The point for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt

of the accused for the offences U/ss 457 and 380 of IPC

alternatively U/Sec.411 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?

10) This court has perused the material available on record and gave thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by Learned A.P.P. and

Learned Counsel for accused. For the sake of brevity the arguments adduced will be dealt in the discussion part.

11) To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P15and M.Os.1 to 12.

12) P.Sreenivasulu who is the defacto complainant in Cr.No.346/2021 is examined as P.W.1, he gave in his evidence in chief that he performing the duties of Priest at Sri Maremma temple, Jeenavandlapalli Village of Gorantla

Mandal since three years and that he leaves to his house daily after performing poojas and by locking the temple doors at 5-00 P.M. or 5-30 P.M. and as usually about one year ago on one day after performing poojas in the temple he locked the temple and went to his house and on the very same day when he went to the temple after 5-30 A.M. he noticed that temple door locks were broke open and

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD

5 when he went inside the temple he found Hundi was broke open and five temple bells and amount from the Hundi to a tune of Rs.15,000/- was committed theft and that he informed the same to the neighbors of the place of temple and that he lodged report about the incident in Gorantla Police station and that he do not know who committed theft of temple bells and cash. Through him Ex.P1 and

Ex.D1 are received in evidence. In the cross examination P.W.1 deposed that he performed poojas daily. Further the cross examination of P.W.1 proceeded on the lines of suggestions to which the witness denied.

13) The defacto complainant in Cr.No.345/2021 is examined as P.W.2.

He deposed in his evidence in chief that he live by doing cultivation and also as

Priest at Sri Gangamma temple at Gownivaripalli Village of Gorantla Mandal since 10 years and that on 13.09.2021 at 10-00 P.M. he left the temple after performing the duties of Priest and on 14.09.2021 at 7-00 A.M. while he was about to go to temple P.W.3 who is resident of his village came to him and told him that while he was going to his fields he noticed the Hundi which is infront of temple was broke open and then they both went to the temple and found the Hundi which was outside the temple was broke open and also the lock of temple doors was broke open and that the C.C. Cameras, four small temple bells and Hundi amount approximately of Rs.5,000/- was committed theft and that they enquired about the theft in the surroundings of the temple but in vain and that on 14.09.2021 no one were present at his house for taking the sheep for grazing as such he could not go to the Police station on that day and on 15.09.2021 he went to the

Gorantla Police station and lodged report and that he do not know the accused.

Through him Ex.P2 is received in evidence. In the cross examination of P.W.2 deposed that he had built the said temple. P.W.2 deposed that there is no

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD

6 committee to the temple. P.W.2 deposed that he opens the Hundi for every one month and approximately there will be Rs.4,000/- in the Hundi whenever he opens it for every one month. P.W.2 deposed that he opened the Hundi one month prior to 13.09.2021. P.W.2 admitted that till today from the date of alleged offence he do not know who committed theft from the temple.

14) The circumstantial witness/C.Krishna Reddy in Cr.No.345/2021 is examined as P.W.3. He did not support the case of the prosecution by deposing that he do not know the accused and that he do not know anything about this case and that Police had not examined him. Through him Ex.P3 is received in evidence.

15) The defacto complainant/P.C.Narasimhappa in Cr.No.380/2021 is examined as P.W.4. He deposed in his evidence in chief that he is performing the duties of Priest at Sri Gangamma temple at Palasamudram Village of Gorantla

Mandal since 25 years and that daily he go to performing duties at 7-00 P.M. and leaves to his house at 9-00 A.M. and again he goes to temple at 5-00 P.M. and leave to his house between 7-00 P.M. and 7-30 P.M. by the temple by locking the temple and as usually about one year ago on one Friday after performing the poojas in the temple he locked the temple and went to his house at 7-00 P.M. and on the next day he noticed that the temple window was broke open and that the temple doors were opened when he went to the temple at 7-00 A.M. and that he went inside the temple and found bronze crown, 18 bronze temple bells, harathi plate and amount approximately of Rs.5,000/- which was kept in the inner sanctumof the temple from the Hundi was committed theft and that he had informed the same to the neighours of the temple and on Sunday he went to the

Gorantla Police station and lodged report and that he do not know who committed

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD

7 theft of above said materials and cash and that the Police conducted property identification parade in the presence of P.W.7 and that he identified the theft property in his presence. Through him Ex.P4, M.O.1 and M.O.2 are received in evidence. In the cross examination P.W.4 deposed that no one appointed him as

Priest to Sri Gangamma temple. P.W.4 deposed that he opens the Hundi daily and keep the Hundi amount on the top of monument of Goddess Gangamma and that he counts the said amount for every one month. P.W.4 denied to the suggestions that the Hundi amount and M.O.1 and M.O.2 were not committed theft and that he is deposing false evidence on the instigation of police and that the two M.Os and

Hundi amount are planted by the Police for the purpose of this case.

16) The P.Chennakesavulu who is one of the mediators to the confession, seizure cum arrest mahazarnama is examined as P.W.5. He deposed in his evidence in chief as to apprehending the accused by the Police in the presence of him and L.W.3/T.Jagadeesh Kumar at Gummaiahgaripalli cross and that the confession made by the accused about the commission of thefts by him and seizure of material objects and cash from him in various crimes by the police and arresting of the accused by the Police in the presence of him and

L.W.13/T.Jagadeesh Kumar under the cover of Ex.P5. Through him Ex.P5 and

M.O.3 to M.O.12 are received in evidence. In the cross examination P.W.5 deposed that he is working as Village Revenue Officer since 14 years. P.W.5 deposed that he has signed as mediator in 15 cases. Further nothing was elicited from the cross examination of P.W.5 which go to the roots of Ex.P5 to disprove the case of prosecution.

17) One of the Investigating Officers in Cr.No.346/2021 is examined as

P.W.6 he deposed his evidence in chief as per the investigation done by him as to

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD

8 registering of F.I.R. and submitting copies of F.I.R., visiting to the scene of offence, preparing rough sketch of scene of offence, examining the P.W.1, L.W.8/K.Narendra

Reddy and L.W.9/G.Eswara and recording their Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements and handing over the case file to P.W.9 for further investigation. In the cross examination of P.W.6 no peculiar aspects were elicited which go to the roots of the case in Cr.No.346/2021 to disprove the case of the prosecution. Through him

Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are received in evidence.

18) The P.Ravikantha Reddy who said to have conducted property identification parades in the three crimes is examined as P.W.7. He deposed in his evidence in chief as to conducting of property identification parades in three crimes and recording of identification mahazarnamas in the three crimes on the request of Gorantla Police. Through him Ex.P8 to Ex.P10 are received in evidence.

In the cross examination of P.W.7 deposed that he is working as Village Revenue

Officer Since 15 years and that he had signed as mediator in 10 cases. P.W.7 deposed on the date of conducting of property identification parades he was on duty at Gorantla. P.W.7 denied to the suggestion that he had signed on three mahazarnamas at Gorantla Police station and that he had never conducted property identification parades and that he signed on Ex.P8 to Ex.P10 on the instigation of police.

19) One of the Investigating Officers P.Isaq Basha in Cr.No.380/2021 is examined as P.W.8. He deposed in his evidence in chief as to the investigation done by him as to registering F.I.R., examining P.W.4, L.W.10/K.Govinda Reddy,

L.W.11/K.Chinna Gopal and L.W.12/P.Naresh and recording their Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.

statements, visiting to the scene of offence, preparing rough sketch of the scene of offence and Police proceedings and handing over the case file to P.W.9 for

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD

9 further investigation. Through him Ex.P11 and Ex.P13 are received in evidence.

Nothing was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.8 which go to the roots of the case of the prosecution.

20) (a) The J.Jaya Naik who is one of the Investigating Officers in three crimes is examined as P.W.9 he deposed as per the contents of the charge sheet as to registering F.I.R. in Cr.No.345/2021, examining the P.W.3,

L.W.5/Gangappa, L.W.6/P.Dasthagiri and L.W.7/S.Gopal and recording their Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statements, visiting the scene of offence, preparing rough sketch of the scene of offence, receiving the case file in Cr.No.346/2021 and Cr.380/2021 from

P.W.6 and P.W.8 respectively, recording the confession and seizing of material objects and cash from the accused under the cover of Ex.P5, arresting the accused on 11.10.2021 in the presence of P.W.5 and L.W.13/T.Jagadeesh Kumar, identifying seized materials to be involved in Cr.No.147/2021 of Puttaparthy Rural

Police station, Cr.Nos.345/2021, 380/2021 of Gorantla Police station and producing the accused before this Court for Judicial custody in Cr.No.380/2021 of Gorantla

Police station, sending the property for conducting property identification parades to P.W.7 in the three crimes of Gorantla P.S. and filing of charge sheet after completion of investigation.

(b) In the cross examination P.W.9 deposed that the petrol bunk is 50 yards away from Gangamma temple. P.W.9 denying to the suggestions that when a person is having drinking habit he wont wait for about 25 days and that the person will spent theft material on the very next day on the other day to have alcohol stated that the accused spent the cash amount for all these days for consuming alcohol and after spending said amount he was carrying theft material to sell them to consume alcohol. P.W.9 admitting that there is a direct road to

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD

10

Bangalore from Kothacheruvu without going through Gummaiahgaripalli cross stated that in the said direct road from Kothacheruvu to Bangalore generally in the day time there will be less flow of vehicles. P.W.9 admitted that he had not cited A.S.I. Srinivasulu in the memo of evidence of charge sheet who typed Ex.P5.

P.W.9 denied to the suggestion that false F.I.Rs were registered against the accused and that he has prepared entire records of this case at Police station and that he had obtained signatures of P.W.5 and L.W.13/T.Jagadeesh Kumar in Ex.P5 and the Signatures of P.W.7 in property identification mahazarnamas in the Police station and foisted a false case against the accused by bringing him from his house.

21) In this case, the case of the prosecution is edificed on a mahazarnama marked under Ex.P5. That it consists of the minute details of various crimes including three crimes pertaining to this case, the Court need to look into tranche of panchanama so as to see the accusation against the accused for the charged offences. In such an endeavor when the case of the prosecution is appreciatedit is found that it has garnered the support of pivotal witnesses namely panchayatdar examined as P.W.5 and the panchayathdar to the property identification parades marked Ex.P8 to Ex.P10 examined as P.W.7. Their evidence is clear and cogent. The evidence of P.W.5 has not exaggerated the facts, he could withstand the rigor of cross examination. The material pieces of evidence that shows the incriminating aspects are such that they cannot be twisted or readin any other perspective than that of the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.380 of IPC. Not only the evidence of Panchayatdaras, the evidence of Investigating Officers who are examined as P.W.6, P.W.8 and P.W.9

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD

11 namely Iqbal Basha, Isaq Basha and J.Jaya Naik unravel the role of the accused in perfecting the offence punishable U/Sec.380 of IPC.

22) The evidence in chief of three Investigating Officers could not be taken in the cross examination. The counsel for the accused argued that it has come on record from the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.7 that they signed as mediators in 15 cases and 10 cases respectively as such they are stock witnesses of Police and that P.W.9 has failed to cite the A.S.I. Sreenivasulu who typed Ex.P5 in the memo of evidence of charge sheet as such the case of the prosecution as riddled with doubt and that the benefit of doubt is in favour of the accused and that the accused may be acquitted in this case. The evidence of Panchayatdars cannot be disregarded on the premise that an earlier proceedings they stood as mediators.

23) Of-late the assistance of the public could not be garnered by the

Police officials on the various reasons especially in those circumstances when the people are scared of unnecessary victimization, waste of time excruciating cross examination, frequent adjournments, etc., due to the above reasons the people seldom cooperate the police to act as mediators etc., the situation impel the

Police to have assistance revenue officials such as Village Revenue Officer, Village

Revenue Authority, etc., so there is no embargo on the part of Police officials in taking the assistance of the revenue officials as mediators. The appreciable facts in this case is that the mediators fairly admitted that they acted as mediators in the earlier proceedings. Thus the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.7 cannot be disregarded on the above premise.

24) Thus from the evidence available on record both oral and documentary evidence adduced as P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 to P.W.9 coupled with Ex.1,

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD

12

Ex.P2, Ex.P4 to Ex.P15 and M.Os.1 to 12 the Court is of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 380 of IPC.

25) Further it is the quality that matters not a quantity in proving the case. The non citing of A.S.I. Sreenivasulu in the memo of evidence of charge sheet is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The confession made by the accused though in the presence of Police is hit by Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act as it lead to discovery the some of the material objects and cash which were committed theft in the three crimes involved in this case. The accused in this case while confessing detailed from which places he had committed theft of material objects and cash. In as much as the panchayatdar who is examined as

P.W.5 supported the case of the prosecution and as the material objects and cash are discovered/recovered and seized from the accused under Ex.P5, the confession made by the accused is admissible and taken into consideration to establish the guilt of the accused in view of Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

26) However a perusal of record goes to show that the evidence available on record perse is not sufficient to proceed against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 457 of IPC as the prosecution failed to prove all the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 457 of IPC. Hence it is held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.457 of IPC.

27) In as much as, this Court found that the accused guilt of the accused punishable U/Sec.380 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and thereby this

Court convicts the accused.

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD

13

RESULT:-

28) In the result, accused is found guilty for offence punishable under section 380 of IPC and thereby he is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Accused is found not guilty for offence punishable under section 457 of IPC and he is accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him, Corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of March, 2023.

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Penukonda.

29) The accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him, the accused stated that his mother is old aged and that she is depending upon him and that he is the only person to look after the welfare of his mother and that if he is sent to Jail there will be no one to look after his aged mother. The accused further submitted that he is only the bread winner of his family. Accused pleaded mercy of this court and requested to take lenient view.

30) Keeping in view of the nature of the offence and the manner it is committed, this court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for applying the provisions of Sec. 360 Cr.P.C., or the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

31) In the result, accused is found guilty for offence punishable under section 380 of IPC and thereby he is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Accused is found not guilty for offence punishable under section 457 of IPC and he is accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and six months for the offence punishable under section 380 of IPC and is further sentenced to pay a fine

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD

14 of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine amount he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The accused is entitled for the set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The remand period of accused from 11-10-2021 to till date is set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. The accused is appraised of his right of appeal and also the availability of free legal aid for the purpose of appeal.

DISPOSAL OF CASE PROPERTY :

The M.O.1 i.e., Bronze crown which is given in interim custody to P.W.4 i.e., Pujari Chinna Narasimhappa S/o late Narasappa, Palasamudram Village of

Gorantla Mandal by the Gorantla Police under receipt shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The M.O.2 Two bronze lighting lamps (Kanchu Deepalu) and

M.O.12 i.e., cash of Rs.3,000/- shall be given to P.W.4 i.e., Pujari Chinna

Narasimhappa S/o late Narasappa, Palasamudram Village of Gorantla Mandal after expiry of appeal time as he is the Priest and custodian of Sri Gangamma Temple.

M.O.3 to M.O.6 i.e., four small temple bells pertaining to Cr.No.345/2021 shall be given to P.W.2 i.e., G.Ramachandra S/o Late Erappa, Gownivaripalli Village,

Gorantla Mandal after expiry of appeal time as he is the Priest and custodian of Sri

Gangamma Temple of Gownivaripalli Village, Gorantla Mandal. M.O.7 to M.O.11 i.e., 5 big size temple bells shall be given to P.W.1/Pujari Srinivasulu, S/o

Narasimhappa, Kangareddipalli Village, Gorantla Mandal after expiry of appeal time as he is the Priest and custodian of Sri Maremma Temple, Jeenavandlapalli

Village of Gorantla Mandal.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him,

Corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of March, 2023.

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Penukonda.

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD

15

Appendix of evidence.

Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution :- For Defence :- PW.1 : P.Srinivasulu - None - PW.2 : G.Ramachandra PW.3 : C.Krishna Reddy PW.4 : P.C.Narasimhappa PW.5 : P.Chennakeshavulu PW.6 : P.Iqbal Basha PW.7 : P.Ravikanth Reddy PW.8 : A.Isaq Basha PW.9 : J.Jaya Naik Exhibits marked. For Prosecution :-

Ex.P1Report of P.W.1 Ex.P2Report of P.W.2 Ex.P3Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 Ex.P4Report of P.W.3 Ex.P5Confession cum seizure cum arrest mahazarnama dt. 11.10.2021 Ex.P6F.I.R. in Cr.No.346/2021. Ex.P7Rough sketch of the offence in Cr.No.346/2021 Ex.P8Identification mahazarnama in Cr.No.345/2021. Ex.P9Identification mahazarnama in Cr.No.346/2021. Ex.P10Identification mahazarnama in Cr.No.380/2021. Ex.P11F.I.R. In Cr.No.380/2021. Ex.P12Rough sketch of the scene of offence in Cr.No.380/2021 Ex.P13Police proceedings in Cr.No.380/2021. Ex.P14F.I.R. In Cr.No.345/2021. Ex.P15Rough sketch of the scene of offence in Cr.No.345/2021

For Defence :-

Ex.D1Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.

Material objects :

M.O.1Bronze crown pertaining to Cr.No.380/2021. M.O.2Two bronze lighting lamps (Kanchu Deepalu) pertaining to Cr.No.380/2021. M.O.3Small temple bells pertaining to Cr.No.345/2021.

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD

16

M.O.4Small temple bells pertaining to Cr.No.345/2021. M.O.5Small temple bells pertaining to Cr.No.345/2021. M.O.6Small temple bells pertaining to Cr.No.345/2021. M.O.7Big size temple bells pertaining to Cr.No.346/2021. M.O.8Big size temple bells pertaining to Cr.No.346/2021. M.O.9Big size temple bells pertaining to Cr.No.346/2021. M.O.10Big size temple bells pertaining to Cr.No.346/2021. M.O.11Big size temple bells pertaining to Cr.No.346/2021. M.O.12Cash of Rs.3,000/- pertaining to Cr.No.380/2021.

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Penukonda.

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD

17

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANATHAPURAM

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT PENUKONDA

Date ofDate ofAppre-Date ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport orhensionreleasedcommencclose ofsentence complaintofon bailement oftrial of order accusedtrial 1234567 1)Cr.No.345/2021)Cr.No.345/211.10.2021Accused is24.08.202209.03.202313-03-2023 1 in between021onin Sub-Jail, 13.09.2021 at15.09.2021Penukonda 10-00 P.M. tofrom 14.09.2021 at 7-11.10.2021 00 A.M.2)Cr.No.346/2to till date. 021on 15.09.2021 2)Cr.No.346/202 1 in between 13.09.2021 at 5-3)Cr.No.380/2 00P.M.to021on 14.09.2021 at 5-09.10.2021 00 A.M.

and

3)Cr.No.380/202 1priorto 08.10.2021 at 9- 30 P.M. and 09.10.2021 at 11-30 A.M.

Explanation of delay and remarksNIL.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NUMBER 287/2022 IN CRIME NUMBER 345/2021, CRIME NUMBER 346/2021 and CRIME NUMBER 380/2021 OF GORANTLA P.S. ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

PENUKONDA.

COMPLAINANTInspector of Police, Gorantla P.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Father’s Religion Sex /Age Calling Village Mandal accused name ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Talari Narasimhulu, age 29 years, S/o Late Talari Obulesu, B.C. Colony, Kothacheruvu Village and Mandal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCESU/ss.457, 380 alternatively 411 of IPC.

FINDINGAccused found guilty.

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD

18

In the result, accused is found guilty for offence punishable under section 380 of IPC and thereby he is convicted under

SENTENCE

section 248(2) Cr.P.C. Accused is found not guilty for offence punishable under section 457 of IPC and he is accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and six months for the offence punishable under section 380 of IPC and is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine amount he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The accused is entitled for the set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The remand period of accused from 11-10-2021 to till date is set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. The accused is appraised of his right of appeal and also the availability of free legal aid for the purpose of appeal. DISPOSAL OF CASE PROPERTY : The M.O.1 i.e., Bronze crown which is given in interim custody to P.W.4 i.e., Pujari Chinna Narasimhappa S/o late Narasappa, Palasamudram Village of Gorantla Mandal by the Gorantla Police under receipt shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The M.O.2 Two bronze lighting lamps (Kanchu Deepalu) and M.O.12 i.e., cash of Rs.3,000/- shall be given to P.W.4 i.e., Pujari Chinna Narasimhappa S/o late Narasappa, Palasamudram Village of Gorantla Mandal after expiry of appeal time as he is the Priest and custodian of Sri Gangamma Temple. M.O.3 to M.O.6 i.e., four small temple bells pertaining to Cr.No.345/2021 shall be given to P.W.2 i.e., G.Ramachandra S/o Late Erappa, Gownivaripalli Village, Gorantla Mandal after expiry of appeal time as he is the Priest and custodian of Sri Gangamma Temple of Gownivaripalli Village, Gorantla Mandal. M.O.7 to M.O.11 i.e., 5 big size temple bells shall be given to P.W.1/Pujari Srinivasulu, S/o Narasimhappa, Kangareddipalli Village, Gorantla Mandal after expiry of appeal time as he is the Priest and custodian of Sri Maremma Temple, Jeenavandlapalli Village of Gorantla Mandal.

SEAL:Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur.

CALENDAR CASE NUMBER287/2022 DATE OF JUDGMENT 13-03-2023 DATE OF DISPATCH OF CALENDAR 13-03-2023

Dt. 13-03-2023PJMFC/PKD