Ms. N. Prema Latha

Fair 1

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

AT RAJANNA SIRCILLA

PRESENT: N.PREMA LATHA,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

Friday, this the 11th day of April, 2025

APPEAL SUIT NO. 37 OF 2018 Between:

1.Neerati Mallaiah, S/o. Narsimhulu @ Narsaiah (died)

...Appellants No.2 to 4 are Lrs of Appellant No.1.

2.Neerati Mahipal, S/o. Late Lingaiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: Contract Employee,

3.Peruka Padma, W/o. Raji Reddy, Age: 51 years, Occ: Household, Both Appellants No.2 and 3 are R/o. Narsingapur H/o. Moodapalli village of Chandurthi Mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

4.Erra Manjula, W/o. Gangadhar, Age: 48 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Subashnagar, Nizamabad town and District.

...Appellants/Plaintiff

And

1)Neerati Lingaiah, S/o. Narsimhulu @ Narsaiah, Age: 71 years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o. Narsingapur H/o. Mudapalli village of Chandurthi mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

2)Land Acquisition Officer/Special Deputy Collector (L.A Unit South Central Railway, Karimnagar).

...Respondents/defendants.

Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned

Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla in O.S.No.120 of 2010 dated:02.06.2016.

Between:- Neerati Lingaiah, S/o. Narsimhulu @ Narsaiah, Age: 76 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Narsingapur H/o. Mudapalli village of Chandurthi Mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

....Plaintiff.

And

Fair 2

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

1)Neerati Lingaiah, S/o. Narsimhulu @ Narsaiah, Age: 71 years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o. Narsingapur H/o. Mudapalli village of Chandurthi mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

2)Land Acquisition Officer/Special Deputy Collector (L.A Unit South Central Railway, Karimnagar).

....Defendants.

CLAIM: Appeal is filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla in O.S.No.120 of 2010 dt: 02.06.2016.

---

This Appeal Suit is coming before me on 08.04.2025 for final hearing in presence of Sri K.Suresh, Advocate for the appellants/plaintiffs and of Sri.E.Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate for the respondent/defendant No.1 and Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent No.2 state, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1)This Appeal Suit is filed under Order 41 Rule 1 and Section 96 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla in O.S.No.120 of 2010. Under the said judgment and decree, the suit of the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed and the plaintiff filed this appeal. The parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants in this judgment for the sake of convenience.

2)This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant No.1 who is his own brother and subsequently, the defendant No.2 was impleaded for claiming the relief of partition and separate possession of his ½ share in the lands in Sy.No.151 to an extent of Ac.9-28 gts., Sy.No.286/e to an extent of

Fair 3

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

Ac.0-08 gts., Sy.No.287/e to an extent of Ac.0-11 gts., Sy.No.293/ee to an extent of Ac.0-30 gts and Sy.No.294/a to an extent of Ac.0-26 gts., situated at Narsingapoor, h/o. Mudapalli village of Chandurthy Mandal (hereinafter in referred as item Nos.1 to 5 of the suit schedule lands).

3) The brief averments of plaint are that the plaintiff/Neerati

Mallaiah and defendant No.1/Neerati Lingaiah are natural brothers and their father namely Neerati Narsimhulu @ Narsaiah died about more than 30 years ago. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the sons, whereas Perka

Mallavva and Rivva Narsavva are the daughters of Neerati Narsimhulu @

Narsaiah. The marriages of Perka Mallavva and Rivva Narsavva were performed long back and they relinquished their shares in the suit schedule lands by receiving cash.

3.2)After demise of their father, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 have succeeded the suit schedule lands with equal rights and since then, they have been enjoying the same jointly with equal shares. For his livelihood, the plaintiff went to Mumbai and lived there for some period along with his family and used to visit Narsingapoor village frequently. That the defendant No.1 caused wrong entries in the pahani pathrikas by entering his name and the name of his sons as possessors in respect of some of the suit survey numbers i.e item No.1 more specifically.

Fair 4

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

3.3).That when the plaintiff demanded for partition and to allot his ½ share in the suit schedule lands, the defendant No.1 refused to do so.

Finally, on 30-09-2010, when the plaintiff demanded the defendant No.1 for partition and for allotment of his share in the suit schedule properties, the defendant No.1 refused for the same. The defendant No.2 being the Land

Acquisition Officer, acquired the land bearing Sy.No.151 to an extent of

Ac.0-14 gts for the purpose of Sreepadha Yellampalli Project, as such he was made as party to the suit since the plaintiff has rights and interest over the said property. At the end, the plaintiff prayed the Court to pass a preliminary decree allotting his ½ share in the suit schedule lands and also to award costs.

4) Per contra, the defendant no.1 he denied all the contents of plaint in his written statement and submitted that on 12-12-1990, a partition took place between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in respect of their ancestral joint family properties including the suit schedule lands and the plaintiff was allotted agricultural dry lands bearing Sy.Nos.286/2 an extent of Ac.0-08 gts., Sy.No.287/e an extent of Ac.0-11 gts., Sy.No.293/ee an extent of

Ac.0-30 gts and Sy.No.294/a to an extent of Ac.0-26 gts., situated at

Narsingapur, h/o. Mudapalli village of Chandurthy Mandal, which are item

Nos.2 to 5 of plaint schedule and he was also allotted agricultural land

Fair 5

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

measuring Ac.8-00 gts in Sy.Nos.444 and 445 situated at Mudapalli village and house bearing No.2-22 situated at Narsingapur village, towards his share and that the said landed properties were mutated in the name of plaintiff in the concerned recordsa and that the plaintiff sold the agricultural land measuring Ac.8-00 gts in Sy.Nos.444 and 445 situated at Mudapalli village.

4.2) That the defendant No.1 was allotted agricultural land in

Sy.No.151 to an extent of Ac.9-28 gts., situated at Narsingapur village towards his share in the said partition and his name was mutated in the revenue records and a simple partition deed was also executed by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in the presence of witnesses on the same day.

In the said simple partition deed, Sy.Nos.444 and 445 were not mentioned, but the name of vendor was mentioned in the said deed. Prior to partition,

Sy.No.444 to an extent of Ac.4-00 gts., situated at Mudapalli village was mortgaged with P.A.C.C.S., Chandurthy by the defendant No.1 and later the said land was allotted to the plaintiff and he sold the same to others. The plaintiff filed the suit with false and fictitious allegations to harass, cause loss and damage to the defendant No.1 and that the plaintiff suppressed all the real facts, as such the suit is not maintainable. Hence prayed the Court to dismiss the suit of plaintiff with costs. The defendant No.2 was set exparte in the suit.

Fair 6

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

5) Basing on the above pleadings of both parties and on hearing the learned counsels the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:-

1) Whether there was a previous partition between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the suit properties, as stated in the written statement?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of partition of the suit properties, as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

6) During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to

A4 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and

Exs.B1 to B11 were marked on behalf of the defendant No.1, the chief examination of D.W.2 was eschewed.

7)The trial Court after perusing the material on record and after hearing both sides dismissed the suit of the plaintiff directing the parties to bear their own costs.

8)Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, this Appeal Suit is filed mainly contending in the grounds of appeal as follows:-

(a)The Judgment of trail Court is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and trial Court failed to see that the defendant admitted the suit properties are succeeded by the plaintiff and defendant jointly with equal shares after demise of their father and the burden to prove the claim of subsequent partition is on the defendant.

Fair 7

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

(b).That the trial Court committed grave error in considering the simple partition deed i.e., Ex.B1 and that every partition of immovable properties in writing shall be registered under Law by paying required stamp duty and a document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of Registration Act and since Ex.B1 is said to be a partition deed, there cannot be any collateral purpose and that Ex.B1 is not admissible in evidence though impounded collecting stamp duty but trial Court wrongly considered the same inspite of its execution and admissibility by the plaintiff.

(c) The Trial Court erred that when the property are admittedly succeeded from the father, recording the name of one of the coparcener in revenue record does not mean that such person is absolute owner of the same and it is decided law that possession of one coparcener in possession of all joint owners.

(d)That the trial Court wrongly found that the plaintiff did not dispute his signature on Ex.B1 and the same is against the record and that the plaintiff denied the entire Ex.B1 and he never admitted the signature appearing on Ex.B1 belongs to him and it is quite different to naked eye, but trial Court wrongly held that the Ex.B1 and Chief examination affidavit is compared under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act and trial Court failed to see that the defendant who is relyling on Ex.B1 had not taken

Fair 8

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

any step to compare the signature on Ex.B1 with admitted signatures of the plaintiff through expert.

(e)That trial Court erred in not appreciating the evidence of D.W.3 properly who said to be one of the attestor of Ex.B1 and said witness admittedly an illiterate and only put his thumb mark, but Ex.B1 does not contain any thumb mark but the name of D.W.3 is written as attester by some other, but the trial Court wrongly considered his statement in favour of execution of

Ex.B1 and no other attestor of Ex.B1 is examined and on careful verification Ex.B1 appears to be fabricated document for the purpose of this case, but the trial Court wrongly held that

Ex.B1 is proved.

(f)That the trial Court relied on passbook issued by the revenue authority for the purpose of the proof of partition and when the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of partition deed as contended the other evidence will have no relevance for the proof of partition and the pleadings of the defendant clearly reveal that he got the item no.1 through partition under a written document Ex.B1 but his claim is not oral partition, but the 1st issue should have been confined only with regard to Ex.B1 partition deed but not for proof of partition on presumption and that the trial Court has not properly framed and answered the first issue.

(g)That the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.74 of 2012 in respect of item no.2 to 5 filed by the plaintiff is for perpetual

Fair 9

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

injunction against a third party and plaintiff contended in the said suit that he succeeded from his father and did not admit the partition with his brother; that any coparcener can file injunction suit against a third party in respect of joint properties and pleadings in said suit are not relevant in the present suit for proof of partition.

(h)That the trial Court wrongly considered that the lands in Sy.No.444 and 445 are the self acquired properties of the plaintiff, he gave the half sale consideration to respondent after alienating the same; that the sister of the plaintiff and defendant had already taken their share in family partition in terms of money and relinquished their right of share in suit lands and that the Judgment of trial Court under appeal on presumptions and assumptions regarding partition.

Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree under appeal.

9) Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the record, including the citations.

10)Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the appellant shown valid grounds to set-aside the decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla vide its Judgment and Decree in O.S.No. 120 of 2010, dated:02.06.2016.

Fair 10

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

POINT:

11). Learned Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the trial Court committed grave error by dismissing the suit without considering the evidence filed by the plaintiff and further the plaintiff filed additional documents in the present appeal to show his exclusive right over the land in

Sy.No.444 and 445 situated at Mudapalli village which according to the defendant are the joint family properties. Learned counsel further argued that considering the documents filed by him in the present appeal which substantiates his claim, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

12).On the other hand counsel for defendant submits that partition took place between the parties long ago during the life time of his father and accordingly the lands were mutated in their respective names and subsequently the said partition of properties was confirmed in presence of the village elders and was also reduced into writing under Ex.B1. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as such the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

13). It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff and defendant no.1 are the natural brothers and item no.1 to 5 of suit properties were the properties of their father by name Neerati Narshimhulu @ Narsaiah who died about more than 30 years ago and after his death, the plaintiff and defendant no.1

Fair 11

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

has succeeded the suit properties and enjoying jointly with equal shares.

That the defendant no.1 caused wrong entries in the revenue records by entering his name and names of his sons as pattedars and possessors in respect of item no.1 of the suit properties and when the same has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff, he demanded for partition and the defendant no.1 refused for the same.

14).To substantiate his version the plaintiff got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.4. During the course of appeal the plaintiff filed I.A.No.227 of 2019 and got marked Ex.A5 to A.13 on his behalf. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and filed his chief-affidavit reiterating the contents of the plaint. During cross-examination P.W.1 admitted that himself and his brother defendant no.1 divided their mess in the year 1986 or 1987 and the plaintiff started residing at Mumbai while the defendant no.1 lived in their cattle shed in the outskirts of the village. Further P.W.1 admitted that item no.2 to 5 and land in Sy.No.444 and 445 are recorded in his name in the revenue records and he also executed registered sale deeds in respect of Sy.No.444 and 445 in favour of one Pulkam Mallaiah and that he along with defendant no.1 sold the said lands and received their respective shares. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Civil Judge,

Sircilla, if the same is true then both of them should have executed the registered sale deed jointly but the documents filed by the defendant under

Fair 12

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

Exs.B6 and B7 shows that the above said land was sold out by the plaintiff alone which negatives the said contention of the plaintiff.

15).Learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla further observed that unless and until the plaintiff obtained a Registered document pertaining to the land in Sy.No.444 and 445, he cannot sell them to third party and the version of the plaintiff appears to be contradictory. In the present appeal the plaintiff filed additional documents vide I.A.No. 227 of 2019 which were marked as

Ex.A.5 to A.13. Ex.A.5 to A.10 are the pahanies, Ex.A.11 is the C.C of

Registered Sale Deed bearing No.626 of 1982, Ex.A.12 is the C.C of

Registered Sale deed bearing No.556 of 1997 and Ex.A.13 is the

Information furnished by the Tahasildar, Chandurthy with respect of the record in Sy.No.151 i.e., item no.1 of suit properties. A perusal of the above documents it is seen that name of father of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 was recorded as pattedar and possessor in respect of item no.1 for the years 1979-80, 1983-84. Further pahanis for the years 1985-86, 1987-88 reflects the name of the father of the parties as pattedar and defendant no.1 is shown as possessor for the item no.1 of the suit property. Further pahanies for the year 1995-96, 1996-97 reflects the names of defendant no.1 and his sons as possessors of the said land. The above said documents are of no specific avail to the plaintiff as he already filed Exs.A.1 to A.4 which are also pahanies showing similar entries. Ex.A.4 pahani for

Fair 13

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

the year 1993-94 reflects the name of father of the plaintiff as pattedar and possessor of item nos. 2 to 5 while item no.1 stood in the name of father of the plaintiff as pattedar and defendant no.1 and his two shows were shown as possessors, whereas the other pahanies under Exs.A.1 to A.3 for the years 2005-06, 2003-04 and 2001-02 are reflecting the name of defendant no.1 as pattedar and possessor for item no.1 and the plaintiff is shown as pattedar and possessor for item no.2 to 5 for the said period. It is pertinent to note here that though plaintiff took a plea that no partition took place till filing of the suit and defendant got recorded his name in respect of item no.1 of the suit property but he failed to explain as to why his name is shown as pattedar and possessor in respect of item no.2 to 5.

16).It is the contention of the defendant no.1 that a partition took place between the parties on 12.12.1990 in respect of joint family properties including the suit lands and the plaintiff was allotted with item nos. 2 to 5 along with land in Sy.No.444 and 445 and House bearing No.2-22 situated at Narsingapur village towards his share and subsequently the said properties were mutated in his name in the concerned records and later the plaintiff sold out the land in Sy.No.444 and 445 to the third parties. It was also contended that defendant no.1 was allotted item no.1 of the suit land towards his share and his name was also mutated in the revenue records and a simple partition deed was executed by the plaintiff and defendant no.1

Fair 14

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

in the presence of elders and prior to the said partition he mortgaged the land in Sy.No.444 with PACCS, Chandurthy which is evident from Ex.B4 which clearly shows that the said land is also joint family property, but not exclusive property of the plaintiff as alleged by him.

17).To substantiate said version the defendant no.1 got marked

Exs.B1 to B11. Ex.B1 is the Simple partition deed, dt:12.12.1990 (impounded), which shows that a partition of the family properties took place between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 in presence of village elders and both have signed on it along with eight witnesses. Though the plaintiff denied the very execution of Ex.B1 and partition of the properties under it, but the defendant got examined D.W.3 one of the attesting witness to the said document. D.W.3 categorically admitted the contents of Ex.B1 and he also stated that name of the scribe is Raghupathi and remaining attesting witnesses and the scribe are no more. Though he stated that he do not remember the date of execution of Ex.B1 but he stated that it was drafted about 20 to 25 years ago. Ex.B.2 and B.3 are the pahanies for the years 1971-72, 1983-84 but the same are not legible. Ex.B4 is the encumbrance

Certificate dt: 21.12.2010 showing that the defendant mortgaged Ac.4-00gts of land in Sy.No.444 to PACCS., Chandurthy in the year 1998. Ex.B5 is the

House Ownership certificate in respect of H.No.2-22 of Narsingapur village standing in the name of the father of the plaintiff and defendant no.1.

Fair 15

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

Exs.B6 and B7 are the certified copies of registered sale deeds executed by the plaintiff in favour of third parties in respect of land in Sy.No.444 and 445.

Ex.B8 is the copy of plaint in O.S.no.74 of 2012 on the file of Junior Civil

Judge, Vemulawada which shows that the plaintiff pleaded in the said suit

that item nos.2 and 3 of the suit lands herein were succeeded by him from his father and the same were mutated in his name in revenue records and pattedar passbook and title deed were also issued in his favour and the copy of pattedar passbook annexed to the plaint discloses that item nos. 2 to 5 of the suit properties along with other lands were standing in the name of plaintiff as pattedar and possessor acquired by him by way of Virasat and

Ex.B9 is the copy of Judgment in O.S.No.74 of 2012.

18).The plaintiff as P.W.1 admitted that he filed the above suit in

O.S.No.74 of 2012 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada against

one Kathi Mallaiah in respect of item nos. 2 and 3 of suit properties herein.

The copy of plaint in above suit marked as Ex.B8 shows that the plaintiff took a plea that item nos. 2 and 3 of the suit lands herein were succeeded by him from his father. In the present case the plaintiff took a plea that no partition took place with regard to the item Nos. 1 to 5 of the suit properties and they are in joint possession and if at all the same is true, the above suit against third party ought to have been filed by the plaintiff and defendant no.1 together or the plaintiff in the said suit ought to have pleaded that it is

Fair 16

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

the joint family property and he being one of the coparcener is entitled to file the suit for injunction. Per contra, the recitals of the above suit vide

O.S.No.74 of 2012 shows that the plaintiff filed the said suit in his individual

capacity claiming item no.s. 2 and 3 herein as his exclusive properties which clearly negatives his own plea that there was no partition among the parties.

19).To further substantiate his plea, the plaintiff got marked

Exs.A11-Copy of Registered Sale deed bearing No.626 of 1982 which shows that the plaintiff has purchased the land in Sy.Nos. 444 and 445 in his individual capacity. It is the plea of the plaintiff that as such he sold out the same under Exs.B6 and B7 to the third parties, thereby the plea of the defendant that the above said lands fell to the share of the plaintiff in the above said partition is negatived. It is pertinent to note here that as per plaintiff no partition took place till filing of the suit and if the same is considered to be true, then the land in Sy.No.444 and 445 also fall into the pool of joint family property. When the said property is joint family property then the plaintiff alone cannot sell the same to the third parties unless it fell to the share of the plaintiff. The sale of the above said land by the plaintiff to the third parties impliedly shows that the said property fell to the share of the plaintiff which he alienated to the third parties in his individual capacity.

The documents filed by the plaintiff himself are not supporting his version, as such the trial Court has discussed all the aspects and rightly dismissed

Fair 17

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

the suit. The judgment of the trial Court needs no interference by this

Court. This court do not find any ground to defer with the findings of the trial court. Point is answered accordingly.

20)In view of the above discussion and the evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that this appeal suit is liable to be dismissed. Point is answered accordingly.

21)IN THE RESULT, this Appeal Suit is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla in O.S.No.120 of 2010 dt:02-06-2016 be and are hereby confirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, both parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade - II, seen, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of April, 2025.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PLAINTIFF. FOR DEFENDANTS:

NONE NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR PLAINTIFF (Additional documents vide I.A.No.227/2019) Ex.A.5:C.C of Pahani for the year 1979-80 issued by Nayab Tahsildar, Chandurthi Mandal.

Fair 18

A.S.NO.37 OF 2018

Ex.A.6:C.C of Pahani for the year 1983-84 issued by Nayab Tahsildar, Chandurthi Mandal.

Ex.A.7:C.C of Pahani for the year 1985-86 issued by Nayab Tahsildar, Chandurthi Mandal.

Ex.A.8:C.C of Pahani for the year 1987-88 issued by Nayab Tahsildar, Chandurthi Mandal.

Ex.A.9:C.C of Pahani for the year 1995-96 issued by Nayab Tahsildar, Chandurthi Mandal.

Ex.A.10: C.C of Pahani for the year 1996-97 issued by Nayab Tahsildar, Chandurthi Mandal.

Ex.A.11: Certified Copy Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.626 of 1982.

Ex.A.12: Certified Copy of Registered Sale deed bearing document No.556/1997.

Ex.A.13: Information of Tahasildar, Chandurthy under RTI Act, dt: 20.02.2015.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

Fair 1 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-I ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT

RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

PRESENT: N.PREMA LATHA,

CHAIRMAN, MACT-CUM-

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

FAC: CHAIRMAN, MACT-CUM-

I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of March, 2025

M.V.O.P. NO.25 OF 2022 Between:-

1) Shaik Shainaz Begum, W/o Late Lateef, Aged: 49 years, Occu: House-hold (Wife of the deceased).

2) Shaik Illiayas, S/o Late Abdul Latif, Aged: 32 years, Occu: Nil (First son of the deceased).

3)Mohammad Sidhik, S/o Late Latheef, Aged: 31 years, Occu: Nil (Second son of the deceased).

4)Shaik Ismail, S/o Late Lateef, Aged: 28 years, Occu: Nil (Third son of the deceased). Petitioners Nos.1 to 4 are residing at H.No.11-6-12, Sundaraiah Nagar village of Sircilla Mandal in Rajanna Sircilla District.

5)Najiya Begum, W/o Shaik Haider, Aged: 30 years, Occu: House- hold, R/o H.No.3-70/1, Sangam village of Bodhan Mandal in Nizamabad District (First daughter of the deceased).

6)Rizwana Begum, W/o Shaik Mohammed, Aged: 29 years, Occu: House-hold, R/o H.No.1-69/1, Sulemanagar village of Rudrur Mandal in Nizamabad District (Second daughter of the deceased).

7)Rabiya Bee, W/o Late Shaik Ahammad, Aged: 69 years, Occu: -Nil-, R/o H.No.1-16/1, Sangam village of Bodhan Mandal in Nizamabad District (Mother of the deceased) (Died).

......Petitioners.

And

Fair 2 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022

1) Madige Yadagiri, S/o Durgaiah, Aged: 40 years, Occu: Driver of the T.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP-25-Z-0036, Staff No.677439, R/o H.No.1-13-85, Indhranagar Colony, Kamareddy Proper and District.

2) Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, R/by its Managing Director-cum-Vice President, Musheerabad, Hyderabad – 500 020.

…...Respondents.

This petition is coming before me on 27,02.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Ramana Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri J.Prabhakar, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Sri T.Venkati, Advocate for the respondent No.2, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- O R D E R:: ::

1)This petition is filed under Section 166 (1)(c) of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) on account of death of Shaik Lateef in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.05.2022.

2.01)The averments of the petition are as follows:-

The claim petitioner No.1 is the wife, claim petitioners Nos.2 to 6 are the children and claim petitioner No.7 is the mother of the deceased Shaik Lateef. On 19.05.2022 in the morning hours, while the

Fair 3 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022 deceased Shaik Lateef was going to Nizamabad along with his daughter and when he reached Kamareddy Bus Depot/Bus Stand and while going to Nizamabad platform at about 06.20 hours, at the same time, the respondent No.1 being the driver of T.S.R.T.C Bus bearing No.AP-25-Z- 0036 drove the said Bus in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased from opposite direction, as a result, the deceased fell down on the road and the tyres of the bus run over the body of the deceased, due to which, he received severe bleeding injuries on his head, chest, right hand, right leg and other parts of the body and died on the spot. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing No.AP-25-Z-0036 by respondent No.1 and there was no fault on the part of the deceased.

2.02)On receipt of the report, the Police, Kamareddy registered a case in Crime No.283/2022 under Section 304-A of I.P.C against the respondent No.1.

2.03)The deceased was aged 49 years at the time of his death and was hale and healthy. He was a Fruit Merchant and he was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month and he used to contribute the same for the maintenance and welfare of the petitioners. Due to sudden,

Fair 4 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022 untimely and unnatural death of the deceased, the petitioners have suffered with great mental shock and agony. Due to untimely death of the deceased and considering his age and income, the claim petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- towards general and special damages.

2.04)The respondent No.1 is the driver and respondent No.2 is the corporation of the crime vehicle. Therefore, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

3)The respondent No.1 filed his counter denying the averments of the petition and contended that the respondent No.1 never caused any accident on 19.05.2022 as alleged by the petitioners. The Police in collusion with the petitioners, filed a false case against the respondent

No.1 and the respondent No.1 is no way concerned with the alleged accident. The respondent No.1 was working in TSRTC and was having valid driving licence on the date of alleged accident. The petitioners unnecessarily made this respondent No.1 as party to the proceedings, as such, the respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation. If any compensation is awarded, the respondent No.2 is only liable to deposit

Fair 5 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022 the same. Hence, the respondent No.1 prays to dismiss the petition with costs against him.

4)The respondent No.2 filed its counter denying the mode of accident, involvement of the crime vehicle and registration of the crime.

The respondent No.2 further denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. The respondent No.2 further contended that the petitioners managed to register a false case against the respondent No.1 for claiming compensation. The respondent No.2/Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners as the said accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 and it was occurred due to own negligence act of the deceased. Hence, the respondent No.2 prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

5)Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:-

(i)Whether the deceased Shaik Lateef died on 19.05.2022 at 06.20 hours at New Bus Stand, Kamareddy Mandal and District due to rash and negligent driving of driver of T.S.R.T.C Bus bearing No.AP-25-Z-0036, i.e., respondent No.1?

Fair 6 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022

(ii)Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation and if so, how much and from which of the respondents?

(iii) To what relief?

6)During the course of trial, on behalf of the claim petitioners,

P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. The respondent No.1 got himself examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. On behalf of the respondent No 2, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

7)Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 reported to dispose off the petition on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioners filed citations. Perused the record.

8)ISSUE NO.1: Whether the deceased Shaik Lateef died on 19.05.2022 at 06.20 hours at New Bus Stand, Kamareddy Mandal and District due to rash and negligent driving of driver of T.S.R.T.C Bus bearing No.AP-25-Z-0036, i.e., respondent No.1 ?

The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that On 19.05.2022 in the morning hours, while the deceased Shaik Lateef was

Fair 7 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022 going to Nizamabad along with his daughter and when he reached

Kamareddy Bus Depot/Bus Stand and while going to Nizamabad platform at about 06.20 hours, at the same time, the respondent No.1 being the driver of T.S.R.T.C Bus bearing No.AP-25-Z-0036 drove the said Bus in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased from opposite direction, as a result, the deceased fell down on the road and the tyres of the bus run over the body of the deceased, due to which, he received severe bleeding injuries on his head, chest, right hand, right leg and other parts of the body and died on the spot. He further argued that the accident was occurred due to fault on the part of the respondent

No.1 and there was no fault on the part of the deceased. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 argued that the accident did not occur due to fault of respondent No.1, but it was occurred due to negligent act on the part of the deceased, as such, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

9) The petitioners, in support of their case, got examined

P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. As per the evidence of

P.W.1 who is the claim petitioner No.1, the accident occurred on 19.05.2022 at 06.20 hours at New Bus Stand, Kamareddy. P.W.2 who is

Fair 8 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022 an eye witness to the accident deposed that on the date of accident, i.e., on 19.05.2022 at about 06.20 hours, when he was standing near

Nizamabad Platform in Kamareddy Bus Stand, the respondent No.1 being driver of T.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP-25-Z-0036 drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell down on the road and the tyres of the bus run over the body of the deceased, due to which, he received severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot.

10)The respondent No.1 got himself examined as R.W.1. He deposed that there was no fault on his part and the claim petitioners have falsely implicated him in the above case to get compensation amount.

In cross-examination, R.W.1 admitted that on the date of accident, he was the driver of the crime vehicle, i.e., TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-25-Z- 0036 and a criminal case is registered against him and is still pending.

11)Information of accident was received by the Police,

Kamareddy on 19.05.2022 at 11.00 hours. Copy of First Information

Report is marked as Ex.A.1. The claim petitioner No.3 who is the son of the deceased lodged the complaint with the Police about accident and death of the deceased. In the circumstances, Ex.A.1 was promptly

Fair 9 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022 lodged and is authentic as to the truth of the accident. Ex.A.1 was investigated and charge sheet was filed which is marked as Ex.A.6 which reveals that investigation was done on proper lines. As per Ex.A.6, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by respondent No.1. As per Ex.A.3/postmortem examination report, the cause of death is due to ‘’chest injury with haemothorax with polytrauma’’.

As per Ex.A.5/Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report, it was opined that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. Therefore, from the above evidence, it is proved that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by respondent No.1. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioners.

12)ISSUE NO.2: Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation and if so, how much and from which of the respondents ?

The claim petitioner No.1 is the wife, claim petitioners Nos.2 to 6 are the children and claim petitioner No.7 is the mother of the deceased. After filing of the petition, the claim petitioner No.7 died and the petitioners filed Ex.A.8/death certificate to that effect. Thus, the claim

Fair 10 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022 petitioners Nos.1 to 6 are the dependents of the deceased and are entitled for compensation.

13)The pleadings and oral evidence of P.W.1 shows that the deceased was aged 49 years as on the date of accident. The petitioners got marked Ex.A.7/Aadhar Card of the deceased. As per Ex.A.7, the date of birth of the deceased was shown as 01.01.1973. As per

Ex.A.3/postmortem examination report, the age of the deceased was shown as 60 years. Therefore, the age of the deceased is taken as 60 years as on the date of accident.

14)The evidence of P.W.1 and the averments of the petition shows that the deceased was a Fruit Merchant and he was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the claim petitioners did not file any document in proof of income of the deceased. In the absence of any such document, the plea of the petitioners with regard to the income of the deceased cannot be accepted. Considering the minimum wages applicable during the period of accident and the age of the deceased, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) per month.

Fair 11 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022

15)With regard to future prospects, the Hon’ble Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others,

reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 held thus:-

(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

16)In the present case on hand, the deceased was aged 60 years and was on fixed salary, as such, 10% additional income to be added towards future prospects. Therefore, an amount of Rs.8,000/- x 10/100 = Rs.800/- + Rs.8,000/- = Rs.8,800/- (Rupees eight thousand eight hundred only) shall be the income of the deceased per month and

Fair 12 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022 an amount of Rs.1,05,600/-, i.e., Rs.8,800/- x 12 = Rs.1,05,600/- (Rupees one lakh five thousand six hundred only) is the annual income of the deceased.

17)As per the petition and evidence, the claim petitioner No.1 is the wife and claim petitioners Nos.2 to 6 are the children of the deceased.

Thus, there are six dependents. Now the question is how much amount can be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

In this regard, it is appropriate to refer the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 wherein it was held thus:- “Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six”.

Fair 13 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022

18)In the present case, the dependents are six in number and as per the above decision, the appropriate deduction is 1/4th. The annual income of the deceased is determined as Rs.1,05,600/- and 1/4th of the deduction comes to Rs.26,400/-. So, after deducting Rs.26,400/- from

Rs.1,05,600/-, the annual contribution comes to Rs.79,200/- (Rupees seventy nine thousand two hundred only).

19)In order to determine the appropriate multiplier, it is appropriate to refer the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s

Case cited supra wherein it was held thus:-

21. “We therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, i.e., M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

Fair 14 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022

20)As per my findings, the deceased was aged 60 years. The appropriate multiplier for the person in the age group of 56 to 60 years is nine (9) and the same is adopted for calculation of amounts. By adopting this multiplier, i.e., Rs.79,200/- x 9, it comes to Rs.7,12,800/- (Rupees seven lakhs twelve thousand eight hundred only) and the same is awarded to the petitioners Nos.1 to 6 towards loss of dependency.

21)The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajwati @ Rajjo and others Vs.

United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2023(1) T.A.C. 63 (S.C) held that ‘’grant of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium is increased to Rs.44,000/- and along with this, Rs.15,000/- each for the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate is also increased to

Rs.20,000/- each’’.

22)In the present case, the claim petitioner No.1 is the wife and claim petitioners Nos.2 to 6 are the children of the deceased. In view of the above decision, this Tribunal awards a sum of Rs.44,000/- each to the claim petitioners Nos.1 to 6 towards consortium apart from Rs.20,000/- each under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus, the petitioners Nos.1 to 6 are awarded the following compensation amount:-

Fair 15 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022

Sl. Head Amount of compensation

No. awarded in Rupees

1. Towards loss of dependency. 7,12,800=00

2. Towards funeral expenses. 20,000=00

3. Towards loss of estate. 20,000=00

4. Towards loss of consortium to the 44,000=00 claim petitioner No.1.

5. Towards loss of consortium to the 2,20,000=00 claim petitioners Nos.2 to 6 @ Rs.44,000/- each.

Total compensation amount 10,16,800=00 (Rupees ten lakhs sixteen thousand eight hundred only)

23)The respondent No.1 is the driver of the T.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP-25-Z-0036 and respondent No.2 is the corporation of

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation. Thus, the respondents

Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners Nos.1 to 6. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

24)ISSUE NO. 3 : To what relief?

In view of the findings of this court on issues Nos.1 and 2, this petition is liable to be allowed in part awarding compensation of

Rs.10,16,800/- (Rupees ten lakhs sixteen thousand eight hundred only) in

Fair 16 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022 favour of the petitioners Nos.1 to 6 with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit and the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners Nos.1 to 6. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

25)IN THE RESULT, this petition is allowed in part awarding a sum of Rs.10,16,800/- (Rupees ten lakhs sixteen thousand eight hundred only) with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.

(i)The respondents Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation awarded to the petitioners Nos.1 to 6 with proportionate costs and interestand the respondent No.2 is hereby directed to deposit the above said amount into the Court within (2) two months from the date of this order.

(ii)The claim petitioner No.1 being the wife of the deceased is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,16,800/- (Rupees five lakhs sixteen thousand eight hundred only) with proportionate costs and interest including consortium of Rs.44,000/- (Rupees forty four thousand).

(iii)The claim petitioners Nos.2 to 6 being the children of the deceased are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each with proportionate costs and interest including consortium of Rs.44,000/- (Rupees forty four thousand) each.

Fair 17 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022

(iv)On such deposit, the claim petitioners No.1 to 6 are permitted withdraw their entire share amounts along with proportionate costs and interest.

(v)The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the court on this the 26th day of March, 2025.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

FAC: I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:

P.W.1: Shaik Shainaz Begum. P.W.2: Shek Azeez.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

R.W.1: Madige Yadagiri (Respondent No.1).

Fair 18 M.V.O.P. No.25 of 2022

EXHIBIT MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

EX.A.1:Certified Copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.283/2022 of P.S. Kamareddy along with complaint dated 19.05.2022.

EX.A.2:Certified Copy of inquest report dated 19.05.2022.

EX.A.3:Certified Copy of postmortem examination report dated 19.05.2022.

EX.A.4:Certified Copy of Crime Details Form dated 19.05.2022.

EX.A.5:Certified Copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report dated 19.05.2022.

EX.A.6:Certified Copy of charge sheet dated 24.05.2022.

EX.A.7:Original Aadhar Card of the deceased.

EX.A.8:Original death certificate of claim petitioner No.7 issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths, Sungam village of Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District dated 05.07.2022.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

--Nil--

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

FAC: I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

Page No. 1 of 7

Fair Crl.R.P.NO.07 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

PRESENT: N. PREMA LATHA,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Rajanna Sircilla.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 07 of 2025 IN

Crl.M.P.NO.434 of 2024

(On the file of learned II- Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla) IN CRIME NO.232 OF 2024 (OF P.S. KONARAOPET).

Between:

Gadarla Santhosh, S/o. Nagaiah, Age: 21 years, Caste: Kurma, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.5-14, Achannapalli village of Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

....Revision petitioner/owner of case property And.

The State through S.H.O., Police Station, Konaraopet, R/by Public Prosecutor, Sircilla.

...Respondent/complainant

Revision filed against the orders passed by the learned II-Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class Sircilla in Crl.M.P.No.434 of 2024 in

Crime No.232 of 2024 of P.S.Konaraopet, dated:27.09.2024.

Between:

Gadarla Santhosh, S/o. Nagaiah, Age: 21 years, Caste: Kurma, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.5-14, Achannapalli village of Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

....Petitioner/owner of case property/Accused

And.

Page No. 2 of 7

Fair Crl.R.P.NO.07 of 2025

The State through S.H.O., Police Station, Konaraopet.

...Respondent/complainant

This revision petition is coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Sri.T.Venkati, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner and Sri

Penta Srinivas, Addl.Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. This Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 of BNSS against the orders dated:27.09.2024 passed by the learned II-Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla in Crl.M.P.No.434 of 2024 in Crime

No.232 of 2024 of P.S.Konaraopet, dismissing the said petition filed by the present petitioner/owner of the case property under Section 497 BNSS for interim custody of case property i.e., One Plus (Mobile Phone) blue

colour, IMEI No.861034065550151, IMEI NO.861034065550144, Airtel

company SIM Card No.8991000908375944937U (Airtel), observing that the offence pertains to the Sessions matter and the investigation authority may loss proper evidence and there is a chance of tampering evidence till investigation is pending.

2. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this

Revision Petition are as follows:- The above crime was registered against

Page No. 3 of 7

Fair Crl.R.P.NO.07 of 2025

petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 74, 75, 78, 351(2) BNS

Act. That the petitioner has filed the petition vide Crl.M.P.No.434 of 2024 in Cr.No.232 of 2024 of P.S.Konaraopet for return of case property and the same has been dismissed by the trial Court observing that there is chance of loss of proper evidence and there is chance of petitioner tampering with the evidence.

3.Aggrieved by the said orders, this revision petition is filed mainly contending in the grounds of revision as follows:- The Revision petitioner is a registered owner of case property i.e., One Plus (Mobile

Phone) blue colour, IMEI No.861034065550151, IMEI

NO.861034065550144, Airtel company SIM Card

No.8991000908375944937U (Airtel). The lower Court failed to appreciate the contents and dismissed the petition and if the case property is not returned, it would be damaged and that the petitioner is in need of case property for his daily needs and for commercial purpose and filed the Original bill. Therefore, payed to allow the petition by giving the interim custody of the case property.

4.Notice given to the learned APPO, who opposed the Petition.

5.01.Heard both sides and perused the record.

Page No. 4 of 7

Fair Crl.R.P.NO.07 of 2025

5.02.The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions in the grounds of revision contended that the interim custody of the mobile may be given to the petitioner by imposing any conditions and the petitioner would be abiding by the same. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner herewith submitted the Original bill pertaining to the case property.

6. Now the point for determination is whether the petitioner is entitled for setting-aside the orders under revision and for interim custody of the vehicle as prayed for.

7. P O I N T:

A perusal of the order under revision shows that the learned

Magistrate dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for interim custody

of the case property on the grounds that case is triable by Court of

Sessions and there is every possibility of loss and tampering of evidence.

8.It is contended that the petitioner herein requires the above mobile for his daily and commercial needs and if the said property is not returned, the parts of same will be rusted, thereby the revision petitioner would sustain irreparable loss. It could be seen from the record that the revision petitioner is the registered owner of the case property and filed the Original bill of the mobile phone and that he is ready to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court.

Page No. 5 of 7

Fair Crl.R.P.NO.07 of 2025

9.Under Section 497 BNS (previously 451 Cr.P.C) when any property is produced before any criminal court during any inquiry or trial, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do the court may after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Therefore, the court is of the considered opinion that under Section 497 Cr.P.C., interim custody of the property may be given with conditions by Magistrate Court also.

10.Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs.State of Gujarat reported in 2002 Supp(3) SCR 39 held thus:- “4…...Valuable Articles and Currency Notes With regard to valuable articles, such as golden or sliver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 , Cr.P.C., at the earliest.

For this purposes, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:- (1) preparing detailed proper panchanama of such articles: (2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and (3) after taking proper security. For this purpose, the Court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 , Cr.P.C. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or

Page No. 6 of 7

Fair Crl.R.P.NO.07 of 2025

destroyed. The Court should see that photographs or such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the Court under Section 451 , Cr.P.C., to impose any other appropriate condition.

11.From the above said judgment, it is very clear that the interim custody of the case property claimed by the petitioner can be given to the revision petitioner with conditions in view of nature, filing of the Original

Registration Certificate and in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Therefore, the order under revision is liable to be set-aside.

12.For all the aforesaid reasons, this court holds that the revision petitioner is entitled for setting aside the order under revision and interim custody of the case property i.e., One Plus (Mobile Phone) blue colour,

IMEI No.861034065550151, IMEI NO.861034065550144, Airtel

company SIM Card No.8991000908375944937U (Airtel),has to be given to the petitioner by imposing necessary conditions. Point is answered accordingly.

13.In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The orders of the learned II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla in

Crl.M.P.No.434 of 2024 in Crime No.232 of 2024 of P.S. Konaraopet

dt:27.09.2024 be and are hereby set-aside. The interim custody of the

case property i.e.,One Plus (Mobile Phone) blue colour, IMEI

Page No. 7 of 7

Fair Crl.R.P.NO.07 of 2025

No.861034065550151, IMEI NO.861034065550144, Airtel company SIM

Card No.8991000908375944937U (Airtel), is ordered to be given to the petitioner, on his fulfilling the following conditions:-

a)The petitioner/owner of case property should execute a personal bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of learned II-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla.

b).The Petitioner is directed to file theOriginal Bill of the mobile phone.

d). The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the learned II- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla undertaking not to alienate the case property, or mortgage, or alter, or encumber the case property with third parties or change its colour till the completion of trial and shall produce the above case property as and when directed by this Court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, seen, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2025.

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

--NIL--

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

Page No. 1 of 6

Fair Crl.R.P.No.06 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, AT RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

PRESENT: N. PREMA LATHA,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Rajanna Sircilla.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 06 of 2025 IN

Crl.M.P.NO.120 of 2025

IN C.C.NO.104 OF 2017 (On the file of learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla)

Between:

1)Madasu Textiles its Proprietor Madasu Dasharatham,

2)Madasu Dasharatham, S/o. Venikaiah, Age: 75 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Padmanagar locality, Sircilla town, Rajanna Sircilla District. ....Revision petitioner/Accused. And. Bitla Venkatesham, S/o. Late Narayana, Age: 71 years, R/o. Flat No.204, Devi Residency, Malkapet, Hyderabad.

...Respondent/Complainant

Revision filed against the orders passed by the learned Principal

Judicial Magistrate of First Class Sircilla in Crl.M.P.No.120 of 2025 in

C.C.No.104 of 2017 dt:10.02.2025 Between: Madasu Textiles its Proprietor Madasu Dasharatham, Madasu Dasharatham, S/o. Venikaiah, Age: 63 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.NO.12-7-45, Shivanagar locality of Sircilla proper and mandal, presently residing at C/o. Swathi Vinayaka Synthetics, j15 mide Tarapur, Boisar District, Phalghar old, Thana of Maharashtra State – 401506.

....Petitioner/Accused

And.

1)Bitla Venkatesham, S/o. Late Narayana, Age: 71 years, R/o. Flat No.204, Devi Residency, Sirpuram Colony Malkapet, Hyderabad.

...Respondent/Complainant

Page No. 2 of 6

Fair Crl.R.P.No.06 of 2025

This revision petition is coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Venu, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner/accused and Sri G.Bhaskar, Advocate for the Respondent; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. This Revision Petition is filed under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C against the orders dated:10.02.2025 passed by the learned Prl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Sircilla in Crl.MP.No.120 of 2025 in C.C.No.104

of 2017, dismissing the said petition filed by the present petitioner to recall

P.Ws.1 and 2 in the above said case.

2. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this

Revision Petition are as follows:- The above case was filed by the

Respondent/complainant against the Revision Petitioners/Accused. That the Revision Petitioners filed the petition vide Crl.M.P.No.120 of 2025 to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 as few questions have to be put to them which are more essential to get the real facts, to prove their innocence, arrive at the just conclusion of the case and the same has been dismissed by the trial

Court and that the petitioners prayed to set-aside the dismissal orders of the trial Court.

Page No. 3 of 6

Fair Crl.R.P.No.06 of 2025

3.Aggrieved by the said orders, this revision petition is filed mainly contending in the grounds of revision as follows:- The petitioners are intending to put some few questions to P.Ws.1 and 2 which are essential to get the real facts, to prove innocence of petitioners and arrive at the just conclusion. Therefore the petitioners prayed to set-aside the dismissal orders.

4.Notice given to the otherside, who opposed the Petition.

5.01.Heard both sides and perused the record.

5.02.The learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contentions in the grounds of revision.

6. Now the point for determination is whether the petitioners are entitled for setting-aside the orders under revision and for interim custody of the vehicle as prayed for.

7. P O I N T:

A perusal of the order under revision shows that the learned

Magistrate dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners for recall of

P.Ws.1 and 2 on the grounds that the grounds for recalling the witness are unsubstantiated or vague and that the P.W1 is aged 80 years, suffering with old age problems and petitioners had ample opportunity to put forth all relevant questions during cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, but

Page No. 4 of 6

Fair Crl.R.P.No.06 of 2025

choose not to do so despite the exhaustive questioning session and failure to ask certain questions at that time cannot be a valid reason for recalling the witness and recalling P.Ws.1 and 2 would cause serious prejudice to opposite party and that the petitioner has not shown any material or evidence and recalling of a witness may allow to introduce a new line of defence or attack which can be detrimental to opposing party.

8.It is contended that few questions have to be put to P.Ws.1 and 2 which are essential to get the real facts and to prove innocence of the petitioners. It could be seen from the record that the petitioners have filed the same replica of the application filed before the trial Court and not pleaded any specific averments to set-aside the orders under challenge.

As it could be seen that from the record, the main case pertains to the year 2017 and that the chief-examination affidavit of P.W.1 was filed on 05.08.2022, whose cross-examination was concluded on 10.01.2025 and that on 20.01.2025 the chief-examination affidavit of P.W.2 was filed and his cross-examination was concluded on 24.01.2025, and it could been seen from the order of the trial Court who specifically averred that the present petition is filed when the case is posted for defence evidence after examination of the petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Page No. 5 of 6

Fair Crl.R.P.No.06 of 2025

9).As rightly stated by the trial Court, the petitioners failed to assign any specific reason for recalling P.Ws.1 and 2 for further cross- examination and admittedly petitioners not pleaded any grounds in the present petition to set-aside the order under challenge. It is seen from the material on record that the counsel for the petitioners cross-examined

P.Ws.1 and 2 at length and without any substantial grounds the petition cannot be allowed.

10)In Anurag Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another {2010(71) ACC 504 (All), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that ‘’the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C moved by the revision petitioner on the ground that P.W.1 has to be cross-examined on some important points, but what were the questions which had to be asked from P.W.1 in further cross-examination were not mentioned in the application nor important points which required further cross-examination were mentioned and dismissed the revision petition observing that the said application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was vague and no grounds to interfere with the orders of the trial Court’’.

11)As could be seen from the material on record, the counsel for the petitioners cross-examined P.Ws.1 and 2 from material corners pertaining to their case, and in the absence of any specific reason as to what are the few questions which they intending to put-forth in further

Page No. 6 of 6

Fair Crl.R.P.No.06 of 2025

cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 specifically, the petition cannot be allowed.

12)The learned Magistrate has rightly discussed all the issues and has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners for recalling of P.Ws.1 and 2 for further cross-examination. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is just and proper and it needs no interference by this

Court. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for setting-aside the orders under revision and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Point is answered accordingly.

13)IN THE RESULT, this revision petition is dismissed. The order dated 10.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.120 of 2025 in C.C.No.104 of 2017 passed by the learned Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla be and is hereby confirmed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, seen, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2025.

Principal Sessions Judge,

Rajanna Sircilla.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

--NIL--

Principal Sessions Judge,

Rajanna Sircilla.

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­

IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 

AT :: SIRCILLA PRESENT: Ms.PREMA LATHA, CHAIRMAN, MACT­CUM­IX ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, 

SIRCILLA.

Thursday, this the 26th day of May,2022

M.V.O.P. No. 50 OF 2019

Between:­ Erra Kanukavva W/o. Late Mallaiah, aged 60 years, Occ: Household r/o.Sthambampalli v/o. Boinpalli mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

... Petitioner.

And 

1 Durgayala Narsimhulu S/o.Durgaiah, aged 29 years, Occ: Driver of Hired RTC bearing No.TS­17­T­1555, r/o. Bhavanipeta v/o. Machareddy mandal, Kamareddy District.

2 Ampally Shankaramma W/o. Kashaiah, aged not known to the petitioner but major, Occ: Owner of Hired RTC Bearing No.TS­17­T­1555, r/o. 5­8­66, Ashoknagar colony, Kamareddy town and District.

3.The New India Assurance Co.Ltd, Musheerabad, r/by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Santhosima Complex, RTC X roads, Hyderabad.

... Respondents.

@ @ @

This petition is coming before me today in the presence of Sri. K.Anjaiah, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri B.Ravinder Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Sri T.Gunavanth Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and upon perusal of material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following order:­

:: O R D E R :: 

For steps against petitioner. No representation for petitioner. Steps not taken since 1.4.2021. Stipulated period lapsed. Hence this petition is dismissed as abated.

Given under my hand and seal of the court on this 26 th day of May, 2022

 CHAIRMAN, MACT­CUM­

IX ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, 

SIRCILLA.