N. Amaravathi

III ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE NARSAMPET

Narsampet, JCJ Court Complex · Warangal · Telangana

N. Amaravathi, III ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE NARSAMPET, is posted at Narsampet, JCJ Court Complex, Warangal, Telangana, India. 634 court orders on record since 2017. 20 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, SC cases.

634

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/200374/2010

B Jayasingh, vs S Mark

10 Dec 2018

O.S. 374 OF 2010 1 dt: 10-12-2018

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::: WARANGAL.

Monday, 10 th day of December, 2018

Present:- Ms. N. Amaravathi, I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

O.S.No. 374 OF 2010

Between :

1. Banothu Jaya Singh, S/o. Mangya Naik, Age: 36 years, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o. H.No. 11-18-1208/A, Vivekananda Colony, Phase-I, Kasibugga, Warangal city,

2. Pathri Govindu, S/o. Late Maraiah, Age: 52 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.4-18, Balajinagar, Enumamula (RV), Hanamkonda (RM), Warangal District (died as per L.Rs)

3. M. Iylaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 59 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No. 11-10-107, A.J. Mills Colony, Warangal city, rep., by his GPA Holder, Pathri Govindu,

4. Gandham Kumaraswamy, S/o. Late Narsaiah, Age: 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.5-72, Balajinagar, Enumamula (RV), Hanamkonda (RM) Warangal district.

5. Jakkula Kumaraswamy, S/o. Late Pedda Sammaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.18-7-310/3, Laxminagar, Janmabhoomi Junction, Kareemabad, Warangal city,

6. Thurpati Bhagya Laxmi, W/o. T. Raghu, Age: 29 years, Occ:House-hold work, R/o. H.No.4-6, Balajinagar, Enumamula village, Hanamkonda (RM), Warangal,

7. Thurpati Raghu, S/o. T. Ramulu, Age: 43 years, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o. H.No.4-6, Balajinagar, Enumamula village, Hanamkonda (RM), Warangal, (Plaintiff nos. 6 and 7 were added as L.Rs., of deceased Plaintiff no.2 vide I.A.No.605/2017, dt. 11-09-2017)

...Plaintiffs

And

1. Savuram Mark, S/o. Late Sri Komuraiah, Aged: 85 years, Occ:Senior Citizen, R/o. GP No.2-7, Enumamula (RV) Hanamkonda (RM),Warangal district (Died)

2. Savuram Yellaiah, S/o. Sri Mark, Age: 56 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. H.No.46-2-8, Enumamula (RV) Hanamkonda (RM), Warangal,

3. Savuram Bala Raju, S/o. Late Sri Mark, Age: 54 years, Occ: Painter, R/o. H.No.46-2-9, Enumamula (RV) Hanamkonda (RM), Warangal,

O.S. 374 OF 2010 2 dt: 10-12-2018

4. Savuram Manikyam, S/o. Late Sri Mark, Age: 45 years, Occ: Bank Employee, R/o. H.No.46-2-10, Enumamula (RV) Hanamkonda (RM), Warangal,

5. Siluveru Sadanandam, S/o. Late Sri Veeraiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Painter, R/o. H.No.46-3-19, C/o. Sri S. Kasinadham, Balaji Nagar, Enumamula (RV), Hanamkonda (RM), Warangal district.

6. Savuram Chakrapani, S/o. Late Sri Mark, Age: 55 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No.46-2-8, Enumamula (RV) Hanamkonda (RM), Warangal,

7. Savuram Devaiah, S/o. Late Sri Mark, Age: 58 years, Occ: Retd. Govt. Employee, R/o. Enumamula (RV) Hanamkonda (RM), Warangal,

8. Parupetla Kamala, W/o. Not known, Age: 50 years, Occ: Household work, R/o. Gundlasingaram village, Hanamkonda (RM), Warangal,

9. Gade Kala, W/o. Sri Nagesh, Age: 48 years, Occ: Household work, R/o. Gundlasingaram village, Hanamkonda (RM), Warangal,

10. Emelia, W/o. Sri Mohan, Age: 45 years, Occ: Household work, R/o. Ganeshnagar, Near CKM College, Warangal city. (Defendant nos. 6 to 10 were added as L.Rs., of deceased Defendant no.1 vide I.A.No.1586/2014, dt. 6-10-2015)

...Defendants

This suit coming up before me on 05-12-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Krishna Prasad, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri

K.P.Eshwarnath, Advocate for Defendants and upon perusing the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

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

1.The suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for permanent injunction infavour of the plaintiffs by restraining the defendants, their agents, yesmen, workers, etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

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

a) The plaintiff no.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the house plot admeasuring 200 sq.yards, in Sy.No.238, situated at,

O.S. 374 OF 2010 3 dt: 10-12-2018

Enumamula village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal Urban District, hereinafter referred to as “suit schedule-A property”. The plaintiff no.1 purchased the same from his owner Madipelli Surya Kumari under a registered sale deed document no.3805/07, dt. 9.7.2007 who inturn purchased the same from T. Shakuntala under a registered sale deed vide document no.563/1985, dt. 3.7.1985. The said T. Shakuntala inturn purchased the same from the defendant no.2 under sale deed vide document no.2024/1982, dt. 21.8.1982. For the last 28 years, the plaintiff no.1 was in peaceful possession of suit schedule-A property and he also applied building permission to the Gram panchayath, Enumamula and obtained the permission on 10-02-2010.

b) The plaintiff no.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of the house plot admeasuring 297.77 sq.yards, in Sy.No.238, situated at,

Enumamula village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal Urban District, hereinafter referred to as “suit schedule-B (a) property”. The plaintiff no.2 purchased the same from his owner G. sarojana under a registered sale deed document no.843/10, dt. 16.2.2010 who inturn purchased the same from the defendant no.2 under a sale deed document no.860/1982, dt.

14.7.1982. For the last 28 years, the plaintiff no.2 was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule-B (a) property and he also applied for building permission to the Gram panchayath, Enumamula and obtained the same vide permission no. GPE/41/2009, Dt. 6.6.2009 by assigning the H.No.5-36/19.

c) The plaintiff no.2 has purchased another house plot, admeasuring 238 sq.yards, in Sy.No.238, situated at, Enumamula village,

Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal Urban District, hereinafter referred to as

O.S. 374 OF 2010 4 dt: 10-12-2018

“suit schedule-B (b) property”. The plaintiff no.2 purchased the same from plaintiff no.3 under a registered sale agreement-cum-GPA document no.1943/2010, dt. 6.4.2010 who inturn purchased the same from M. Iylaiah from defendant no.1 and his son S. Devaiah document no.359/1983, dt.

7.5.1983. For the last 27 years, the plaintiff no.3/M. Iylaiah was in peaceful possession of the suit schedule-B (b) property, the same was purchased by the plaintiff no.2 by paying the sale consideration and plaintiff no.2 is in peaceful possession of the same.

d) The plaintiff no.4 is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing plot no.16, admeasuring 355 sq.yards, in Sy.No.238, situated at, Enumamula village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal Urban District, hereinafter referred to as “suit schedule-C property”. The plaintiff no.4 purchased the same from one R. Chandrakala who inturn purchased the same from D. Swaroopa under a registered sale deed document no.1030/1994, dt. 16.8.1994. The said D. Swaroopa purchased the same from K. Sambaiah under a registered sale deed document no.794/1987, dt.

25.5.1987 who inturn purchased the same from the defendant no.2 under a sale deed document no.172/1982, dt. 17.7.1982. For the last 28 years, the plaintiff no.4 was in peaceful possession of the suit schedule-A property and he also applied for building permission to the Gram panchayath,

Enumamula and obtained the same on 13-02-2010. The Gram panchayath assigned house bearing G.P.No.5-36/18.

e) The plaintiff no.5 is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing plot No. 18/b, admeasuring 119 sq.yards, in Sy.No.238 situated at, Enumamula village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal Urban

District, hereinafter referred to as “suit schedule-D property”. The plaintiff

O.S. 374 OF 2010 5 dt: 10-12-2018

no.5 purchased the same from one G. Ramulamma who inturn purchased the same from the defendant no.2 under a sale deed document no.858/1982, dt. 14.7.1982. The plaintiff no.5 also purchased another plot no.18 (a), admeasuring 112 sq.yards, in Sy.No.238 from one K. Kishan Rao who inturn purchased the same under registered sale deed document no.859/1982, dt. 14.7.1982 from the defendant no.2. Thus, the plaintiff no.5 is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 231 sq.yards.

For the last 28 years, the plaintiff no.5 was in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule-D property. Thus, the plaintiff nos. 1 to 5 purchased their respective plots under different transactions from its erstwhile owners. The defendant no.1 is the father of the defendant nos. 2, 3, 4 and defendant no.5 is brother-in-law of defendant nos. 2 to 4. By knowing the entire facts about dividing the same into plots about 30 years back and sold them to the vendors of the plaintiffs, the defendants in order to defraud the valuable rights, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs created havoc on the spot and threatened the plaintiffs in order to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The, plaintiff no.1 started construction of basement and raised pillars in order to construct the house, but the defendant's threatened him and also other plaintiffs in order to disturb their peaceful possession and their existing sheds and that the plaintiffs and defendant's filed caveats against one another in the year 2008-09. Subsequently, the plaintiffs and defendant's approached the elders and after careful scrutiny, the elders advised the defendant's not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs as their property was sold in the year 1982 itself to various persons. After that, the defendant's were silent about 1 ½ year, then again started disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs from and after 27.3.2010 without having any alternative, the plaintiffs filed the suit. Hence, the suit.

O.S. 374 OF 2010 6 dt: 10-12-2018

3. The averments of the written statement filed by

defendant no.4 adopted by defendant nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 10 by way of

adoption memo in brief are as follows: The defendants denied the ownership and possession of the suit schedule properties i.e., suit schedule-

A to D properties by the plaintiff and contended that no title is obtained by the plaintiff under the alleged registered sale deed. The defendant no.4 along with other defendants claimed them as the owner of the suit schedule

A to D properties, having purchased the same under different registered documents and stated that they have not sold any plot to any person and they were unaware of the police complaint. The defendant's denied the alleged interference of the petitioner over the suit schedule properties A to

D.. Hence, prayed the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the suit.

4.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined themselves as PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.31 on their behalf. The defendants got examined themselves as DW.1 and DW.2 but did not mark any documents on its behalf.

5. Based on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were framed:

i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

ii) To what relief?

6.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. The defendants failed to submit the Arguments. Hence, treated as heard.

O.S. 374 OF 2010 7 dt: 10-12-2018

7. ISSUE NO-1: Perused the evidence of the plaintiff i.e., PW-1 to PW-4 and documents marked in Ex.A.1 to A.31 and the evidence of the defendants i.e., DW.1 and DW.2, and did not mark any of the documents on its behalf. The Plaintiff no.3 is represented by the plaintiff no.1 as GPA holder. Plaintiff no.2 died and the legal representatives of the plaintiff no.2 added as plaintiff nos. 6 and 7. The defendant no.1 died and the legal representatives of the defendant no.1 added as defendant nos. 6 to 10. On 20-10-2017, this suit filed by the plaintiff nos. 5 to 7 against the defendants

D.5 & D.6 is dismissed as not pressed. The plaintiff nos. 5 to 7 filed memorandum of compromise under order 23, R-3 CPC with respect to the properties schedule-B (d) and (b) and schedule-D with the defendant nos. 2 to 4 & D-7 to D-10. The suit filed by the plaintiff nos. 5 to 7 decreed as per compromise terms. Now this case is with regard to the claim of the plaintiff nos. 1 and 4 claiming the schedule-A & C properties against all the defendants.

8.PW.1/B. Jaya Singh testified that he purchased the schedule-A property from one Smt M. Surya Kumari under registered sale deed, dt.

9.7.2007 under Ex.A.1 and his vendor purchased the same from one Smt T.

Shakunthala under registered sale deed, dt. 3.7.1985 under Ex.A.2 and the said Shakunthala purchased the said property from the defendant no.2 under registered sale deed, dt. 21-8-1982 under Ex.A-3 and since 09.07.2007, she was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule-

A property and all the defendants know the same. In the year 2010, PW-1/B.

Jaya Singh obtained permission for construction of the building from the concerned authorities who sanctioned permission on 10-2-2010 under Ex.A- 4 and he constructed the building and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

O.S. 374 OF 2010 8 dt: 10-12-2018

9.PW.1/B. Jaya Singh further testified that the plaintiff no.4 purchased the schedule-C property under registered sale deed, dt. 15-12- 2008 from one Chandrakala under Ex.A.27 and the said Chandrakala purchased the same from one D. Swaroopa under registered sale deed, dt.

16-8-1994 under Ex.A.27 and the said Swaroopa purchased the same from one K. Sambaiah under registered sale deed, dt. 25-5-1987 under Ex.A.28 and the Sadi Sambaiah purchased the same from the defendant no.2 under registered sale deed, dt. 17-7-1982 and from the date of purchase the plaintiff no.4 was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule-C property and after the purchase, the plaintiff no.4 obtained the permission for construction of the building from the concerned authorities, dt. 13-2- 2010, under Ex.A.31 who sanctioned permission. Accordingly, the plaintiff no.4 constructed the building and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same which is corroborated with the evidence of PW.1/B.

Jaya Singh. PW.4/G. Kumaraswamy purchased the schedule-A and schedule-C properties from their respective vendors and the vendor of the vendors of PW.1/B. Jaya Singh and PW-4/G. Kumaraswamy purchased the schedule-A and Schedule-C properties from the defendant no.2 in the year 1982 and the gram panchayath passed resolution under Ex.A.5 to A.29 and the gram panchayath also passed receipt under Ex.A.3 and the photographs and CD under Ex.A-6 & A-7 clearly shows the possession and enjoyment of PW.1/B. Jaya Singh and PW-4/G. Kumaraswamy. The defendants having knowledge about the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule-A and schedule-C properties in order to defraud their valuable right, title interest and possession over the same.

10. The defendant nos. 3 and 4 were examined as DW.1/Bala Raju and DW.2/S. Manikyam and no documents were marked. DW.1/Bala Raju

O.S. 374 OF 2010 9 dt: 10-12-2018

failed to attend to face cross examination. DW.1/Bala Raju and DW.2/S.

Manikyam denied the schedule-A and schedule-C properties purchased by

PW.1/B. Jaya Singh and PW-4/G. Kumaraswamy and their possession. But mere denial of the possession of PW.1/B. Jaya singh and PW.4/G.

Kumaraswamy over the schedule-A property and schedule-C property cannot amounts to disprove the contentions of PW-1/B. Jaya singh and

PW.4/G. Kumaraswamy. Moreover, PW-2/J. Kumaraswamy categorically admitted that, the plaintiff constructed the houses in the suit schedule properties and the same belongs to them as he never sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. But DW.2/S. Manikyam failed to file any of the documentary evidence or adduce oral evidence to show that he was in possession of the schedule-A and schedule-C properties as on the date of filing of the suit. On the other hand, DW-2/S. Manikyam categorically admitted that the suit schedule property were constructed by the plaintiffs.

The other defendants not adduce any evidence to disprove the contentions of the plaintiffs over the schedule-A and schedule-C properties and the claim of the plaintiff no.1 is unchallenged and unrebutted. Though, the defendant no.3 and 4, examined themselves as DW.1/Bala Raju and

DW.2/S. Manikyam. But, DW.1/Bala Raju failed to attend to face cross examination and DW.1/S. Manikyam failed to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff nos. 1 and 4 over the schedule-A property and schedule-C property. Plaintiff nos. 1 & 4 proved their prima-facie peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule-A property and schedule-C property as on the date of the suit and also proved balance of convenience is also infavour of the plaintiff nos. 1 and 4 and if the injunction is not granted, the plaintiff nos. 1 and 4 will suffer irreparable loss. Hence, the Issue no.1 is answered infavour of the plaintiff nos 1 and 4 with respect to the schedule-A property and schedule-C property.

O.S. 374 OF 2010 10 dt: 10-12-2018

ISSUE NO.2: In the result, this suit is partly decreed without cost by granting perpetual injunction infavour of the plaintiff against defendant nos. 1 to 10, restraining them, their family members, yes-men, agents, etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff nos. 1 and 4 with respect to the suit schedule-A and suit schedule-C properties only.

(Written by me, typed by the Stenographer, after transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of December, 2018)

FAC II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT :

PW-1: B. Jaya Singh DW-1: Bala Raju

PW-2: J. Kumaraswamy, DW-2: S. Manikyam

PW-3: Pathri Govindu,

PW-4: G. Kumaraswamy,

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS :

Ex.A.1:Certified copy of sale deed, dt. 9.7.2007 executed by Medipalli Surya Kumar,

Ex.A.2:Certified copy of sale deed executed by T. Shakunthala on 3.7.1985 in favour of Medipalli Surya Kumar

Ex.A.3:Certified copy of sale deed executed by defendant no.3 in favour of T. Shakunthala, the vendors vendor, dt. 21.08.1982,

Ex.A.4:Certified copy of Mutation proceedings, dt. 10-02-2010,

Ex.A.5:Certified copy of Resolution passed by gram panchayath, Hanamkonda for the year, 1995-96,

Ex.A.6 & A.7:Two photographs along with C.D.,

Ex.A.6:Original sale deed, dt. 23-1-2007, (remarked by PW-2)

Ex.A.7:Original sale deed, dt. 14-7-1982, (remarked by PW-2)

O.S. 374 OF 2010 11 dt: 10-12-2018

Ex.A.8:Original sale deed, dt. 23-1-2007,

Ex.A.9:Original sale deed, dt. 14-7-1982,

Ex.A.10 & 11: Photographs,

Ex.A.12:Served copy of Caveat filed by the defendants,

Ex.A.13:Original registered sale deed, dt. 16-2-2010,

Ex.A.14:Original registered sale deed, dt. 7-5-1983,

Ex.A.15:Original sale agreement-cum-GPA, dt. 6-4-2010,

Ex.A.16:Original Permission given by the gram panchayath, Enumamula along with plan,

Ex.A.17:Certified copy of sale deed, dt. 2-8-1977,

Ex.A.18:Receipt issued by Gram Panchayath, dt. 1-4-2010,

Ex.A.19:Receipt issued by Gram Panchayath, dt. 5-2-2010,

Ex.A.20:Receipt issued by Gram Panchayath, dt. 10-2-2010,

Ex.A.21:Receipt issued by Gram Panchayath, dt. 20-8-2011,

Ex.A.22:Receipt issued by Gram Panchayath, dt. 17-11-2011,

Ex.A.23:Receipt issued by Gram Panchayath, dt. 20-8-2011,

Ex.A.24:Electricity bill, dt. 14-10-2011,

Ex.A.25:Four photographs with C.D.,

Ex.A.26:Registered sale deed, dt. 15-12-2008, vide doc.no.6750/2008,

Ex.A.27:Registered sale deed, dt. 16-8-1994, vide doc.no.1030/1994,

Ex.A.28:Registered sale deed, dt. 25-5-1987, vide doc.no.794/1987,

Ex.A.29:Resolution of Gram panchayath, Enumamula issued by Panchayath Secretary and Sarpanch,

Ex.A.30:Receipt, dt. 13-2-2010 issued by Gram panchayath office, Enumamula,

Ex.A.31:Permission proceedings, dt. 13-2-2010 submitted by Sarpanch, Enumamula village to Vice Chairman along with plan showing the proposed construction.

FOR DEFENDANT :

- NIL -

FAC II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

O.S. 374 OF 2010 12 dt: 10-12-2018

CC/100757/2015 Acquitted

R. Prem Kumar Chettiar vs Smt. Guda Sreedevi

04 Feb 2019

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Present : Ms.N.Amaravathi, I- Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Warangal.

Dated this the 4th day of February, 2019.

C.C. NO.757 of 2015.

Between:

R. Prem Kumar Chettiar, s/o.Radhakrishna Chettiar, aged about 52 yrs, Occ:Business, r/o.H.No.45-7-9, Gorrekunta (V), Geesugonda (M), Warangal district.

.... Complainant.

And

Guda Sreedevi, w/o.Ravi Babu, aged about 35 yrs, Occ:Business, r/o.137B and 138B, Keerthi Nagar, Housing Board colony, Warangal.

.....Accused.

This case coming on this the 31st day of January, 2019 before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of counsel Sri.T. Sadashivudu, for complainant and in the presence of counsel Sri.R. Ananda Rao, for the accused, and after having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following:-

:: JUDGMENT ::

This complaint filed against the accused for an offence committed by him U/sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2.The case of the complainant as narrated in the complaint in brief are as follows:

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4 lakhs from the complainant/R. Premkumar Chettiar, for his personal and business necessities and agreed to repay the said with interest @ 2 % per month and thereafter, on several requests, the accused issued two post dated cheques under Exs.P1 and P2 for sum of Rs.3 lakhs and another cheque

- 2 -

for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards repayment of the said debt. Then, the complainant presented the said cheques into the bank for three times, on assurance given by the accused, but the said cheques were returned with an endorsement “Exceeds arrangement”. Then, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused, but the accused failed to repay the said cheque amount. Hence, the complaint.

3.On filing of complaint, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, cognizance was taken for an offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable instruments Act, against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, case copies furnished to the accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself is examined as PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar, one Premchand

Tagore as PW2, and documents marked Ex.P1 to P14, on behalf of the complainant. The accused herself examined as DW1/G. Sreedevi, one

Palla Nagaraju as DW2, and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused

- 3 -

accused denied the incriminating material evidence against him and request time for defence evidence. On behalf of the accused, the accused himself is examined as DW1, one Palla Nagaraju as DW2 and no were documents marked on behalf of accused.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the complainant is able to prove the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.Point: Perused the evidence on behalf of the complainant i.e., PW1 and PW2 and documents marked i.e, Exs.P1 to P14 and the evidence on behalf of the accused, i.e., DW1 and DW2 and no documents were marked. PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar reiterated the averments of the complaint in his examination in chief-affidavit and got marked the documents i.e., Exs.P1 to P14, i.e., Ex.P1 is the original cheque bearing

No.148874, dt:5.6.2015, for sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, Ex.P2 is the original cheque bearing No.140720, dt:5.6.2015, for sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.P3 is the cheque return memo dt:10.6.2015, with respect to Ex.P1 cheque,

Ex.P4 is the cheque return memo dt:10.6.2015, with respect to Ex.P2 cheque, Ex.P5 is the cheque return memo dt:29.6.2015, with respect to

Ex.P1 cheque, Ex.P6 is the cheque return memo dt:29.6.2015, with respect to Ex.P2 cheque, Ex.P7 is the cheque return memo dt:1.7.2015, with respect to Ex.P1 cheque, Ex.P8 is the cheque return memo

dt:1.7.2015, with respect to Ex.P2 cheque, Ex.P9 is the office copy of

legal notice dt:25.7.2015, Ex.P10 is the postal receipt, Ex.P11 is the served acknowledgement card, Ex.P12 is the cheque list for SME loan of the accused, Ex.P13 is the loan application form of the accused, Ex.P14

- 4 -

is the copy of form TOR 003 (Notification General Registration) issued by commercial Tax department, dt:28.7.2005.

11.According to PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4 lakhs from him for his personal and business necessities and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 2 % per month and thereafter, on several requests, the accused issued two post dated cheques under Exs.P1 and P2 for sum of Rs.3 lakhs and another cheque for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards repayment of the said debt.

Though, there is evidential burden placed upon the accused by virtue of the presumption u/s.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it can be rebutted by the accused by sharing the preponderance of probabilities.

12.The contention of the defence is that DW1/Guda Sreedevi and the accused used to do pickle business and PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar used to run, welding shop in open godown used by him, then DW1/Guda

Sreedevi lent the said godown for storing pickle products in the year 2012, during peak season and PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar taken the blank signed cheques under Exs.P1 and P2 and misused the same and the accused never borrowed any of the amounts from PW1/R.

Premkumar Chettiar as alleged by him. PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar categorically admitted that there is no document to show that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4 lakhs on 14.2.2014 and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 2 % p.m.

13.According to PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar, the transaction is between him and the accused personally and there is no transaction between him and Himagiri products, Proprietorship concerned. PW1/R.

Premkumar Chettiar also admitted that he did not got issue legal notice

- 5 -

to Himagiri Products represented by its Proprietor pertaining to the cheques under Exs.P1 and P2. When admittedly, no transaction between PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar and the accused personally, then, the question of liability of accused in person as the drawer of the cheque does not arise.

14.In order to attract the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the holder in due course of the cheque i.e., complainant shall comply the ingredients of the provision u/s.138 proviso (a) to (c) of Negotiable Instruments Act. Sec.138 proviso

(b) deals that “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 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid”.

15.In this case, the cheque under Exs.P1 and P2 were issued by for

Himgiri Products, Proprietor. Though, the company of Proprietorship concerned have sole liability on the proprietor of the company, but not as obtained debt personally. The cheques under Exs.P1 and P2 clearly disclose that the drawer of the cheques under Exs.P1 and P2 are “For

Himagiri Products”, Proprietor”, but not the accused as G. Sreedevi.

Thatmeans, whoever is the proprietor of that company. The complainant got issued legal notice under Ex.P9 to the accused in person as Guda Sreedevi, but not issued to the 'Himagiri Products', represented by its Proprietor. Hence, the ingredients of the provision u/s.138 proviso (b) of Negotiable Instruments Act not complied as required in the Act, in order to constitute an offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused.

- 6 -

16.The complainant examined the Bank Manager, SBI, Kashibugga branch, Warangal as PW2/Premchand Tagore, who testified that the accused is having Bank account No.62185476088 in their bank and the accused also provide cheque book from cheque leaves no.148856 to 148905 on 21.6.2011 and also cheque leaves no.140681 to 140730 on 13.5.2011 and identified the cheque return memos issued under Exs.P3 to P8 issued by their bank. In this case, the accused not denied the cheque leaves under Exs.P1 and P2 belongs to him and the same were not returned by the bank under Exs.P3 to P8. Hence, the evidence of

PW2/Premchand Tagore is not helpful to the case of the complainant.

17.According to PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar, on repeated several requests, the accused issued two post dated cheques under Exs.P1 and

P2, two months prior to dt:5.6.2015. Thatmeans, the said cheques under Exs.P1 and P2 were issued prior to dt:5.4.2015. PW1/R.

Premkumar Chettiar testified that the accused assured that the cheques will be honoured whenever PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar will present the cheques under Exs.P1 and P2 into the bank and believing the version of the accused, PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar presented the cheques under

Exs.P1 and P2 into the bank and the same were returned with an endorsement “Exceeds Arrangement”, and when PW1/R. Premkumar

Chettiar intimated the same to the accused with regard to the same, then, the accused requested him to present the said two cheques under

Exs.P1 and P2 into the bank again, then, again PW1/R. Premkumar

Chettiar presented the cheques under Exs.P1 and P2 into the bank on 8.6.2015, but the said two cheques under Exs.P1 and P2 were again returned with an endorsement “exceed arrangement” with cheque return memos under Exs.P5 and P6. Then, again, PW1/R. Premkumar

- 7 -

Chettiar intimated the same to the accused, then, again the accused requested him to present the cheques into the bank. As such, PW1/R.

Premkumar Chettiar again presented the said cheques under Exs.P1 and

P2 into the bank on 1.7.2015, but, again the said cheques were returned with an endorsement that “exceeds arrangement” with cheque return memos under Exs.P7 and P8. Thatmeans, the complainant alleged to have been intimated orally to the accused, about the cheques returned with endorsement as “exceeds arrangements”.

18.As per the evidence of PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar, for the first time the presentation of cheques under Exs.P1 and P2 were presented as the accused alleged to have been given assurance to present the same and there is no evidence to show that the accused have knowledge with regard to the presentation of the cheques under Exs.P1 and P2 into the bank, as well as the said cheques under Exs.P1 and P2, returned with cheque return memos under Exs.P3 to P8. Hence, the learned counsel for defence argued that the accused has no knowledge about the presentation of the cheques under Exs.P1 and P2 into the bank. Hence, the defence taken by the accused is believable as per the accused she never issued the said cheques under Exs.P1 and P2 towards discharge of the legal enforceable debt and the complainant/PW1/R.

Premkumar Chettiar also failed to adduce evidence with regard to the same.

19.According to PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar, that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from him on 14.2.2014 and the issued cheques under Exs.P1 and P2 towards repayment of the legal enforceable debt dt:14.2.2014, but PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar failed to adduce evidence with regard to the same. Moreover, no common man

- 8 -

will lend money in lakhs without taking any security. In this case,

PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar alleged that he gave the said amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- and no document like promissory note or any other document, receipt or security obtained by him. Even assumption, if

PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar gave the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused on 14.2.2014, then, he would have obtained proof of the same, atleast the receipt of acknowledgement and he would have give the said amount in presence of any of the person, but PW1/R.

Premkumar Chettiar failed to do so. Hence, the version of PW1/R.

Premkumar Chettiar is not trustworthy. As such, the evidence of PW1/R.

Premkumar Chettiar is not believable. Therefore, the complainant failed to establish that there is legal enforceable debt upon the accused, beyond preponderance of probabilities.

20.In view of the above discussion, the complainant miserably failed to prove that the accused committed the offence punishable u/s.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, beyond reasonable doubt.

21.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the accused is acquitted U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months.

Written by me and typed by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4thday of February,

2019.

-sd/-

I ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

- 9 -

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Prosecution : For Defence:

PW1 : R. Premkumar Chettiar, DW1 : Guda Sreedevi,

PW2 : Premchand Tagore. DW2 : Palla Nagaraju.

Exhibits marked

For the Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Original cheque bearing No.148874, dt:5.6.2015, for sum of Rs.3,00,000/-,

Ex.P2: Original cheque bearing No.140720, dt:5.6.2015, for sum of Rs.1,00,000/-,

Ex.P3: Cheque return memo dt:10.6.2015, with respect to Ex.P1 cheque,

Ex.P4: Cheque return memo dt:10.6.2015, with respect to Ex.P2 cheque,

Ex.P5: Cheque return memo dt:29.6.2015, with respect to Ex.P1 cheque,

Ex.P6: Cheque return memo dt:29.6.2015, with respect to Ex.P2 cheque,

Ex.P7: Cheque return memo dt:1.7.2015, with respect to Ex.P1 cheque,

Ex.P8: Cheque return memo dt:1.7.2015, with respect to Ex.P2 cheque,

Ex.P9: Office copy of legal notice dt:25.7.2015,

Ex.P10: Postal receipt dt:25.7.2015,

Ex.P11: Served acknowledgement card,

Ex.P12: Cheque list for SME loan of the accused,

Ex.P13: Loan application form of the accused,

Ex.P14: Copy of form TOR 003 (Notification General Registration) issued by commercial Tax department, dt:28.7.2005.

For defence:

- Nil -

- 10 -

Mos. Marked - Nil- -sd/-

I ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

CC/100758/2015 Acquitted

R. Prem Kumar Chettiar vs Guda RaviBabu

04 Feb 2019

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Present : Ms.N.Amaravathi, I- Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Warangal.

Dated this the 4th day of February, 2019.

C.C. NO.758 of 2015.

Between:

R. Prem Kumar Chettiar, s/o.Radhakrishna Chettiar, aged about 52 yrs, Occ:Business, r/o.H.No.45-7-9, Gorrekunta (V), Geesugonda (M), Warangal district.

.... Complainant.

And

Guda Ravi Babu, aged about 40 yrs, Occ:Business, r/o.137B and 138B, Keerthi Nagar, Housing Board colony, Warangal.

.....Accused.

:: JUDGMENT ::

This complaint filed against the accused for an offence committed by him U/sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2.The case of the complainant as narrated in the complaint in brief are as follows:

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- from the complainant/R. Premkumar Chettiar, for his personal and business necessities and agreed to repay the said with interest @ 2 % per month and thereafter, on several requests the accused issued post dated cheque under Ex.P1 for sum of Rs.3,30,000/- towards repayment of the

- 2 -

said debt. On assurance of the accused, the complainant presented the said cheque into the bank account for two times, but, the said cheque was returned with an endorsement “Account closed” on 10.6.2015 and 29.6.2015. Then, again the complainant intimated the same to the accused, but the accused failed to repay the same, then, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused, but the accused failed to repay the said cheque amount. Hence, the complaint.

3.On filing of complaint, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, cognizance was taken for an offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable instruments Act, against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, case copies furnished to the accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself is examined as PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar, one Premchand

Tagore as PW2, and documents marked Ex.P1 to P9, on behalf of the complainant. The accused himself examined as DW1/G. Ravi Babu, one Palla Nagaraju as DW2.

- 3 -

8.Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the complainant is able to prove the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.Point: Perused the evidence on behalf of the complainant i.e., PW1 and PW2 and documents marked i.e, Exs.P1 to P9 and the evidence on behalf of the accused, i.e., DW1 and DW2 and no documents were marked. PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar reiterated the averments of the complaint in his examination in chief-affidavit and got marked the documents i.e., Exs.P1 to P9 i.e., Ex.P1 is the original cheque bearing

No.071944, dt:5.6.2015, for sum of Rs.3,30,000/-, Ex.P2 is the cheque return memo dt:10.6.2015, Ex.P3 is the cheque deposits dt:27.6.2015,

Ex.P4 is the cheque return memo dt:29.6.2015, Ex.P5 is the office copy of legal notice dt:25.7.2015, Ex.P6 is the postal receipt dt:25.7.2015,

Ex.P7 is the served acknowledgement card, Ex.P8 is the account opening form of the accused in the name of M/s.Janapriya products,

Ex.P9 is the form TOT003 (TOT registration certificate issued by

Commercial Tax Department).

11.According to PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- from him for his personal and business necessities and agreed to repay the said with interest @ 2 % per month

- 4 -

and thereafter, on several requests the accused issued post dated cheque under Ex.P1 for sum of Rs.3,30,000/- towards repayment of the said debt. Though, there is evidential burden placed upon the accused by virtue of the presumption u/s.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it can be rebutted by the accused by sharing the preponderance of probabilities.

12.The contention of the defence is that DW1/Guda Ravi Babu and the accused used to do pickle business and PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar used to run, welding shop in open godown used by him, then, DW1/Guda

Ravi Babu lent the said godown for storing pickle products in the year 2012, during peak season and PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar taken the blank signed cheque under Ex.P1 and misused the same and the accused never borrowed any of the amounts from PW1/R. Premkumar

Chettiar as alleged by him. PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar categorically admitted that there is no document to show that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- on 10.2.2014 and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 2 % p.m.

13.According to PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar, the transaction is between him and the accused personally and there is no transaction between him and M/s.Janapriya products. PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar also admitted that he did not got issue legal notice to M/s.Janapriya

Products, represented by its Proprietor pertaining to the cheque under

Ex.P1. When admittedly, no transaction between PW1/R. Premkumar

Chettiar and the accused personally, then, the question of liability of accused in person as the drawer of the cheque under Negotiable

Instruments Act, does not arise.

- 5 -

15.In this case, the cheque under Ex.P1 were issued by For

M/s.Janapriya Products, represented by its Proprietor. Though, the company of Proprietorship of the concerned have sole liability on the proprietor of the concerned company, but not as personally. The cheque under Ex.P1 clearly disclose that the drawer of the cheque under Ex.P1 are “For M/s.Janapriya Products”, represented by its Proprietor”, but not the accused as G. Ravi Babu. Thatmeans, whoever is the Proprietor of that company. The complainant got issued legal notice under Ex.P5 to the accused in person as Guda Ravi Babu, but not issued to the 'For

M/s.Janapriya Products', represented by its Proprietor. Hence, the ingredients of the provision u/s.138 proviso (b) of Negotiable

Instruments Act not complied as required in the Act, in order to constitute an offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against the accused.

- 6 -

148905 on 21.6.2011 and also cheque leaves no.140681 to 140730 on 13.5.2011 and identified the cheque return memos issued under Exs.P2 and P4 issued by their bank. In this case, the accused not denied the cheque leaves under Ex.P1 belongs to him and the same were not returned by the bank under Exs.P2 and P4. Hence, the evidence of

PW2/Premchand Tagore is not helpful to the case of the complainant.

17.According to PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar on repeated several requests, the accused issued post dated cheque under Ex.P1 two months prior to dt:10.2.2014. Thatmeans, the said cheque under Ex.P1 was issued prior to dt:10.12.2013, which is two months prior to the accused alleged to have been borrowed the said amount of

Rs.3,30,000/- from PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar. PW1/R. Premkumar

Chettiar testified that the accused assured that the cheque under Ex.P1 will be honoured, whenever PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar will present the cheque under Ex.P1 into the bank and believing the version of the accused, PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar presented the cheque under Ex.P1 into the bank and the same were returned with an endorsement “Account closed” then, PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar again intimated the same to the accused with regard to the same, then, the accused again requested him to present the said cheque under Ex.P1 into the bank again, then, PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar, again presented the cheque under Ex.P1 into the bank on 8.6.2015, but the said cheque under Ex.P1 were again returned with an endorsement account closed with cheque return memos under Exs.P2 and P4. Then, again, PW1/R. Premkumar

Chettiar intimated the same to the accused, then, again the accused requested him to present the cheque into the bank. As such, PW1/R.

Premkumar Chettiar again presented the said cheque under Ex.P1 into the bank on 1.7.2015, but again the said cheque was returned with an

- 7 -

endorsement that “Account closed” with cheque return memo under

Exs.P2 and P4. Thatmeans, the complainant alleged to have been intimated orally to the accused, about the cheque returned with endorsement as Account closed.

18.As per the evidence of PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar for the first time the presentation of cheque under Ex.P1 were presented as the accused alleged to have been given assurance to present the same and there is no evidence to show that the accused have knowledge with regard to the presentation of the cheque under Ex.P1 into the bank, as well as the said cheque under Ex.P1, returned with cheque return memos under Exs.P2 and P4. The Learned counsel for defence argued that the accused has no knowledge about the presentation of the cheque under Ex.P1 into the bank. Hence, the defence taken by the accused is believable as per the accused, he never issued the said cheque under Ex.P1 towards the discharge of legal enforceable debt and the complainant/PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar also failed to adduce evidence with regard to the same.

19.According to PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- from him on 14.2.2014 and issued cheque under Ex.P1 towards repayment of the legal enforceable debt

dt:10.2.2014, but PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar failed to adduce evidence

with regard to the same. Moreover, no common man will lend money in lakhs without taking any security. In this case, PW1/R. Premkumar

Chettiar alleged that he gave the said amount of Rs.3,30,000/- and no document like promissory note or any other document, receipt or security obtained by him. Even assumption, if PW1/R. Premkumar

Chettiar gave the said amount of Rs.3,30,000/- to the accused on

- 8 -

10.2.2014, then, he would have obtained proof of the same, atleast the receipt of acknowledgement and he would have give the said amount in presence of any of the person, but PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar failed to do so. Hence, the version of PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar is not trustworthy. As such, the evidence of PW1/R. Premkumar Chettiar is not believable. Therefore, the complainant failed to establish that there is a legal enforceable debt upon the accused, beyond preponderance of probabilities.

20.In view of the above discussion, the complainant miserably failed to prove that the accused committed the offence punishable u/s.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, beyond reasonable doubt.

Written by me and typed by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4thday of February,

2019.

-sd/-

I ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Prosecution : For Defence:

PW1 : R. Premkumar Chettiar, DW1 : Guda Ravi Babu,

PW2 : Premchand Tagore. DW2 : Palla Nagaraju.

- 9 -

Exhibits marked

For the Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Original cheque bearing No.071944, dt:5.6.2015, for sum of Rs.3,30,000/-,

Ex.P2: Cheque return memo dt:10.6.2015,

Ex.P3: Cheque deposits dt:27.6.2015,

Ex.P4: Cheque return memo dt:29.6.2015,

Ex.P5: Office copy of legal notice dt:25.7.2015,

Ex.P6: Postal receipt dt:25.7.2015,

Ex.P7: Served acknowledgement card,

Ex.P8: Account opening form of the accused in the name of M/s.Janapriya products,

Ex.P9: Form TOT003 (TOT registration certificate issued by Commercial Tax Department).

For defence:

- Nil -

Mos. Marked - Nil- -sd/-

I ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

OS/201069/2010

Matta Nagendra Kumar vs Ram Reddy

18 Dec 2018

O.S. 1069 OF 2010 1 dt: 18-12-2018

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::: WARANGAL.

Tuesday, 18 th day of December, 2018

Present:- Ms. N. Amaravathi, I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

O.S.No. 1069 OF 2010

Between :

Matta Nagendra Kumar, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged: 48 years, Occ: SBH Employee, R/o. Lakkavaram village, Malkipuram mandal, East Godavari District, presently R/o. Vishakapatnam

...Plaintiff

And

1. Ram Reddy, S/o. Not known to plaintiff, Aged: 48 years, Occ: Government Employee, C/o.O/o. Postal Superintendent, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

2. Sudhir, S/o. Not known to plaintiff, Age: 35 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No. 24-3-77/5/A, Behind Julywada, Kazipet Jagir, Hanamkonda, Warangal,

...Defendants

This suit coming up before me on 29-11-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Laxminarayana, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri L.

Jalandhar Reddy, Advocate for Defendants and upon perusing the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

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

1.This suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of possession over the suit schedule property by directing the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property by removing the structures and hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff.

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

a) The plaintiff is working as an employee in State Bank of

Hyderabad, Vishakapatnam Branch, from the year 1986 to 1991, the plaintiff used to work in State Bank of Hyderabad in Mulug Branch, later, he

O.S. 1069 OF 2010 2 dt: 18-12-2018

was transferred to Godaviri Khani, Guntur, Vijayawada and to

Vishakapatnam branch. During the period of plaintiffs working in Mulugu

Branch, Warangal district, he purchased house plot to an extent of 355 sq.yards in Sy.No.31, situated at Kazipet Jagir village, Hanamkonda Mandal,

Warangal District under a registered sale deed vide document

No.2409/1990 on 11.10.1990 for sale consideration of Rs. 28,400/- from one

Singa Reddy Chinnappa Reddy., rep., by his GPA Holder Pogalla Suguna

Reddy vide GPA Dococument No.205/1990. Since the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plot to an extent of 355 sq.yards, in Sy.No.31 of Kazipet village.

b) The plaintiff for his family necessities sold the part of his plot to an extent of 190.66 sq.yards towards western side of the plot under registered sale deed vide document no.6901/2009, dt. 23.09.2009 and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the remaining part of the land admeasuring 190.66 sq.yards. On 20-06-2010, the plaintiff came to

Hanamkonda and visited his plot and found a compound wall with a temporary shed is constructed by occupying the plot of the plaintiff to an extent of 164.34 sq.yards. On enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant no.1 by occupying the plot of the plaintiff to an extent of 164.34 sq.yards including his plot constructed a compound wall and shed in the month of May, 2010. On 27.6.2010, the plaintiff demanded the defendant no.1 to remove the shed and compound wall constructed by him in the plot of the plaintiff. Then the defendant no.1 refused to do so and later, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant no.1 encroached the plot of the defendant no.1 towards eastern side and constructed a house bearing no.

24-3-7715/A. Then, the defendant no.1 failed to take any action against the defendant no.2, but by taking advantage of the plaintiffs absence, at

Hanamkonda occupied the plot of the plaintiff to an extent of 164.34

O.S. 1069 OF 2010 3 dt: 18-12-2018

sq.yards including his plot constructed compound wall and shed in the plot of the plaintiff as shown in the suit schedule property. As such, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 colluded with each other and occupied the land of the plaintiff to an extent of 164.34 sq.yards. Hence the suit.

3. The averments of the written statement filed by defendant no.1 in brief are as follows: This defendants denied the ownership and possession of the suit schedule properties i.e., suit schedule property by the plaintiff and contended that the son of the defendant namely Kethireddy Pradeep Kiran has purchased 355.3 sq.yards of land in sy.no.31 of Kazipet Jagir under registered sale deed vide document no.6580/2007, dt. 18.6.2007 from its original owner. Later, the son of the defendant no.1 has cleared the land and constructed compound wall and raised shed, he also got electricity connection and leased the same to one

Rama Devi. The defendant's further denied the alleged purchase of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff and the vendor of the defendant purchased the suit property from P.Poojitha through registered agreement of sale cum GPA, Dt. 3.09.2004 who got the same from P. Rajeshwari through registered gift settlement deed, dt. 09.10.2003 who purchased the said plot through registered sale deed, dt. 24.07.1990 from S. Chinnapa

Reddy who is the pattedar and owner of the land. As such, the plaintiff knowing the above facts, created false and fabricated documents and filed a suit alleging that the suit schedule property belongs to him. Hence, prayed the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined themselves as PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.6 on his

O.S. 1069 OF 2010 4 dt: 18-12-2018

behalf. The defendants got examined themselves as DW-1 and DW-2 and got marked Ex.B.1 to B.5 on its behalf.

5. Based on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues are framed:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendants?

2) To what relief?

6.Heard both sides.

7. ISSUE NO-1: Perused the evidence of the plaintiff i.e., PW-1 to PW-3 and documents marked i.e., Ex.A.1 to A.6 and the evidence of the defendants i.e., DW-1 and DW-2 and documents marked in Ex.B.1 to B.5 that the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1/N. Nagendra Kumar and filed examination in chief affidavit reiterated the contents of the plaint and got marked the documents i.e., Ex.A.1 to A.5 i.e., Ex.A.1 is Original registered sale deed, dt. 11-10-1990 vide doc.no.2409 of 1990; Ex.A.2 is Market value certificate, dt. 31.7.2010; Ex.A.3 is Photograph along with photo C.D; Ex.A.4 is certified copy of registered GPA, dt. 12.6.1990 vide doc.no.205/90, Ex.A.5 is Encumbrance certificate, dt. 24.8.2009; Ex.A.6 is certified copy of registered sale deed vide document no.6901/09, dt. 23.10.2009.

8.PW-1/N. Nagendra Kumar testified that he purchased the suit schedule property to an extent of 355 sq.yards in Sy.No.31 a situated at, Kazipet under registered sale deed, dt. 11.10.1990 under Ex.A.1 from one Singa Reddy, Chinnappa Reddy represented by his GPA holder Pogalla

Suguna Reddy and since 11.10.1990, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. Thereafter, PW-1/N. Nagendra Kumar sold away the part of the plot to an extent of 190.66 sq.yards towards western

O.S. 1069 OF 2010 5 dt: 18-12-2018

side of the plot under registered sale deed, dt. 23.10.2009, which is supported by the evidence of PW-2/G. Komuraiah who is the purchaser of part of the plot to an extent of 190.66 sq.yards under registered sale deed under Ex.A-6 and remaining part of the plot towards eastern side of the said plot i.e., suit schedule property is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and inview of his employment, he is residing out of Hanamkonda. PW-1/N. Nagendra Kumar, when visited his plot on 20.06.2010, then, he find the compound wall was constructed and temporary shed constructed to an extent of 164.34 sq.yards, by the defendant no.1 in the month of May, 2010. When he demanded DW.1/K.

Ram Reddy to remove the shed and compound wall from his plot on 27.6.2010, then, DW-1/K. Ram Reddy refused to do so and he came to know that the defendant no.2 occupied the land of the defendant no.1 towards eastern side and constructed compound wall, but DW-1/K. Ram Reddy did not take any action against him and he encroached the suit schedule property and constructed the compound wall and shed in the suit schedule property.

9. The defendant no.1 himself examined as DW-1/K. Ram Reddy who testified that one Chinna Reddy in the pattedhar of the land in

Sy.No.31 of Kazipet Jagir village and originally, the property was purchased by one Rajeshwari from Chinnappa Reddy through his GPA holder P. Suguna

Reddy to an extent of 355 sq.yards. DW-2/K. Krupaker Reddy is the atender of the documents under Ex.B.1 under which DW.1/K. Ram Reddy claiming the suit schedule property. The documents under Ex.A.1 disclose that

PW.1/N. Nagendra Kumar purchased the land to an extent of 355 sq.yards, in a Sy.No.31 and boundaries are East : Plot of Francis; West : Plot of vendor; North : Plot of G. Raja Reddy; South : 25 feet road and said boundaries reflected in registered GPA under Ex.A.4 and the Encumbrance

O.S. 1069 OF 2010 6 dt: 18-12-2018

certificate under Ex.A.5. The documents under registered sale deed under

Ex.A.6 also tallied with the boundaries of the defendant under Ex.A.1. When the boundaries of the documents under Ex.B-8 disclose that eastern side the land of one Rajaiah, western : land of Surya Reddy, Chinnappa Reddy,

Northern side, land of Raja reddy, Southern side : 25 feet road which continued in the registered documents of the subsequent purchaser under

Ex.B.1, B.6 and B.7. But DW.2/K. Krupaker Reddy categorically admitted that towards eastern side boundary of the defendant no.1 is armed by one

Sudhakar, which clearly shows that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. Hence, the Issue No.1 is answered infavour of the plaintiff, against the defendant.

ISSUE NO.2: In the result, this suit is decreed with cost infavour of plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property by directing the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property and hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff.

(Written by me and typed by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of December, 2018)

FAC II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT :

PW-1: N. Nagendra Kumar DW-1: K. Ramreddy

PW-2: G. Komuraiah DW-2: K. Krupaker Reddy

PW-3: S. Mastyas Reddy,

O.S. 1069 OF 2010 7 dt: 18-12-2018

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS :

Ex.A-1:Original registered sale deed, dt. 11.10.1990 vide doc.no.2409 of 1990.

Ex.A-2:Market value certificate, dt. 31-07-2010,

Ex.A-3:Photograph along with photo C.D.,

Ex.A-4:Certified copy of registered GPA, Dt. 12-6-1990, doc.no.205/90,

Ex.A-5:Encumbrance certificate, dt. 24.8.2009,

Ex.A-6:Certified copy of registered sale deed vide doc.no.6901/09, dt. 23.10.2009,

FOR DEFENDANT :

Ex.B-1:Original sale deed, dt. 18.6.2007,

Ex.B-2:Payment receipt, dt. 29.10.2011,

Ex.B-3:Electricity bill, dt. 23.3.2010,

Ex.B-4:Tax payment receipt, dt. 11.4.2018,

Ex.B-5:Electricity payment receipt.

FAC II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

O.S. 1069 OF 2010 8 dt: 18-12-2018

CC/100247/2014 Acquitted

Kanchari Shyam vs Ambi Sambaiah

31 Jan 2019

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Present : Ms.N.Amaravathi, I- Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Warangal.

Dated this the 31st day of January, 2019.

C.C. NO.247 of 2014.

Between:

Kanchari Shyam, s/o.Rajamouli, aged about 38 yrs, Occ:Business, r/o.Kashibugga, Tilak road, Warangal.

.... Complainant.

And

Ambi Sambaiah, s/o.Kashaiah, aged about 50 yrs, Occ:Business, r/o.H.No.11-22-671, Kashibugga, Tilak road, Adarshaveedhi, Warangal.

.....Accused.

This case coming on this the 25th day of January, 2019 before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of counsel Sri.Y. Nagender, for complainant and in the presence of counsel Sri.T. Shyam Sunder Rao, for the accused, and after having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following:-

:: JUDGMENT ::

This complaint filed against the accused for an offence committed by him U/sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2.The case of the complainant as narrated in the complaint in brief are as follows:

The accused approached the wife of the complainant/Kanchari

Shyam for purchase of house property bearing No.11-22-697, to an extent of 136 sq.yards, situated at, Kashibugga, Warangal for sale consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- and executed agreement of sale on 9.10.2012 by paying advance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/-

- 2 -

towards part sale consideration and paid the sale consideration and he could not able to adjust an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- of balance sale consideration for which, the accused issued two cheques infavour of the complainant towards part sale consideration for sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- with respect to the house property and executed registered sale deed on 1.6.2013. When the complainant/Kanchari Shyam presented the said cheque for sum of

Rs.1,00,000/-, then, the same was returned on 1.8.2013, with an endorsement “funds insufficient”, then, the complainant informed the same to the accused, but the accused failed to repay the same nor gave any reply. Then, the complainant got issue legal notice to the accused on 17.8.2013 and the same was received by the accused on 21.8.2013, but failed to repay the said cheque amount. Hence, the complaint.

3.On filing of complaint, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, cognizance was taken for an offence punishable

U/sec.138 of Negotiable instruments Act, against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, case copies furnished to the accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant/Kanchari Shyam, himself is examined as PW1, one

- 3 -

Gurrapu Ashok Babu as PW2, one Tammishetty Balakishan as PW3 and documents marked Ex.P1 to P4, on behalf of the complainant.

7.On closure of the complainant side evidence, the accused was called for examination U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. for explaining the incriminating material evidence against him in the evidence of PW1 to PW3, coupled with the documents Exs.P1 to P4, having understood the same, the accused denied the incriminating material evidence against him and request time for defence evidence. On behalf of the accused, the accused himself is examined as DW1, one

Ambhi Rajaram as DW2 and documents marked i.e., Exs.D1 to D7.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the complainant is able to prove the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.Point: Perused the evidence on behalf of the complainant i.e.,

PW1 to PW3 and documents marked i.e, Exs.P1 to P4 and the evidence on behalf of the accused, i.e., DW1 and DW2 and documents marked i.e., Exs.D1 to D7. PW1/Kanchari Shyam reiterated the averments of the complaint in his examination in chief-affidavit and got marked the documents i.e., Exs.P1 to P4 i.e., Ex.P1 is the original cheque bearing No.059333, dt:5.6.2013 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.P2 is the cheque return memo dt:1.8.2013, Ex.P3 is the office copy of legal notice dt:17.8.2013, Ex.P4: Acknowledgement.

- 4 -

11.According to PW1/Kanchari Shyam, the accused approached his wife for purchase of house property bearing No.11-22-697, to an extent of 136 sq.yards, situated at, Kashibugga, Warangal for sale consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- and executed agreement of sale on 9.10.2012 by paying advance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- towards part sale consideration and paid the sale consideration, but he could not able to adjust an amount of balance sale consideration of

Rs.1,25,000/-, for which, the accused issued two cheques under Ex.P1 and also the another cheque, for sum of Rs.25,000/- infavour of the accused towards part sale consideration with respect to the house property and when PW1/Kanchari Shyam presented the said cheque under Ex.P1, then, the same was returned with an endorsement funds insufficient. Though, there is the evidential burden is placed upon the accused by virtue of presumption u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, it can be rebutted by the accused by sharing the preponderance of probabilities.

12.According to PW2/Gurrapu Ashok Babu, the accused paid cash of Rs.10,000/- on 9.10.2012, towards advance sale consideration and thereafter, one week the accused paid cash of Rs.4,90,000/-, in the month of April, 2013, cash of Rs.5 lakhs, in the month of December, 2013, cash of Rs.3,50,000/- and the accused issued two cheques for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex.P1 and sum of Rs.25,000/- in his presence in the name of PW1/Kanchari Shyam and he was present at the time of registration and the wife of PW1/Kanchari Shyam executed registered sale deed infavour of the daughter of the accused, which is contradictory to the evidence of PW1/Kanchari Shyam and

PW3/Tammishetty Balakishan. As per the evidence of

PW3/Tammishetty Balakishan, the accused and PW1/Kanchari Shyam

- 5 -

entered into an agreement of sale with respect to the house, situated at, Kashibugga belongs to PW1/Kanchari Shyam for total sale consideration of Rs.18 lakhs in the year 2013, which is also contradictory to the evidence of PW1/Kanchari Shyam.

13.According to the accused/DW1/Ambhi Sambaiah, he entered into an agreement of sale with the wife of PW1/Kanchari Shyam with respect to the house bearing No.11-22-697, situated at, Kashibugga and he paid total sale consideration of Rs.14,50,000/- to the wife of

PW1/Kanchari Shyam and he also paid cash of Rs.3,50,000/- to the wife of PW1/Kanchari Shyam. The defence of the accused/DW1/Ambhi

Sambaiah is that, he gave 2 signed blank cheques i.e., under Ex.P1 and another cheque for sum of Rs.25,000/- to the wife of

PW1/Kanchari Shyam towards security that he shall pay the entire balance sale consideration to the wife of PW1/Kanchari Shyam, with respect to the said house, when he paid cash of Rs.10,000/- towards advance which is corroborated with the version of DW2/Ambhi

Rajaram. PW1/Kanchari Shyam categorically admitted that the accused paid cash of Rs.10,000/- on 9.10.2012 and cash of Rs.2 lakhs on 21.10.2013 and cash of Rs.3,00,000/- on 3.5.2013 and his wife

Lalitha executed receipts for the same infavour of the accused and also the accused gave cheque under Ex.P1 and another cheque for sum of Rs.25,000/- to his wife Lalitha towards balance sale consideration for execution of registered sale deed. But the cheque under Ex.P1 disclose that it is in the name of PW1/Kanchari Shyam.

When PW1/Kanchari Shyam himself admitted that the accused issued cheques under Ex.P1 and another cheque for sum of Rs.25,000/- to his wife Lalitha towards balance sale consideration towards balance sale consideration with respect to the house, then, again issue of same

- 6 -

cheque under Ex.P1 in the name of PW1/Kanchari Shyam does not arise.

14.Moreover, PW1/Kanchari Shyam admitted that the legal notice under Ex.D1 got issued by DW1/Ambhi Sambaiah. Though, the exchange of notice under Exs.D1 to D5 by PW1/Kanchari Shyam and

DW1/Ambhi Sambaiah are after filing this case, but it is an admitted fact that there is transaction between DW1/Ambhi Sambaiah and the wife of PW1/Kanchari Shyam with regard to the sale of the house, situated at, Kashibugga. On the other hand, the reply notice under

Ex.D2 disclose that the same was got issued by PW1/Kanchari Shyam and his wife admitting that the accused/DW1/Ambhi Sambaiah issued two cheques i.e., one cheque under Ex.P1 and another cheque for sum of Rs.25,000/- in favour of wife of PW1/Kanchari Shyam, which is self contradictory. The evidence of PW1/Kanchari Shyam is silent with regard to the cheques under Ex.P1 issued by the accused in his favour. Then, the evidence of PW1/Kanchari Shyam clearly shows that the cheque under Ex.P1 was issued by DW1/Ambhi Sambaiah infavour of the wife of PW1/Kanchari Shyam namely Lalitha, but not in his favour. Hence, the version of DW1/Ambhi Sambaiah that he issued two blank signed cheques infavour of the wife of PW1/Kanchari Shyam towards security for payment of balance sale consideration with respect to the said house is believable. Therefore, the complainant failed to prove that the accused issued cheque under Ex.P1 in his favour towards payment of part sale consideration, in order to attract the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, beyond preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the complainant failed to prove the cheque under Ex.P1 issued in his

- 7 -

favour and also failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

15.In view of the above discussion, the complainant miserably failed to prove that the accused committed the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, beyond reasonable doubt.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the accused is acquitted U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months.

Written by me and typed by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of January,

2019.

-sd/-

I ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For prosecution : For Defence:

PW1 : Kanchari Shyam, DW1 : Ambhi Sambaiah,

PW2 : Gurrapu Ashok Babu, DW2 : Ambhi Rajaram.

PW3 : Tammishetty Balakishan.

Exhibits marked

For the Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Original cheque bearing No.059333, dt:5.6.2013 for Rs.1,00,000/-,

Ex.P2: Cheque return memo dt:1.8.2013,

Ex.P3: Office copy of legal notice dt:17.8.2013,

- 8 -

Ex.P4: Acknowledgement.

For defence:

Ex.D1: Office copy of the the legal notice dt:9.9.2014,

Ex.D2: Office copy of the reply notice dt:17.9.2014,

Ex.D3 : Postal receipt dt:28.10.2014,

Ex.D4 : Served acknowledgment card pertaining to one Konduru Lalitha,

Ex.D5 : Served acknowledgement of complainant,

Ex.D6 : Registered sale deed Doc.No.5223/2013, dt:1.6.2013 obtained through e-seva,

Ex.D7 : Receipt dt:21.1.2013.

Mos. Marked - Nil- -sd/-

I ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Order Record 629 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
SC/196/2012	Samudrala Shankar vs Narayan Singh	30 Dec 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	Acquitted
SC/248/2014	Boda Devula vs Bhukya Devla	30 Dec 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	Acquitted
SC/606/2012	Gugloth Kasna vs Goguloth jyothi	30 Dec 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	Acquitted
OS/692/2019	Gudipelly Dharma Reddy vs Bandari Ashok	27 Dec 2019	COPY OF ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/169/2018	Cherukupally Raghvendra Reddy vs Vsnil	27 Dec 2019	COPY OF ORDER	—
SC/1/2009	Bhadavath Susheela vs Lavudya Chandu	23 Dec 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/269/2012	Vellapu Yellaiah vs Gollena Sadaiah	16 Dec 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/448/2011	Jangill Narsaiah vs Gujjula Ashok REddy	16 Dec 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/277/2011	Gaddaia Kamala vs Puli Anand @Nandu	09 Dec 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/396/2012	Boda Veeranna vs Moodu Mangya	09 Dec 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/462/2011	Daranguta Nagesh vs Rapolu Sreenu	09 Dec 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/545/2011	Muddangula Ramulu vs Darangula Komuraiah	09 Dec 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
OS/770/2018	Indian Overseas Bank Branch Laknepally Rep. by its Manager Krishna Kothapally vs M/s Padmavathi Poultry Form Prop. Gopi Ravi	04 Dec 2019	COPY OF ORDER	—
SC/132/2010	Nalla Ravinder Reddy vs Pillala Chiranjeevi	04 Dec 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/147/2013	Guguloth Bitchu vs Bhadavat BAlya	03 Dec 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/316/2011	MattapallySulochana vs Billapati	02 Dec 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
L.A.O.P/174/2017	R. Chenna Baswa Rao, died vs The Land Acquisition Officer Special Deputy Collector LA SRSP Stage -I and II Unit -I Hanamkonda	29 Nov 2019	COPY OF ORDER	—
OS/452/2019	Koritala Srinivasarao vs Siddanaboina Saraiah	18 Nov 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
OS/193/2019	Bairaboina Santhosh vs Siddaboina Raju	06 Nov 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/616/2012	Karmilla Chinna Devender vs Gadudula Papaiah	29 Oct 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/42/2013	D.Sanjeeva REddy vs Pinnenti Yekanatham	28 Oct 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
OS/304/2019	B. Santhosh vs S. Saraiah	25 Oct 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/453/2010	Bhukay Bhadri vs Boda Vaali	21 Oct 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/569/2007	K.Surender Circle Inspector of Police Narsampet Circle vs Ch.NAgeshwar Rao	21 Oct 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/621/2010	Narsampet vs Solam Ravi	21 Oct 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/634/2012	Vijja Laxmi vs Podugu Lingaiah	21 Oct 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/734/2012	Thoutureddy Raghava Reddy vs Bandi Ravi Kumar	21 Oct 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/798/2012	PS Gudur vs Varre Venkanna	21 Oct 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/62/2012	PS Gudur vs A2 Padiga Laxmaiah	16 Oct 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/278/2016	Narsampet Ps vs Angoth Srikanth	11 Oct 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/118/2013	MD Aleema vs Md.Yakub	10 Oct 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/529/2009	Chinna Mogili vs JAmpala Krishnam Raju	10 Oct 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/410/2010	Kareemullah khan vs Cnandu Ramanakar	09 Oct 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/255/2011	Gone Rejireddy vs Al.Gone Linga Reddy	30 Sep 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/275/2013	Bangari Ramulu vs Dhanasari Sunil Kumar	30 Sep 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
H.M.O.P/125/2017	Boddula Sateesh vs Boddula Swetha	30 Sep 2019	COPY OF ORDER	—
SC/24/2012	Boda Padma vs Boda Aruna	27 Sep 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
H.M.O.P/137/2018	Dasari Vijaya @ Chippa Vijaya vs Vsnil	25 Sep 2019	COPY OF ORDER	—
SC/128/2012	Boda Bulli vs Boda HAchu	06 Aug 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/374/2012	Shivaratri Kumaraswamy vs Shivarathri Yellaiah	06 Aug 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/244/2011	Kodi Madhusudhan vs Kodi Chandraiah	05 Aug 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/807/2012	Mallam Gopal vs Adharaboina Iylaiah	05 Aug 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/566/2007	Karri Kavitha vs Tejavath Bhadraiah, Bhadru	02 Aug 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/246/2011	Lavudiya vs Banoth Ravi	01 Aug 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/809/2012	Sura Vijay vs Alakunta Laxmi	01 Aug 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/628/2012	Radharapu Ramchander Chandraiah vs Naghaboina Raju	31 Jul 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/612/2012	Bandi Pedda Komuraiah vs Vankala Sarangapani	30 Jul 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/213/2013	Jatoth Mohan vs Maloth Manchya	24 Jul 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/220/2010	V.Sarangapani vs Eaka Sambaiah	23 Jul 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
H.M.O.P/102/2017	Velpula Sundraiah vs Vs	23 Jul 2019	COPY OF ORDER	—
SC/23/2012	Gurrala Sarawathi vs Janga Kumar	22 Jul 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/563/2009	Bandi Mondaiah vs Jetty Dudaiah	22 Jul 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
OS/498/2017	M. Papaiah vs N. Srinivasulu	19 Jul 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
H.M.O.P/152/2017	Sriramoju Mamatha vs Sriramoju Rajesh	18 Jul 2019	COPY OF ORDER	—
SC/471/2011	Bhadavath Damsi vs Badavath Suguna	16 Jul 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/500/2011	Guguloth Bichya vs Guguloth Bhadri	16 Jul 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/328/2010	Bhukya Swathi vs Rapula Ravi	10 Jul 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/610/2012	Guguloth Ramulu vs Bhukya Ravinder	09 Jul 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
OS/28/2018	G. Prabhakar vs K. Anitha	08 Jul 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
SC/304/2012	Budige Raju vs Budige Ilaiah	08 Jul 2019	COPY OF JUDGEMENT	—
H.M.O.P/129/2017	Kandagtla Shravani vs Vs	08 Jul 2019	COPY OF ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/169/2017	Thakkalapally Rajitha vs Thakkalapally Ravi	28 Jun 2019	COPY OF ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/151/2017	V. Venkanna vs V. Sunitha	25 Jun 2019	COPY OF ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/194/2018	Yerra Mallikarjun vs Vsnil	10 Jun 2019	COPY OF ORDER	—
CC/3036/2018	SHO PS MILLSCOLONY vs BARIPATLA SAI	05 Feb 2019	copy of judgment	Acquitted
CC/3274/2018	SHO PS MILLSCOLONY vs DASARI NARESH	05 Feb 2019	copy of judgment	Acquitted
CC/100757/2015	R. Prem Kumar Chettiar vs Smt. Guda Sreedevi	04 Feb 2019	copy of judgment	Acquitted
CC/100758/2015	R. Prem Kumar Chettiar vs Guda RaviBabu	04 Feb 2019	copy of judgment	Acquitted
CC/100247/2014	Kanchari Shyam vs Ambi Sambaiah	31 Jan 2019	copy of judgment	Acquitted
CC/100249/2014	Kanchari shyam vs Ambi Sambai	31 Jan 2019	copy of judgment	—
CC/100528/2014	S.I. of Police, PS Inthezargunj vs Vaddepally Vimalamma	31 Jan 2019	copy of judgment	—
DVC/100015/2017	Smt.Rehana vs Mohd. Fayyaz	31 Jan 2019	copy of order	—
MC/20/2017	Smt.Maddineni Lavanya vs Maddineni Srinivas	31 Jan 2019	copy of order	—
CC/100362/2014	S.I. of Police, WPS Warangal Urban vs Bellam Srinivas	10 Jan 2019	copy of judgment	—
CC/2894/2018	SHO PS ATHMAKUR vs MOHAMMAD SHIJADEE BEGAM	08 Jan 2019	copy of order	—
CC/542/2018	PS WPS WARANGAL CITY vs KESARAM RAJESH REDDY	07 Jan 2019	copy of judgment	—
CC/100492/2012	S.I. of police, WPS Warangal Urban vs Edla Mahesh Reddy -8 oth	04 Jan 2019	copy of judgment	—
DVC/90/2017	Alli Lavanya @ Sandya Rai vs Alli Naveen	03 Jan 2019	copy of order	—
CC/100155/2013	WPS Subedari vs Yenugudati Ugender	31 Dec 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/100845/2014	S.I. of Police, PS Mills Colony vs Jangili Kiran A2. Pogula Rajkumar	31 Dec 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/100908/2014	PS Inthezargunj vs Masna Sampath @ Kumar and 2 others	31 Dec 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/100126/2014	KUNUMALLA SRIVIDYA vs JANGAM SHARATH CHANDRA	28 Dec 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/100449/2014	S.I. of Police, WPS Warangal Urban vs Nagula Shiva Shankar	28 Dec 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/100637/2014	S.I.of Police P.S. Athmakur vs Ashyam Jayamurthy	26 Dec 2018	copy of judgment	—
OS/368/2018	THAKKALAPELLI GOPICHANDER vs MUNUKUNTLA RAVINDER	24 Dec 2018	copy of judgment	—
OS/1101/2018	MATETI RENUKA vs THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, WARANGAL	24 Dec 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/100309/2014	S.I. of Police, WPS Warangal Urban vs Kunchepu Bhadraiah	24 Dec 2018	copy of judgment	—
EP/65/2018	Kapil chit funds pvt ltd vs J.S harath reddy	23 Dec 2018	copy of order	—
EP/70/2018	Kapil chit fund pvt ltd vs A.Madhusudhan reddy	23 Dec 2018	copy of order	—
EP/72/2018	siri chit fund pvt ltd vs M.Rajini	23 Dec 2018	copy of order	—
EP/187/2018	KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT LTD vs T SAMPATH KUMAR	23 Dec 2018	copy of order	—
EP/200145/2016	Manichandana Chit Funds Pvt Ltd Rep its foreman S.Nagender vs G.Srinivas and others	23 Dec 2018	copy of order	—
EP/200333/2016	Canara Bank Warangal Bank rep its chief Manager P.Venakat rao vs B.Thirupathi and another	23 Dec 2018	copy of order	—
EP/200370/2017	Kapil chit Fund private Limited rep its orugallu legal officer A.Raghu vs Abdul Gaffar	23 Dec 2018	copy of order	—
EP/200385/2017	Kapil chits private limited rep by its legal officer P.Raju vs Shameem sulthana	23 Dec 2018	copy of order	—
EP/200457/2017	Kapil chit funds private limited rep its br legal officer P.Raju vs V.Ravinder	23 Dec 2018	copy of order	—
EP/200459/2017	Kapil chit funds private limited rep its br legal officer P.Raju vs S.Prabhakar rao	23 Dec 2018	copy of order	—
EP/200860/2015	Ms Siri Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., Warangal vs Kota Komuraiah and six others	23 Dec 2018	copy of order	—
EP/200897/2015	Akshara Chit Funds vs Kamidi Mahender Reddy and 5 others	23 Dec 2018	copy of order	—
OS/200768/2017	G.Venkat reddy vs K.Susheela	23 Dec 2018	copy of order	—

Showing 100 of 629 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Dec 2019		17
Nov 2019		3
Oct 2019		14
Sep 2019		5
Aug 2019		7
Jul 2019		17
Jun 2019		3
Feb 2019		4
Jan 2019		10
Dec 2018		50
Nov 2018		45
Oct 2018		26

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has N. Amaravathi handled?

N. Amaravathi has handled 634 court orders since 2017 at Narsampet, JCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 10 orders per month.

What types of cases does N. Amaravathi hear?

Based on available records, N. Amaravathi primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Sessions Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Narsampet, JCJ Court Complex.

Where is N. Amaravathi currently posted?

N. Amaravathi is posted as III ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE NARSAMPET at Narsampet, JCJ Court Complex, Warangal, Telangana.

Are judgments by N. Amaravathi available online?

Yes. 20 judgments by N. Amaravathi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does N. Amaravathi dispose cases?

N. Amaravathi disposes approximately 10 cases per month, based on 634 orders handled over their tenure at Narsampet, JCJ Court Complex.

Since when is N. Amaravathi serving?

N. Amaravathi has been serving at Narsampet, JCJ Court Complex since 2017.

Case Types

CC 72%

OS 8%

SC 8%

DVC 6%

EP 4%

H 1%

MC 1%

L 0%

Posting History

Mar 2019 — Jun 2022

III ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE NARSAMPET · 66 orders
Mar 2019 — Mar 2019

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal
Oct 2018 — Jan 2019

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal · 39 orders
Aug 2018 — Jan 2019

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal · 31 orders
Aug 2018 — Aug 2018

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal
May 2017 — Feb 2019

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal · 498 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 9

Other Judges at this Court

Mohd. Yousuf

Prl Junior Civil Judge cum Prl Judicial Magistrate...

16 orders

Sri P. Giridhar

Addl Junior Civil Judge cum Addl Judicial Magistra...

51 orders

Sri A. Pradeep

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE NA...

26 orders

← View all judges at Narsampet, JCJ Court Complex