Smt.N.Reddy Prasanna,L.L.M

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

:: DARSI ::

PRESENT: Smt. N. REDDY PRASANNA,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, DARSI.

Friday, this the 28th day of April, 2017.

CALENDAR CASE NO.81/2012

(Crime Number 77/2011 of Mundlamur Police Station )

Between:

State– Sub Inspector of Police, Mundlamur Police Station … Complainant.

AND

1.Pagadam Sriram Lingam @Ramu S/o.Pala Ramudu, 20 Years, SC Madiga, Bhaskarapuram village, Jupadu Bungalow Mandal, Kurnool District, Driver of lorry bearing No.AP26T 7848.

2.Bandaru Venkata Subbaiah S/o.Basavaiah, 55 Years, Vaddera, Katurivaripalem village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam Dist, owner of lorry bearing No.AP26T 7848. … Accused.

This case coming on 28.4.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri V.Ramana

Reddy, Advocatefor the Accused No.1, Sri S.Mahaboob Basha, Advocate for accused No.2, and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Mundlamur Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime Number 77/2011 for the offence punishable under section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 180, 181 of Motor Vehicles Act of

Mundlamur Police Station.

2.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that, the deceased was working as a cleaner in the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP26T7848. While so, on 9.12.2011 at about 9.00p.m., when the crime vehicle was proceeding from

Vemula Village towards Ullagallu, accused No.1 drove it in a rash and negligent manner, because of that it turned turtle and the deceased who sat in the cabin 2 fell under the tyres of crime vehicle and sustained with severe injuries and died.

Basing on the statement of PW.1, Sk.Khasim, Sub Inspector of Police, Mundlamur

Police Station registered the same as a case in Crime No.77/2011 for the offence under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and issued First Information Report to all concerned. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and drafted scene observation report in the presence of PW.7 and Yerava

Ramireddy. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. PW.6 has conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased. Basing on the requisition of

Sub Inspector of Police, PW.8 has conducted road test of the crime vehicle and issued Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report. On receipt of Postmortem report and on completion of entire investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Mundlamur Police

Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 180, 181, Section 134(A) and (B) r/w.187 of Motor Vehicles Act.

3.On perusal of record, the case was taken on file under section and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code against the accused No.1, for the offence under section 5 r/w.180 of Motor Vehicles Act against accused No.2.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.When the accused were examined Under Section 251 Code of Criminal

Procedure, they denied the charge sheet allegations hence, the gist of accusation against the accused for the offences under sections 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 134(A)and (B) of Motor Vehicles Act against the accused No.1, for the offence under section 5 r/w.180 of Motor Vehicles Act against accused No.2, was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. The evidence of Mekala Kondaiah, Kondaveeti

Balaiah and Sk. Kasim was closed by this court.

3

7.After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, when the accused were examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incriminating material available against them, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence side evidence was closed.

8.Heard arguments of both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is

“Whether the prosecution has proved its case against accused for

the offences under section 304(A)of Indian Penal Code and Section

134(A)(B) r/w.187 and Section 5 r/w.180 of Motor Vehicles Act be-

yond reasonable doubt?”

10.P O I N T :

To establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.8 and Ex.P1 to P5 were got marked.

11. PW.1 is the complainant and father of the deceased. PW.2 and PW.3 are the mother and brother of the deceased respectively. PW.4 and PW.5 are the direct eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. PW.6 is the medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW.7 is the witness who present at the time of preparing scene observation report and also inquestdar and PW.8 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector.

12.In order to establish the guilt against the accused for the offence under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish the following essential aspects;

I. The involvement of crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP 26 T 7848.

ii. The accused No.1 to be the driver of crime vehicle at the relevant point of accident.

iii. The rash and negligent manner of driving on the part of the accused

No.1 in causing death of Mekala Srinu .

4

To prove the offence u/s.134(A)(B) r/w.187 of Motor Vehicles Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused No.1 has not informed about the accident at the near by police station and shifted the injured to hospital and has fled away.

In order to establish the guilt against the accused No.2 for the offence under

Section 5 r/w.180 of Motor Vehicle Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused No.2 has allowed unlicensed driver to drive the crime vehicle.

13.In a nutshell it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was working as a cleaner in the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP26T7848. While so, on 9.12.2011 when the crime vehicle was proceeding from Vemula Village towards Ullagallu, accused No.1 drove it in a rash and negligent manner, because of that it turned turtle and the deceased who sat in the cabin fell under the tyres of crime vehicle and sustained with severe injuries and died. The accused No.1 who is the driver of the crime vehicle without informing the alleged accident at nearest police station and never made any attempts to shift the deceased to the government hospital, he ran away from the scene of offence. Accused No.2 allowed accused No.1 who has no valid licence to drive the crime vehicle. Hence, the case.

14.In order to establish the guilt for the offence under Section 304(A) of

Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish that the first and foremost ingredient to attract the offence under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code i.e., the involvement of the crime vehicle .

PW.1 is the complainant and the father of the deceased. According to him, at about six years back, on one day, the deceased went in a vehicle which was proceeding from Pulipadu village to Darsi. During the travelling his son fell under the tyres of crime vehicle and sustained with severe injuries. Through some one he came to know about the accident and rushed to scene of offence, He shifted his son to the hospital. Hence, he lodged the report under Ex.P1.

5

15.PW.1 who is the father of the deceased has deposed when the deceased was travelling in a vehicle from Pulipadu to Darsi, during the travelling, he fell under the tyres of the vehicle and died. PW.1 never deposed about the actual vehicle in which the deceased proceeded and also its bearing number.

Further, PW.1 never deposed about the accused, who is the driver of the crime vehicle. Even as per Ex.P1, PW.1 never stated about the bearing number of the crime vehicle and about accused No.1. From the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P1 the involvement of the crime vehicle is not established. Therefore, his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case.

16.PW.4 and PW.5 are the direct eye witnesses to the alleged incident.

According to PW.4, at about five years back, on one day, he witnessed a lorry which was turned turtle and fell in a dig and that a cleaner who sat beside the driver sustained with severe injuries and died. As per PW.4, he witnessed a lorry which was fell in the dig, but has not deposed about the bearing number of the crime vehicle. Even from the evidence of PW.4, the involvement of the crime vehicle is not established.

17.While coming to the evidence of another direct eyewitness to the alleged incident. According to PW.5, through some one he came to know that a person was fell under JCB and that he sustained with severe injuries and died. On such he rushed to the scene of offence and found the alleged incident. Even from the evidence of PW.5, the involvement of the crime vehicle is not established.

PW.5 never deposed about the crime vehicle and he has deposed that a person fell under JCB. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.5, the involvement of the crime vehicle is not established. Therefore, his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case.

18.While coming to the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3. PW.2 and PW.3 are the mother and brother of the deceased. They deposed in one voice that they came to know about the alleged incident and rushed to the scene of offence. At scene of offence they found the deceased who sustained with severe injuries.

6

From the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 it clearly show that they came to know about the alleged accident through some one. Therefore, they are not direct eyewitness to the alleged incident. Their evidence is hearsay evidence and it is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, their evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case.

19.In the present case, at the request of Sub Inspector of Police, PW.8

Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle i.e., a lorry bearing

No.AP26T7848 and issued Ex.P5 Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report by opining that the alleged accident took place not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. However, the evidence of PW.8 and Ex.P5 are not corroborated by any independent witness.

20.In the light of above discussion, there is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to establish the first ingredient to attract the offence under

Section 304(a) of Indian Penal Code i.e., the crime vehicle involved in the alleged accident.

21.While coming to the serious questioned aspects i.e., the accused No.1 to be the driver of crime vehicle at the relevant time of alleged accident and he drove it in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased.

In order to establish the serious questioned aspects to attract the offence under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code, PW.4 and PW.5 are the relevant persons to depose about the accused and his manner of the driving. PW.4 has deposed that on the alleged date of incident, he witnessed a lorry which was drove by accused No.1 turned turtle and fell in a dig. From the evidence of PW.4, it established that accused No.1 drove a lorry, but PW.4 never deposed about the bearing number of the lorry. Further, from the evidence of PW.4, the involvement of the crime vehicle is not established. Under these circumstances, the involvement of the accused in the present case is also not established.

22.While coming to the evidence of PW.5, he came to know about the alleged accident and rushed to the scene of offence. At scene of offence found a 7 person who fell under the JCB. PW.5 also never deposed about the driver who drove the crime vehicle. Even as per Ex.P1, it does not contain the name of th accused. There is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to establish that accused No.1 drove the crime vehicle at the relevant time of alleged accident.

23.While coming to the serious questioned aspect to attract the offence under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish that the accused No.1 drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the relevant time of alleged accident and caused the death of the deceased. PW.4 is the direct eye witness to the alleged incident. But he never deposed about the manner of the accident. Absolutely there is no material placed by the prosecution to establish the manner of the accident of accused No.1.

In the light of above discussion, the prosecution has not placed the sufficient material to establish the serious questioned aspects i.e., accused No.1 drove the crime vehicle at the relevant time of alleged accident and drove it in a rash and negligent manner.

24.PW.6 is the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P2 postmortem certificate. Opining that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage.

25.PW.7 is the witness who present at the time of observation of scene of offence. According to him, in his presence the police observed the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P3. Further he acted as a inquest- dar and that in his presence the police conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased and prepared Ex.P4 inquest report. From the material available on the record goes to show that the deceased died in the fatal accident. However, there is no positive material placed by the prosecution to connect the accused No.1 with the alleged offence. There is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused for the offence under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal

Code.

8

26.While coming to the charge for the offence under Section 134(A)and (B) r/w.187 of Motor Vehicle Act. It is the specific case of the prosecution subsequent to the alleged accident, the accused No.1 has not informed about the alleged accident at near by police station and he never made any attempt to shift the deceased to the government hospital and not provided first aid. Absolutely, there is no material placed by the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused for the offence under Section 134(A)and (B) r/w.187 of Motor Vehicle Act.

27.While coming to the charge for the offence under Section 5 r/w.180 of

Motor Vehicle Act against accused No.2. Further, it is the specific case of the prosecution that accused No.2 allowed accused No.1 which has no valid licence to drive his vehicle. Absolutely, there is no material placed by the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused for the offence under Section 5 r/w.180 of

Motor Vehicle Act.

28.In the light of above discussion, there is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused for the offence under

Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code, 134(A)and (B) r/w.187 , 5r/w.180 of Motor

Vehicles Act. The accused are entitled for acquittal.

29.In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under section 304(A) and Section 134(A)and (B) r/w.187 of Motor Vehicles Act. Accused

No.2 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 5 r/w.180 of Motor Vehicle's

Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 255(1) Code of Criminal

Procedure. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Since no property is seized in this case, there is no order as to the case property.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of this court, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28 th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- N.Reddy Prasanna

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DARSI.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE::

PW1 :M. Katam Raju -NONE- PW.2:M. Aulakka PW.3:M. Rajaiah PW.4:K. Bullaiah PW.5:J.Kotaiah PW.6:R.Radha Krishna PW.7:G.Atchaiah PW.8:B. Amar Naik

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 : Report given by PW.1 to the police Ex.P2: Postmortem certificate Ex.P3: Scene observation report Ex.P4: Inquest report Ex.P5: Motor Vehicle Inspector Report

FOR DEFENCE:

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

ILD/- N.R.P.

J.F.C.M.,

Darsi.

// TRUE COPY //

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DARSI.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISRATE OF I CLASS :: DARSI ::

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. No.81/2012 (Crime Number 77/2011 of Mundlamur Police Station )

Date of offence Date of offence09.12.2011 Date of Date of report or complaint10.12.2011 report or complaint Date of Date of taken on file07.04.2012 taken on file Date of Date of apprehension of accused28.12.2011 apprehensi on of accused Date of Date of release on bail28.12.2011 release on bail Date of Date of commencement of trial02.02.2017 commence ment of trail Date of Date of close of trial27.04.2017 close of trial Date of Date of Sentence or order28.04.2017 Sentence or Order Name of the State: The Sub Inspector of Police, Mundlamur Police Station (Crime Number 77/2011 of Mundlamur Police Station) Complainan t

Name of the1.Pagadam Sriram Lingam @Ramu S/o.Pala Ramudu, 20 Years,SC Madiga, accusedBhaskarapuram village, Jupadu Bungalow Mandal, Kurnool District, Driver of lorry bearing No.AP26T 7848. 2.Bandaru Venkata Subbaiah S/o.Basavaiah, 55 Years, Vaddera, Katurivaripalem village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam Dist, owner of lorry bearing No.AP26T 7848. Nature of Under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 134(A)and (B) r/w.187 and Section 5 offencer/w.180 of Motor Vehicles Act

Plea of Pleaded not guilty. accused

Finding of Found not guilty the Court

Sentence or In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under section 304( order and Section 134(A)and (B) r/w.187 of Motor Vehicles Act. Accused No.2 is found n guilty for the offence under Section 5 r/w.180 of Motor Vehicle's Act. Accordingly, th are acquitted under section 255(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 Code of Criminal Procedure. Since no property is seized in this case, there is no order to the case property. Explanation Cognizance was taken on 7.4.2012. Accused were appeared on 12.6.2012 and copies of delay anddocuments were furnished. On 7.10.2014 accused were examined Under Section 2 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code and the case posted for trial. On behalf remarks prosecution, PW.1 to PW.8 were examined and Ex.P1 to 5 were marked and prosecuti side evidence closed and the case posted for examination under Section 313 of Co of Criminal procedure. On 27.4.2017 accused were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal procedure and they reported no defence evidence and on the sa day heard arguments on both sides and the case posted for judgment to 28.4.2017. 28.4.2017 judgment (Vide separate Judgment) pronounced in open court. Hence, t 11 delay.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, DARSI. Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole. The Superintendent of Police,Prakasam Dist., Ongole. // TRUE COPY //

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DARSI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

: DARSI :

PRESENT: MS. N. REDDY PRASANNA,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, DARSI.

Monday, this the 2nd day of November, 2015.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 28/2012

(Crime No.58/2011 of Thallur P.S.)

Between:

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Thallur P.S. .. Complainant

A N D

1. Shaik Moulali S/o. Moulali, 40 Years, Muslim, East Gangavaram Village, Thallur Mandal.

2. Kota Venkateswara Reddy S/o.Nagireddy, 45 Years,

Reddy, Thallur Village and Mandal. .. Accused

This case coming on 16.10.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri

G.Srinivasulu, Advocate for the accused , and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thallur P.S. has filed the charge sheet against the accused , in Cr. No.58/2011 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.447 and 427 of IPC of Thallur P.S.

2. The brief facts of charge sheet are as follows :

On 23.9.2011 in the morning the Government of A.P.

conducted Ryoth Mahila Sadashu Programme in the premises of M.R.O and

M.D.O. Offices at Thallur by arranging dias. The revenue officials conducted the said program. In the dais the photos of flexi banner of Chief Minister, 2

Agriculture Minister and M.P., Ongole were put up. At about 1.00 P.M. the officers after inauguration of Srisakthi Bhava and when reached near the dais, the accused A1 and A2 who belongs to Y.S.R Congress Party, criminally trespassed on the dais, removed the flexi banner , torn into pieces along with pamphlets and thrown the same on the Eastern side to the Tahsildar office on the plea that the photos of Y.S.R. Reddy was not put in the flexi banner and thereby caused mischief. On 25.9.2011 LW.1-Gudu

Raajarathnam gave report to the police. Basing on the same, LW.9-

S.Subba Rao, Sub Inspector of Police Thallur registered the same as a case in Cr.No.58/2011 for the offence u/s.447 and 427 of IPC of Thallur P.S., issued FIR to all concerned. During the course of investigation, LW.9 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence , examined the same in the presence of mediators, seized the torn pieces of flexi banner and pamphlets concerned to Ryoth Mahila

Sadhasu under the cover of observation report duly attested by the mediators. He also prepared a rough sketch of scene. On 27.9.2011, LW.8-

P.Samba Reddy, ASI, Thallur P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused.

After completion of entire investigation, LW.9 filed charge sheet against the accused u/s.447 and 427 of IPC.

3.On perusal of record, the case was taken on file U/Sec.447 and 427 of IPC, against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.When the accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., he denied the charge sheet allegations and hence, the gist of accusation against the accused for the offence punishable u/s.447 and 427 of IPC is read over 3 and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and M.O.1 and M.O.2. The evidences of

LW.2- Ch. Veera Mohana Rao and LW.7-Vesapogu Samiel, has closed by this court

7. The accused were examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material arisen from the witnesses examined and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence is closed.

Heard both sides. 8.

9. Now the point for determination is that :

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the

offences punishable U/Sec.447 and 427 of IPC?

10. POINT:

To establish the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and Exs.P1 to P6 and MOs. 1 and 2 were marked.

11. PW1 is the Assistant Project Manager of Indira Kranthi Patham,

Thallur. PW2 is the Mandal Parishad Development Officer of Thallur. PW3 is the Co-coordinator of Indira Kranthi Patham, Thallur. PW5 is the

Assistant Director of Agriculture Department, PW4 is the Mediator who acted as mediator at the time of observation of scene of offence and seizure of torn pieces of Flexi Banner and Pamphlets i.e., MOs.1 and 2 4 respectively. PW6 and PW7 are the Investigating Officers to the present case.

12.According to the contents of FIR i.e., Ex.P1, PW1 is working as

Assistant Project Manager of Indira Kranthi Patham at Thallur. On 23.09.2011 PW1 along PWs.2, 3 and 4 conducted Rythu Mahila Sadassu

Program at Thallur. On the occasion of the said program they arranged

Flexi Banners on the stage. About 2000 peoples attended to that program.

After inauguration of Sri Sakthi Bhavan PW1 returned back and reached near the Dayas and found some unknown persons removed Banners which were arranged on the dayas. Therefore he informed the same to the

Tahsildar of Thallur Mandal and that the Tahsildar of Thallur Mandal forwarded the same to the S.H.O., Thallur PS for taking necessary action and that the same was registered.

13.In a nutshell it is the case of the prosecution that on 23.09.2011 PW1 along with PW2, PW3 and PW4 conducted Rythu Mahila

Sadassu Program at Thallur and arranged Flexi Banners of photos of Chief

Minister, Agriculture Minister and M.P., Ongole. Accused 1 and 2 who are belonged to YSR Congress Party criminally trespassed, went on the Dayas and removed the flexi banners i.e., MO.1 and torn and also torn pamphlets i.e., MO2 and that thereby the accused committed offence U/Sec.427, 447 of IPC.

14.To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 7, Exs.P1 to P6, MOs.1 and 2. According to

PW1 when he was working as Assistant Project Manager at Thallur Mandal he conducted Rythu Mahila Sadassu Program at Head Quarters, Thallur on 23.09.2011. In that program MLA attended. On the occasion of the said 5 program Flexi Banners of photos of Ex-Chief Minister Kiran Kumar Reddy were arranged. Later he attended to another meeting and return back.

When he returned back he found the flexi banners which were arranged were removed. Hence he lodged the complaint under Ex.P1. It is the version of PW1 that he conducted Rythu Mahila Sadasu Program at Head

Quarters, Thallur and arranged Flexi Banners of Kiran Kumar Reddy, the

Ex-Chief Minister and that subsequently he found they were removed. As per PW1 he do not know the actual persons who torn the said flexi banners i.e., MO1. Even as per Ex.P1 PW1 did not stated anything about the actual wrong doers name. Ex.P1 does not contain the names of the accused.

PW1 did not state anything about the accused. Further he is not eye witness to the incident. At the request of the Court the learned APP cross examined the PW1. During the cross examination PW1 deposed that he did not state like in Ex.P2 i.e., 161 Cr.P.C. Statement. PW1 who is none other than the complainant himself did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile and deposed that he did not state as per Ex.P2. Further he is not direct eye witness to the alleged incident. Therefore his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case.

15.While coming to the evidence of PW2, as per PW2 he was working MPDO at Mandal Parishad Office in Thallur. He is having acquaintance with PW1 and that he does not know about the accused. He further deposed that on 23.09.2011 the authorities of Agriculture

Department and Indira Kranthi Patham conducted Rythu Mahila Sadassu

Meeting in the premises of Mandal Parishad Office at Thallur. In that said program flexi Banner of Kiran Kumar Reddy, Ex-Chief Minister was arranged on the back side of stage and that some unknown persons torn the said flexi banner as the flexi banner does not contain the photo of YS 6

Raja Sekhar Reddy. Hence the Officer who was organizing the meeting lodged a report. It is the version of the PW2 that some unknown persons torn the flexi banner i.e., MO1. He also did not depose anything about the accused. During the chief examination PW2 categorically deposed that during the meeting he was present there but did not notice the actual persons who torn MO1 i.e., flexi banner. Further he categorically deposed that though he enquired the alleged incident, but he did not came to know about the actual persons who did the act. As PW1 did not support the case of the prosecution the learned APP cross examined the witness. During the cross examination PW2 deposed that he did not state before the Police as per Ex.P3 (i.e., 1st Line to 5th Line from the bottom of 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement of PW2). As per Ex.P3 PW2 stated before the Police that subsequent to the said program he enquired the alleged incident and he came to know that A1 and A2 torn MO1 and thrown far away from the scene of offence. Though PW2 know about A1 and A2, but he did not stated anything about them. PW2 also did not support the case of the prosecution, further he is also direct eye witness to the alleged incident.

Therefore his evidence is also no way helpful to the prosecution case.

16.While coming to the evidence of PW3, as per PW3 he was working as Co-Ordinator in Indira Kranthi Patham. On 23.09.2011 the

Government of A.P. conducted Rythu Mahila Sadassu Program at Thallur.

In that connection some flexi banners i.e., MO1 were arranged and at the time of meeting he was stood near foundation stone. On the next day during morning hours he came to know through the news papers that some unknown offenders removed the flexi banners i.e., MO1. PW3 is also not direct eye witness to the alleged incident and that he also did not depose anything against the accused, further he deposed that he was not 7 examined by any police officials. PW3 also did not support the prosecution case. Therefore his evidence also no way helpful to the prosecution case.

17.As per the evidence of PW5, when he was working as a

Assistant Director in Agriculture Department at Addanki Rythu Mahila

Sadassu Program was conducted at MDO Office premises and he further deposed that there was no any incident took place in his presence. PW5 also did not depose anything against the accused and categorically deposed in his cross examination that he did not state the names of the accused

before the Police. PW5 also turned hostile and did not support the

prosecution case. Further he is also not the direct eye witness to the alleged incident. Therefore his evidence also no way helpful to the prosecution case.

18.Mediator at the time of preparation of scene observation report i.e., Ex.P4 was examined as PW4. According to him on 25.09.2011 in his presence PW7 observed the scene of offence and prepared scene observation report under Ex.P4 and the Police officials seized MOs.1 and 2 in his presence.

19.The Investigating Officer to the presence case was examined as

PW7. According to him on 25.09.2011 PW1 turned up to the Police Station and presented a report. Based on the report he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.58/2011 and issued FIR to all the concerned. Later he secured the presence of the mediators Samuel and PW4 and that himself along with PW1, PW4 and Samuel visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P6 and also seized MO1. At the scene of offence he secured the presence of PWs.2, 3 and 5 and examined them and recorded their statements. After completion of entire 8 investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence

U/Sec.427 and 447 of IPC. As per PW6 on credible information he went near Bus stand centre at Thallur and arrested A1 and 2 and produced them

before the Court for judicial remand. The evidence of PW4 is not

corroborated by any independent eye witness. Absolutely there is no material placed by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.427 and 447 of IPC. The evidence of PWs.6 and 7 are also not corroborated by independent witnesses. All the prosecution witnesses including the complainant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version and did not depose anything against the accused. The role of the Investigating Officer is very limited and that he registered the case and investigate it and filed the charge sheet. There is no material placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences U/Sec.427 and 447 of IPC. The prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.427 and 447 of IPC.

20.In the result, the accused-A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable 447 and 427 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted

U/Sec. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of Six Months as contemplated u/s.437 (A) of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., M.O.1 -flexi banner and M.O.2-pamphlets shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Copyist of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 2 nd day of November, 2015.

Sd/- N.Reddy Prasanna,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DARSI.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE::

PW1 :G.Raajarathnam -NONE-

PW.2:Ch. Hanumantha Rao

PW.3:B. Prasada Rao

PW.4:T.Ch. Sastry

PW.5:P. Kuppaiah

PW.6:P. Samba Reddy

PW.7:S.Subba Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 : Report given by PW.1 to the police NIL

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1

Ex.P3:Some portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Ex.P4:Observation Report

Ex.P5: FIR in Cr.No.58/2011 of Thallur P.S.

Ex.P6: Rough sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Flexi banner

M.O.2:Pamphlets

Ild/- N.R.P. J.F.C.M., Darsi.

// TRUE COPY //

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DARSI.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISRATE OF I CLASS :: DARSI ::

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. No.28/2012

(Crime No.58/2012 of Thallur P.S.)

Date of offence 23.09.2011

Date of report or complaint25.09.2011

Date of taken on file24.01.2012

Date of apprehension of accused27.09.2011

Date of release on bail27.09.2011

Date of commencement of trail06.02.2015

Date of close of trial18.09.2015

Date of Sentence or Order02.11.2015

Name of the State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thallur P.S. Complainant(Cr. No.58/2012 of Thallur P.S.)

Name of the 1. Shaik Moulali S/o. Moulali, 40 Years, Muslim, accusedEast Gangavaram Village, Thallur Mandal.

2. Kota Venkateswara Reddy S/o.Nagireddy, 45 Years, Reddy, Thallur Village and Mandal.

Nature of u/s.447 and 427 of IPC offence plea of Pleaded not guilty. accused

Finding of the Found not guilty. Court

Sentence or In the result, the accused-A1 and A2 are found not guilty order for the offence punishable 447 and 427 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of Six Months as contemplated u/s.437 (A) of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., M.O.1 -flexi banner and M.O.2-pamphlets shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation of Cognizance was taken on 24.1.2012. on 5.9.2014 accused appeared and delay and copies of documents were furnished; on 16.12.2014 accused were remarks examined u/s.251 of Cr.P.C. and the case posted for trial. On 6.2.2015

PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 and P2 marked; on 12.2.2015 PW.2 examined and Ex.P3 marked; on 21.8.2015 PW.3 examined; on 28.8.2015

PW.4 examined and Ex.P4 marked; on 4.9.2015 PW.5 and PW.6 examined Ex.P4 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 marked; on 18.9.2015 PW.7 examined and Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 marked and prosecution side evidence 11 closed; on 16.10.2015 accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C and denied the same and no defence evidence on their behalf and on the same day heard arguments on both sides and the matter posted for judgment to 2.11.2015. on 2.11.2015, Judgment (Vide separate Judgment)

pronounced in open court. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- N.REDDY PRASANNA,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DARSI. Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Prakasam District, Ongole.

The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam Dist., Ongole.

// TRUE COPY //

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DARSI.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: DARSI.

PRESENT : Smt. N. REDDY PRASANNA,

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi.

Friday, this the 28 th day of April, 2017.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.336/2008

Between :-

Panta Bodi Reddy S/o.Yellamanda Reddy, 70 Years, Hindu, Agriculture, R/o.Rajagopalareddi Nagar, Vemula Panchayat, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam Dist. … Plaintiff.

AND

1. Alikepalli Tathireddy S/o.Thirupalu, 54 Years, 2.Vennapusa Chinna Reddy S/o.Malakondaiah, 32 Years, 3.Vennapusa Singaraiah S/o.Malakondaiah, 40 Years, 4.Vennapusa Chinna Lakshma Reddy S/o.Malakondaiah, 25 Years, 5.Sura Peda Venkata Subba Reddy S/o.Ramireddy, 50 Years, 6.Sura Venkata Ramana Reddy S/o.Ramireddy, 45 Years, All are Hindus, Agriculture by profession. The defendants 1 to 4 are R/o.Kammavaripalem village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam Dist. The Defendants 5 and 6 are residents of China Gudipadu village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam Dist. … Defendants.

This Suit coming on 26.4.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, learned advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri

V.Srinivasa Sastry, for the Defendants 1 to 5, and the 6th defendant died, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is the suit filed for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents and representatives from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the Plaint are that:

The suit schedule property is the land an extent of Ac.1.99 cents in

S.No.455/3 at Vemula village. Originally the suit schedule property is 'Anadeenam' land and the plaintiff being landless poor person occupied the plaint schedule property long back. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mundlamur has granted D-form patta in favour of the plaintiff on 1.6.1988. Since the date of granting of D-form patta, the plaintiff has been cultivating the land by raising paddy crop in suit schedule property. The plaintiff being old man unable to cultivate the same he leased out the plaint schedule property in favour of 1st defendant orally. The 1st defendant cultivated the plaint schedule property which belongs to the plaintiff from 2000 to 2005. The 1st defendant with malafide intention colluded with revenue officials and entered his name in the revenue records. He also trying to occupy the plaint schedule property . The defendants herein who have no rightful possession over the plaint schedule property, and canvassing in the village that they would dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Hence, prayed the court to grant permanent injunction against the defendants.

The 3rd defendant has filed written statement and adoption memo of defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 have filed. The brief averments of the written statement are that the plaint schedule property is classified as assessed waste land. The 3rd defendant being a landless poor person occupied the same at about 20 years back and developed the plaint schedule property by spending huge amounts and doing cultivation. The 3rd defendant also paying cist to the government in respect of plaint schedule property regularly and his name is also entered in the revenue records. The 3rd defendant gave a requisition before Mandal Tahsildar, Mundlamur requesting him for grant of D-form patta. The plaintiff with an evil intention to grab away the plaint schedule property colluded with the revenue officials and created documents and filed a false suit. The plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest over the plaint schedule property. Hence, prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the rival contentions of both parties, the following issues are settled for trial :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction?

3. To what relief?

5.To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A8. On behalf of the defendants, the defendants did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

6.Heard both sides.

7. Issues No.1 to 3:

For the sake of convenience, all the issues are discussed together.

The subject matter of the present case is the land an extent of Ac.1.99 cents in S.No.455/3 at Vemula village. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff being landless poor person occupied the plaint schedule property long back. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mundlamur has granted D-form patta in favour of the plaintiff on 1.6.1988. Since the date of granting of D-form patta, the plaintiff has been cultivating the land and that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. While so, the plaintiff leased out the plaint schedule property in favour of 1st defendant orally. The 1st defendant cultivated the plaint schedule property which belongs to the plaintiff from 2002-2005. The 1st defendant with malafide intentions colluded with revenue officials and entered his name in the revenue records and also trying to occupy the plaint schedule property and threatening the plaintiff that he would dispossess him from his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. Hence the case.

8.On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that no D-form patta granted in favour of the plaintiff and that he never in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. In fact, the defendant who is landless poor person occupied the plaint schedule property at about 20 years back and developed the plaint schedule property by spending huge amounts. Since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. Further, he also paying cist to the government in respect of plaint schedule property regularly and his name is also entered in the revenue records. The defendant also gave a requisition before Mandal Tahsildar, Mundlamur for granting of D-form patta.

9.In order to seek the relief of permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to establish that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property on the date of filing the suit. Now it has to be seen whether the plaintiff establish his exclusive possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

10.In order to establish the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as

PW.1. PW.1 reiterated the averments of the plaint in his chief examination. During the cross examination, he denied that he never in possession and enjoyment over plaint schedule property. In order to establish the case of the plaintiff, he relief upon Ex.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 to A8 are the certified copies of cultivation adangals for the fasli 1396, 1398, 1400, 1401, 1406, 1407, 1410 and 1411 respectively.

11.Further, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff being landless poor person occupied the plaint schedule property and he has been cultivating the same. Thereby he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. Further, the revenue authorities also granted D- form patta in favour of the plaintiff on 1.6.1988. Under these circumstances, D- form patta which is granted in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property is the relevant document to prove the case of plaintiff. However, he did not produce original D-form patta to establish his own case. Further, the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 to A8 did not contain the survey number of the plaint schedule property and also the name of the plaintiff. From Ex.A1 to A8 it creates a doubt about the possession of plaint schedule property by the plaintiff.

There is no sufficient material placed by the plaintiff to establish the prima facie case and he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

12.Further, in order to seek the relief of permanent injunction it is also responsibility of the plaintiff to establish that the defendant restraining the plaintiff from peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. Absolutely there is no material placed by the plaintiff to establish the interference of the defendant over the plaint schedule property.

13.In the light of above discussion, there is no material placed by the plaintiff to establish the prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff i.e., the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. Inspite of granting time, the defendants did not attend before the court to adduce evidence. Therefore, the evidence of defendants are closed by this court.

14.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of this court, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28 th day of April, 2017.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DARSI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1 :Panta BodireddyNONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Attested copy of adangal for fasli 1396

Ex.A2:Attested copy of adangal for fasli 1398

Ex.A3:Attested copy of adangal for fasli 1400

Ex.A4:Attested copy of adangal for fasli 1401

Ex.A5:Attested copy of adangal for fasli 1406

Ex.A6:Attested copy of adangal for fasli 1407

Ex.A7: Attested copy of adangal for fasli 1410

Ex.A8: Attested copy of adangal for fasli 1411

FOR DEFENDANTS

NIL

J.C.J., DARSI.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: DARSI.

PRESENT : Smt. N. REDDY PRASANNA,

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi.

Friday, this the 28 th day of April, 2017.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.336/2008

Between :-

Panta Bodi ReddyS/o.Yellamanda Reddy, 70 Years, Hindu, Agriculture, R/o.Rajagopalareddi Nagar, Vemula Panchayat, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam Dist. … Plaintiff.

AND

1. Alikepalli Tathireddy S/o.Thirupalu, 54 Years, 2.Vennapusa Chinna Reddy S/o.Malakondaiah, 32 Years, 3.Vennapusa Singaraiah S/o.Malakondaiah, 40 Years, 4.Vennapusa Chinna Lakshma Reddy S/o.Malakondaiah, 25 Years, 5.Sura Peda Venkata Subba Reddy S/o.Ramireddy, 50 Years, 6.Sura Venkata Ramana Reddy S/o.Ramireddy, 45 Years, All are Hindus, Agriculture by profession. The defendants 1 to 4 are R/o.Kammavaripalem village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam Dist. The Defendants 5 and 6 are residents of China Gudipadu village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam Dist. … Defendants.

This is the suit filed for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents and representatives from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

Cause of action for the suit arose when the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mundlamur gave D form patta to the plaintiff on 1.6.1988 and since then the plaintiff had been cultivating the same and the plaintiff being an old man leased out the same to the defendants from 2000 to 2005 and when the defendants having colluded to each other with an intention to grab away the suit schedule land from the plaintiff in collusion with the revenue officials and when the defendants have been canvassing in the village since 15.10.2008 that they would dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land by use of force and occupy the same which arose at Vemula village in Mundlamur Mandal, which is within the jurisdiction of this court. Valuation and Court fee:

For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the relief of permanent injunction is notionally valued at Rs.5,000/- on a national basis and a court fee of Rs.411/- is paid under u/s.26(c) of ACF and SV Act.

Date of Presentation :23.10.2008 Date of Filing :23.10.2008

This Suit coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, learned advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri V.Srinivasa

Sastry, learned Advocatefor the Defendants 1 to 5, and the 6th defendant died, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree;

1. that the suit be and he same is hereby dismissed; and ii. that each party do bear their own costs (CM and FC not filed)

Plaint schedule is hereto attached

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 28th day of April, 2017.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DARSI.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff :- For defendants :-

C.M and FC not filed on both sides

J.C.J., DARSI.

N.B. :- The parties are hereby directed to take back the Exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked in the suit within one month time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the court.

1

 IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: DARSI.

PRESENT : MS. N. REDDY PRASANNA,

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi.

Thursday, this the 29th day of October, 2015.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.93/2015

BETWEEN :

Karavati Atchamma W/o.Chennaiah, 60 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.Bhumanapalli village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam Dist. … Plaintiff.

A N D

1. Yerraguntla Venkata Subbaiah, S/o. Balaiah, 60 Years, 2.Yerraguntla Balaiah, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, 30 Years, 3.Vipparla Peda Ankaiah, S/o. Chinnaiah, 50 Years, 4.Vipparla Venkateswarlu, S/o. Chinnaiah, 35 Years, 5.Vipparla Narayana, S/o. Chinnaiah, 28 Years, Defendants 1 to 5 are Hindus, Cultivation, R/o. Bhumanapalli village,

Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam Dist. ..Defendants.

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri V.Ramana Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the Defendant remained exparte, and upon hearing the arguments and the matter, having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following: -

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

01. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and their men, agents, assignees and representatives from in any way interfering, causing obstruction with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by plaintiff and for costs.

02. The brief averments of plaint are as follows :

The plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of plaintiff. She has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said property with absolute rights by raising seasonal crops. The plaintiff being land less poor and applied for grant of patta for the plaint schedule property. After due enquiry the 2 then Revenue Authorities, Donakonda recognized the possession and title over the plaint schedule property and granted D-form patta in favour of plaintiff and also issued 1-B, 10-3 adangals , pattadar pass book, title deed . Thus, the plaintiff has got perfect right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property with absolute rights. Except the plaintiff, nobody have manner of any right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property . The plaintiff further contended that there are some disputes arose between the plaintiff and the defendants , on account of that the defendants developed jealous against the plaintiff and waiting for opportunity create troubles to the plaintiff in order to grab the plaint schedule property . The plaintiff is being lonely old woman in the village and defendants have got large following in the village and taking advantage of loneliness of the plaintiff with a view to grab the plaint schedule property, the defendants are trying to enter into the plaint schedule property and causing obstruction in enjoying the plaint schedule property and the defendants are canvassing in the village that they would not allow the plaintiff in enjoying the plaint schedule property in conducting agricultural operations. The defendants have no manner of any right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property.

Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit for grant of permanent injunction.

Hence, the suit.

03. Though summons are duly served on the defendants, the defendants did not attend the court to contest the matter. Hence, the defendants were set exparte.

04. Though the defendants are set exparte, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction automatically since she is dominant and litigant, the primary burden lies on the shoulders of the plaintiff to prove her case.

3

05. To prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4 . Ex.A1 is the pattadar pass book, Ex.A2 is the title deed, Ex.A3 is the 1B copy and Ex.A4 is the 10-3 adangals. Ex.A1 and A2 shows that the plaintiff has right and title in respect of the suit schedule property. Ex.A3 and A4 shows that the plaintiff is having possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The oral testimony of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A4 , clearly established that the plaintiff has right, title and possession over the suit schedule property and suit claim is proved. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the discretionary relief of permanent injunction.

06.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs and the defendants, their men, representatives and assignees are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 29 th day of October, 2015.

 JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: DARSI.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses examined 

For Plaintiff : 4 For Defendants : 

P.w.1 :K. Atchamma ­Exparte­ :

Documents marked 

For Plaintiffs : Ex.A1: pattadar pass book stands in the name of plaintiff

Ex.A2:Title deed stands in the name of plaintiff

Ex.A3:1B copy obtained from Mee Seva

Ex.A4: 10-3 adangals

JCJ., Darsi.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: DARSI.

PRESENT : MS. N. REDDY PRASANNA, Junior Civil Judge, Darsi.

Thursday, this the 29th day of October, 2015.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.93/2015

BETWEEN :

Karavati Atchamma W/o.Chennaiah, 60 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.Bhumanapalli village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam Dist. … Plaintiff.

A N D

1. Yerraguntla Venkata Subbaiah, S/o. Balaiah, 60 Years, 2.Yerraguntla Balaiah, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, 30 Years, 3.Vipparla Peda Ankaiah, S/o. Chinnaiah, 50 Years, 4.Vipparla Venkateswarlu, S/o. Chinnaiah, 35 Years, 5.Vipparla Narayana, S/o. Chinnaiah, 28 Years, Defendants 1 to 5 are Hindus, Cultivation, R/o. Bhumanapalli village,

Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam Dist. ..Defendants.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and their men, agents, assignees and representatives from in any way interfering, causing obstruction with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by plaintiff and for costs.

Cause of Action : the cause of action for the suit arose when the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute rights and when the revenue authorities issued D form patta and also issued Pattadar pass book and title deed in the name of plaintiff by mutate her name in the revenue records, when the defendants with an intention to create troubles to the plaintiff and in order to grab the plaint schedule property and when the defendants are canvassing in the village since week days that they would not allow the plaintiff in enjoying the plaint schedule property, where the plaint schedule property is situated at Bhumanapalli village, Donakonda Mandal within the jurisdiction of this court.

Valuation and Court Fee: For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit is notionally valued at Rs.10,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs.786/- is paid u/s.26 ( c) of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

Date of Presentation :12.6.2015 Date of Filing :12.6.2015 5

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri V.Ramana Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the Defendant remained exparte, and upon hearing the arguments and the matter, having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court doth order and decree;

I. that the defendants 1 to 5 be and are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property; iii.that each party do bear their own costs.

(Schedule is appended to decree ).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 29th day of October, 2015.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DARSI.

// TABLE OF COSTS //

For Plaintiff For defendants

C.M and F.C. not filed on both sides.

J.C.J.,

Darsi.

NOTE: Both parties concerned in this case are hereby informed that the exhibited and non­exhibited documents should retrieve within the stipulated time on a condition that “ the same should produce as and when required by the Court”.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: DARSI.

PRESENT : Smt. N. REDDY PRASANNA,

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi. Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.178/2016

Kasana Pitchi Reddy S/o Koti Reddy, 72 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, Chandavaram village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam Dist. … Plaintiff.

AND

1.Bandaru Venkatamma W/o. Late Peda Kasaiah, 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Chandavaram village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam Dist.

2.Bandaru Badarlu S/o. Late Peda Kasaiah, 25 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, Chandavaram village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam Dist. … Defendants.

This is a Suit filed for recovery of Rs.36,120/- being the principal and interest due under a pronote dt.25-7-2013 executed by late Peda Kasaiah who is the husband of 1st defendant and father of 2nd defendant, in favour of plaintiff for Rs.21,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

Subsequently the said Peda Kasaiah died intestate leaving behind the defendants 1 and 2.

later the defendants failed to pay the suit amount and for subsequent interest and for costs.

This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me, in the presence of Sri

V.Srinivasa Sastry and Sri SMVL Narasimha Rao, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :-

// JUDGMENT //

Proof Affidavit of PW1 filed. Ex.A1 is marked. The oral testimony of PW1 coupled with

Ex.A1 clearly establishes that the plaintiff has proved the suit claim. On the other hand, the defendants were set exparte. The evidence of PW.1 remains unchallenged, hence the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.36,120/-with subsequent interest @ 12 % p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.21,000/- . The defendants 1 and 2 liable to pay the suit amount out of the estate of late Peda Kasaiah, which is in their hands.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

JUNIOR CIVL JUDGE,

DARSI.

// Appendix of Evidence //

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :- For defendants :-

P.W.1 :K. Pitchi Reddy - Exparte –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 : Suit promissory note dt.25.7.2013 executed by late Peda Kasaiah in favour of plaintiff for Rs.21,000/-

For Defendants NONE

J.C.J.,

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: DARSI.

PRESENT : Smt. N. REDDY PRASANNA,

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi. Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.178/2016

Kasana Pitchi Reddy S/o Koti Reddy, 72 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, Chandavaram village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam Dist. … Plaintiff.

AND

1.Bandaru Venkatamma W/o. Late Peda Kasaiah, 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Chandavaram village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam Dist.

2.Bandaru Badarlu S/o. Late Peda Kasaiah, 25 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, Chandavaram village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam Dist. … Defendants.

This is a Suit filed for recovery of Rs.36,120/- being the principal and interest due under a pronote dt.25-7-2013 executed by late Peda Kasaiah who is the husband of 1st defendant and father of 2nd defendant, in favour of plaintiff for Rs.21,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

Subsequently the said Peda Kasaiah died intestate leaving behind the defendants 1 and 2.

later the defendants failed to pay the suit amount and for subsequent interest and for costs.

Cause of action :- Cause of action for the suit arose on 25.7.2013 when late

Peda Kasaiah who is the husband of 1st defendant and father of 2nd defendant borrowed and executed the promissory note in favour of plaintiff at Chandavaram village, subsequently the said Peda Kasaiah died intestate. Inspite of repeated demands, the defendants failed to repay the said amount at Chandavaram village ,which is within the jurisdiction of this court.

Valuation and Court Fee:- For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at Rs.36,120/-, on which a court fee of Rs.2026/-, is paid U/Sec. 20 of

A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

Plaint presented on :25.7.2016Plaint registered on :8.8.2016

This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me, in the presence of

Sri V.Srinivasa Sastry and Sri SMVL Narasimha Rao, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree :-

1. that the defendants 1 and 2 out of the estate of late Peda Kasaiah, which is in their hands do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.36,120/- with future interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing of suit i.e.25.7.2016 till the date of decree i.e.,27.4.2017 and thereafter @ 6 % per annum from the date of decree i.e.,27.4.2017 till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.21,000/- ; and;

2. that the defendants likewise do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.3199/- towards costs of the suit

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DARSI.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintif :- For defendants :-

Stamp on Vakalat :Rs. 2-00Exparte Stamp on plaint: 2026-00 Stamp on Process 80-00 Advocate Fee1091-00 ------------------ Total Costs : Rs.3199-00 ------------------

J.C.J., DARSI.

N.B. :- The parties are hereby directed to take back the Exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked in the suit within one month time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the court.