Sri N. Ramachandra Rao

O.S.No. 109/2023 Dt. 10-01-2024 1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (JUVENILE COURT) AT JAYASHANKAR

BHUPALPALLY

Present:SRI N. RAMACHANDRA RAO, FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Juvenile Court) Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of January, 2024.

O.S. No. 109 / 20 23 .

Between:

1.Mohammad Hafsar Begum, W/o. Late Mahammad Yousuf Pasha, aged: 41 years, Occ: Housewife.

2. Mohammad Sulthan Pasha, S/o. Late Mahammad Yousuf Pasha, Age:21 years, Occ: Student.

3.Mohammad Allahawoodin Pasha, S/o. Late Mahammad Yousuf Pasha, Age: 20 years, Occ: Student.

4.Mohammad Akbar Pasha, S/o. Late Mahammad Yousuf Pasha, Age:20years, Occ: Student.

5.Mohammad Asiya Begum, D/o. Late Mahammad Yousuf Pasha, Age:20 years, Occ: Student. All are R/o. H.No.18-502, Karalmarks Colony, Bhupalpally Village and Mandal of JS Bhupalpally District.

... Plaintiffs.

A N D

1.To whom so ever it may concern.

2.The State of Telangana, through the District Collector, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

3.The Singareni Collaries Co., Ltd., rep., by its General Manager, Bhupalpally Village and Mandal of Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

4. The Thasildhar, Bhupalpally Village and Mandal of Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

... Defendants.

This case came up before me on 08.01.2024 for hearing in the presence of Smt. Kandula Sudha Rani, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri. V. Srinivas Chari for defendant No.3 and defendant No.1, 2, 4 are set exparte and no objections received on behalf of defendant No.3, having heard and stood over for consideration, this Court made the following :

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

[1.]This is a suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. r/w. Section 26 for declaration of the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 are the Legal Heirs and Successors of Late

O.S.No. 109/2023 Dt. 10-01-2024 2 of 7

Mahammad Yousuf Pasha for submitting the necessary papers for sanction of job on compassionate grounds.

[2.]The brief averments of the plaint are that the plainitff No.1 is the wife,

Plaintiff No.2 to 4 are the sons and the Plaintiff No.5 is the daughter of the deceased Mahammad Yousuf Pasha. It is further submitted that the deceased

Mahammad Yousuf Pasha was worked as General mazdoor in KTC-OC Sec-1, SCCL,

Bhupalpally Area vide Employee Code No.178237. Unfortunately the deceased

Mahammad Yousuf Pasha died on 29.04.2022 due to ill health leaving the plaintiffs as legal heirs and successors. The death certificate issued by the Sub-Register of

Births and Deaths, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is filed herewith.

[3.] It is further submitted that after death of deceased the plaintiffs made a requisition to the defendant No.3 requested to provide a job to the Plaintiff No.2 on companssionate grounds, but the Authorities directed them to produce the Legal

Heir Certificate. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs approached the

Defendant No.4 to issue the Legal Heir Certificate of Late Mahammad Yousuf Pasha but the Defendant No.4 informed the plaintiffs that in view of the judgment of the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and the Defendant No. 4 only issued

the Family Members Certificate to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are required to get the Legal Heir Certificate from the competent court of law and it is further submitted that the plaintiffs are required the Legal Heir certificate for declaring as a legal heirs of Late Mahammad Yousuf Pasha for forwarding the name of the Plaintiff

No.2 to sanction job on compassionate grounds of Late Mahammad Yousuf Pasha.

O.S.No. 109/2023 Dt. 10-01-2024 3 of 7

Hence the suit is to declare the plaintiffs as the legal heirs and successors of Late

Mahammad Yousuf Pasha.

[4.]On the other hand the Defendant No.3 filed a written statement stating that

Sri Mohammad Yousuf Pasha was an employee of the Singareni Collieries Company

Limited, who worked as General Mazddor at KTK OC-II mine. He was declared unfit for further services by the Corporate Medical Board and accordingly, his name was removed from the rolls of the company w.e.f. 08.03.2021. It is further submitted that Sri Mohammad Yousuf Pasha has submitted an application to provide compassionate employement to his son Sri Mohammad Sulthan Pasha/Plaintiff No.2.

On verification of company records, it is observed that there was a variation in name of spouse of ex employee from company records to education qualifications as

Mohammad Parveen instead of Hafsar Begum. It is further submitted that the name of the Plaintiff No.1 is recorded differently in different records. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff No.1 is advised to get declaration decree from the competent court of law and requested to pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case.

When summons are published in Eenadu daily news paper inviting any objections for the suit filed by the plaintiffs for relief of declaration that the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 are the Legal Heirs and Successors, no objections are received

before this Court. As such Defendant No.1 is set exparte. Though summons served

on Defendant No.2 and 4 they were set exparte for their non appearance.

O.S.No. 109/2023 Dt. 10-01-2024 4 of 7

[5.]Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the Court framed the following issues:

1. “Whether the plaintiffs are legal heirs and successors of deceased Mahammad Yousuf Pasha ?”.

2. “Whether the plaintiffs are family members to the deceased Mahammad Yousuf Pasha?”.

3. “To what relief?”.

[6.]To substantiate the case of plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW.1 by filing her chief examination affidavit in liew of her chief examination reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. With regard to exhibits

Ex.A1 is the Meeseva Death certificate of Mohammad Yousuf Pash, Dated 02.02.2022. Ex.A2 is the Meeseva Family Member Certificate of Deceased

Mohammad Yousuf Pasha, Dated: 03.03.2023. Ex.A3 is the Original Aadhar Cards of

Plaintiff No. 1 to 5. Ex.A4 is the Letter issued by the SCCL, Bhupalpally vide Ref. No.

BHP/KTKOCP-2/2023/W.013/211, dt: 31.01.2023.

[7.] I SSUES NO. 1 & 2:

It is the specific evidence of the PW.1 that she is the legally wedded wife of

Late Mahammad Yousuf Pasha and Plaintiff No.2 to 5 are the children of them and her husband worked as General mazdoor in KTK-OC Sec-1, SCCL, Bhupalpally Area vide Employee Code No.178237. Unfortunately, he died on 29.04.2022 due to ill health leaving the plaintiffs as legal heirs and successors. After the death of her husband they made requisition to Defendant No.3/SCCL Bhupalpally to provide job to Plaintiff No.2 on compassionate grounds but the authorities directed them to produce the Legal Heir Certificate. Later they approached the Defendant No.4 to

O.S.No. 109/2023 Dt. 10-01-2024 5 of 7

issue the Legal Heir Certificate of Late Mahammad Yousuf Pasha and the Defendant

No.4 informed the plaintiffs in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad, he only issued the Family Members Certificate to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are required to get the Legal Heir Certificate from the competent court of law and the plaintiffs are required the Legal Heir certificate for declaring as a legal heirs of Late Mahammad Yousuf Pasha for forwarding the name of the Plaintiff No.2 to sanction job on compassionate grounds of Late Mahammad

Yousuf Pasha and requested the Hon’ble Court to declare the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 are the Legal Heirs and Successors of Late Mahammad Yousuf Pasha. To prove her contentions she relied on Ex.A1 to A4. That on perusal of Ex.A1 i.e. original Death

Certificate of deceased Mahammad Yousuf Pasha reveals that he died on 29.04.2022 at his residence bearing H.No.5-219, Krishna Colony, Bhupalpally. On perusal of

Ex.A2 i.e. Original Family Members Certificate issued by Defendant No.4 shows that

Plaintiff No.1 to 5 are the family members of Late Mahammad Yousuf Pasha. On perusal of Ex.A3 i.e., Original Aadhar cards of the Plantiff No.1 to 5 shows that PW1 is the wife and Plaintiff No.2 to 5 children of Late Mahammad Yousuf Pasha. On perusal of Ex.A4 i.e., the Original letter issued by Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd.,

Bhupalpally, dt: 31.01.2023 reveals that the company informed the plaintiffs to issue the declaration decree from the competent court of law from the family members of the deceased employee.

The Counsel for the Defendant No.3 cross examined the PW.1 by putting suggestions that the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of Late Mahammad Yousuf

Pasha but the same were denied by PW.1. During her cross examination she

O.S.No. 109/2023 Dt. 10-01-2024 6 of 7

admitted that she also called as Parveen after her marriage and further admitted that her name was entered as parveen in the study certificates of plaintiff No.2 to 5 for which the SCCL object for the benefits and further admitted that they have also undergone treatment in Singareni Hospital as the family members of her husband during his life time. The Defendant No.3 did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

[8.]On careful perusal of the oral evidence of PW.1 and Ex.A1 to A4 clearly goes to show that the deceased Sri Mohammad Yousuf Pasha was died on 29-04-2022 leaving behind the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 as his legal heirs and the family members and the public notice is issued and the same was published in Eenadu daily news paper vide dt:08.05.2023 inviting objections to this petition filed by the plaintiffs, but none appeared before this Court. It shows that except the plaintiffs no other persons are left behind late Sri Mohammad Yousuf Pasha as his legal heirs and successors.

Through the oral and documentary evidence, the plaintiffs could be able to establish that they are the heirs of late Sri Mohammad Yousuf Pasha.

[9.]In view of the above discussions, this Court arrived at conclusion that the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 are the legal heirs of late Sri Mohammad Yousuf Pasha.

Accordingly these issues are answered in favour of plaintiff No.1 to 5.

[10.] ISSUE NO. 3 : In view of the findings on the Issues No.1 and 2 as held in favour of the plaintiffs, this Court hold that the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 are entitled for the

O.S.No. 109/2023 Dt. 10-01-2024 7 of 7

reliefs as prayed for. Accordingly the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be decreed.

Accordingly the issue is answered in favor of plaintiffs.

[11.] IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed without costs declaring that the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 are the legal heirs of late Sri Mohammad Yousuf Pasha.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer and after corrections, pronounced by me in the open Court this the 10th day of January, 2024).

Sd/-

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Juvenile Court), Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW1 – Mohammad Hafsar Begum-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 is the Meeseva Death certificate of Mohammad Yousuf Pasha, Dt: 29.04.2022.

Ex.A2 is the Meeseva Family Member Certificate of Deceased Mohammad Yousuf Pasha, dt:03.03.2023.

Ex.A3 is the Original Aadhar Cards of Plaintiff No. 1 to 5.

Ex.A4 is the Letter issued by the SCCL, Bhupalpally vide Ref. No. BHP/KTKOCP- 2/2023/W.013/211, dt: 31.01.2023.

For Defendants : -NIL-

Sd/-

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Juvenile Court), Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

O.S.No.148 of 2023 Dt.06.02.2024 1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY

Present: Sri N. Ramachandra Rao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Juvenile Court) Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

Tuesday, this the 06 th day of February, 2024.

O.S.No. 148 of 2023

Between:

Cherala Sadanandam, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged: 70 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. Thirumalapuram village, Chityal Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

...Plaintiff.

A N D

Godugu Sammakka, W/o. Narsaiah, Aged: 60 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Thirumalapuram village, Chityal Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

... Defendant.

This Suit is coming up before me on 06.02.2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri Veshala Anil, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant failed to appear before this court and remained set exparte, having heard and stood over for consideration, this Court made the following:

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

[1.]This is a suit filed by the plaintiff under Section 26 r/w. Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. for recovery of money praying the Court to pass a decree for a sum of Rs.84,672/- (Rupees Eighty

Four Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Two Only) including interest @ 1.5% per month on the amount due, from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of realization and to award costs of the suit.

[2.] The brief facts of the case are that:

The plaintiff and defendant are well known to each other since long time and having good acquaintance with each other, out of such acquaintance with the plaintiff, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him to hand loan of Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five

Thousand Only) for medical necessities of her daughter and Son-in-law, on repeated request made

O.S.No.148 of 2023 Dt.06.02.2024 2 of 5

by the defendant, the plaintiff gave said amount of Rs.55,000/- to the defendant on 23.04.2020, evidencing the same the defendant had executed a demand promissory note in favor of the plaintiff on the same day i.e., on 23.04.2020 in the presence of witnesses namely G. Ravi and Gopaiah and promising to repay the same along with interest @ 1.5% per month within short. The above said promissory note scribed by one Arelli Sadanandam. The plaintiff sincerely believed that the defendant would stand on her promise in paying the interest as well as the principal amounts, but the defendant has deliberately breached her promise, neither she paid the interest nor the principal amount, despite the repeated demands made by the plaintiff vexed with attitude of the defendant, therefore on 09.04.2023, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant demanding her to repay the amounts covered by the demand promissory note with interest, but there is no proper response from the defendant, therefore the plaintiff has no other go except to approach the Hon'ble court to file the present suit for recovery of money. Hence the suit is filed for recovery of money.

[3.] Though the summons served on defendant, he failed to appear before this Court. Hence defendant is set exparte.

[4.]To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked

Ex.A1.

[5.]Heard the learned Counsel for plaintiff.

[6.]Now, the point for determination is:

1.“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant?”.

2. “To what relief?”.

[7.] POINT

To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit in lieu of chief examination and is examined as PW1 by reiterating the contents of the plaint and got marked

Ex.A1.

As per the oral testimony of the plaintiff the plaintiff and defendant are well known to each other since long time and having good acquaintance with each other, out of such acquaintance with the plaintiff, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him to hand loan of Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Only) for medical necessities of her daughter and Son-in-law, on repeated request made by the defendant, the plaintiff gave said amount of Rs.55,000/- to the

O.S.No.148 of 2023 Dt.06.02.2024 3 of 5

defendant on 23.04.2020, evidencing the same the defendant had executed a demand promissory note in favor of the plaintiff on the same day i.e., on 23.04.2020 in the presence of witnesses and promising to repay the same along with interest @ 1.5% per month within short. The above said promissory note scribed by one Arelli Sadanandam.

The plaintiff sincerely believed that the defendant would stand on her promise in paying the interest as well as the principal amounts, but the defendant has deliberately breached her promise, neither she paid the interest nor the principal amount, despite the repeated demands made by the plaintiff vexed with attitude of the defendant, therefore on 09.04.2023, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant demanding her to repay the amounts covered by the demand promissory note with interest, but there is no proper response from the defendant and prayed to decree the suit in his favor.

In support of his oral contentions the PW.1/Cherala Sadanandam, relied on Ex.A1. With regard to Exhibit i.e., Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory note, dt: 23.04.2020. The argument of the counsel for the plaintiff is that he has established onus of burden that Ex.A1 supported by consideration and the burden shifted to the defendant to disprove as the defendant has not received any consideration and the Ex.A1 i.e., Original Promissory Note, dt: 23.04.2020is not supported by any consideration. Therefore, the suit claim is proved and prayed to decree the suit. Whereas as the defendant was set ex-parte, though the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his case.

That on perusal of Ex.A1 i.e., Original Promissory Note, dt: 23.04.2020which shows that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.55,000/- from the plaintiff on 23.04.2020 by executing a promissory note promising to repay the same with 1.5% interest as and when demanded by plaintiff and the Ex.A1 was executed in the presence of witnesses. On perusal of the above record, it shows that the evidence of PW1 is uncontroverted and unchallenged.

As per the decision of G. Vasu Vs. Syed Yasen Sifuddin Quadri AIR 1987 AP 139 held that: Negotiable instruments Act, 1881, Section 118 – suit on a promissory note – Burden of proof – Presumption under sec.118 – where the defendant adduces rebuttal evidence that the consideration as stated in the pro note does not exist the presumption under Section 18 disappears and the burden of proof shifted on the plaintiff.

[8].As per Sec. 13. ‘‘Negotiable instrument”.—

1) A “negotiable instrument” means a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable either to order or to bearer.

O.S.No.148 of 2023 Dt.06.02.2024 4 of 5

Explanation (i) A promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque is payable to order which is expressed to be so payable or which is expressed to be payable to a particular person, and does not contain words prohibiting transfer or indicating an intention that it shall not be transferable.

Explanation (ii) A promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque is payable to bearer which is expressed to be so payable or on which the only or last indorsement is an indorsement in blank. [ Explanation (iii) Where a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque, either originally or by indorsement, is expressed to be payable to the order of a specified person, and not to him or his order, it is nevertheless payable to him or his order at his option.

2) A negotiable instrument may be made payable to two or more payees jointly, or it may be made payable in the alternative to one of two, or one or some of several payees.

As per Sec. 4 of N.I. Act, 1882 - A "Promissory note" is :

an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a currency-note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument. As per Sec. 118 of N.I. Act, 1882 - Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:

(a) of consideration - that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;

(b) as to date —that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date;

(c) as to time of acceptance —that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity;

(d) as to time of transfer —that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity;

(e) as to order of indorsements —that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon;

(f) as to stamps —that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped;

(g) that holder is a holder in due course —that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course: Provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.

Hence, the presumptions mentioned under Sec.118 of N.I. Act, 1881 are applicable with respect to the Ex.A1/Original Promissory Note, dt: 23.04.2020 in this case in favor of plaintiff as there is no rebuttal evidence by the defendant. Therefore, in the circumstances mentioned supra the plaintiff proved his case. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, this point is answered.

O.S.No.148 of 2023 Dt.06.02.2024 5 of 5

[9]. POINT NO.2: To what relief?.

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs against the Defendant for a sum of

Rs.84,672/- (Rupees Eighty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Two Only) with costs and interest @ 1.5% per month on the principal amount of Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand

Only) from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 06th day of February, 2024).

Sd/-

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Juvenile Court) Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: Cherala Sadanandam - None -

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory Note, dt: 23.04.2020. - Nil -

Sd/-

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Juvenile Court) Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

CC.No. 5265 of 2022 Dt.04.04.2025 1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY.

Present: Sri N. Ramachandra Rao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

Friday, this the 04 th day of April, 2025

CC.No. 5265 of 2022

Between: The State of Telangana, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Chityal.

... Complainant

A N D

Pulluri Karthik, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 30 years, Caste: Madiga, Occ: Estate Officer, R/o. Giddemutharam Village, Chityal (M), Bhupalpally Jayashankar Mandal.

... Accused.

This case is coming up before me on 28.03.2025 for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P., for the State and of Sri. Ravula Ramesh, learned Counsel for Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following :

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

[1].The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Chityal, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.121/2022 against the Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 294-b IPC, 75 JJ Act.

[2]. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

That on 27.06.2022 at 15:30 hours the Complainant/LW1/Bopparthi Harikrishna, came to

P.S. Chityal and lodged a written complaint in Telugu, in which he stated that on 23.05.2022

LW3/Pulluri Rajamma came to Child Protection Office at Jayashankar-Bhupalpally and submitted a petition stating that adopted son by name Pulluri Karthik harassing a female child by name Pulluri Pavani who is adopted child of spouse LW3/Pulluri Rajamma-LW4/Mallaiah. On 23.05.2022 they put the said issue before Child Protection Committee and on the instructions of

Child Welfare Committee, they gave temporary accommodation to the said the female child by name Pulluri Pavani, Age: 9 years and later said female child was handed to her own parents

LW6/Gonela Ragamallika-LW7/Sandeep on 28.05.2022. Later on 06.06.2022 as spouse Pulluri

Rajamma and Mallaiah are ancestors, they went to Mancherial and brought said spouse Gonela

CC.No. 5265 of 2022 Dt.04.04.2025 2 of 5

Ragamallika-Sandeep to her house at Giddemutharam village promising that they will give salary and provide food to them. Presuming that his parents Pulluri Rajamma and Mallaiah brought the said girl Pulluri Pavani to their house, the above said Pulluri Karthik went to the house of his parents on 10.06.2022 at Giddemutharam village and abused Rajamma in filthy language using ballad words and beat said Rajamma and broken her hand and he also beaten the said girl Pavani with sticks and caused injuries, immediately they informed about the incident to Child Welfare

Committee, and as per the instructions of superior officer, he lodged a report at PS Chityal on 17.06.2022. Later, they went to Giddemutharam village to confirm about the said incident and on causing enquiries and in enquiry, they came to know said Pulluri Karthik/Accused intentionally harassed said child Pavani. Thus, he requested for necessary action.

[3.]On receipt of above report from LW1, the LW-11/G. Krishna Prasad, SI of Police, Chityal registered a case vide Cr.No.121/2022, U/Sec.324, 294-b of IPC, 75 Juvenile Justice (Care &

Protection of Children) Act - 2015 issued FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation the LW11 examined Complainant/LW1, LW2 and recorded his statement at PS.

Later visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene minutely and incorporated physical features of the scene in crime detail form in the presence of mediators LWs 8 and 9, thereafter secured the presence of witnesses LWs 3 to 7, examined them and recorded their statements and referred the injured/LW3 to Govt. CHC, Chityal for treatment and wound certificates.

The LW-10/Dr. R. Santhosh, who treated the LW3/injured opined that the injured/LW3 have sustained injuries as simple in nature, inflicted by blunt object.

On 15.07.2022 at 16.00 hours the Accused was surrendered before the LW-11 at P.S.

Chityal and after furnishing his identity, on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed the guilt of the commission of this offence. Further, the Accused confessed that the sticks which was used by him in this offence had thrown away somewhere while fleeing from scene of occurrence.

Thereafter. Thereafter, the LW-11 served Notice U/Sec.41 (A) (1) Cr.P.C. to the accused for his appearance in the Honourable Court at the time of trial as per the guidelines issued by

Honourable Supreme Court, New Delhi vide Crl. Appeal No.1277/2014 between Arnesh Kumar

Vs. State of Bihar.

CC.No. 5265 of 2022 Dt.04.04.2025 3 of 5

By the evidence collected in investigation, it is established that the Accused had committed an offence and punishable U/Sec. 324, 294 (b) IPC, 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care &

Protection of Children) Act – 2015. Hence, the Charge.

[4.]Considering the charge sheet and material on record this Court took the case on file for the offences punishable U/Sec. 324, 294 (b) IPC, 75 JJ Act and issued process. In response to the process Accused entered his appearance and he was provided with the copies of documents

U/Sec. 207 of CrPC upon which the prosecution relied to prove the proposed guilt.

[5.]During the examination U/Sec. 239 of CrPC, heard and charges framed U/sec 240 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Sec. 324, 294 (b) IPC, 75 JJ Act, was read over and explained to the Accused for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon invitation for trial, the prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2.

[6.]After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C. for which he denied the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defense evidence.

[7.]Heard arguments on both sides.

[8.]Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the offences

punishable U/Sec. 324, 294 (b) IPC, 75 JJ Act and beyond all reasonable doubt?”

[9]. EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD: In order to prove the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2. PW.1 is the

Complainant, PW.2 is the Injured and adopted mother of Victim/LW5. With regard to the exhibits i.e., Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the S.161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW2. The evidence of LW2, LW4 to LW11 was given up by the Ld., APPO.

[10]. POINT:

As per the evidence of PW.1 that about 3 years ago one day, he received instructions to enquire and submit the report from the CWC Bhupalpally about the complaint against the

Accused stating that the Accused was harassing the LW5/P. Pavani who is the illegally adopted child by the LW3/mother of Accused. Immediately he went to the village of Accused and he

CC.No. 5265 of 2022 Dt.04.04.2025 4 of 5

enquired about the incident and the villagers orally narrated the incident that the Accused was harassing the LW5. Immediately he informed the same to the CWC (Child Welfare Committee)

Bhupalpally. On their instructions he lodged a report with the Police Bhupalpally against

Accused. Ex.P1 is the report. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

As per the evidence of PW.2 that LW4/P. Mallaiah is her husband who died about 2 years ago. She Knows LW5/P. Pavani. She do not know LW2, 6 and 7. Accused is her son. She do not know the facts of this case and she did not witness anything pertaining to this case. Police did not examine her and not recorded her statement. Whereas the PW.2 turned as hostile and did not support the prosecution case, her S.161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P2.

In this case, the PW.1 who is the Complainant contested the case as per his chief but during his cross examination he admitted that he do not know whether written complaint was received by the CWC against the Accused or not. He cannot say the names of the villagers who he enquired. He did not file any report of his enquiry before this Court. He did not enquire LW5 who is the victim. Further witness adds that on the date of his visit the LW5 was not present in the village. He do not know whether the said complaint received by CWC is intentional to harass the Accused. Moreover in this case PW.2 is the Injured and adopted mother of Victim/LW5 completely turned hostile, hence the learned Prosecutor with the permission of the Court cross- examined her, but nothing was elicited except putting suggestions which was denied by her.

As the complainant has turned hostile to the prosecution case, the learned Prosecutor has given up the remaining listed witnesses on record including the official witnesses and saved the valuable time of the Court and lessen the burden on the Government exchequer. In the circumstances of the case relying on the sole evidence of PW1 who is interested witnesses is not enough to prove the guilt of accused. So the evidence of PW1 in this regard cannot be considered without corroborating evidence of the other prosecution witnesses and the witness PW.2 was completely turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and the evidence of LW2, LW4 to

LW11 was given up by the Ld., APPO. In these circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the Accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

CC.No. 5265 of 2022 Dt.04.04.2025 5 of 5

[11]. IN THE RESULT, the Accused found not guilty for the offences under Sections 324, 294-b IPC, Sec. 75 JJ Act and accordingly the Accused is acquitted U/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled after six months in view of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 04th day of April, 2025).

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

A. Prosecution

RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE

PW1Bopparathi HarikrishnaComplainant

PW2Palluri RajammaInjured and adopted mother of JJ/Victim LW5

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE

DW1------

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS

A. Prosecution:

Sr.No. Exhibit Number Description

1.Exhibit P-1/PW1Report

2.Exhibit P-2/PW2Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

B. Defence : Nil

D. Material Objects: Nil

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

CC.No.203/2022 Dt.30.01.2024 1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT BHUPALPALLY.

Present: Sri N. Ramachandra Rao, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

JS. Bhupalpally. Tuesday, this the 30th day of January, 2024.

C.C.No.203/2022

(Old C.C.No.480/2019)

Between: The State of Telangana, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Kaleshwaram.

...Complainant

And

A1-Aravelly Ramu s/o Vasantham, 32 years, Mudiraj caste, r/o Kaleshwaram now Kotapally village, Chennur mandal of Adilabad district. A2-Aravelly Vasantham s/o Ramaiah, 70 years, Mudiraj caste, r/o Kaleshwaram now Kotapally village, Chennur mandal of Adilabad district.(abated on 02.03.2021. A3-Bacha Bapu @ Kaseem s/o Syed Mohammad, 55 years, Muslim caste, r/o Kaleshwaram. A4-Mohammad Sardar Khan s/o Usman Khan, 50 years, Muslim, Occ:Document Writer, r/o Manthani.

...Accused/A1 to A4

This case is received on transfer from Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class Court, Manthani vide C.C.No. 480/2019 and renumbered as

above C.C. and is coming up before me on 25.01.2024 for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P., for the State and of Sarva Sri C.Ramana Kumar Reddy, M.A.Baig, K.V.L.N.Haribabu, learned Counsel for Accused/A1, A3 and A4, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

[1]. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Kaleshwaram, filed charge sheet in Cr. No.94/2011 against the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 419, 420, 423, 424, 468 and 471 of IPC, Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C.,.

CC.No.203/2022 Dt.30.01.2024 2 of 8

[2]. The case of the prosecution in brief are as follows :

That on 23.08.2011 at 11.15 hours, the LW.14/B.Ravinder has received a complainant from the Hon’ble JFCM Court, Manthani, filed by the complainant/LW1-Aravelli Venkatamma stating that the

LW.2/Cheerala Rama an LW.3/Aravelli Sampath are the daughter and son of LW.1 and are the owners and possessors of land in Sy.No.19/3 to an extent of Acrs 4-00 guntas situated at Mazeedpally village and Katka

Mallaiah, Pittala Manthaiah, Kummari Damodar and Garepally Srinivas are the adjacent land owners of the LW.1, out of Acrs.4.00 guntas, Ac.2.00 guntas given by her mother-in-law to look after her brother-in- law/Aravelli Maruthi who is insane and lunatic. During the life time of

Aravelli Maruthi, the complainant maintained his welfare, he was died on 30.06.1999 and the said property was under the possession of LW.1.

The accused/A1 to A3 conspired together, created a forged document i.e., gift settlement deed bearing No.354/2004 dt.21.04.2004 in the name of Aravelli Ramu/A1 with the help of A4/ Mohammad Sardar

Khan by affixing photo of accused No.2 and the accused/A1 to A3 are attempting to occupy the land to alienating the third parties. Thus she requested to take necessary action against the accused/A1 to A4.

[3]. On receipt of the above complaint, LW14/B.Ravinder, formerly PSI of Police, PS Mahadevpur, registered a case vide Cr.No.94/2011 for the offence punishable U/sec.409, 420, 423 and 425 of IPC, Sec.156(3) of

CC.No.203/2022 Dt.30.01.2024 3 of 8

Cr.P.C., issued the FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW14 visited scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of the PW1 and 2. Further he conducted Crime Details Form and drew rough sketch in the presence of mediators(LWs.10 and 11).

Further on 14.09.2011, the accused/A4 had surrendered before the

LW.14 and produced the anticipatory bail order issued by the Hon’ble

Addl. Sessions Juge, Karimnagar vide Crl.MP.No.1112 of 2011, dt.05.09.2011. According to the above said orders the LW.14 got the solvencies and released him.

Subsequently, the LW.15/Ch.Vidya Sagar, formerly SI of Police, PS

Mahadevpur took up the investigation, verified the investigation done by the LW.14 and found on proper lines. Later he examined and recorded the statements of LW.3 to LW.8.

Later he filed requisitions to the LW.12/G.Sadanandam,

Tahsildar(MRO), Mahadevpur to issue attested death certificate of

Aravelly Maruthi and to the LW.13/Md.Sirajuddin, Sub-Registrar Manthani to furnish the attested copy of Registration Doc.No.354/2004 and collected the same. The LW.12/the Tahsildar (MRO), Mahadevpur issued attested copy of death certificate which disclosed that said Aravelly

Maruthi was died on 30.06.1999.

Further, on 30.11.2011 at 17.00 hours, the LW.15 and party rushed to Kaleshwaram village and apprehended the accused No.3, on interrogation he confessed his guilt of the commission of this offence

CC.No.203/2022 Dt.30.01.2024 4 of 8

along with A1, A2 and A4. Later he was arrested and sent to judicial custody.

While the investigation was under process, the accused No.1 and 2 are approached the Hon’ble High Court and got stay orders, vide

CRLP.MP.No.14974 of 2011 in CRLP.No.13152 of 2011, dt. 16.12.2011, ordered that “THERE SHALL BE INTERIM STAY”.

During the re-organization of districts/mandals in Telangana State by the TS Government, the CD file was transferred to PS Kaleshwaram for further investigation.

As per the investigation of this case there is no mischief, hence the sections of law 409, 425 of IPC are not attracting. Further there is occurred removing of property from other’s documents by forgery and impersonation, hence the sections of Law 419, 424, 468 and 471 are attracting in this case. Hence altered section of law from 409, 420, 423, 425 of IPC, Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C., to 419, 420, 423, 424, 468 and 471 of

IPC, Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C., and also issued notice to LW.1 to LW.3.

After completion of investigation, LW.16/Ch.Srinivas, SI of Police,

PS Kaleshwaram filed charge sheet against Accused/A1 to A4 for the offences punishable u/S.419, 420, 423, 424, 468 and 471 of IPC,

Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C.,. Hence the Charge.

[4]. Considering the charge sheet and material on record this Court took the case on file for the offences punishable U/Sec. 419, 420, 423, 424, 468 and 471 of IPC, Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C., and issued process. In

CC.No.203/2022 Dt.30.01.2024 5 of 8

response to the process Accused/A1 to A4 entered their appearance and they were provided with the copies of documents U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., upon which the prosecution relied to prove the proposed guilt. Police filed DC of A2 and hence case against A2 abated on 02.03.2021.

[5]. During the examination U/Sec.239 of CrPC, heard and charges framed U/sec. 240 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Sec.419, 420, 423, 424, 468 and 471 of IPC, Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C.,, was read over and explained to the Accused/A1, A3 and A4, for which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon invitation for trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 and PW.2 and no Exhibits got marked.

Evidence of LW.1/Aravelli Venkatamma closed as LW.1 was died, the remaining evidence was given up by the Learned APPO as the matter was compromised out of Court between the parties.

[6]. After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which they denied the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defense evidence.

[7]. Heard arguments on both sides.

[8]. Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of

Accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 419, 420,

423, 424, 468 and 471 of IPC, Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C.,

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

CC.No.203/2022 Dt.30.01.2024 6 of 8

[9]. EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD: In order to prove the guilt of the Accused/A1 to A4, the prosecution examined PW.1 and PW.2 and no exhibits got marked. PW.1 is the daughter of complainant and sister of PW.2, PW2 is the son of complainant and brother of PW1.

[10]. POINT: It is the evidence of PW1 that she know accused persons, who are present in the Court Hall. She know LW.1 who is her mother and LW.3 who is her brother. They have settled the matter outside the court with the intervention of their village elders. The present dispute is also settled before the Prl. J.C.J., Manthani. Herself and her brother

LW.3 compromised the matter with the accused persons and the PW.2 deposed in his evidence that he know the accused persons, He know

LW.1 who is his mother and PW.1 who is his sister. They have settled the matter outside the court with the intervention of their village elders.

The present dispute is also settled before the Prl. J.C.J., Manthani.

Herself and her brother LW.3 compromised the matter with the accused persons.

During the course of their cross examination they admitted that they have no objection and doubt with regard to the Gift deed executed by one Aravelli Maruthi, who is their paternal uncle in favour of accused

No.1. As the material witnesses have settled the matter out of Court, the learned APPO has given up the evidence of remaining listed witnesses on record including the official witnesses and saved the valuable time of

CC.No.203/2022 Dt.30.01.2024 7 of 8

the Court and lessen the burden on the Government exchequer. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution has to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts, but in this case basing on the discussion held supra this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is not enough to sustain the conviction of accused in the absence of incriminating and corroborating evidence. Hence the Accused/A1, a3 and

A4 are entitled for the clean acquittal. For the fore going discussion, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences charged with.

[12]. IN THE RESULT, the Accused A1, A3 and A4 are found not guilty for the offences U/s. 419, 420, 423, 424, 468 and 471 of IPC, Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C., and accordingly they are acquitted for the same U/s. 248(1)

Cr.P.C., and their bail bonds stands cancelled after six months in view of

Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my dictation by stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, today this the 30th January, 2024)

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

CC.No.203/2022 Dt.30.01.2024 8 of 8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

A. Prosecution

RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE

PW1 Cheerla Rama Daughter of LW.1

PW2 Aravelly Sampath Son of LW.1

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE

DW1 --- ---

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS

A. Prosecution: Nil

B. Defence :Nil

D. Material Objects: Nil

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

OS.No.130/2023 Dt:11.01.2024 1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS(JUVENILE COURT) AT

JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY

Present: Sri N. Ramachandra Rao, FAC. Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Juvenile Court), Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

Thursday, this the 11th day of January, 2024.

OS. No. 130 of 2023

Between:-

1.Thokala Shirisha Madhavi, W/o. Late Thokala Elia, Age: 41 years, Occ: Housewife.

2.Thokala Aasharitha, D/o. Late Thokala Elia, Age: 21 years, Occ: Student.

3.Thokala Daiva Swarup, S/o. Late Thokala Elia, Age: 16 years, Occ: Student.

4.Thokala Mariyamma, W/o. Late Thokala Kanakaiah, Age: 75 years, Occ: Senior Citizen.

All are R/o. H.No.14-53/b, Subash Colony, Bhupalpally, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

... Plaintiffs

And

1.To whom so ever it may concern.

2.The District Collector, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

3.The Tahasildar, Jayashankar Bhupalpally Mandal and District.

4.The Area Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District. … Defendants

This case is coming up before me on 08.01.2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri. Kiran Kumar Ratnam Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri. V. Srinivasa Chary for Defendant No.4 and Defendant No.1,2,3 are set exparte having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

[1].This is a suit filed under Section 26 r/w. Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C.

to declare that Sri Thokala Elia as legally dead as per law and to award costs.

OS. No.130/2023 Dt:11.01.2024 2 of 6

[2]. The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of Sri Thokala Elia.

Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are children of them and son of Plaintiff No.4. On 09.12.2013 Sri Thokala Elia left their house and did not return to home.

Accordingly the plaintiffs have searched about Sri Thokala Elia and having to failed to trace him, Plaintiff No.1 lodged complaint before police on 05.09.2015 and was registered a case in FIR No. 173/2015

U/sec. “Man Missing”. After completion of investigation police filed final report on 05.09.2015 referring as “Undetectable”.

[3].The Plaintiffs further submitted that from the date of disappearance whereabouts of Sri Thokala Elia is not known till today i.e., date of filing the suit and also whereabouts not known from the date of his disappearance to till today either to plaintiff or to any person who would have known him and his whereabouts whether he was alive or not and that a period of 8 years has elapsed without any information about Sri Thokala Elia. Hence, the present suit to declare that Sri

Thokala Elia as legally dead as per law.

[4].On the other hand Defendant No.4 filed written statement stating that Sri Thokala Elia was appointed in the Defendant No.4 company on 12.04.2000 with an E.C. No.02368349 worked as Coal Cutter at KTK.6

Incline, Jayashankar Bhupalpally of the defendant Company. It is further submitted that the petitioner has put in 0(Zero) musters in the year 2014. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of Mines Act,

OS.No.130/2023 Dt:11.01.2024 3 of 7

1952 and its rules and regulations, in case of an underground employee one has to put in minimum 190 Musters in a calendar year and 240

Musters in case of Surface Employee. Whereas the Petitioner has put in 0 (zero) Musters, the said act amounted to misconduct under the company standing orders clause 25.25 and was charge sheeted vide charge sheet dt: 01.04.2015. (25.25: Habitual Late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause). It is further submitted that the same was sent to his residence address by Reg. Post

Ack. due, which was returned undelivered by the postal authorities as such the same was published in the Telugu daily newspapers “Andhra

Jyothi” dt: 21.07.2015 advising him to submit written explanation within 10 days from the date of publication and to attend enquiry on 31.07.2015 along with witness if any. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not submit any representation to the notice issued to the petitioner. As such the respondent company was constrained to dismiss the petitioner for unauthorized absenteeism w.e.f. 11.02.2016 vide order BHP/PER/20D/454, dt: 04.06.2016. It is further submitted that in accordance to the rules and procedures of the defendant company the terminal benefits are payable to the employee if alive, in case of death of the employee the terminal benefits are payable to the nominee. In the instance case as the ex-employee’s whereabouts are not known to the defendant company, the defendant company is under obligation to settle the terminal benefits of the ex-employee in favour of nominees and requested to pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice.

OS. No.130/2023 Dt:11.01.2024 4 of 6

Summons served on Defendant No.2 and 3 and are absent. Hence they were set exparte. Publication made against D1 in Eenadu Daily

Telugu News paper, no objection received from third party. Hence, defendant No.1 set exparte on 01.09.2023.

[5].Now the points for consideration are :

1.“Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of

Sri Thokala Elia was dead as per law”?

2. “If so, as to what relief?”.

[6].To substantiate the claim of plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW1 by filing her chief examination affidavit in liew of her chief examination reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked

Ex.A1 to A3. With regards to exhibits Ex.A1 is the Charge sheet/Final report in Cr.No.173/2015 of PS Bhupalpally. Ex. A2 is the SCCL

Employee EPR key fields list. Ex.A3 is the Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.1.

[7]. ISSUES NO.1 :

It is the specific evidence of the plaintiff No.1 that she is legally wedded wife and Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are children of them and son of

Plaintiff No.4 and he was worked as Coal Cutter at KTK.6 Incline,

Bhupalpally of the defendant company. On 09.12.2013 Sri Thokala Elia left their house and did not return to home. Accordingly the plaintiffs have searched about Sri Thokala Elia and having to failed to trace him,

Plaintiff No.1 lodged complaint before police on 05.09.2015 and was registered a case in FIR No.173/2015 U/sec. “Man Missing”. After completion of investigation police filed final report on 05.09.2015

OS.No.130/2023 Dt:11.01.2024 5 of 7

referring as “Undetectable”. Later they filed the present suit to declare that Sri Thokala Elia as legally dead as per law and relied on Ex.A1 to A3

On perusal of Ex.A1 i.e., Charge sheet/case disposal report reveals that the Sri Thokala Elia was “undetectable”. On perusal of Ex.A2 i.e.,

Employee EPR Key fields list reveals that Sri. Thokala Elia was appointed as Coal Cutter and showing the employee dependants details as Plaintiff

No.1 is his wife and she is the nominee under Form-F and the said Sri

Thokala Elia’s misconduct under company’s standing order No.25.25 for habitual absence for duty without sufficient cause and also shows his last working date as 07.12.2013 and was removed from the service of the company due to dismissed with effect from 11.02.2016. On Perusal of Ex.A3 i.e., Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff No.1 shows that she is the wife of Sri Thokala Elia. On the other hand the Counsel for the Defendant

No.4 not disputed the relationship between the plaintiffs, that the said

Sri Thokala Elia and the Defendant No.4 further admitted that he was the employee of Singareni collieries Company Limited at the time of his missing and he worked as Coal Cutter with Employee Code:02368349.

The Counsel for the Defendant No.4 cross examined PW1 by putting suggestions, but were not disputing the missing of husband of PW1, after 7th December, 2013. The Defendant No.4 did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

From the Ex.A1 and A2 it is clearly shows that the said Sri Thokala

Elia was found missing from December, 2013.

OS. No.130/2023 Dt:11.01.2024 6 of 6

As per Section 108 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

108. Burden of proving that a person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years.

[Provided that when] [Substituted by Act 18 of 1872, Section 9, for "When".] the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is [shifted to] [Substituted by Act 18 of 1872, Section 9, for "on".] the person who affirms it.

[8].From the above section by applying to the present case facts the said Sri Thokala Elia who is the husband of the Plaintiff No.1 and father of Plaintiff No.2 and 3 and son of Plaintiff No.4, it is proved that the whereabouts of the Sri Thokala Elia are not known by his near and dear and was not heard since 2013 i.e., since 8 years from till the date of filing of this suit. Now the burden shifts on them who affirms that Sri Thokala

Elia is alive but no such evidence placed before this Court by the defendants.

[9].In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it is appropriate to declared that the said Sri Thokala Elia as died person under law.

[10]. ISSUES NO.2 :

IN THE RESULT: Suit is decreed in favour of plaintiffs against the defendants declaring that the said Sri Thokala Elia is dead in the eye of

Law. There is no order as to costs.

(Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11th day of January, 2024).

Sd/-

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class(Juvenile

Court), Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

OS.No.130/2023 Dt:11.01.2024 7 of 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1:Thokala Shirisha Madhavi- None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1 is the Charge sheet/Final report in Cr.No.173/2015 of PSBhupalpally.

Ex.A2 is the SCCL Employee EPR Key fields list.

Ex. A3 is the Original Aadhar card of plaintiff No.1

FOR DEFENDANTS:

- Nil -

Sd/-

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class(Juvenile

Court), Jayashankar Bhupalpally.