Sri N. Ramalinga Reddy

In the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool

Present:- Sri N. Ramalinga Reddy, M.A., LL.B., 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Friday, the 24th day of April, 2015

Criminal Appeal No.34/2014

From what Court the appeal is Assistant Sessions Judge, preferredNandikotkur Number of case in that CourtS.C.56/2013 Number of the AppealC.A.No.34/2014 Name and description of the Kurukunda Govinda Raju @ Govindu, AppellantAged 42 years, S/o.Narayana, R/o.Lingam Street,Nandikotkur town. The sentence and law under which it Accused is found not guilty for the was imposed in the lower Courtoffence punishable U/Secs.452 of IPC and he is acquitted U/sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C.

Accused is found guilty for the offences U/Secs.448 and 354 of IPC and convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and pay a fine ofRs.100/- i/d.S.I. for one month for the offence U/Sec. 354 of IPC and also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable U/Sec.448 of IPC. Bothsentencesshallrun concurrently.

Whether confirmed, modified or - Set aside- reversed; and if modified the Accused is acquitted of the offences modification alleged against him and he is set at liberty forthwith and fine amount of Rs.100/- is ordered to be returned to the accused after the appeal time.

Date of Presentation 27.3.2014 Date of Filing28.3.2014 Date of Notice issued by Court to 29.3.2014 appear Date of Bail Bond if appellant has -- been let out on bail Date of appellant ordered to appear 29.4.2014 Date of hearing20.4.2015 Date of Judgment 24.4.2015

State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur Police Station.… Respondent/complainant

IADJ, KNLCA.34/2014 2

This appeal coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Yellappa and Sri P.Ravi Guvera, Advocates for the appellant/Accused and Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred under Sec.374 of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.3.2014 in

S.C.56/2013 on the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge,

Nandikotkur, by which the appellant/accused was convicted for the offences under Secs.448 and 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and pay a fine ofRs.100/- i/d.S.I.

for one month for the offence U/Sec. 354 of IPC and also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable U/Sec.448 of IPC. Both sentences shall run concurrently.

For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arraigned before the trial court.

2) The facts leading to filing of the present appeal in brief are that as per the case of prosecution prior to the incident the accused has been behaving indecent manner towards the complainant

M.Ramadevi in a drunken state since one year. On 14.10.2012 at 122.45 p.m. while M.Ramadevi was present at her tailoring shop, the accused criminally trespassed into her shop and abused her in filthy language and forcibly pulled her towards him, thereby accued outraged her modesty. P.Veerabadraiah, Dr.V.Balaiah and S.Mohin

IADJ, KNLCA.34/2014 3

Basha who were present nearby rushed to the spot and witnessed the incident. In that regard, M.Ramadevi preferred a complaint and police registered a case in Cr.No.194/2012 against the accused for the offences under Sections 45 2 and 354 of IPC and investigated into.

After investigation charge sheet is filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 452 and 354 of IPC.

3) The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur has taken the case on file U/secs.452 and 354 of Indian Penal Code and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Kurnool division which in turn made over the case to Assistant Sessions Court, Nandikotkur for disposal according to law.

4) On appearance of the accused before the trial court, charges under Sections 452 and 354 of IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) To prove its case, the Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

6)After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the incriminating evidence and did not adduce any defense evidence.

7)On appraisal of the material on record, the learned Assistant

Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur convicted the accused for the offences

IADJ, KNLCA.34/2014 4 under Sections 448 and 354 of IPC by Judgment dated 24.3.2014 as stated supra.

8) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant/accused filed the present appeal on the following grounds of appeal:-

The impugned judgment is contrary to law and evidence in the case. The findings of the trial Court are based on surmises and conjectures. The trial Court failed to consider that there is an inordinate delay in preferring the complaint to the police. The trial

Court ought to have not accepted PW1 lame excuse in giving her complaint. The Lower court failed to consider that PW2 is her own brother. The Lower Court failed to consider that the Police Station is 200 meters to PW1’s house. When the Police Station is at walk-able distance, reasons for delay in giving complaint is not explained by

PW1. Investigation in this case is perfunctory and on that basis the trial court should have acquitted the accused. The Lower Court erred in not accepting the defence theory that broken bangles were not seized at the scene of offence, which is important link evidence in this case. The impugned judgment is incorrect and resulted in miscarriage of justice. Appeal is filed in time. Hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside.

9) On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supported the judgment under appeal and pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.

IADJ, KNLCA.34/2014 5 10) In the light of the rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence under appeal suffers from any material irregularity or illegality and is sustainable under law?

(2) To what result?

11) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that incident is said to have taken place on 14.10.2012 at 12.45 p.m. But the complaint was given on 18.10.2012 around 1.00 p.m. No explanation is given for such abnormal delay in lodging the complaint. The court itself felt that after informing the incident to her brother, complainant reported the incident in the Police Station and explaining the delay satisfactorily. In criminal cases when the incident takes place, complaint has to be lodged and investigation has to take place. Even the witnesses examined are also not trustworthy. In the charge sheet number of witnesses were cited, but only four witnesses were examined in support of the case of prosecution. Thus, though the list of witnesses is big but the evidence is that of solitary witness apart from the evidence of PW1. It is further contended that as per the complaint itself, bangles which were worn by the complainant, at the time of incident, were broken, but no bangle pieces were recovered.

There were no visible or invisible injuries found on the hands of complainant. Further, it is argued that since one year the accused had been misbehaving in a drunken state with PW1, but no report was lodged against the accused. In the light of non-examination of material witness and relying upon the evidence of PW1 and other

IADJ, KNLCA.34/2014 6 solitary witnesses evidence, the trial court has committed material irregularity and illegality and judgment of conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside and the appeal be allowed.

12)The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand strongly contended that PW1 is a divorced woman, as such the accused had misbehaved with her. In that regard, due to fear of the accused she could not give report on the same day, after consulting her brother, she did not give report in the Police Station. The delay has been properly explained in lodging the complaint. All that matters is the quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence. The evidence adduced through PW3 is insufficient in establishing the case against the accused. Thus, the trial Court has meticulously followed the procedure under law and convicted the accused and the appeal be dismissed.

13) POINT No.(1):-

The appellant herein is accused before the trial Court and he is convicted for the offences under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and fine of Rs.100/- i/d S.I.

for one month for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and he is also sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 448 of IPC and both sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. Basic contention of the appellant/accused is that the incident according to the record took place on 14.10.2012 at about 12.45 p.m. But the

IADJ, KNLCA.34/2014 7 complaint is given on 18.10.2012 around 1.00 p.m. Almost four days after the incident. The Police Station is very near by the house of the complainant. The enormous delay of four days in lodging the complaint is not explained. It is also further stated that bangles which are said to have been broken at the time of the incident were also not seized nor found any visible or invisible injuries on the hands of complainant either by the police during course of investigation or during the course of trial before the court.

14)As seen from the record, one thing is clear that there is abnormal delay of four days in lodging the complaint. In fact it is clear that learned counsel for the appellant is canvassing that the complaint is lodged after due deliberation in order to tame the accused as per the directions of the brother of the complainant. The trial Court also in its judgment in para 10 and 11 considered about the delay in lodging the complaint, further held that complainant being divorced woman after informing the incident to her brother and lateron gave report in the Police Station. If one goes through the material on record, as per the complaint accused is said to be harassing the complainant for one year in drunken mood. During the course of cross-examination it is elicited through PWs.1 and 2 that no complaint is lodged with relate to mis-behaviour of the complainant for said period of one year. Even in lodging the present complaint where there is said to have physical attempt in by trying to outrage the modesty of PW1, there is delay of four days in lodging the complaint. At best there is no need of consultation between the complainant and her brother. She is at

IADJ, KNLCA.34/2014 8 liberty to take few hours or a day, but not four days as in this case.

Thus, four days delay in lodging the complaint as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant arises doubt in the mind of the court that there must be some extraneous factors which have played role in lodging the complaint. Apart from that as per the complaint allegations Veerabadraiah, Dr.Balaiah and Mohin Basha also witnessed the incident and rescued the complainant. When it came to evidence

Dr.Balaiah, probably the most relevant witness was not examined, but another person Veerabadraiah is examined. Apart from the complainant, the evidence of Veerabadraiah alone is available on record as PW3 to support the case of prosecution. The brother of complainant is examined as PW2 and he is not an eyewitness to the incident. Thus, entire case rests on the evidence of PW1 and PW3. In her chief examination PW1 clearly deposed that for one year prior to the incident, the accused used to abuse her in filthy language as she had no husband. Therefore, the accused tried to outrage her modesty.

She also deposed in her cross-examination that by the time

Veerabadraiah and Dr.Balaiah came to her shop accused was dragging her by caught holding her hand and CD shop and Garment shops were closed as on the date of the incident. Due to the accused caught holding of her hand, her bangles were broken and she has not stated about the said fact before police. She also deposed that she does not know whether there were ill-feelings between the accused,

Veerabadraiah and Balaiah. PW2-M.Mallikarjuna the brother of the complainant deposed that PW1 telephoned him about the incident and accused abusing her in filthy language and after four days of the

IADJ, KNLCA.34/2014 9 incident he and PW1 went to Nandikotkur Police Station and lodged the complaint. It is also deposed in the cross-examination that they did not go to the Police Station on the date of the incident and he denied a suggestion that after consulting Veerabadraiah and Balaiah he gave report to the police. He also denied a suggestion that he is deposing against the accused because of differences with the accused and his father. Evidenc of Veerabadraiah is to the effect that he witnessed the incident. The defence theory is that Veerabadraiah and Dr.Balaiah are having differences with the accused and have their own axe to grind.

Hence, much reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of PW3.

15)The next witness examined is Investigating Officer. Since there is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint and the witnesses who witnessed the incident are not examined in support of the case of

Prosecution and in the light of PW1 not lodging the complaint over a period of one year though she is said to have been harassed for one year by the accused in abusive language in a drunken state, it has to be taken into consideration that PW1 has her own theory to lodge complaint. In lodging the complaint there is abnormal unexplained delay of four days and the trial Court was satisfied with the delay in lodging the complaint. Thus, it is clear that, such delay of 4 to 5 days in lodging the complaint is fatal in serious offences like 354 of IPC.

Further, during the course of arguments, it is stated that appellant is a patient suffering from Tuberculosis and he is not having any chance of behaving in that fashion as stated in the complaint. Thus, by taking into consideration all these things, the evidence on record, does not

IADJ, KNLCA.34/2014 10 inspire the confidence of the court to accept the guilt of the accused and the trial Court was carried away the evidence of PWs.1 and 3, though other witness Dr.Balaiah was not examined as witness and as rightly contended, the broken bangle pieces were not seized, and abnormal delay is not properly explained. Thus, the trial Court has committed material irregularity and illegality in finding that accused is found guilty and convicted him and passed sentence as stated supra.

Thus, the judgment of the trial court is unsustainable under law and is liable to be set aside and the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the respondent.

16)POINT NO.2:

In the result, appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.56/2013 dated 24.3.2014 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur. Accused is acquitted of the offences alleged against him and he is set at liberty forthwith and fine amount of Rs.100/- is ordered to be returned to the accused after the appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 24 th day of April, 2015..

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence.

-Nil-

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Copy to the Assistant Sessions Court, Nandikotkur.

IADJ, KNLCA.34/2014 11

IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-cum-

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KURNOOL

Present:- Sri N. Ramalinga Reddy, M.A., LL.B., Chairman, I Additional MACT, Kurnool.

Wednesday, the 22ND day of April, 2015

MVOP No.217/2011

Boya Chiranjeevi S/o.Sivanna, aged 23 years, Hindu, Hamali, Native of Hosuru, Now residing in H.No.41/22-A, Kallur estate, Kurnool.….Petitioner v.

1) I.Chandrasekhar Reddy,S/o.Hanumantha Reddy, Hindu, aged about 50 years, owner of tractor And also business, R/o.Hosuru, Pattikonda (M), Kurnool District.

2) The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Rep.by Deputy Manager 2nd floor, Far East Plaza, Opp.Tata Motor Showroom, Liberty Road, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad. ….Respondents

This petition coming on 17.4.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Sreenivasulu and Smt.U.V.Lakshmi, Advocates

for Petitioner, Sri V.V.Augustine, Advocate for 2nd respondent,

respondent no.1 remained ex-parte and having perused the material on record, this Tribunal passed the following:-

O R D E R

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

Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- with relate to injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road accident on 28.5.2007.

2) The petition averments in brief are that the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident on 28.5.2007 in the early hours (1.30 a.m.) near Gooty outskirts. The accident took place due to rash and negligent and high speed of driver of R1, who is owner of the tractor bearing No.AP-21/X-7303 and 2nd respondent insurer of R1 tractor.

Page 2

3)On 28.5.2007 at about 10.00 p.m. petitioner and Harijana Ranga

Swamy and one G.Ramesh left Tadipatri in the tractor of R1with the load of Napa slabs to R1 and when they reached Gooty outskirts, the driver of R1 drove the tractor in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and due to that the tractor turned turtle and that the petitioner sustained fracture of right humorous bone and also sustained injury to the left wrist joint and also other parts of the body.

Due to the injuries caused in the accident said Harijana Rangaswamy and Ramesh died. The driver of R1 is solely responsible in causing the accident. If he had taken precaution the accident wouldnothave been occurred. Immediately, after the accident petitioner got admitted in A.P.Vaidya Vidhana Parishad Community Health Centre (Government Hospital) Gooty and he took treatment there for a period of one week and spent Rs.10,000/- towards medicines and treatment.

He gave complaint to the police against the driver of R1, which is registered in Cr.No.67/2007 of Gooty Police Station.

Prior to the accident, the petitioner used to earn Rs.150/- per day by attending to coolie and hamali work. After the accident he is unable to do his regular work. On the date of the accident himself, other two persons went to the tractor of R1 as Hamalies for getting

Napa slabs to R1 from Tadipatri and then there is no violation of terms and conditions of the policy issued by R2. Hence, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation.

3) First respondent remained ex-parte.

4)Second respondent Insurance company filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and further stating that tractor-trailer bearing No.AP-21/X-7303 alleged to have

Page 3 been involved in the accident is a Goods Carriage vehicle means motor vehicle solely for the carriage of goods. At the material time of the accident, the said vehicle was carrying passengers.

The vehicle involved in the accident is a Goods Carriage Vehicle having registered seating capacity of 1 including driver. The vehicle, at the material time of the accident, was carrying more than 4 persons. The vehicle at the material time of the accident was used for the purpose of carrying passengers and therefore, there is breach of provisions of M.V. Act and the Rules framed there under and also the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. On the date of contract of insurance, the insured vehicle was expressly or impliedly not covered by a permit to carry any passenger. The petitioner is not supposed to travel in the goods vehicle and the vehicle is meant for carrying goods only and no seating is provided to any person other than driver in the goods vehicle, as such the petitioner is travelling in the insured vehicle as unauthorized passenger. Vehicle was, in fact, used in breach of specified conditions on the occasion giving rise to the claim by reason of the carriage of passengers. Owner has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, the respondent is not liable to indemnify the owner. If the tribunal comes to the conclusion that the applicant was the owner of goods, in that case, the petitioner has voluntary opted to travel in the alleged tractor and trailer which is a goods carriage. Without admitting any of the contentions of the petitioner and without prejudice to the contentions raised by the respondent, the petitioner was guilty of

Page 4 contributory negligence. The driver of the tractor and trailer was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident and further was not satisfied the requirements of Rule No.3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. As per the endorsement of RTA, Kurnool the driver of the vehicle is having tractor and trailer driving license with non-Transport endorsement only which is not a valid driving license to drive the transport vehicle. The respondent no.1 willfully and knowingly has handed over the possession of the vehicle to the said driver.

Hence, in view of the above stated breach of contract made by the respondent no.1, alone is liable to pay compensation.

5)As per section 134 (c) of MV Act, 1988, it is the mandatory duty of first respondent to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, and particulars of the injured and the name of the driver and particulars of the driving license but the first respondent herein has not complied with the statutory demand. Hence, the respondent is not at all liable to pay the compensation. As per section 158(6) of M.V.Act, it is the mandatory duty of the concerned police to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of the information, but the Gooty police station,

Anantapur district failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand. The petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest on non-pecuniary damages. The respondent requested the court to take defenses under Section 170 of MV Act. Without prejudice to the above contentions, the amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest and costs claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant and

Page 5 exaggerated without having proper calculation of method. Hence, the petition be dismissed with costs.

6) On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial.

1)Whether the accident took place as stated in the peti- tion?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

7)On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 is examined and got marked

Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 and 2 are examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B5 and Exs.X1 to X5.

8) ISSUE No.(1):-

The petitioner herein has come to the court stating that himself and others left Tadipatri in the tractor-trailer bearing No.AP-21/X-7303 of R1 with the load of Napa slabs and were going at the outskirts of

Gooty, the driver of the tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting the accident, he fell down from the tractor and received injuries.

9)The contention of the contesting respondent is that driver of the tractor at the relevant time was not holding valid driving license, the tractor was meant for carrying commercial goods required LMV

Transport driving license, whereas the driver was holding LMV non- transport driving license, as such the petitioner is not liable to ay any compensation and it is also contended that in the tractor only one seat

Page 6 is available which is meant for driver and no extra seat is made for sitting.

10)In that regard, on behalf of the injured petitioner, he filed his chief affidavit and he is examined as PW1. During course of his oral evidence, certified copies of FIR, wound certificate and order in

MVOP.671/2007 on the file of I Addl.District Court, Kurnool are marked as Exs.A1 to A3. In the light of a decision reported in 2011 (1) ALD 48, E.Rajeswari and others v. T.S.Sekhar and another, the Hon’ble High Court (L. Narasimha Reddy) held in para ’10 and ‘11’ of the Judgment as follows:- “10) So far as the second aspect is concerned, the

Tribunal held that the driving license Ex.B1 was only for light motor vehicles and that the driver was not permitted to drive a transport vehicle. The view taken by the

Tribunal cannot be sustained. The reason is that the connotation ‘light motor vehicle’ is relevant, in the context of the size and make of the vehicle, and not the use, to which it is put. The expression ‘transport vehicle’, on the other hand, deals with the use and not the size of the vehicle. For instance, even a small vehicle, like,

Autorickshaw can be treated as a transport vehicle, because of its use, whereas a big sedan or car can be used a private vehicle.

11) The LMV license issued to a driver enables him to drive the vehicle of that category. It is immaterial whether such vehicle is being used as purely for private purposes, or as a transport vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident was a light motor vehicle, and Ex.B1 is a LMV license. Therefore, both reasons assigned by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.”

Page 7

The contention of the second respondent about the distinction between the commercial vehicle and transport and non-transport driving licenses loses its significance, as tractor is also LMV, the driver was holding LMV non-transport driving license and further the petitioner was not a hamali went to along with the tractor for loading and unloading purpose. As such, the contention of the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained and rejected. Thus, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

11) ISSUE No.(2):-

Since issue No.1 which deals with rash and negligent portion of the accident on the basis of material having been answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, this issue revolves around the quantum of compensation.

To quantify the compensation to the petitioner, the relevant document to be verified is the wound certificate. Certified copy of wound certificate is marked as Ex.A2. As per Ex.A2, the petitioner has sustained three injuries, out of them one is grievous. Thus, it implies arising are simple, each simple injury is compensated at Rs.10,000/- x 2 = Rs.20,000/- and grievous injury is compensated at Rs.15,000/-.

That is the right amount the petitioner is entitled to. Apart from, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.2,000/- towards pain and suffering,

Rs.2,000/- towards medical and attendance charges and Rs.1,000/- towards loss of income. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled to

Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

Page 8 12) ISSUE No.(3):-

In the result, the petition is partly allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) with proportionate costs payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition to the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the awarded amount within 60 days from the date of this order. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22 nd day of April, 2015 .

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined)

for Petitioner:- for Respondents:-

PW-1: Boya Chiranjeevi RW1: T.Niranjan. RW2: J.Sreenivasulu

Exhibits marked

for Petitioner: -

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.67/2007 of Gooty P.S. Ex.A2: Certified copy of Wound Certificate Ex.A3: Certified copy of order in MVOP.671/2007 on the file of I Addl.District Court, Kurnool dt.13.4.2012.

for Respondents:-

Ex.B1: Copy of policy. Ex.B2: Copy of Driving License extract. Ex.B3: Extract of R.C.. Ex.B4: Permit copy of tractor-trailer. Ex.B5: Office copy of notice sent to R1 with postal receipt. Ex.X1: Authorization letter dt.23.2.2015. Ex.X2: Driving license extract of B.Pakkirappa. Ex.X3: R.C.Extract of Tractor No.AP-21/X-7303. Ex.X4: F.C.extract. Ex.X5: Permit extract.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-cum-

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KURNOOL

Present:- Sri N. Ramalinga Reddy, M.A., LL.B., Chairman, I Additional MACT, Kurnool.

Wednesday, the 22ND day of April, 2015

MVOP No.337/2011

Konakanti Bogulu Obul Reddy @ Obi Reddy, S/o.K.B.Maddileti Reddy, 36 years, Farmer, Yapadinne village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District.….Petitioner v.

1) V.Chennaiah, S/o.V.Nadipi Pratap, H.No.1-124, R/o.Nannur village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District.

2) The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Rep.by its Divisional Manager, 608 & 609, White House, Begumpeta, Hyderabad. ….Respondents

This petition coming on 10.4.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.V.Srinivasulu, Sri S.Narendranath Reddy,

Advocates for Petitioner, Sri K.Lakshmikanth, Advocate for 1st respondent, Sri V.V.Augustine , Advocate for 2nd respondent, and having perused the material on record, this Tribunal passed the following:-

O R D E R

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

Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with relate to injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road accident on 4.3.2009, near Petrol bunk on C camp to Raj Vihar Road, Kurnool town.

2) The petition averments in brief are that on 4.3.2009 the petitioner boarded an auto bearing No.AP-21/Y-5901 at Narayana

College near Nannur village to go to Kurnool town. The said auto reached at about 7.00 a.m. after crossing of the Medical College gate near petrol bunk, the driver of the Auto drove the auto in a rash and

Page 2 negligent manner at high speed and over taking another auto and lost control over the said auto and dashed against the road divider and turned turtle. As a result the petitioner and other passengers fell down on the road and received bleeding injuries. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Government General

Hospital, Kurnool, for treatment. For better treatment, the petitioner was shifted to Padmachandra Super Specialty Hospital, Kurnool. The petitioner was treated as in-patient for nearly 30 days and had spent an amount o Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses and attending charges. After prolonged treatment the petitioner could not become normal, he suffered permanent disability. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP- 21/Y-5901. therefore, the first respondent is the owner vicariously, the second respondent is an insurer of the auto are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and he was aged about 36 years, was doing cultivation and war earning an amount of Rs.60,000/- per annum. Due to the accident, the petitioner is unable to do his cultivation properly and has became permanently disabled. Hence, the petition be allowed.

3) First respondent though engaged advocate, but did not file counter.

4)Second respondent Insurance company filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and further stating that driver of the auto bearing No.Ap-21Y/5901 was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of the alleged accident and further he was

Page 3 not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license and further has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor

Vehicle Rules 1989. One can drive the auto only if he is in possession of Auto Rickshaw Transport driving license as on the date of accident to drive the above mentioned auto. But as per the driving license extract issued by RTA Kurnool the said driver was holding Auto

Rickshaw Non-Transport Licence, as such it is clear that he was not authorized to drive the auto Transport vehicle as on the date of accident. Respondent no.1 willfully and knowingly has handed over the possession of auto bearing No.AP-21/Y-5901 to the said driver Bathula

Chennaiah who did not possess a valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident.

5)As per section 134 (c) of MV Act, 1988, it is the mandatory duty of first respondent to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, and particulars of the injured and the name of the driver and particulars of the driving license, but the first respondent herein has not complied with the statutory demand. Hence, the respondent is not at all liable to pay the compensation. As per section 158(6) of M.V.Act, it is the mandatory duty of the concerned police to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of the information, but the Traffic police station,

Kurnool failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand. The petitioner is put to strict proof that respondent no.1 Chennaiah Nanuru is the owner of the auto. The petitioner claimed interest at 18% p.a. is excessive. The petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest on non-pecuniary damages. The respondent denies about the involvement of the auto in the accident

Page 4 and he is not aware of the income and other particulars of the accident. The respondent is also entitled to take defenses under

Section 170 of MV Act and 149(2) of MV Act. Without prejudice to the above contentions, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest and costs claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant and exaggerated and the claim has no logical basis. Hence, the petition be dismissed with costs.

6) On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial.

1)Whether the accident took place as stated in the peti- tion?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

7)On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 is examined and got marked

Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 and 2 are examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B5 and Exs.X1 to X5.

8) ISSUE No.(1):-

The petitioner herein has come to the court claiming that he being passenger boarded auto bearing No. AP-21/Y-5901 at Narayana

College, Nannur village and came to Kurnool town, but driver of the auto drove it at high sped and while over taking another auto, the drover lost its control and hit the road divider near Medical College gate, Petrol Bunk, resulting the auto turned turtle, petitioner and other passengers received injuries. Hence, he be compensated.

Page 5

9)In support of the said contention, chief affidavit of the petitioner is filed, he reiterated the petition averments and he is examined as

PW1. During the course of his oral evidence, certified copies of FIR, charge sheet and wound certificate are marked as Exs.A1 toA3 and bunch of medical bills as Ex.P5. This witness was cross-examined at length. Since FIR and charge sheet are filed against the driver of the crime vehicle, it is clear that accident took place because of rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. Thus, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

10) ISSUE NO.2:

Since issue No.1 which deals with rash and negligent portion of the accident on the basis of material having been answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, this issue revolves around the quantum of compensation.

11)The second respondent has taken a stand in his counter that auto was commercial vehicle and it requires LMV Transport driving license, whereas the driver was possessing LMV non-trannsport driving license. In that regard, the 2nd respondent got examined one of its official as RW1 and through him got marked documents as Exs.B1 to

B5 apart from that 2nd respondent also summoned the official from

RTA Office, Kurnool and got him examined as RW2. During his evidence he got marked Exs.X1 to X5, wherein it shows that driver

B.Chennaiah was having L.M.V.non transport license. In the light of a decision reported in 2011 (1) ALD 48, E.Rajeswari and others v.

Page 6

T.S.Sekhar and another, the Hon’ble High Court (L. Narasimha

Reddy) held in para ’10 and ‘11’ of the Judgment as follows:- “10) So far as the second aspect is concerned, the

Tribunal held that the driving license Ex.B1 was only for light motor vehicles and that the driver was not permitted to drive a transport vehicle. The view taken by the

Tribunal cannot be sustained. The reason is that the connotation ‘light motor vehicle’ is relevant, in the context of the size and make of the vehicle, and not the use, to which it is put. The expression ‘transport vehicle’, on the other hand, deals with the use and not the size of the vehicle. For instance, even a small vehicle, like,

Autorickshaw can be treated as a transport vehicle, because of its use, whereas a big sedan or car can be used a private vehicle.

11) The LMV license issued to a driver enables him to drive the vehicle of that category. It is immaterial whether such vehicle is being used as purely for private purposes, or as a transport vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident was a light motor vehicle, and Ex.B1 is a LMV license. Therefore, both reasons assigned by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.”

The distinction between the transport and non-transport license is no longer useful as the vehicle involved in the accident is auto, which is admittedly light motor vehicle whether it carries passengers for commercial purpose or non-commercial purpose, which does not make much difference. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to compensation.

To quantify the compensation to the petitioner, the relevant document to be verified is the wound certificate. Certified copy of wound certificate is marked as Ex.A3. As per Ex.A3, the petitioner has

Page 7 sustained two injuries, one injury is simple and another is grievous in nature. Since simple injury is only abrasion is compensated at

Rs.5,000/- and grievous injury is compensated at Rs.15,000/-. Apart from that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.2,000/- towards medical and attendance charges and also entitled to the amount spent by him covered under Ex.A4 bunch of medical bills i.e. Rs.81,167/-. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled to Rs.5,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.3,000/- + Rs.2,000/- + Rs.81,167/- = Rs.1,06,167/-. However, the petitioner’s claim being Rs.1,00,000/- the same is restricted to that amount only. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

12) ISSUE No.(3):-

In the result, the petition is allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with costs payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition to the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the awarded amount within 60 days from the date of this order. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount as he spent considerable amount for treatment. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22 nd day of April, 2015 .

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined)

for Petitioner:- for Respondents:-

PW-1: K.B.Obul Reddy @ Obi Reddy. RW1: T.Niranjan. RW2: P.Muralidhar

Page 8

Exhibits marked

for Petitioner: -

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.34/2009 of Kurnool Traffic P.S. Ex.A2: Certified copy charge sheet. Ex.A3: Certified copy of Wound Certificate. Ex.A4: Bunch of Medical Bills for Rs.81,167/-.

for Respondents:-

Ex.B1: Copy of policy. Ex.B2: Copy of Driving License extract. Ex.B3: Office copy of letter issued to R1. Ex.B4: Permit copy of R1 vehicle. Ex.B5: RC Copy of vehicle NO.AP-21/Y-5901

Ex.X1: Authorization letter dt.9.12.2014 Ex.X2: Attested R.C. extract of Auto No.AP-21/Y-5901 Ex.X3: Permit extract of vehicle Ex.X4: F.C.extract. Ex.X5: Driving license extract of B.Chennaiah.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,KURNOOL.

Present:- Sri N. Ramalinga Reddy, M.A. LL.B., I Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Friday, the 24th day of April, 2015.

SESSIONS CASE NO.108/2014

State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Peapully. … Complainant -Versus-

Avula Rama Thimmaiah @ Ramu, S/o. Avula Thimmaiah, aged 25 years S.C.Colony, Kalachatla Village, Peapully Mandal.…Accused

This Sessions case coming on 21.4.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri S.Chandrasekhar, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Peapully Circle filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.26/2013 of Peapully Police Station for the offences under sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, alleging that the deceased Eswaramma is native of Pinnepalli village,

Yadiki Mandal of Anantapur District. About one year ago the marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused. At the time of marriage parents of the deceased gave gold ear studs weighing about ½ tula, gold jumkies, Kalavarlu, 2 ½ tulas gold necklace, silver leg chains weighing about 15 tulas to the accused as dowry. After marriage, the deceased and accused lived amicably upto one year.

Accused used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased. Accused addicted to vices and started to harass the deceased to mortgage the gold for consuming liquor. The deceased informed her parents about the harassment of the accused. About one month prior to the offence, the father of the deceased paid Rs.35,000/- and released the gold

I Addl.S.J., Knl.S.C.108/2014 2 which was mortgaged by the accused. On 20.4.2013 evening at bout 4.30 p.m. the deceased telephoned her parents and stated about the harassment of the accused and threatened thedeceased to give gold for mortgaging, otherwise the accused will kill the deceased.

Immediately after the phone call, the father of the deceased left his house and reached the house of deceased at Kalachatla village at about 8.00 p.m. At the time of arrival of father of the deceased, the accused went away to S.Rangapuram village. After supper father of the deceased slept in front of the hut, whereas the deceased slept into the hut. Night at about 00.30 hours the accused came and entered into the hut of the deceased and murdered the deceased by using thread to the neck tightly and he created scene by hanging saree to the roof top of the hut and kept one bucket on the ground floor bottom of the saree, as if the deceased might have committed suicide by hanging. On hearing the voice from the hut the father of the deceased woke up and witnessed that accused murdered with thread by tightening neck of the deceased and on seeing by the father of the deceased accused ran away by pushing him aside having thread in the hand and went away. Immediately, the father of the deceased informed about the murder of the deceased to his wife through telephone. Later on the next day morning the relatives of the deceased came to Kalachatla village and found the deceased died. While the accused was going out of the village was witnessed by other witnesses that the accused was having thread in his hand and called the accused as Rama Thimmaiah and tried to talk with him, but accused gave deaf

I Addl.S.J., Knl.S.C.108/2014 3 ear to the words of Sanjeevaiah and Pakkira and ran away towards field.

2)On the complaint of father of the deceased on 21.4.2013 around 9.00 a.m. police registered a case in Cr.No.26/2013 under section 302 of IPC Peapully Police Station and investigation was taken up. On 21.4.2013 at 10.00 hours to 1300 hours inquest was conducted by

S.Thulasi Naik, Tahsildar cum Mandal Executive Magistrate on the requisition of Inspector of Police as the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage and forwarded the dead body to the Postmortem examination. During the course of investigation, witnesses were examined, statements were recorded, saree and bucket from the scene of offence were seized under cover of panchanama.

4)On 1.5.2013 at 2.00 p.m. Inspector of Police arrested the accused with the supporting staff in the presence of panchayatdars at

Kalatchatla bridge, outskirts of Peapully village and recorded his confessional statements in free and voluntarily manner and on the confession of the accused crime material which was used for the commission of offence was seized under cover of panchanama and accused was sent to the court for remand. Postmortem examination report reveals that the deceased died due to Asphyxia, due to strangulation.

5) Accused harassed his wife after the marriage both mentally and physically. Thus, the accused has commited the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code and hence accused is liable to be punished under the above sections of law.

I Addl.S.J., Knl.S.C.108/2014 4

6)The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, has taken the case on file U/secs.498-A, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, and furnished copies of documents relied on by the prosecution to the accused, as mandated under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code and committed the case to the Court of Sessions division, Kurnool which in turn made over to this Court for disposal according to law.

7)On appearance of the accused before this court, charges under sections 498-A, 302 of Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu and the accused pleaded not guilty of the charges framed against him and claimed to be tried.

8)To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17 and MOs.1 to 3.

9)After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence.

10)Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

I Addl.S.J., Knl.S.C.108/2014 5

11)POINT:

Accused herein is facing trial for the charges under Sections 498-A, 302 of Indian Penal Code. To prove the said charges as already stated prosecution has examined parents and brother of the deceased and other witnesses to the arrest and seizure panchanama examined as PWs.1 to 10 and also examined Duty doctor and

Investigating Officers as PWs.11 to 13. All the witnesses i.e. parents and brother of the deceased and other witnesses who are said to have noticed the accused leaving the place and also seizure panchanama and confessional panchanama etc did not support the case of prosecution and en-masse treated as hostile witnesses. Now we are left with the evidence of Tahsildar-cum-Mandal Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and Duty doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and Investigating Officers who registered the case and investigated into the matter. Since, no material is forthcoming from the mouths of the parents of the deceased and other witnesses examined in this case , the evidence of Government Officials who discharged their duties ordained under law, does not help the case of prosecution in proving the guilt of the accused. Thus, one more case with relate to the dowry death met similar fate like many other cases.

Thus, the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges levelled against him and accused deserves acquittal.

I Addl.S.J., Knl.S.C.108/2014 6

12)In the result, the accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 of I.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be continued for a period of six months as mandated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The

Material Objects 1 to 3 which are non valuables, i.e. plastic bucket,

Red & Brown Colour sari piece and rope, are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcriber by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24th day of April, 2015.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

PW.1: Kondala Eranna.

PW.2: Kondala Naga Laxmamma.

PW.3: Kondala Narayana Swamy.

PW.4: K.Obulesu.

PW.5: Chigili Ramana.

PW.6: V.Venkata Ramudu.

PW.7: S.Thulasi Naik.

PW.8: L.Vijaya Bhaskar.

PW.9: N.Rama Chandrudu.

PW.10: R.Suresh.

PW.11: Dr. M.Balachandra Reddy.

PW.12: Shaik Basheer.

PW.13: G.Rama Krishna Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on complaint.

Ex.P2: Complaint.

I Addl.S.J., Knl.S.C.108/2014 7

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1.

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2.

Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3.

Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.4.

Ex.P7: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.5.

Ex.P8: Signature of PW6 on Inquest.

Ex.P9: Inquest.

Ex.P10: Scene of offence observation and seizure panchanama.

Ex.P11: Signature of PW9 on confession panchanama.

Ex.P12: Signature of PW9 on seizure panchanama dt.1.5.2013.

Ex.P13: F.I.R., in Cr.No.26/2013 of Peapully P.S.

Ex.P14: Postmortem certificate.

Ex.P15: Confession panchanama dt.1.5.2013

Ex.P16: Rough Sketch.

Ex.P17: Seizure panchanama dt.1.5.2013..

For Defence:- -Nil-

M.Os. Marked

M.O.1: Plastic bucket. M.O.2: Red& Brown colour Sari piece. M.O.3: Rope seized by police.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

I Addl.S.J., Knl.S.C.108/2014 8

TABULAR STATEMENT UNDER RULE 67 OF Crl.R.P.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE: KURNOOL

Present: Sri N. Ramalinga Reddy, M.A., LL.B., I Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool Friday, the 24th day of April, 2015.

Name of the police station and Cr.No.: Cr.No. 26/2013 of Peapully P.S.

Case No. : SC.108/2014

Description of the accused: SL.Name of the Father’s nameAge ReligionOccupationResidence accusedyrs No.

1.Avula Rama S/o.Avula 25HinduAgriculturistS.C.Colony, Thimmaiah @ ThimmaiahKalachatla Village, RamuPeapully Mandal. Date of: Occurrence: 20.04.2013 Complaint: 21.04.2013 Apprehension : 01.05.2013 Release on bail: 16.07.2013 Committal: 17.12.2013 Commencement of trial: 23.03.2015 Close of trial : 16.04.2015 Sentence or Order: 24.04.2015 Explanation for delay if any in Committal Court:- In Sessions Court:- Case is received in this court being made over from the District Court, Kurnool on 01.04.2014. On appearance of the accused, charges were framed against the accused on 14.07.2014.

The prosecution evidence was commenced on 23.03.2015 and closed on 16.04.2015. On 21.4.2015 the accused was examined u/s 313

Cr.P.C and Arguments also Heard on both sides. Judgment

pronounced on 24.04.2015.

I Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Compact Disc submitted to the Registrar (Judl), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

I Addl.S.J., Knl.S.C.108/2014 9

Copy to the Director of Prosecution, Hyderabad. Copy to the Station House Officer, Peapully. Copy to the Judl.Magistrate of I Class,Dhone Copy to the Superintendent of Police Kurnool. Copy to the Addl.Public Prosecutor, I Addl. Sessions Court, Kurnool.

I Addl.S.J., Knl.S.C.108/2014 10

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,

KURNOOL at NANDYAL Present:- Smt. M.G.Priyadarshini, III Additional District Judge, F/A/C.V Additional District Judge(FTC).

Monday, the 17th day of August, 2015

O.S. No.18/2008

Between:-

1. Syed Abdul Sattar having died by L.Rs, S/o.S.A.Subhan, aged 57 years, H.No.41/111, Kothapeta, Kurnool District.

2. Syed Jinabkhatunm, W/o. Late S.A.Sattar, aged about 50 years, House wife,

3. S.A.Shaikshavali, S/o. Late S.A.Sattar, aged about 38 years,

4. S.Saanas Parvan, D/o. Late S.A.Sattar, aged about 35 years,

5. S.Samshad, D/o. Late S.A.Sattar, aged about 33 years,

6. S.Shakshavali, S/o. Late S.A.Sattar, aged about 31 years,

7. S.A.Mahaboob Basha, S/o. Late S.A.Sattar, aged about 29 years,

8. S.A.Gaffar, S/o. Late S.A.Sattar, aged about 27 years,

9. S.Sahana, D/o. Late S.A.Sattar, aged about 25 years,

All are Muslims, H.No.41/111, Kothapeta, Kurnool District. ….PLAINTIFFS

and

Shaik Meharun, W/o.Rahamtullaha, Muslim, aged 42 years, D.No.30-70A, Revenue Quarters, Nandyal, Kurnool Dist., ...DEFNDANT

This suit is filed for declaration that the gift deed dt.27.11.2006 is incomplete, void, invalid and not acted upon and not binding on the plaintiff as the same is vitiated by fraud, undue influence and coercion (b) for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the plaint schedule property or from maddling with the same in any manner what so ever; (c) for a partition and separate possession of plaintiff's halfshare in the plaint schedule property by divison of the same into two equal shares and allot each share to the plaintiff & defendant by metes and bounds; (d) for ascertaining mesne profits U/o 20 Rule 18 CPC in a separate proceeding, and for costs.

On 21.6.1971 under regd. Sale deed plaint schedule property was purchased by the father of the plaintiff and defendant in favour of the mother of plaintiff and defendant. Till the death of S.A.Subhan (father) in 2004 both father and mother (S.A.Begum Beebi) are in joint possession of the property. Till the death of (S.A.Begum Beebi) i.e., on 29.8.2008, the mother, plainttiff and defendant have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the said property. After death of Begum Beebi, the only legal heirs plaintiff and defendant have been jointly enjoying the plaint schedule property jointly as tenants-in- common.

While so, on reply to the notice on 15.2.2008, issued by the plaintiff, defendant gave reply notice dt.25.2.2008 stating that S.A. Begum Beebi(mother) had gifted schedule property to her under Regd. Gift deed dated 27.11.2006 and the plaintiff has no right over schedule property. The plaintiff contends that the defendat by playing fraud undue influence on their mother in order to grab his share in the schedule property defendant. Obtained the said gift deed so, it has to be declared as invalied and not binding on the plaintiff.

On demand of plaintiff, defendant, did not come forward for partition and separate possession of schedule property, hence the plaintiff prays for partition and separate possession of his/half share in schedule property as both are enjoying the property jointly as tenants in common after death of their mother. Hence the suit.

This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Uma Maheswara Reddy, Sri R.Nataraj, Sri G.V.N.Suresh, Advocates for Plaintiffs and Sri K.Hussain Basha, Advocate for the defendants and having perused the material on record, this Court passed the following:-

JUDGMENT

“At this stage learned counsel for both parties filed memo stating that the matter is settled out of Court. Memo recorded. In view of the memo this suit is dismissed as settled out of Court.”

Pronounced by me in open court, on this the 17 th day of August, 2015.

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KURNOOL at NANDYAL.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For petitioner :- For Respondents:-

PW-1: Syed Abdul SattarRW-1:Shaik Meharun

PW-2: P.Mahaboob Khan

Exhibits Marked

For petitioner :-

Ex.A1: Registration copy of Regd. Sale deed dt.21.6.1971

Ex.A2: Certified xerox Copy of Regd. Gift deed dt.27.11.2006,

Ex.A3: Office Copy of notice dt.15.2.2008 to defendant

Ex.A4: Service reply notice dt.25.2.2008 given by the defendant to the plaintiff's counsel

Ex.A5: Office copy of further reply notice dt.22.9.2008 to defendant

Ex.A6: Postal acknowledgment

Ex.A7: True copy of No.3 adangal dt.3.11.2009 issued by VRO Moolasagaram, Nandyal

For Respondents:-

Ex.B1: Original Register Sale Deed dt.22.6.1971

Ex.B2: Original Title Deed

Ex.B3: Pattadar Pass book

Ex.B4: Original Register Gift Deed dt.27.11.2006

Ex.b5: Reply notice in R.N87/20-2008, dt.2.11.2008

Ex.A6: Served Postal acknolwedgment dt.4.11.2008

C.,M.A.C.T (III ADJ)

FAC.V ADJ.