Sri N.Vijaya Babu

1

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT KANDUKUR IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT KANDUKUR

Present: Sri N.Vijaya Babu,Present: Sri N.Vijaya Babu, Assistant Sessions Judge, KandukurAssistant Sessions Judge, Kandukur

Monday, the 15thMonday, the 15th day of April, 2024 day of April, 2024

SESSIONS CASE No.168/2023

(P.R.C.No.7/2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri in Cr.No.4/2023 of C.S.Puram Police Station) Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, State: Sub Inspector of Police,

C.S.Puram Police Station.C.S.Puram Police Station.….. Complainant….. Complainant

And

1. Dora Thimmaiah, S/o. Chinna Venkataiah, aged 40 years, Cook.

2. Gorla Kumari, W/o. Ramanaiah, aged 37 years, Cultivation.

3. Chinakondu Thirupatamma, W/o. Alluraiah, aged 43 years, Cultivation.

4. Chinakondu Ramanamma, W/o. Chinna Alluraiah, age 31 years, Cultivation.

5. Chinakondu Thirumala Devi, W/o. Brahma Naidu, aged 28 years, Cultivation.

6. Dora Lakshmi Devi @ Lakshmamma, W/o. China Venkataiah, aged 65 years, Cultivation.

7. Dora Venkateswarlu, S/o. China Venkataiah, age 34 years, Mason. All are Yakara by caste, Pogulla Village, B.V.Peta Mandal.

….. Accused….. Accused

This case is coming on 01.04.2024 before me for final hearing in theThis case is coming on 01.04.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of for complainant and of Sri Sri L.Brahmaiah, Advocate for Accused and after hearing both sides and on perusingL.Brahmaiah, Advocate for Accused and after hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record till this day, this court delivered the following:-the material on record till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

This is a case of husband and relatives of husband subjecting the wife toThis is a case of husband and relatives of husband subjecting the wife to cruelty and husband attempting murder against his wife investigated by Subcruelty and husband attempting murder against his wife investigated by Sub

Inspector or Police, C.S.Puram P.S vide Cr.No.4/2023 and laid charge sheet for theInspector or Police, C.S.Puram P.S vide Cr.No.4/2023 and laid charge sheet for the offences U/s.498A and 307 r/w 34 of IPC against the Accused. offences U/s.498A and 307 r/w 34 of IPC against the Accused.

2.2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 29.01.2023 at 03:30 PMThe brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 29.01.2023 at 03:30 PM the complainant namely Chinakondu Lingaiah came to police station and gavethe complainant namely Chinakondu Lingaiah came to police station and gave report to the effect that “he is native of Thungodu Village, C.S.Puram Mandal,report to the effect that “he is native of Thungodu Village, C.S.Puram Mandal,

Prakasam District. He lived by doing cultivation. His father namely PeddaPrakasam District. He lived by doing cultivation. His father namely Pedda

Lakshmaiah has got 6 children out of them 4 are male and 2 are female. All ofLakshmaiah has got 6 children out of them 4 are male and 2 are female. All of them are married. They performed the marriage of his younger sister Dorathem are married. They performed the marriage of his younger sister Dora

Lakshmidevi about 11 years back with Dora Thimmaiah, resident of PogullaLakshmidevi about 11 years back with Dora Thimmaiah, resident of Pogulla

Village, B.V.Pet Mandal as second wife. They were blessed with daughter, 10 yearsVillage, B.V.Pet Mandal as second wife. They were blessed with daughter, 10 years and son, 7 years. His younger sister is the second wife of Dora Thimmaiah. Fromand son, 7 years. His younger sister is the second wife of Dora Thimmaiah. From the beginning of marriage quarrels took place between them. Thimmaiah used tothe beginning of marriage quarrels took place between them. Thimmaiah used to harass his sister by beating her. On coming to know the quarrels they used to visitharass his sister by beating her. On coming to know the quarrels they used to visit and pacify them. After Sankranthi festival of this year as disputes arose at theand pacify them. After Sankranthi festival of this year as disputes arose at the 2 house of his sister, his sister’s husband, Thimmaiah, sister-in-laws Kumari,house of his sister, his sister’s husband, Thimmaiah, sister-in-laws Kumari,

Thirupatamma, Ramanamma, Thirumala Devi, mother-in-law Lakshmi Devi andThirupatamma, Ramanamma, Thirumala Devi, mother-in-law Lakshmi Devi and brother-in-law Dora Venkateswarlu all together beat his sister. As such onbrother-in-law Dora Venkateswarlu all together beat his sister. As such on 17.01.2023 his sister along with his sister’s two children came to his mother’s and17.01.2023 his sister along with his sister’s two children came to his mother’s and brother’s house. On 27.01.2023 at 07:00 PM Thimmaiah came to their Village inbrother’s house. On 27.01.2023 at 07:00 PM Thimmaiah came to their Village in drunken condition and quarreled with his younger sister at his house demandingdrunken condition and quarreled with his younger sister at his house demanding his younger sister to come with Thimmaiah. When Thimmaiah was abusing hehis younger sister to come with Thimmaiah. When Thimmaiah was abusing he intervened and told that he will not send his sister and asked Thimmaiah to bringintervened and told that he will not send his sister and asked Thimmaiah to bring elders and after talking with elders only he will send his younger sister for leadingelders and after talking with elders only he will send his younger sister for leading marital life. As such Thimmaiah went back. Today i.e., on 29.01.2023 at or aboutmarital life. As such Thimmaiah went back. Today i.e., on 29.01.2023 at or about 12:00 noon while he was grazing cattle on the hillock (గుట్ట�12:00 noon while he was grazing cattle on the hillock (గుట్ట�) located opposite to his) located opposite to his house he saw crowd gathered at his mother’s house and also heard some cries. Ashouse he saw crowd gathered at his mother’s house and also heard some cries. As such he rushed to his mother’s house, saw his younger sister Lakshmidevi lyingsuch he rushed to his mother’s house, saw his younger sister Lakshmidevi lying unconscious on the cot and blood was oozing out from the head of his youngerunconscious on the cot and blood was oozing out from the head of his younger sister. He came to know that his younger sister’s husband came to the housesister. He came to know that his younger sister’s husband came to the house quarreled with his younger sister and demanded his younger sister to come forquarreled with his younger sister and demanded his younger sister to come for conjugal life and hacked on the ear and neck with an axe. After hacking his sister’sconjugal life and hacked on the ear and neck with an axe. After hacking his sister’s husband went towards hillock by walk. The same was informed to him by hishusband went towards hillock by walk. The same was informed to him by his younger sister’s daughter namely Venkata Ramanamma and shifted his youngeryounger sister’s daughter namely Venkata Ramanamma and shifted his younger sister to Markapur Government Hospital accompanied by his son Venkataramanasister to Markapur Government Hospital accompanied by his son Venkataramana and his mother Thirumalamma. The doctor informed that patient is in seriousand his mother Thirumalamma. The doctor informed that patient is in serious condition and advised them to take his sister to Ongole and he came to know thecondition and advised them to take his sister to Ongole and he came to know the same. Hence he requested to take proper action against the husband who tried tosame. Hence he requested to take proper action against the husband who tried to kill his sister with an axe and relatives of husband i.e., Kumari, Thirupatamma,kill his sister with an axe and relatives of husband i.e., Kumari, Thirupatamma,

Ramanamma, Thirumala Devi, mother-in-law Lakshmi Devi and brother-in-lawRamanamma, Thirumala Devi, mother-in-law Lakshmi Devi and brother-in-law

Dora Venkateswarlu.Dora Venkateswarlu.

Basing on the same L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PSBasing on the same L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS registered a case in Cr.No.4/2023 for the offences U/s.498A and 307 r/w 34 of IPCregistered a case in Cr.No.4/2023 for the offences U/s.498A and 307 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIRs to the concerned. Thereafter L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police,and issued FIRs to the concerned. Thereafter L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police,

C.S.Puram PS visited RIMS Hospital, Ongole along with complainant examinedC.S.Puram PS visited RIMS Hospital, Ongole along with complainant examined and recorded the statements of L.W.1-Chinakondu Lingaiah, L.W.2-Doraand recorded the statements of L.W.1-Chinakondu Lingaiah, L.W.2-Dora

Lakshmidevi, L.W.3-Chinakondu Venkata Ramana, L.W.4-Dora Narasimha,Lakshmidevi, L.W.3-Chinakondu Venkata Ramana, L.W.4-Dora Narasimha,

L.W.5-Chinakondu Thirumalamma. Later L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police,L.W.5-Chinakondu Thirumalamma. Later L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police,

C.S.Puram PS visited the GGH, OPPS, Ongole received hospital intimation memoC.S.Puram PS visited the GGH, OPPS, Ongole received hospital intimation memo along with injures statement. On 30.01.2023 L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police,along with injures statement. On 30.01.2023 L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police,

C.S.Puram PS secured L.W.11-Shaik Khaja Vali, L.W.12-Naru Chenchaiah visitedC.S.Puram PS secured L.W.11-Shaik Khaja Vali, L.W.12-Naru Chenchaiah visited the scene of offence i.e., house of L.W.8-Chinakondu Ramanaidu in Thunugoduthe scene of offence i.e., house of L.W.8-Chinakondu Ramanaidu in Thunugodu

Village conducted scene observation, seized Nulaka cot, blood stains earth andVillage conducted scene observation, seized Nulaka cot, blood stains earth and 3 control earth in the presence of mediators, drafted scene observation and seizurecontrol earth in the presence of mediators, drafted scene observation and seizure report and also drawn rough sketch and got photographed the same. Thereafterreport and also drawn rough sketch and got photographed the same. Thereafter

L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS examined and recorded theL.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS examined and recorded the statement of L.W.6-Chinakondu Ramanamma, L.W.7-Chinakondu Ganga Bhavani,statement of L.W.6-Chinakondu Ramanamma, L.W.7-Chinakondu Ganga Bhavani,

L.W.8-Chinakondu Ramanaidu, L.W.9-Chinakondu Venkateswarlu, L.W.10-GorlaL.W.8-Chinakondu Ramanaidu, L.W.9-Chinakondu Venkateswarlu, L.W.10-Gorla

Thimmaiah. On 03.02.2023 L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PSThimmaiah. On 03.02.2023 L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS received credible information about the movements of A.1 in own village.received credible information about the movements of A.1 in own village.

Immediately he secured L.W.11-Shaik Khaja Vali and L.W.13-Baireddy ThirupathiImmediately he secured L.W.11-Shaik Khaja Vali and L.W.13-Baireddy Thirupathi

Reddy left police station and reached Pogulla Village by 10:00 AM and found oneReddy left police station and reached Pogulla Village by 10:00 AM and found one person trying to skulk from their view then L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police,person trying to skulk from their view then L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police,

C.S.Puram PS caught hold of the said person after little chase. On enquiry of theC.S.Puram PS caught hold of the said person after little chase. On enquiry of the said person in the presence of mediators the said person revealed his identitysaid person in the presence of mediators the said person revealed his identity particulars as A.1 and informed about the history of marriage with L.W.2-Doraparticulars as A.1 and informed about the history of marriage with L.W.2-Dora

Lakshmidevi. As such L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS arrestedLakshmidevi. As such L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS arrested

A.1 after complying due procedure under mediator report duly attested byA.1 after complying due procedure under mediator report duly attested by mediators. Thereafter L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS broughtmediators. Thereafter L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS brought

A.1 to Pogulla Village by 01:00 PM who led them to hill way, A.1 hid the clothes atA.1 to Pogulla Village by 01:00 PM who led them to hill way, A.1 hid the clothes at the roots of dates tree and on the another side hid axe at the roots of date trees. Asthe roots of dates tree and on the another side hid axe at the roots of date trees. As such L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS seized blood stained clothessuch L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS seized blood stained clothes and axe in the presence of mediators, drafted mediator report No.2 duly attested byand axe in the presence of mediators, drafted mediator report No.2 duly attested by the mediators. Later A.1 led them to the scene of offence at 02:10 PM and shownthe mediators. Later A.1 led them to the scene of offence at 02:10 PM and shown the place where A.1 hacked L.W.12-Dora Lakshmidevi with axe then L.W.16-P.Anilthe place where A.1 hacked L.W.12-Dora Lakshmidevi with axe then L.W.16-P.Anil

Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS drafted mediator report No.3 duly attested byKumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS drafted mediator report No.3 duly attested by mediators. Thereafter A.1 was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate,mediators. Thereafter A.1 was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Kanigiri for judicial custody. On 09.02.2023 L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police,Kanigiri for judicial custody. On 09.02.2023 L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police,

C.S.Puram PS served Section 41(A) Cr.P.C notice to A.2 to A.7 with instructions toC.S.Puram PS served Section 41(A) Cr.P.C notice to A.2 to A.7 with instructions to be present before this court after receiving summons for further orders. Onbe present before this court after receiving summons for further orders. On 16.02.2023 L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS forwarded the16.02.2023 L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS forwarded the material objects to RFSL, Guntur to L.W.15-D.V.Ramanamma, Professor, Scientificmaterial objects to RFSL, Guntur to L.W.15-D.V.Ramanamma, Professor, Scientific

Officer, RFSL, Guntur for chemical analysis report. On 30.03.2023 L.W.16-P.AnilOfficer, RFSL, Guntur for chemical analysis report. On 30.03.2023 L.W.16-P.Anil

Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS received RFSL Report from Guntur along withKumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS received RFSL Report from Guntur along with return of property who opined that human blood is detected on items 1 to 3 butreturn of property who opined that human blood is detected on items 1 to 3 but their blood group could not be determined. On 10.04.2023 L.W.14-Dr.Syed Abdultheir blood group could not be determined. On 10.04.2023 L.W.14-Dr.Syed Abdul

Wajid, CAS, District Hospital, Markapur issued wound certificate of L.W.2-DoraWajid, CAS, District Hospital, Markapur issued wound certificate of L.W.2-Dora

Lakshmidevi opining that the injuries are simple in nature. After completion ofLakshmidevi opining that the injuries are simple in nature. After completion of investigation L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS filed charge sheetinvestigation L.W.16-P.Anil Kumar, SI of police, C.S.Puram PS filed charge sheet i.e., Section 307 and 498A IPC against A.1 and 498A r/w 34 of IPC against A.2 toi.e., Section 307 and 498A IPC against A.1 and 498A r/w 34 of IPC against A.2 to

A.7.A.7.

4

3.3.The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanigiri Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanigiri taken cognizance for the offences U/s.307 and 498A of IPC against Accused vide P.R.C.No.07/2023. After appearance of accused before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanigiri,Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanigiri, copies of case documents were furnished to them as per Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.As the offences U/sec.307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions, this case was committed by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Kanigiri and in turn the Honourable Principal District and Sessions Judge,Kanigiri

Prakasam at Ongole numbered the case as S.C.No.168/2023 and made over the same to this court for disposal in accordance with law.

5.On receipt of summons, A.1 to A.7 appeared before this court. After hearing on both sides, Charge U/s.498A and 307 of IPC were framed against A.1 and

U/s.498A IPC was framed against A.2 to A.7, read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution in order to prove its case in all examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 and M.O.1 to M.O.6. L.W.17

Dr. Spoorthy, Asst. Professor, Plastic Surgeon Department was added vide orders,

dated 05-02-2024 in Crl.M.P.No.34 of 2024 and she was examined as P.W.8. The

evidences of L.W.4-Dora Narasimha, L.W.5-Chinakondu Thirumalamma, L.W.6-

Chinakondu Ramanamma, L.W.9-Chinakondu Ramanaidu, L.W.10-Gorla

Thimmaiah, L.W.12-Naru Chenchaiah, L.W.15-D.V.Ramanamma were given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied and reported no defense evidence.

8.Now the Points for determination are:-

1. Whether the prosecution could prove that on or before 29.01.2023 A.1 to A.7 i.e., A.1 being husband and A.2 to A.7 being relatives of husband subjected P.W.2 to cruelty?

2.Whether the prosecution could prove that on 29.01.2023 at 12:00 noon in the varanda of the house of P.W.4, A.1 attempted to murder P.W.2 by hacking with an axe on the left ear and neck of P.W.2?

3.To what result?

9.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

10.P.W.1 in his evidence stated that he know the accused. A.1 is his brother-in- law i.e., husband of P.W.2. A.2 to A.7 are the sisters, wife and brother of A.1. P.W.2 is his younger sister. P.W.6 is my son, L.W.4-Dora Narasimha is his son-in-law. L.W.5- 5

Chinakondu Tirumalamma is his mother. L.W6-Chinakondu Ramanamma is his sister-in-law. P.W.3 is daughter of L.W.6. P.W.4 is his another younger brother. L.W.9- Chinakondu Venkateswarlu is his another younger brother. L.W10-Gorla Timmaiah is brother in courtesy. He know P.W.5, L.W.12-Naru Chenchaiah, P.W.9. Nearly 11 years back P.W.2 marriage was performed with A.1. For 8 year they lived happily. Thereafter small disputes arose between A.1 and P.W.2. He used to mediate and pacify A.1 and P.W.2. One year back on the eve of Sankranthi A.2 to A.5 quarreled with P.W.2 and beat her. As such his sister P.W.2 came to his parents house. After two days A.1 came to their parents house and quarreled demanding them to send back his sister Lakshmidevi for leading marital life. They demanded A.1 to bring village elders for sending his sister Lakshmidevi. As such A.1 returned from there. After two days they came to know that A.1 was roaming near their parents house by consuming liquor. But they did not contact A.1 and he went taking his buffaloes to near by hillock (Gutta) which is 100 meters away from his parents house. After some time he saw several people gathered near his parents house and also heard some quarrel. As such he went to his parents house and heard several people crying and saw his sister Lakshmidevi lying on cot and blood was coming out of his sister and spread on the floor. P.W.3 informed that A.1 hacked his sister Lakshmidevi with Axe on the left side above the ear and neck. The incident took place at 12.00 noon. His son L.W.3 Chinakondu Venkataramana and his son-in-law Dora Narasimha and my mother Chinakondu Tirumalamma called Ambulance and they shifted his sister Lakshmidevi in Ambulance to Hospital. He stayed back and went to C.S.Puram Police station and filed complaint. Thereafter he went to Government Hospital, Ongole as his sister was shifted to Ongole Government hospital for better treatment. Police examined him. On confrontation with the complaint he admitted the same. One Judge also came to Hospital. After some days A.1 got bail. Thereafter his sister Lakshmidevi and his mother went to Kanigiri for eye operation of his mother. When his sister Lakshmidevi and his mother were present at Kanigiri Bus stand A.1 came there and tried to stab his sister Lakshmidevi. A.1 has got intention to kill his sister Lakshmidevi. Another complaint was lodged with regard to said offence.

ii. P.W.2 in her evidence stated that she know the accused. A.1 is her husband. A.2 to A.7 are the sisters, wife and brother of A.1. P.W.1 is her elder brother. P.W.6 is son of P.W.1. L.W.4-Dora Narasimha is her elder sister’s son. L.W.5-Chinakondu Tirumalamma is her mother, L.W.6-Chinakondu Ramanamma is her sister-in-law. P.W.3 is daughter of L.W.6. P.W.4 is his another elder brother. L.W.9-Chinakondu Venkateswarlu is her another elder brother. L.W.10-Gorla Timmaiah is her elder brother in courtesy. She know P.W.5, L.W.12-Naru Chenchaiah, P.W.9. Nearly 12 years back her marriage was performed with A.1. Since the beginning of her marriage A.1 used to suspect her always and used to abuse and beat her. A.2 to A.7 used to support A.1 only. A.2 to A.7 used to falsely inform to A.1 that she was not present in the house 6 etc., when A.1 went for work. After returning in the evening A.1 used to beat her. She bore all those acts with a fond hope that A.1 will change. But there is no change in A.1. On the eve of last year Sankranthi Festival herself and A.1 went to Singasanipalli village for Tirunalla and at that time A.1 suspected her and beat her in Tirunalla. As such she went to her parents house. On the next day A.1 came to her parents house and threatened to kill her if she do not join with A.1 for marital life. She did not agree to join A.1 even if A.1 kill her as A.1 will always suspect her on the instigation of A.2 to A.7. She told A.1 to bring elders and then only she will join A.1. A.1 returned from there but A.1 roamed near by the village fields and trees for two days. On Sunday at 12.00 noon A.1 came with axe and hacked her behind her left ear threatening to kill her if she do not join A.1. After she fell down A.1 again hacked with Axe on her throat and two times on the left side of her neck portion. As such she was taken to Hospital in Markapur. On the advise of Doctor she was shifted to Ongole. Doctor treated her in Ongole. Police examined her. One Judge also came to her while she was in hospital and recorded her statement. After seven months when she took her mother to Kanigiri for her mother’s eye operation and while were present at Pamur Bus stand of Kanigiri A.1 came there and threatened to kill her and bet her if she do not join A.1 for marital life. A.1 also threatened that already there is a case and as such if A.1 kills her it will be another case only. She fell down and the near by people intervened and rescued her. Due to fear she again lodged a complaint against the A.1.

iii. P.W.3 in her evidence stated that she know the accused and they are her relatives. P.W.1 is her senior paternal uncle. P.W.2 is younger sister of her father and wife of A.1. P.W.6 is son of P.W.1. L.W.4-Dora Narasimha is her brother-in-law. L.W.5- Chinakondu Tirumalamma is her paternal grand mother, L.W.6-Chinakondu Ramanamma is her mother. P.W.4 is her junior paternal uncle, L.W.9-Chinakondu Venkateswarlu is her father, she know L.W.10-Gorla Timmaiah. She know L.W.12- Naru Chenchaiah. She do not know other witnesses. On 29.01.2023 i.e., Sunday at or about 12:00 noon herself and Venky were watching TV in the house of P.W.4 i.e., her junior paternal uncle and P.W.2 was sitting on the cot in the varanda of the said house. At that time A.1 came there and hacked P.W.2 with axe and as such P.W.2 cried loudly. On hearing the same they came out side. On seeing them A.1 threatened to kill them if they shout. Thereafter she went and brought P.W.1, her paternal grandmother and her mother to the scene of offence. P.W.2 sustained injury on the left side of P.W.2 neck and A.1 fled away from there. P.W.6 called Ambulance and shifted P.W.2 in Ambulance. Police examined her.

iv. P.W.4 in his evidence stated that he know the accused and they are his relatives. P.W.1 is his elder brother. P.W.2 is his younger sister and wife of A.1. P.W.6 is son of P.W.1. L.W.4-Dora Narasimha is son of his elder sister. L.W.5-Chinakondu Tirumalamma is his mother, L.W.6-Chinakondu Ramanamma is his sister-in-law.

7

P.W.3 is his another elder brother’s daughter i.e., daughter of L.W.9-Chinakondu Venkateswarlu. L.W.9-Chinakondu Venkateswarlu is his another elder brother, he know L.W.10-Gorla Timmaiah, P.W.5 and L.W.12-Naru Chenchaiah. He do not know other witnesses. On 07.01.2023 A.2 to A.7 beat P.W.2 at her house i.e., house of A.1. As such P.W.2 came to his house. After one week P.W.2 returned to A.1’s house. Again A.2 to A.7 beat P.W.2 and as such P.W.2 came back to his house. On 29.01.2023 he went to their agricultural land. At or about 12:00 noon A.1 came to his house in their absence and hacked P.W.2 with axe and at that time P.W.3 was present. P.W.2 sustained injuries on the left side of neck and throat. On hearing the galata he came to his house from his agricultural land. He found P.W.2 lying unconscious. P.W.6 called Ambulance, Ambulance came and they shifted P.W.2 to hospital in Markapur and from there to Ongole. He did not go to Ongole as his father-in-law was suffering with ill-health. Police examined him.

v. P.W.5 in his evidence stated that previously he worked as V.R.O, Boyamadugu of C.S.Puram Mandal from 2020 to September, 2023. On 30.01.2023 at or about 09:00 AM the Sub Inspector of Police, C.S.Puram called him on phone and informed him to come to Tunugodu village with regard to an attempt to murder case. On that he went to Tunugodu and reached there by 11:00 AM. When he met the Sub Inspector of Police L.W.12-Naru Chenchaiah Volunteer was also present there. The Sub Inspector of Police took them to the house of P.W.4. The Sub Inspector of Police conducted scene observation and seized blood stained navaru (cloth reel used to prepare base of cot), blood stained earth, got scribed the scene observation and seizure report and they signed on the same. On 03.02.2023 at or about 09:00 AM the Sub Inspector of Police called him on phone and informed that they have to go to Pagulla village with regard to accused in the attempt to murder case. At or about 10:00 AM the Sub Inspector of Police came to Sachivalayam and took him and P.W.9 and they proceeded in a Police Jeep and reached Pogulla by 10:30 AM. When the police Jeep reached the house of A.1 one person tried to abscond from there on seeing them. The Sub Inspector of Police and staff chased and caught hold of the said person. On enquiry A.1 revealed own identity particulars and voluntarily admitted to have committed this offence and informed that the crime weapon i.e., axe was kept at the edge of hill in Tunugodu village and agreed to show the place where the crime weapon was kept. On that they proceeded to Tunugodu village and accused (A.1) shown the place where A.1 kept the crime weapon, white colour full hand shirt, cut bunion and also shown the scene of offence i.e., the house of P.W.4. The Sub Inspector of Police got drafted the confession and arrest panchanama at Pagulla village and seizure panchanama at Tunugodu village and they signed on the same.

vi. P.W.6 in his evidence stated that P.W.1 is his father. P.W.2 is his father’s younger sister and wife of A.1, P.W.3 is his younger sister by courtesy, P.W.4 is his 8

Junior paternal uncle, L.W.4-Dora Narasimha is his father’s younger sister’s son, L.W.5-Chinakondu Tirumalamma is his paternal grand mother, L.W.6-Chinakondu Ramanamma is wife of his junior paternal uncle, L.W.9-Chinakondu Venkateswarlu is his Junior paternal uncle, L.W.10-Gorla Timmaiah is husband of his aunt. He do not know other witnesses. During the holidays of Sankranthi festival 2023 he came to his village. He saw P.W.2 in the house of his paternal grand mother. When he asked P.W.2 she informed that due to disputes with A.1 she came to the house of his paternal grand mother. A.1 used to visit P.W.2 now and then. On 29.01.2023 at 12:00 noon A.1 came and hacked P.W.2 with axe on the left side above the left ear and throat. On coming to know the same he went to the house of his paternal grand mother. When he went there P.W.3 informed him that A.1 hacked P.W.2 with axe above the left ear and throat. P.W.2 was lying on the cot unconsciously. As such he called 108 Ambulance. 108 Ambulance came from C.S.Puram and took P.W.2 to Markapur Hospital. Himself, L.W.5-Chinakondu Tirumalamma and L.W.4-Dora Narasimha accompanied P.W.2 in the Ambulance. The duty doctor after examining P.W.2 advised to take P.W.2 to RIMS Hospital, Ongole. As such they shifted P.W.2 to RIMS Hospital, Ongole and admitted there. The doctor treated P.W.2 and sutured to injuries. One the next day P.W.2 was shifted to ward. Police examined him.

vii. P.W.7 in his evidence stated that he is working as C.A.S at District Hospital, Markapur from 22.10.2022 to till date. On 29.01.2023 at 04:00 PM he examined P.W.2 and found the following injuries; 1) A bony deep laceration of size 5 x 1 x 3 cm on the left ear, & 2) no other external injuries. The above injuries are simple in nature and fresh. After examination he issued wound certificate. As there was severe bleeding he took bandage to the injuries and referred P.W.2 to RIMS hospital, Ongole for better treatment.

viii. P.W.8 in her evidence stated that she is working as Assistant Professor, Plastic Surgeon Department, RIMS Ongole since October, 2022. On 30.01.2023 at 01:29 AM the casualty of RIMS Hospital, Ongole referred P.W.2 to her. She examined P.W.2 and found avulsion injury to the left ear i.e., the left ear was torn in two parts. She performed surgery and kept P.W.2 as inpatient till 09.02.2023 as sutures were intact she discharged P.W.2 on 09.02.2023. She gave her opinion that the said injury in grievous injury.

ix. P.W.9 in his evidence stated that on 03.02.2023 the Sub Inspector of Police, C.S.Puram called him through phone at 09:30 AM and requested him to stay at Sachivalayam and told him that the murder occurred at Tunugodu village. Thereafter he went to Sachivalayam. Thereafter the Sub Inspector of Police, C.S.Puram came there and asked him and P.W.5 that they have to go to Pagulla village with regard to A.1 of the murder at Tunugodu. As such himself along with P.W.5, 3 constables and Sub Inspector of Police proceeded to Pagulla village in Police Jeep. When the police 9 jeep reached the house of A.1, A.1 was going away from there. The police caught hold of A.1 and on enquiry A.1 confessed to have committed this offence. Thereafter the Head constable drafted the confession panchanama and they signed on the same. The witness is confronted with confession panchananama and he admitted his signature. A.1 also stated that he kept the crime weapon I.e., Axe near a hillock (gutta) adjacent to Tunugodu village. On that they proceeded to the said hillock. A.1 went and brought one shirt, one banian and axe i.e., M.O.1 to M.O.3 from out of the trees. The Head constable scribed the seizure panchanama and they signed on the same. The witness is confronted with the seizure panchanama and he admitted his signature. A.1 told that he beat P.W.2 at the varanda (pandiri) of the house of P.W.4 in Tunugodu village. As such they went to the scene of offence. The Sub Inspector of Police observed the scene of offence and head constable scribed a report and they signed on the same. The witness is confronted with the identification of scene of offence panchanama and he admitted his signature.

x. P.W.10 in his evidence deposed in similar lines to that of his investigation.

b. The contention of the learned A.P.P is that, the evidence of P.W.1 to

P.W.10 clearly shows that A.1 is the husband of P.W.2, that A.1 to A.7 harassed and subjected P.W.2 to cruelty and after Sankranthi festival in the year 2023 picked up quarrel with P.W.2 and beat her and as such P.W.2 went to her mother house in

Thungodu Village, that A.1 went there picked up quarrel with P.W.2 demanding

P.W.2 to return for marital life, that on 27.01.2023 when A.1 was quarreling with

P.W.2 demanding P.W.2 to return for marital life, P.W.1 intervened and asked A.1 to bring elders and after talking with the elders only will send P.W.2, that as such on 29.01.2023 at 12:00 noon when P.W.2 was present at the house of P.W.4 &

L.W.5-Chinakondu Thirumalamma went there quarreled with P.W.2 and hacked on the left ear and neck of P.W.2 with a view to kill P.W.2. The evidence of doctor i.e., P.W.7 and P.W.8 proves the same. The evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.9 supports the seizure of M.O.3 axe. P.W.1 to P.W.4 supported the case of prosecution that A.1 committed the offence of attempting to murder. Hence prayed to convict the accused.

c. The contention of the accused is that, there is no marriage between A.1 and P.W.2. Nothing was elicited in the evidence on record against A.2 to A.7. A.2 to

A.7 are residing separately along with respective life partners. There is no possibility of subjecting P.W.2 to cruelty by A.2 to A.7. There are severe contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10. As per P.W.1 injuries on ear and neck of P.W.2. As per P.W.2 there are four injuries. But, as per wound certificate and ward opinion only one injury on P.W2. As per cross of P.W.1, M.O.3 axe was present in the scene of offence and said to have given to police on the same day.

10

The same is quite contra to the evidence of P.Ws.5, 9 & 10 who said that the same was seized by P.W.10 in the presence of P.Ws.5 & 9. The same creates a lot of doubt in the seizure of M.O.3. As per RFSL report the axe has got partially broken handle. But, as per P.W.10 investigating officer M.O.3 has no partially broken handle. RFSL report is of no use to the prosecution. The alleged confession statement of A.1 before police is not admissible. P.Ws.5 & 9 stated that the police are in uniform. P.W.10 stated that SI alone in uniform. In Ex.P.12 photos and CDs only SI is in uniform and others are in civil dress only. As per P.W.5 A.1 was in pant and P.W.10 stated that A.1 was in lungi. As such there is no corroboration.

There is one day delay in dispatching the FIR to the Court. All the witnesses are related and no independent witnesses were examined. The non examination of independent witnesses is fatal to the case of prosecution. As per P.W.1 the scene of offence is inside the house. As per rough sketch and evidence of P.W.3 the scene of offence is varanda of the house. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is quite contrary to their 161 Cr.P.C statements and doesn’t inspire the confidence. Except P.Ws.2 & 3 there are no other eye witnesses. As per cross of P.W.1, there are houses of third parties surrounding the scene of offence. But, none were examined. With M.O.3 the injury is not at all possible. If really M.O.3 axe was used there is no chance for injury alone to the ear portion. No date was mentioned in ward opinion issued by

P.W.8. P.W.10 only showed house of one Chinnakondu Peramma and was also not examined. P.W.10 didn’t take any signatures of mediators on M.Os.1 to 6. P.W.1 is political leader and belongs to YCP party and they belongs to TDP party. P.W.9 is

MPTC of Boyagudem Village. P.W.9 admitted P.W.1 belongs to YCP party. P.W.2 is having illicit relationships. A.1 when questioned the same P.W.2 went to her parents house and sustained injury from one of her paramour and by using the same implicated the accused for wrongful gain. Hence, prayed to acquit them.

11.Point No.1:-

As can be seen from the record with regard to the offence U/s.498A of IPC is concerned, it is the contention of the accused that there is no valid marriage between A.1 and P.W.2. The accused relying on the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2. P.W.1 who is elder brother of P.W.2 in his cross examination stated that A.1 is his relative even prior to marriage with his sister Lakshmidevi, that he performed marriage of

A.1 with one Jayamma, that his mother and mother of Jayamma are own sisters, that mother of Jayamma is affected with Polio and father of Jayamma is mentally disabled person, that Jayamma and A.1 got three children, that he used to look after the needs of Jayamma even after her marriage with A.1, that after birth of three children to Jayamma and A.1, his sister Lakshmidevi became acquainted 11 with A.1, that after A.1 became close to Lakshmidevi, Jayamma filed a complaint

U/s.498A of IPC against A.1 and parents of A.1 and subsequently the same was compromised, that during the pendency of said case father of A.1 died in an accident while coming for attending an adjournment, that A.1 and Jayamma did not take divorce through court, that he denied that as Jayamma returned and joined A.1 disputes arose between A.1 and Lakshmidevi i.e., his sister and added that A.1, Jayamma and his sister Lakshmidevi lived together jointly without any disputes. P.W.2 in cross stated that A.1 is married with Jayamma prior to her marriage and she know the same, that A.1 did not take divorce from Jayamma, that she denied that no marriage was performed between her and A.1, that she do not have any evidence with regard to marriage. Therefore admittedly the above cross shows that P.W.2 is the second wife of A.1 during subsistence of first marriage of A.1 with Jayamma. As per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Shivcharan Lal Verma And Anr. vs State Of Madhya

Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 online SC 715 to the effect that “inasmuch as the alleged marriage with Mohini during the subsistence of valid marriage with

Kalindi is null and void. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence under

Section 498A of the IPC”. Therefore in the case on hand also even as per P.W.1 and P.W.2 the marriage of P.W.2 was performed with A.1 during subsistence of first marriage of A.1 with Jayamma. In fact as per P.W.1 cross they lived together with Jayamma.

ii. The only contention raised by the prosecution against A.2 to A.7 is that, they beat P.W.2 and harassed P.W.2. We have to see whether the prosecutionWe have to see whether the prosecution proved that A.1 to A.7 harassed and beat P.W.2 for attracting any other offenceproved that A.1 to A.7 harassed and beat P.W.2 for attracting any other offence against them. As per Ex.P.1 complaint after Sankranthi festival disputes arose atagainst them. As per Ex.P.1 complaint after Sankranthi festival disputes arose at the house of his sister i.e., P.W.2 then his sister’s husband A.1, sister-in-laws i.e.,the house of his sister i.e., P.W.2 then his sister’s husband A.1, sister-in-laws i.e.,

A.2 to A.5, mother-in-law A.6 and brother-in-law A.7 all of them abused and beatA.2 to A.5, mother-in-law A.6 and brother-in-law A.7 all of them abused and beat his sister and as such his sister on 17.01.2023 came to his parents house i.e., hishis sister and as such his sister on 17.01.2023 came to his parents house i.e., his mother and younger brothers house. This is the only allegation mentioned inmother and younger brothers house. This is the only allegation mentioned in

Ex.P.1 complaint. P.W.1 in his evidence stated that one year back on the eve ofEx.P.1 complaint. P.W.1 in his evidence stated that one year back on the eve of

Sankranthi A.2 to A.5 quarreled with P.W.2 and beat her. This is the onlySankranthi A.2 to A.5 quarreled with P.W.2 and beat her. This is the only allegation made by P.W.1 but it is contra to the statement as already stated supraallegation made by P.W.1 but it is contra to the statement as already stated supra in Ex.P.1. The same is marked as Ex.D.1. On confrontation P.W.1 denied to havein Ex.P.1. The same is marked as Ex.D.1. On confrontation P.W.1 denied to have stated as in Ex.D.1 in Ex.P.1. As per Ex.D.1 the said incident occurred after thestated as in Ex.D.1 in Ex.P.1. As per Ex.D.1 the said incident occurred after the

Sankranthi festival. As per P.W.1 chief it was occurred on the eve of SankranthiSankranthi festival. As per P.W.1 chief it was occurred on the eve of Sankranthi festival. P.W.2 in her chief stated that from the beginning of her marriage A.1 usedfestival. P.W.2 in her chief stated that from the beginning of her marriage A.1 used to suspect her always and used to abuse and beat her, that A.1 to A.7 used toto suspect her always and used to abuse and beat her, that A.1 to A.7 used to support A.1 only, that A.2 to A.7 used to falsely inform A.1 that she was notsupport A.1 only, that A.2 to A.7 used to falsely inform A.1 that she was not 12 present in the house etc., when A.1 went for work, that after returning in thepresent in the house etc., when A.1 went for work, that after returning in the evening A.1 used to beat her, that she bore all those acts with a fond hope that A.1evening A.1 used to beat her, that she bore all those acts with a fond hope that A.1 will change, that there is no change in A.1, that on the eve of last year Sankranthiwill change, that there is no change in A.1, that on the eve of last year Sankranthi

Festival herself and A.1 went to Singasanipalli Village for Tirunalla and at thatFestival herself and A.1 went to Singasanipalli Village for Tirunalla and at that time A.1 suspected her and beat her in Tirunalla as such she went to her parentstime A.1 suspected her and beat her in Tirunalla as such she went to her parents house. No where P.W.2 stated A.2 to A.7 abused or beat her. She only stated thathouse. No where P.W.2 stated A.2 to A.7 abused or beat her. She only stated that

A.2 to A.7 used to instigate A.1 and on that instigation A.1 used to bear her. TheA.2 to A.7 used to instigate A.1 and on that instigation A.1 used to bear her. The same is contra to Ex.P.1 complaint and also prosecution case. P.W.2 further statedsame is contra to Ex.P.1 complaint and also prosecution case. P.W.2 further stated that she did not agree to join A.1 even if A.1 kill her as A.1 will always suspect herthat she did not agree to join A.1 even if A.1 kill her as A.1 will always suspect her on the instigation of A.2 to A.7. There is nothing brought on record to corroborateon the instigation of A.2 to A.7. There is nothing brought on record to corroborate with evidence of P.W.2. None of the witnesses supported the same. Admittedly A.2with evidence of P.W.2. None of the witnesses supported the same. Admittedly A.2 to A.7 are all married especially A.2 to A.5 are living separately with theirto A.7 are all married especially A.2 to A.5 are living separately with their respective families. If A.1 is in the habit of listening to others the fault lies on A.1respective families. If A.1 is in the habit of listening to others the fault lies on A.1 but not on the others. As such there is no other evidence also with regard to thebut not on the others. As such there is no other evidence also with regard to the acts of A.2 to A.7 is concerned. acts of A.2 to A.7 is concerned.

iii. With regard to A.1 is concerned, as already stated supra the offenceiii. With regard to A.1 is concerned, as already stated supra the offence

U/s.498A IPC cannot be attracted to the facts of this case. Since marriage betweenU/s.498A IPC cannot be attracted to the facts of this case. Since marriage between

A.1 and P.W.2 is null and void. Further, none of the neighbors or independentA.1 and P.W.2 is null and void. Further, none of the neighbors or independent witnesses of Pogulla Village where A.1 and P.W.2 lead their marital life werewitnesses of Pogulla Village where A.1 and P.W.2 lead their marital life were examined by the investigating agency to prove the allegations of harassment by A.1examined by the investigating agency to prove the allegations of harassment by A.1 to A.7. As per the prosecution case after the Sankranthi Festival the saidto A.7. As per the prosecution case after the Sankranthi Festival the said harassment i.e., beating by the accused took place and as such on 17.01.2017 P.W.2harassment i.e., beating by the accused took place and as such on 17.01.2017 P.W.2 along with children came to her parents house. But, as per P.Ws.1 & 2 on the evealong with children came to her parents house. But, as per P.Ws.1 & 2 on the eve of Sankranthi Festival the incident occurred. P.W.1 in his cross stated that theof Sankranthi Festival the incident occurred. P.W.1 in his cross stated that the disputes arose between A.1 and his sister Lakshmidevi as A.1 suspected his sisterdisputes arose between A.1 and his sister Lakshmidevi as A.1 suspected his sister

Lakshmidevi about illicit contacts, that either himself or his sister LakshmideviLakshmidevi about illicit contacts, that either himself or his sister Lakshmidevi did not file any complaint against A.2 to A.5 with regard to beating his sister ondid not file any complaint against A.2 to A.5 with regard to beating his sister on the eve of Sankranthi Festival. As per P.W.2 the quarrel took place between herthe eve of Sankranthi Festival. As per P.W.2 the quarrel took place between her and A.1 only at Singusanipalli Tirunalla on the eve of Sankranthi festival. P.W.1 inand A.1 only at Singusanipalli Tirunalla on the eve of Sankranthi festival. P.W.1 in cross stated that A.7 is working as Mason in Hyderabad and used to visit thecross stated that A.7 is working as Mason in Hyderabad and used to visit the

Village now and then, but, denied that A.7 is residing separately along withVillage now and then, but, denied that A.7 is residing separately along with mother i.e., A.6 and wife of A.7. P.W.2 in cross stated that A.7 has got separatemother i.e., A.6 and wife of A.7. P.W.2 in cross stated that A.7 has got separate house adjacent to their house. As such, there are contradictions in the evidence ofhouse adjacent to their house. As such, there are contradictions in the evidence of

P.Ws.1 & 2 with regard to harassment of P.W.2 by A.1 to A.7. P.Ws.1 & 2 with regard to harassment of P.W.2 by A.1 to A.7.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecutionUnder these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that on or before 29.01.2023 A.1 to A.7 i.e., A.1 being husband andfailed to prove that on or before 29.01.2023 A.1 to A.7 i.e., A.1 being husband and

A.2 to A.7 being relatives of husband subjected P.W.2 to cruelty.A.2 to A.7 being relatives of husband subjected P.W.2 to cruelty.

13

In view of the aforementioned discussion, the point No.1 is decided againstIn view of the aforementioned discussion, the point No.1 is decided against the prosecution.the prosecution.

12.12.Point No.2:- Point No.2:-

With regard to the offence U/s.307 of IPC is concerned, P.W.1 in his evidenceWith regard to the offence U/s.307 of IPC is concerned, P.W.1 in his evidence stated that after two days A.1 came to their parents house and quarreledstated that after two days A.1 came to their parents house and quarreled demanding them to send back his sister Lakshmidevi for leading marital life, thatdemanding them to send back his sister Lakshmidevi for leading marital life, that they demanded A.1 to bring village elders for sending his sister Lakshmidevi, thatthey demanded A.1 to bring village elders for sending his sister Lakshmidevi, that as such A.1 returned from there, that after two days they came to know that A.1as such A.1 returned from there, that after two days they came to know that A.1 was roaming near their parents house by consuming liquor, that they did notwas roaming near their parents house by consuming liquor, that they did not contact A.1 and he went taking his buffaloes to near by hillock (Gutta) which iscontact A.1 and he went taking his buffaloes to near by hillock (Gutta) which is 100 meters away from his parents house, that after some time he saw several100 meters away from his parents house, that after some time he saw several people gathered near his parents house and also heard some quarrel, that as suchpeople gathered near his parents house and also heard some quarrel, that as such he went to his parents house and heard several people crying and saw his sisterhe went to his parents house and heard several people crying and saw his sister

Lakshmidevi lying on cot and blood was coming out of his sister and spread on theLakshmidevi lying on cot and blood was coming out of his sister and spread on the floor. P.W.3 informed that A.1 hacked his sister Lakshmidevi with Axe on the leftfloor. P.W.3 informed that A.1 hacked his sister Lakshmidevi with Axe on the left side above the ear and neck, that the incident took place at 12.00 noon. side above the ear and neck, that the incident took place at 12.00 noon.

ii. P.W.2 in her evidence stated that after she came to her parents house,ii. P.W.2 in her evidence stated that after she came to her parents house, that on the next day A.1 came to her parents house and threatened to kill her ifthat on the next day A.1 came to her parents house and threatened to kill her if she do not join with A.1 for marital life, that she did not agree to join A.1 even ifshe do not join with A.1 for marital life, that she did not agree to join A.1 even if

A.1 kills her as A.1 will always suspect her on the instigation of A.2 to A.7, thatA.1 kills her as A.1 will always suspect her on the instigation of A.2 to A.7, that she told A.1 to bring elders and then only she will join A.1, that A.1 returned fromshe told A.1 to bring elders and then only she will join A.1, that A.1 returned from there but A.1 roamed near by the village fields and trees for two days, that onthere but A.1 roamed near by the village fields and trees for two days, that on

Sunday at 12.00 noon A.1 came with Axe and hacked her behind of her left earSunday at 12.00 noon A.1 came with Axe and hacked her behind of her left ear threatening to kill her if she do not join A.1, that after she fell down A.1 againthreatening to kill her if she do not join A.1, that after she fell down A.1 again hacked with axe on her throat and two times on the left side of her neck portion. hacked with axe on her throat and two times on the left side of her neck portion.

iii. P.W.3 in her evidence stated that on 29.01.2023 i.e., Sunday at or aboutiii. P.W.3 in her evidence stated that on 29.01.2023 i.e., Sunday at or about 12:00 noon while herself and Venky were watching TV in the house of P.W.4 i.e.,12:00 noon while herself and Venky were watching TV in the house of P.W.4 i.e., her junior paternal uncle and P.W.2 was sitting on the cot in the varanda of theher junior paternal uncle and P.W.2 was sitting on the cot in the varanda of the said house, that at that time A.1 came there and hacked P.W.2 with Axe and assaid house, that at that time A.1 came there and hacked P.W.2 with Axe and as such P.W.2 cried loudly, that on hearing the same they came out side, that onsuch P.W.2 cried loudly, that on hearing the same they came out side, that on seeing them A.1 threatened to kill them if they shout, that thereafter she went andseeing them A.1 threatened to kill them if they shout, that thereafter she went and brought P.W.1, her paternal grandmother and her mother to the scene of offence,brought P.W.1, her paternal grandmother and her mother to the scene of offence, that P.W.2 sustained injury on the left side of neck of P.W.2 and A.1 fled away fromthat P.W.2 sustained injury on the left side of neck of P.W.2 and A.1 fled away from there. P.W.4 is only hearsay evidence who said to have came to the house afterthere. P.W.4 is only hearsay evidence who said to have came to the house after hearing the galata and found P.W.2 lying unconscious P.W.4 stated that P.W.2hearing the galata and found P.W.2 lying unconscious P.W.4 stated that P.W.2 sustained injury left side of neck and throat.sustained injury left side of neck and throat.

14 iv. P.W.6 in his evidence stated that on coming to know the same he went toiv. P.W.6 in his evidence stated that on coming to know the same he went to the house of his paternal grand mother, that when he went there P.W.3 informedthe house of his paternal grand mother, that when he went there P.W.3 informed him that A.1 hacked P.W.2 with axe above the left ear and throat. Therefore P.W.6him that A.1 hacked P.W.2 with axe above the left ear and throat. Therefore P.W.6 also hearsay evidence. also hearsay evidence.

v. With regard to the offence U/s.307 of IPC is concerned, P.W.2 and P.W.3v. With regard to the offence U/s.307 of IPC is concerned, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are only eyewitnesses. As per P.W.2 A.1 hacked her 4 times but as per the evidenceare only eyewitnesses. As per P.W.2 A.1 hacked her 4 times but as per the evidence of P.W.7 and Ex.P.5 wound certificate and evidence of P.W.8 only one injury i.e., aof P.W.7 and Ex.P.5 wound certificate and evidence of P.W.8 only one injury i.e., a bone deep laceration of size 5x1x3 cm on the left ear and no other external injuries.bone deep laceration of size 5x1x3 cm on the left ear and no other external injuries.

As per P.W.8 and Ex.P.6 ward opinion certificate avulsion injury on the left ear i.e.,As per P.W.8 and Ex.P.6 ward opinion certificate avulsion injury on the left ear i.e., the left ear was torn in two parts, that the said injury is grievous in nature.the left ear was torn in two parts, that the said injury is grievous in nature.

Therefore as per P.W.7 who gave first aid and P.W.8 who treated and operated onTherefore as per P.W.7 who gave first aid and P.W.8 who treated and operated on the injury of P.W.2 only one injury i.e., to with regard to left ear is found.the injury of P.W.2 only one injury i.e., to with regard to left ear is found.

vi. P.Ws.1 to 4 & 6 correctly stated that the incident occurred at 12:00 noonvi. P.Ws.1 to 4 & 6 correctly stated that the incident occurred at 12:00 noon on 29-01-2023 at the house of P.W.4. P.W.2 in her cross stated that the disputeson 29-01-2023 at the house of P.W.4.

between her and A.1 is that A.1 is having suspicion that she got illicit contacts, that one Venkateswarlu is her ward volunteer, that she denied that the accused and village people caught her and Mandla Venkateswarlu red-handed in a Mango garden, she denied that the village elders took cell phone of said Mandla

Venkateswarlu at the time of mediation, she denied that in the said cell phone there are intimate photos of her and Mandla Venkateswarlu, that A.1 did not show her those photos, that on confrontation with photos and she admitted that the persons present in those photos is herself and Mandla Venkateswarlu but she denied them stating that she do not know how those photos were taken and they are not real. The accused did not produce the phone of Mandla Venkateswarlu inThe accused did not produce the phone of Mandla Venkateswarlu in which they said to have found the photos. The accused did not produce any recordwhich they said to have found the photos. The accused did not produce any record to conclusively show that P.W.2 is having illicit contact. None of the villagers whoto conclusively show that P.W.2 is having illicit contact. None of the villagers who said to have caught hold of P.W.2 and Mandla Venkateswarlu were examined bysaid to have caught hold of P.W.2 and Mandla Venkateswarlu were examined by the accused. Even assuming that P.W.2 is having illicit contact with anotherthe accused. Even assuming that P.W.2 is having illicit contact with another person A.1 is not entitled to hack P.W.2. person A.1 is not entitled to hack P.W.2.

vii. As per the prosecution case the incident occurred in the varandah of thevii. As per the prosecution case the incident occurred in the varandah of the house of P.W.4. As per P.W.1 and P.W.2 cross the incident took place inside thehouse of P.W.4. As per P.W.1 and P.W.2 cross the incident took place inside the house of P.W.4. It is necessary to point out here that, the varandah of the house ofhouse of P.W.4. It is necessary to point out here that, the varandah of the house of

P.W.4 also belongs to P.W.4. No suggestions were given to P.W.1 or P.W.2 toP.W.4 also belongs to P.W.4. No suggestions were given to P.W.1 or P.W.2 to specifically state the area of the house of P.W.4 where the incident occurred. If thespecifically state the area of the house of P.W.4 where the incident occurred. If the accused had put such question P.Ws.1 & 2 would have correctly given the place ofaccused had put such question P.Ws.1 & 2 would have correctly given the place of incident. The question itself appears to have misled the witnesses to give suchincident. The question itself appears to have misled the witnesses to give such answer. As already stated supra as per P.W.3 the incident occurred in the verandahanswer. As already stated supra as per P.W.3 the incident occurred in the verandah 15 of the house of P.W.4. At the time of incident, P.W.3 was said to be inside the houseof the house of P.W.4. At the time of incident, P.W.3 was said to be inside the house of P.W.4 watching Television along with Venky and on hearing cries of P.W.2 sheof P.W.4 watching Television along with Venky and on hearing cries of P.W.2 she came out side. It is true as per Ex.D.3 she denied to have stated before Police thatcame out side. It is true as per Ex.D.3 she denied to have stated before Police that

A.1 came to their house and quarreled with P.W.2. It is necessary to point out hereA.1 came to their house and quarreled with P.W.2. It is necessary to point out here that, P.W.4 is none other than the junior paternal uncle of P.W.3. As such, P.W.3that, P.W.4 is none other than the junior paternal uncle of P.W.3. As such, P.W.3 might have mistakenly stated before police that the same as their house. The housemight have mistakenly stated before police that the same as their house. The house of P.W.4 got a compound as per Ex.P.10 rough sketch. In side the compound theof P.W.4 got a compound as per Ex.P.10 rough sketch. In side the compound the varandah is located. Therefore P.W.1 and P.W.2 might have mistakenly stated thatvarandah is located. Therefore P.W.1 and P.W.2 might have mistakenly stated that the incident took place in the house of P.W.4. the incident took place in the house of P.W.4.

viii. As per P.W.1 the house of Dora Ramaswamy is located to the West ofviii. As per P.W.1 the house of Dora Ramaswamy is located to the West of the house of P.W.8 house of Chinakondu Peeramma is located to the East, thethe house of P.W.8 house of Chinakondu Peeramma is located to the East, the house of Dora Papaiah is located to the North, waste land is located to the South ofhouse of Dora Papaiah is located to the North, waste land is located to the South of the house of P.W.4. As per Ex.P.10 rough sketch the to the South of house of P.W.4the house of P.W.4. As per Ex.P.10 rough sketch the to the South of house of P.W.4 i.e., scene of offence the house of one Chinakondu Peramma is located, that to thei.e., scene of offence the house of one Chinakondu Peramma is located, that to the

North of the scene of offence there were two huts and no name was mentioned withNorth of the scene of offence there were two huts and no name was mentioned with regard to those huts and at one of the huts it was mentioned as Chinakondu. Asregard to those huts and at one of the huts it was mentioned as Chinakondu. As per the cross of P.W.10, investigating officer admitted that he did not examineper the cross of P.W.10, investigating officer admitted that he did

Chinakondu Peramma who is shown to have house towards South of the scene of offence, that Chinakondu Peramma was not present at that time as she went to her work in the agricultural land and the house was locked and as such he did not examine her, that he did not show any other houses near the scene of offence and added that there are no houses towards West and there was a shed towards North of the scene of offence but he did not mention the names of the house owners in

Ex.P10 rough sketch but he examined them i.e., P.W.4 and PW3. But P.W.4 is the owner of the house of scene of offence and P.W.3 is the daughter of brother of P.W.4,

P.Ws.1 & 2. There is no dispute that P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6 are all belongs to one family.

ix. With regard to seizure of M.O.3 axe is concerned it is true P.W.1 in cross stated that the axe was present at the scene of offence, that he gave the said axe to the police on the same day. Infact, as per P.W.10 investigating officer he visited the scene of offence on 30-01-2023 and as per Ex.P.2 scene observation and seizure report he didn’t seize any axe from the scene of offence. As per P.W.5 scene observation and seizure mediator only M.O.1 navaru cot, M.O.2 blood stained earth was seized from the scene of offence. As per P.Ws.5, 9 & 10 after arrest of A.1, A.1 informed about the place where hid his blood stained clothes and M.O.3 axe, as such they proceeded to Thungodu Village and A.1 took them at the Date trees near the edge of the hill in Tunugodu Village and shown M.Os.3 to 5 i.e., axe, white 16 color full shirt and bunion. As per Ex.P.11 RFSL report the axe has got a partially broken handle. But, as per P.W.10 M.O.3 is not having any partially broken wooden handle. It is necessary to point out here that, a perusal of M.O.3 handle shows that there are fractures in the wooden handle of M.O.3. It appears P.W.10 may have thought that partially broken Ex.M.O.3 handle means missing of some part of the handle. A perusal of M.O.3 shows that the entire wooden handle is intact and there are some fractures in the middle of the handle. As such, in the RFSL report it is mentioned as partially broken handle.

x. P.W.5 in cross stated that, A.1 was wearing lungi and again stated that

A.1 was wearing pant as on the date of his arrest. But, as per P.W.10 and Ex.P.12

A.1 was wearing lungi as on the date of his arrest and except P.W.10 the others are in civil dresses. P.W.9 in his cross stated that he is MPTC of Boyamadugu Village and he was elected on behalf of YCP Party and P.W.1 belongs to YCP party. But, accused belongs to Pogulla Village and whereas P.W.9 belongs to Boyamadugu

Village. A perusal of M.O.3 appears to be similar to the axe shown in Ex.P.12 photos. The cross of P.Ws.1, 5, 9 & 10 especially the cross of P.W.1 creates a lot of doubt in the seizure of M.O.3 axe as alleged by the prosecution.

xi. However, P.Ws.2 & 3 i.e., victim and eye witness in their evidence categorically stated that A.1 hacked P.W.2 with axe and on hearing the cries of

P.W.2, P.W.3 came out of the house and saw A.1 with axe who threatened to kill her. P.W.3 is also not witnessed A.1 hacking P.W.2 with axe. On hearing the cries of P.W.2, P.W.3 and Venky came out of the house and saw A.1. As already discussed supra the the left ear of P.W.2 was cut into two halves as per P.W.8 evidence. There are no other external injuries as per P.W.7 & P.W.8. The accused also not disputing the injury, but, claiming that the same was caused by the persons who has illicit contact with P.W.2. Accused and P.Ws.1 to 4 & 6 family related to each other even prior to the marriage of P.W.2 with A.1. There are no other disputes between the families of accused and P.Ws.1 to 4 & 6. If really P.W.2 sustained injury in the hands of one of her paramours then why P.W.3 will depose false about the presence of A.1. Further, even as per the case of accused A.1 is suspecting and said to have red-handedly caught hold of P.W.2 and Mandla Venkateswarlu in a Mango Garden.

None of the villagers who caught hold of P.W.2 and said Venkateswarlu were examined. If really P.W.2 is having illicit contact with another person and caught red handed, the accused would not have kept quite and would have certainly taken steps or at least got mediated with the family of P.W.2. No such suggestions were given to P.W.1.

17 xii. With regard to seizure of M.O.3 axe is concerned it is true P.W.1 in cross stated that the axe was present at the scene of offence, that he gave the said axe to the police on the same day. In fact, as per P.W.10 investigating officer he visited the scene of offence on 30-01-2023 and as per Ex.P-2 scene observation and seizure report he didn’t seize any axe from the scene of offence. As per P.W.5 scene observation and seizure mediator only M.O.1 navaru cot, M.O.2 blood stained earth was seized from the scene of offence. As per P.Ws.5, 9 & 10 after arrest of A.1, A.1 informed about the place where hid his blood stained clothes and M.O.3 axe, as such they proceeded to Thungodu Village and A.1 took them at the Date trees near the edge of the hill in Tunugodu Village and shown M.Os.3 to 5 i.e., axe, white color full shirt and bunion. As per Ex.P.11 RFSL report the axe has got a partially broken handle. But, as per P.W.10 M.O.3 is not having any partially broken wooden handle. It is necessary to point out here that, a perusal of M.O.3 handle shows that there are fractures in the wooden handle of M.O.3. It appears P.W.10 may have thought that partially broken Ex.M.O.3 handle means missing of some part of the handle. A perusal of M.O.3 shows that the entire wooden handle is intact and there are some fractures in the middle of the handle. As such, in the RFSL report it is mentioned as partially broken handle.

xiii. P.W.5 in cross stated that, A.1 was wearing lungi and again stated that

A.1 was wearing pant as on the date of his arrest. But, as per P.W.10 and Ex.P.12

A.1 was wearing lungi as on the date of his arrest and except P.W.10 the others are in civil dresses. P.W.9 in his cross stated that he is MPTC of Boyamadugu Village and he was elected on behalf of YCP Party and P.W.1 belongs to YCP party. But, accused belongs to Pogulla Village and whereas P.W.9 belongs to Boyamadugu

Village. A perusal of M.O.3 appears to be similar to the axe shown in Ex.P.12 photos. The cross of P.Ws.1, 5, 9 & 10 especially the cross of P.W.1 creates a lot of doubt in the seizure of M.O.3 axe as alleged by the prosecution.

xiv. However, P.Ws.2 & 3 i.e., victim and eye witness in their evidence categorically stated that A.1 hacked P.W.2 with axe and on hearing the cries of

P.W.2, P.W.3 came out of the house and saw A.1 with axe who threatened to kill her. P.W.3 is also not witnessed A.1 hacking P.W.2 with axe. On hearing the cries of P.W.2, P.W.3 and Venky came out of the house and saw A.1. As already discussed supra the the left ear of P.W.2 was cut into two halves as per P.W.8 evidence. There are no other external injuries as per P.W.7 & P.W.8. The accused also not disputing the injury, but, claiming that the same was caused by the persons who has illicit contact with P.W.2. Accused and P.Ws.1 to 4 & 6 family related to each other even prior to the marriage of P.W.2 with A.1. There are no other disputes between the 18 families of accused and P.Ws.1 to 4 & 6. If really P.W.2 sustained injury in the hands of one of her paramours then why P.W.3 will depose false about the presence of A.1. Further, even as per the case of accused A.1 is suspecting and said to have red-handedly caught hold of P.W.2 and Mandla Venkateswarlu in a Mango Garden.

None of the villagers who caught hold of P.W.2 and said Venkateswarlu were examined. If really P.W.2 is having illicit contact with another person and caught red handed, the accused would not have kept quite and would have certainly taken steps or atleast got mediated with the family of P.W.2. No such suggestions were given to P.W.1.

xv. With regard to intention of A.1 to kill P.W.2 is concerned, even as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 after P.W.2 came to their parents house, A.1 came to them and demanded to sent back P.W.2 for leading marital life, that further, if really A.1 has got intention to kill P.W.2 he would not have stopped by hacking on the ear only. Infact, as per P.W.2 cross A.1 hacked her four times. Which is not at all correct in view of the evidence of P.Ws.7 & 8. Further as per the prosecution case itself A.1 came to the village of P.W.1 and quarreled with them for sending P.W.2 to him for leading marital life. If really A.1 has got intention to kill P.W.2 then he would not have demanded them to send P.W.2 to lead marital life. The injury to

P.W.2 is admitted. If really P.Ws.1 to 4 wanted to put a false case they would have got registered a case under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code when P.W.2 came to their house. There is no need for getting injury that too cutting of ear into two portions. Irrespective of proving the seizure of M.O.3 and M.O.3 is the crime weapon used for commission of offence by A.1, the evidence of P.Ws.2 & 3 proves that A.1 hacked P.W.2 with axe resulting injury i.e., avulsion of left ear. Admittedly axe is a dangerous weapon.

xvi. With regard discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.7 & 8 in the nature of injury is concerned, as per P.W.7 who gave first aid only he mentioned the same as simple injury and as per P.W.8 the injury was mentioned as grievous in nature.

Now we have to see whether the said injury is grievous injury or not. Section 320 of

Indian Penal Code defines Grievous injury i.e.,

Grievous hurt.— The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:— (First)— Emasculation.

(Secondly)— Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.

(Thirdly)— Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, (Fourthly)— Privation of any member or joint.

(Fifthly)— Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.

19 (Sixthly)— Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.

(Seventhly)— Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.

(Eighthly)— Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

xvii. Admittedly in the case on hand as per the evidence of P.W.8 the left ear was cut into two halves and there is no privation of member i.e., ear is a member being one of the organs of the body. As such the injury in the case on hand doesn’t fall under any of the categories mentioned under Section 320 of Indian Penal Code.

Therefore, the same has to be treated as simple injury. As per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India made in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.

Imrat and another reported in 2008 (11) SCC 523 to the effect that, “To justify a conviction under this Section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The Section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this Section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.” In the case on hand the above discussion proves that the prosecution failed to prove such intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section.

xviii. The accused relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh made in Korra Govardhan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh made in 2013 (1) ALD (Crl) 209 (AP) to the effect that when the prosecution fails to prove motive and there is discrepancy in the evidence of witnesses with regard to scene of offence, motive, recovery of wooden pestle, weapon of offence at the instance of accused fails the case of the prosecution is concerned, as already discussed supra there is no discrepancy in the evidence of witnesses with regard to scene of offence i.e., house of P.W.4. In that case on hand the prosecution case is that the accused 20 being husband of the deceased suspected fidelity of deceased and as such killed her. In the case on hand eventhough A.1 said to have suspected the fidelity as per the prosecution case he demanded P.W.2 to return to marital life and when P.W.2 didn’t agree for the same A1 attempted murder of P.W.2. As already stated supra if really A1 wanted to Kill P.W.2 why A.1 would demand P.W.2 to return for leading marital life and he would have certainly did some more severe act rather than hacking the left ear of P.W.2. Eventhough, there are discrepancies with regard to harassment by the accused against P.W.2 in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 & 6, there is no discrepancy with regard to hacking on the left ear of P.W.2 with axe. There are some exaggerations i.e., hacking four times on neck etc., As already discussed supra even assuming that recovery of M.O.3 as alleged by the prosecution is not proved, the evidence of P.Ws.2 & 3 supports that A.1 hacked P.W.2 with axe. There is nothing brought on record by the accused to show that P.W.2 would implicate A.1 falsely by getting herself injured. There is no cause or reason for P.W.3 to support the same. Eventhough, the prosecution failed to prove A.1 intention to kill P.W.2, but, proved that A.1 hacked P.W.2 with axe. As such the said decision is of not much useful to the prosecution.

In view of the aforementioned discussion, it clearly appears that the prosecution failed to prove the intention of A.1 to kill P.W.2. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that on 29.01.2023 at 12:00 noon in the varanda of the house of P.W.4, A.1 attempted to murder P.W.2 by hacking with an axe on the left ear and neck of P.W.2, but, proved that on 29.01.2023 at 12:00 noon in the varanda of the house of P.W.4, A.1 caused simple injury by hacking on the ear of P.W.2 with axe falling under Section 324 of

IPC.

In view of the aforementioned discussion, this point is decided accordingly.

13.13.Point No.3: Point No.3:

In view of the findings on point No.1 against the prosecution and point No.2In view of the findings on point No.1 against the prosecution and point No.2 to the extent of the offence U/s.324 of Indian Penal Code this point is also decidedto the extent of the offence U/s.324 of Indian Penal Code this point is also decided accordingly.accordingly.

In the result, A.2 to A.7 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.498A of IPCIn the result, A.2 to A.7 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.498A of IPC and they are acquitted U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.498A of IPC and A.1and they are acquitted U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.498A of IPC and A.1 is found not guilty for the offences U/s.307 & 498-A of Indian Penal Code and he isis found not guilty for the offences U/s.307 & 498-A of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C for the offences U/s.498-A of IPC and Sec.307 of IPC,acquitted U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C for the offences U/s.498-A of IPC and Sec.307 of IPC, but, found guilty for the offence U/s.324 of Indian Penal Code and convictedbut, found guilty for the offence U/s.324 of Indian Penal Code and convicted

U/s.222(1) r/w. 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.324 of IPC. The bail bonds of A.2U/s.222(1) r/w. 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.324 of IPC. The bail bonds of A.2 to A.7 shall stands discharged after six months. M.O.1 {Piece of navar cot}, to A.7 shall stands discharged after six months. M.O.1 {Piece of navar cot}, M.O.2 21 {Blood stained earth}, M.O.3 {Axe}, M.O.4 {White colour full hands shirt}, M.O.5 {Banion}, M.O.6 {Control earth} M.O.6 {Control earth} shall be destroyed after appeal time. shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Dictated to the shorthand writer of this court, transcribed by him, correctedDictated to the shorthand writer of this court, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 15thand pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th day of April, 2024. day of April, 2024.

Sd/- N. Vijaya Babu

Assistant Sessions Judge, Assistant Sessions Judge, Kandukur Kandukur

Accused No.1 is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence. AccusedAccused No.1 is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence. Accused No.1 submits that he is having five children and there is no one to look after them asNo.1 submits that he is having five children and there is no one to look after them as he is only breadwinner in the family if he is imprisoned his family will be put tohe is only breadwinner in the family if he is imprisoned his family will be put to irreparable loss and pleaded mercy. P.W.2 is said to be second wife of A.1 during theirreparable loss and pleaded mercy. P.W.2 is said to be second wife of A.1 during the subsistence of first marriage, that A.1 got suspicion over P.W.2 and disputes arosesubsistence of first marriage, that A.1 got suspicion over P.W.2 and disputes arose between them, that P.W.2 went to her parents house, that A.1 went there andbetween them, that P.W.2 went to her parents house, that A.1 went there and quarreled with P.W.2 and in that quarrel the incident took place. Thereafter also A.1quarreled with P.W.2 and in that quarrel the incident took place. Thereafter also A.1 said to have threatened P.W.2 and another case was also registered. P.W.2 sustainedsaid to have threatened P.W.2 and another case was also registered. P.W.2 sustained avulsion injury to her ear i.e., her ear was cut into two pieces with an axe. Previouslyavulsion injury to her ear i.e., her ear was cut into two pieces with an axe. Previously the first wife of A.1 lodged a criminal complaint U/s.498-A of IPC and subsequently thethe first wife of A.1 lodged a criminal complaint U/s.498-A of IPC and subsequently the same was compromised. These all shows that A.1 can’t be leniently left withoutsame was compromised. These all shows that A.1 can’t be leniently left without punishment. Considering the circumstances of the offence, this court is of the opinionpunishment. Considering the circumstances of the offence, this court is of the opinion that 1 ½ years of Simple Imprisonment for the offence U/s.324 of IPC will serve thethat 1 ½ years of Simple Imprisonment for the offence U/s.324 of IPC will serve the purpose. Accordingly A.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period ofpurpose. Accordingly A.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 ½ years for the offence U/s.324 of IPC. 1 ½ years for the offence U/s.324 of IPC. The remand period, if any, undergone by the accused shall be set off U/s.428 ofThe remand period, if any, undergone by the accused shall be set off U/s.428 of Cr.P.C.Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the shorthand writer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronouncedDictated to the shorthand writer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, this the 15thby me in open court, this the 15th day of April, 2024. day of April, 2024.

Sd/- N.Vijaya Babu

Assistant Sessions Judge, Assistant Sessions Judge, Kandukur

Appendix of Evidence Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Prosecution For Defense For Defense P.W.1/Chinakondu Lingaiah.P.W.1/Chinakondu Lingaiah.None.None. P.W.2/Dora Lakshmidevi.P.W.2/Dora Lakshmidevi. P.W.3/Chinakondu Ganga Bhavani.P.W.3/Chinakondu Ganga Bhavani. P.W.4/Chinakondu Ramanaidu.P.W.4/Chinakondu Ramanaidu. P.W.5/Shaik Khajvali.P.W.5/Shaik Khajvali. P.W.6/Chinakondu Venkata Ramana.P.W.6/Chinakondu Venkata Ramana. P.W.7/Dr.Sayyad Abdul Wajid.P.W.7/Dr.Sayyad Abdul Wajid. P.W.8/Dr.Spoorthy.P.W.8/Dr.Spoorthy. P.W.9/Baireddy Tirupathireddy.P.W.9/Baireddy Tirupathireddy. P.W.10/P.Anil Kumar.P.W.10/P.Anil Kumar.

22

Documents Marked Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1/Complaint. Ex.P.1/Complaint. Ex.P.2/Scene of offence and seizure panchanama.Ex.P.2/Scene of offence and seizure panchanama. Ex.P.3/Portion of confession and arrest panchanama.Ex.P.3/Portion of confession and arrest panchanama. Ex.P.4/Seizure panchanama.Ex.P.4/Seizure panchanama. Ex.P.5/Wound Certificate. Ex.P.5/Wound Certificate. Ex.P.6/Opinion Certificate.Ex.P.6/Opinion Certificate. Ex.P.7/Scene of offence panchanamaEx.P.7/Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.8/F.I.R.,Ex.P.8/F.I.R., Ex.P.9/Hospital Intimation.Ex.P.9/Hospital Intimation. Ex.P.10/Rough Sketch.Ex.P.10/Rough Sketch. Ex.P.11/RFSL report. Ex.P.11/RFSL report. Ex.P.12/Photos and CD. Ex.P.12/Photos and CD. For Defense: For Defense:

Ex.D.1/Portion of Ex.P.1 complaint. Ex.D.2/Some portion as in Ex.D.1 in 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.D.3/Part of 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Material objects Marked

M.O.1/Piece of navar cot. M.O.2/Blood stained earth. M.O.3/Axe. M.O.4/White colour full hands shirt. M.O.5/Banion M.O.6/Control earth.

ILD/- N.V.B., A.S.J., Kandukur.

True copy

Asst. Sessions Judge,

Kandukur

23

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT KANDUKUR IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT KANDUKUR

Present: Sri N.Vijaya Babu,Present: Sri N.Vijaya Babu, Assistant Sessions Judge, KandukurAssistant Sessions Judge, Kandukur

Monday, the 15thMonday, the 15th day of April, 2024 day of April, 2024

SESSIONS CASE No.168/2023

(P.R.C.No.7/2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri in Cr.No.4/2023 of C.S. Puram Police Station)

1. Name of the complainant:Sub Inspector of Police, C.S.Puram P.S.,

2. Name of the Accused``:

1. Dora Thimmaiah, S/o. Chinna Venkataiah, aged 40 years, Cook.

2. Gorla Kumari, W/o. Ramanaiah, aged 37 years, Cultivation.

3. Chinakondu Thirupatamma, W/o. Alluraiah, aged 43 years, Cultivation.

4. Chinakondu Ramanamma, W/o. Chinna Alluraiah, age 31 years, Cultivation.

5. Chinakondu Thirumala Devi, W/o. Brahma Naidu, aged 28 years, Cultivation.

6. Dora Lakshmi Devi @ Lakshmamma, W/o. China Venkataiah, aged 65 years, Cultivation.

7. Dora Venkateswarlu, S/o. China Venkataiah, age 34 years, Mason. All are Yakara by caste, Pogulla Village, B.V.Peta Mandal.All are Yakara by caste, Pogulla Village, B.V.Peta Mandal.

3. Date of occurrence : 29.01.2023

4. Date of complaint :29.01.2023

5.Date of Committal:21.08.2023

6.Date of appearance of accused:11.12.2023

7. Date of commencement of trial :23.01.2024

8. Date of close of trial:05.03.2024

9.Date of sentence of order:15.04.2024 In the result, A.2 to A.7 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.498A of IPCIn the result, A.2 to A.7 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.498A of IPC and they are acquitted U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.498A of IPC and A.1and they are acquitted U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.498A of IPC and A.1 is found not guilty for the offences U/s.307 & 498-A of Indian Penal Code and he isis found not guilty for the offences U/s.307 & 498-A of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C for the offences U/s.498-A of IPC and Sec.307 of IPC,acquitted U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C for the offences U/s.498-A of IPC and Sec.307 of IPC, but, found guilty for the offence U/s.324 of Indian Penal Code and convictedbut, found guilty for the offence U/s.324 of Indian Penal Code and convicted U/s.222(1) r/w. 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.324 of IPC. The bail bonds of A.2U/s.222(1) r/w. 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.324 of IPC. The bail bonds of A.2 to A.7 shall stands discharged after six months. M.O.1 {Piece of navar cot}, M.O.2to A.7 shall stands discharged after six months. M.O.1 {Piece of navar cot}, M.O.2 {Blood stained earth}, M.O.3 {Axe}, M.O.4 {White colour full hands shirt}, M.O.5{Blood stained earth}, M.O.3 {Axe}, M.O.4 {White colour full hands shirt}, M.O.5 {Banion}, M.O.6 {Control earth} shall be destroyed after appeal time. {Banion}, M.O.6 {Control earth} shall be destroyed after appeal time. Accused No.1 is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence. AccusedAccused No.1 is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence. Accused No.1 submits that he is having five children and there is no one to look after them asNo.1 submits that he is having five children and there is no one to look after them as he is only breadwinner in the family if he is imprisoned his family will be put tohe is only breadwinner in the family if he is imprisoned his family will be put to irreparable loss and pleaded mercy. P.W.2 is said to be second wife of A.1 during theirreparable loss and pleaded mercy. P.W.2 is said to be second wife of A.1 during the subsistence of first marriage, that A.1 got suspicion over P.W.2 and disputes arosesubsistence of first marriage, that A.1 got suspicion over P.W.2 and disputes arose between them, that P.W.2 went to her parents house, that A.1 went there andbetween them, that P.W.2 went to her parents house, that A.1 went there and quarreled with P.W.2 and in that quarrel the incident took place. Thereafter also A.1quarreled with P.W.2 and in that quarrel the incident took place. Thereafter also A.1 said to have threatened P.W.2 and another case was also registered. P.W.2 sustainedsaid to have threatened P.W.2 and another case was also registered. P.W.2 sustained avulsion injury to her ear i.e., her ear was cut into two pieces with an axe. Previouslyavulsion injury to her ear i.e., her ear was cut into two pieces with an axe. Previously the first wife of A.1 lodged a criminal complaint U/s.498-A of IPC and subsequently thethe first wife of A.1 lodged a criminal complaint U/s.498-A of IPC and subsequently the same was compromised. These all shows that A.1 can’t be leniently left withoutsame was compromised. These all shows that A.1 can’t be leniently left without punishment. Considering the circumstances of the offence, this court is of the opinionpunishment. Considering the circumstances of the offence, this court is of the opinion that 1 ½ years of Simple Imprisonment for the offence U/s.324 of IPC will serve thethat 1 ½ years of Simple Imprisonment for the offence U/s.324 of IPC will serve the purpose. Accordingly A.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period ofpurpose. Accordingly A.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 ½ years for the offence U/s.324 of IPC. 1 ½ years for the offence U/s.324 of IPC.

The remand period, if any, undergone by the accused shall be set off U/s.428 ofThe remand period, if any, undergone by the accused shall be set off U/s.428 of Cr.P.C.,Cr.P.C.,

N.B.: The accused is released on bail as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.109/2024 N.B.: The accused is released on bail as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.109/2024 Dt.15.04.24.Dt.15.04.24.

Explanation f or the delay : This case record was received in this Court on 28.08.2023 from the Honourable District Court, Ongole in Dis.No.6073 dated 14.11.2023 and summons were issued to the Accused. On 28.12.2023 on production of A.1 from district jail, Ongole and A.2 to A.7 appeared before this Court and examined under section 228 Cr.P.C., charge U/s.307 & 498A IPC against A.1 and 498A IPCU/s.307 & 498A IPC against A.1 and 498A IPC against A.2 to A.7 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for whichagainst A.2 to A.7 they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and posted for trial. In between 23.01.2024 and 05.03.2024 P.W.1 to P.W.10 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 and M.O.1 to 6 were marked and prosecution evidence was closed. On 11.03.2024 accused were examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C and they denied incriminating evidence against them and reported no defense evidence. On 01.04.2024 heard arguments. On 15.04.2024. Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- N.Vijaya Babu

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KANDUKUR

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Copy to: The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kanigiri. The Superintendent of Police, Nellore. The Assistant Public Prosecutor, Kandukur.

// true copy //

Asst. Sessions Judge, Kandukur

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KANDUKUR IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KANDUKUR

Present: Sri N.Vijaya Babu,Present: Sri N.Vijaya Babu,

Senior Civil Judge, KandukurSenior Civil Judge, Kandukur

Friday, the 12thFriday, the 12th day of April, 2024 day of April, 2024

Insolvency Petition No.9/2016 Insolvency Petition No.9/2016

1. Darla Malakondaiah, S/o. Malyadri, Hindu, aged 43 years,1.Darla Malakondaiah, S/o. Malyadri, Hindu, aged 43 years, Contractor, Sainagar Colony, Kandukur Town and Municipality,Contractor, Sainagar Colony, Kandukur Town and Municipality, Prakasam District.Prakasam District.

2. Guntaka Sriramulu Reddy, S/o. Lakshmi Reddy, Hindu, aged 652.Guntaka Sriramulu Reddy, S/o. Lakshmi Reddy, Hindu, aged 65 years, Cultivation, Ramaswamypalli Village, Atmakuru Mandal,years, Cultivation, Ramaswamypalli Village, Atmakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.SPSR Nellore District.

….. Petitioners….. Petitioners

V/sV/s

1. Baireddy China Nagireddy, S/o. Pullareddy {died}1.Baireddy China Nagireddy, S/o. Pullareddy {died}

2. Pilli Vengamma, W/o. China Nagireddy, D/o. Baireddy China2.Pilli Vengamma, W/o. China Nagireddy, D/o. Baireddy China Nagireddy, Hindu, aged 60 years, Housewife, VaggampalleNagireddy, Hindu, aged 60 years, Housewife, Vaggampalle Village, Pamur Mandal, Prakasam District.Village, Pamur Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Official Receiver, Ongole, Prakasam District.3.Official Receiver, Ongole, Prakasam District.

4. Byreddy Vengal Reddy, S/o. Late Chinia Nagireddy, aged 55 years,4.Byreddy Vengal Reddy, S/o. Late Chinia Nagireddy, aged 55 years, Hindu, Teacher, Pamur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.Hindu, Teacher, Pamur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. {Respondent No.4 was impleaded as L.R of respondent No.1 as per{Respondent No.4 was impleaded as L.R of respondent No.1 as per orders in I.A.No.55/2016 dated 21.06.2016}orders in I.A.No.55/2016 dated 21.06.2016}

….. Respondents….. Respondents

This petition is coming on 07.03.2024 before me for final hearing in theThis petition is coming on 07.03.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.V.Lakshmi Narayanapresence of Sri K.V.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate for the petitioners and of, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri Sri Ch. Hari Krishna, Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2 and ofCh. Hari Krishna, Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2 and of Sri V.Sridhar Sri V.Sridhar Naidu, Advocate for respondent No.4 andNaidu, Advocate for respondent No.4 and O.R for respondent No.3; and on carefulO.R for respondent No.3; and on careful perusal of material available on record and on hearing both the side and havingperusal of material available on record and on hearing both the side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

// O R D E R // // O R D E R //

This is an Insolvency Petition filed by the petitioner U/s.9 of ProvincialThis is an Insolvency Petition filed by the petitioner U/s.9 of Provincial

Insolvency Act seeking adjudication of the respondent No.1 as an insolvent forInsolvency Act seeking adjudication of the respondent No.1 as an insolvent for committing the acts of insolvency by executing registered settlement deedcommitting the acts of insolvency by executing registered settlement deed

No.4993/2015 executed on 18.11.2015 and registered on 19.11.2015 in favour ofNo.4993/2015 executed on 18.11.2015 and registered on 19.11.2015 in favour of respondent No.2 with an intention to evade and postpone the payment of debts duerespondent No.2 with an intention to evade and postpone the payment of debts due to them under pronotes and set aside the said registered settlement deedto them under pronotes and set aside the said registered settlement deed

No.4993/2015, dated 18.11.2015 and registered on 19.11.2015.No.4993/2015, dated 18.11.2015 and registered on 19.11.2015.

During pendency of the above IP respondent No.1 died leaving behindDuring pendency of the above IP respondent No.1 died leaving behind respondent No.4 as such respondent No.4 was impleaded vide orders datedrespondent No.4 as such respondent No.4 was impleaded vide orders dated 21.06.2016.21.06.2016.

2.2.The brief averments of the petition filed by the petitioners are that,The brief averments of the petition filed by the petitioners are that, respondent No.1 is their debtor and they are creditors of respondent No.1.respondent No.1 is their debtor and they are creditors of respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 is daughter of respondent No.1. On 10.11.2013 the respondentRespondent No.2 is daughter of respondent No.1. On 10.11.2013 the respondent

No.1 borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from petitioner No.1 for own family expensesNo.1 borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from petitioner No.1 for own family expenses and executed pronote in favour of petitioner No.1 at Kandukur agreeing to repayand executed pronote in favour of petitioner No.1 at Kandukur agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum payable either to petitioner No.1 or thethe same with interest at 24% per annum payable either to petitioner No.1 or the order of petitioner No.1 on demand. The original pronote is filed in Principalorder of petitioner No.1 on demand. The original pronote is filed in Principal 2

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kandukur for recovery of said pronote debt. As suchJunior Civil Judge’s Court, Kandukur for recovery of said pronote debt. As such xerox copy of the said pronote is filed along with petition. On 01.05.2013 thexerox copy of the said pronote is filed along with petition. On 01.05.2013 the respondent No.1 borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from petitioner No.2 for ownrespondent No.1 borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from petitioner No.2 for own family expenses and executed pronote in favour of petitioner No.1 atfamily expenses and executed pronote in favour of petitioner No.1 at

Ramaswamypalli, Athmakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District agreeing to repay theRamaswamypalli, Athmakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum payable either to petitioner No.2 or the ordersame with interest at 18% per annum payable either to petitioner No.2 or the order of petitioner No.2 on demand. As he has to file the original pronote in Principalof petitioner No.2 on demand. As he has to file the original pronote in Principal

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur he filed xerox copy of the said pronote. TheyJunior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur he filed xerox copy of the said pronote. They used to demand the respondent No.1 to discharge the above debts. Respondentused to demand the respondent No.1 to discharge the above debts. Respondent

No.1 used to postpone the same on some pretext of the other. On enquiry they cameNo.1 used to postpone the same on some pretext of the other. On enquiry they came to know that the respondent No.1 executed registered settlement deedto know that the respondent No.1 executed registered settlement deed

No.4993/2015 executed on 18.11.2015 and registered on 19.11.2015 in favour ofNo.4993/2015 executed on 18.11.2015 and registered on 19.11.2015 in favour of respondent No.2 with regard to property property at Joint Sub Registrar Office,respondent No.2 with regard to property property at Joint Sub Registrar Office,

Kanigiri. The same is sham, nominal and collusive document with a view to evadeKanigiri. The same is sham, nominal and collusive document with a view to evade and avoid or postpone their debt and to keep the valuable properties far away fromand avoid or postpone their debt and to keep the valuable properties far away from his debtors. When they questioned the said act of Insolvency the respondent Nos.1his debtors. When they questioned the said act of Insolvency the respondent Nos.1 and 2 represented that for other purpose the document was brought into existenceand 2 represented that for other purpose the document was brought into existence and going to pay amount to them. Respondent No.1 is liable to pay the said debtand going to pay amount to them. Respondent No.1 is liable to pay the said debt due to them. The said registered settlement deed is illegal, collusive and invalid indue to them. The said registered settlement deed is illegal, collusive and invalid in the eye of law and does not bind them and no acted upon. They came to know thatthe eye of law and does not bind them and no acted upon. They came to know that respondent No.1 got many debts to others also. The respondent No.1 has no anyrespondent No.1 got many debts to others also. The respondent No.1 has no any other valuable properties except the petition properties at any where. As suchother valuable properties except the petition properties at any where. As such respondent No.1 is not in a position to discharge the entire debts. So therespondent No.1 is not in a position to discharge the entire debts. So the respondent No.1 wantonly and willfully committed act of Insolvency with a view inrespondent No.1 wantonly and willfully committed act of Insolvency with a view in fraudulent manner. If the petition properties going to be auctioned throughfraudulent manner. If the petition properties going to be auctioned through

Official Receiver the same fetch more value than the settlement deed mentionedOfficial Receiver the same fetch more value than the settlement deed mentioned value. The said transaction in favour of respondent No.2 is with an intention tovalue. The said transaction in favour of respondent No.2 is with an intention to defeat or delay the payments due to them. The respondent No.1 is not having anydefeat or delay the payments due to them. The respondent No.1 is not having any good valuable properties to discharge their debts. Hence this petition.good valuable properties to discharge their debts. Hence this petition.

3.3.The brief averments of the counter filed by respondent No.1 and adopted byThe brief averments of the counter filed by respondent No.1 and adopted by the respondent No.2 are that, he denied the the averments of the petition word tothe respondent No.2 are that, he denied the the averments of the petition word to word including the pronotes transactions with petitioner Nos.1 and 2. He furtherword including the pronotes transactions with petitioner Nos.1 and 2. He further stated that he never borrowed any amounts from the petitioners and neverstated that he never borrowed any amounts from the petitioners and never executed the alleged pronotes dated 10.12.2013 and 01.05.2013. Those twoexecuted the alleged pronotes dated 10.12.2013 and 01.05.2013. Those two pronotes are forged documents created with the help of scribe and attestors. Hepronotes are forged documents created with the help of scribe and attestors. He has no occasion to borrow the alleged amounts from the petitioners. Petitioner No.1has no occasion to borrow the alleged amounts from the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 filed suit in O.S.No.57/2016 and petitioner No.2 filed suit in O.S.No.31/2016 basingfiled suit in O.S.No.57/2016 and petitioner No.2 filed suit in O.S.No.31/2016 basing on those respective pronotes illegally for wrongful gain. He is old aged sufferingon those respective pronotes illegally for wrongful gain. He is old aged suffering with old age aliments and not in a position to move frequently. He has no necessitywith old age aliments and not in a position to move frequently. He has no necessity to borrow any amounts from the petitioners. There is dispute between him and histo borrow any amounts from the petitioners. There is dispute between him and his 3 son Byreddy Vengalreddy i.e., respondent No.4 with regard to properties and alsoson Byreddy Vengalreddy i.e., respondent No.4 with regard to properties and also dispute between women folk. Respondent No.4 is working as Teacher and neglecteddispute between women folk. Respondent No.4 is working as Teacher and neglected him in old age and never attended for his necessities being old and ignored himhim in old age and never attended for his necessities being old and ignored him completely. Respondent No.2 who is his daughter looking after him with love andcompletely. Respondent No.2 who is his daughter looking after him with love and affection and attending all his needs. R.4 sold away the joint family properties byaffection and attending all his needs. R.4 sold away the joint family properties by threatening him and secreted the amounts in the name of own wife and alsothreatening him and secreted the amounts in the name of own wife and also purchased the properties in the name of own wife. As he was looked after by hispurchased the properties in the name of own wife. As he was looked after by his daughter with love and affection respondent No.4 and wife of respondent No.4 boredaughter with love and affection respondent No.4 and wife of respondent No.4 bore grudge against him to harass him respondent No.4 got filed this case throughgrudge against him to harass him respondent No.4 got filed this case through petitioners to grab the properties and also to take revenge against him.petitioners to grab the properties and also to take revenge against him.

Respondent No.4 created the alleged two pronotes in favour of petitioners who areRespondent No.4 created the alleged two pronotes in favour of petitioners who are close associates of respondent No.4 and got filed suits at Kandukur andclose associates of respondent No.4 and got filed suits at Kandukur and

Athamakur to harass him. The transaction under the registered settlement deedAthamakur to harass him. The transaction under the registered settlement deed

dated 18.11.2015 registered on 19.11.2015 vide Doc.No.4993/2015 for the petitiondated 18.11.2015 registered on 19.11.2015 vide Doc.No.4993/2015 for the petition

properties is a bonafide transaction and he never committed any act of Insolvency.properties is a bonafide transaction and he never committed any act of Insolvency.

As respondent No.2 is looking after him with utmost care and affection and out ofAs respondent No.2 is looking after him with utmost care and affection and out of love and affection towards his daughter he settled the petition properties in favourlove and affection towards his daughter he settled the petition properties in favour of respondent No.2. He has no debts and creditors. He has got valuable movableof respondent No.2. He has no debts and creditors. He has got valuable movable and immovable properties in his favour and even if the alleged debts are proved heand immovable properties in his favour and even if the alleged debts are proved he has got means and capacity to discharge the same. He is not insolvent and cannothas got means and capacity to discharge the same. He is not insolvent and cannot be adjudged as insolvent basing on the false and frivolous allegations of thebe adjudged as insolvent basing on the false and frivolous allegations of the petitioners. The said settlement deed dated 19.11.2015 is a bonafide documentpetitioners. The said settlement deed dated 19.11.2015 is a bonafide document and respondent No.2 has got every right over the petition properties. Possessionand respondent No.2 has got every right over the petition properties. Possession was also delivered to respondent No.2 since then respondent No.2 has been inwas also delivered to respondent No.2 since then respondent No.2 has been in possession and enjoyment of the petition properties. There is no any collusionpossession and enjoyment of the petition properties. There is no any collusion between him and respondent No.2. His son i.e., respondent No.4 for wrongful gainbetween him and respondent No.2. His son i.e., respondent No.4 for wrongful gain got filed the petition with the active collusion of the petitioners so as to harass him.got filed the petition with the active collusion of the petitioners so as to harass him.

Hence prayed to dismiss the IP with costs.Hence prayed to dismiss the IP with costs.

ii. The brief averments of the counter filed by respondent No.4 are that, heii. The brief averments of the counter filed by respondent No.4 are that, he denied the averments of the petition word to word. He further stated that he isdenied the averments of the petition word to word. He further stated that he is none other than son of respondent No.1. The petition properties are ancestral jointnone other than son of respondent No.1. The petition properties are ancestral joint family properties of him, respondent Nos.1 and 2. Since so many years there arefamily properties of him, respondent Nos.1 and 2. Since so many years there are chronic disputes in between him and respondent No.1. So he is living separatelychronic disputes in between him and respondent No.1. So he is living separately since many years. As such respondent No.1 alone enjoying the petition properties.since many years. As such respondent No.1 alone enjoying the petition properties.

While so in the year 2015 he demanded respondent No.1 to come forward forWhile so in the year 2015 he demanded respondent No.1 to come forward for amicable partition of the petition properties and allot 1/3rd share to him. Theamicable partition of the petition properties and allot 1/3rd share to him. The respondent No.1 did not heed his requests. As such the respondent Nos.1 and 2respondent No.1 did not heed his requests. As such the respondent Nos.1 and 2 keeping in mind of the prior disputes between them and himself with a view tokeeping in mind of the prior disputes between them and himself with a view to evade and avoid legitimate share executed the said settlement deed datedevade and avoid legitimate share executed the said settlement deed dated 19.11.2015 and the same is sham, nominal and collusive one as if respondent No.119.11.2015 and the same is sham, nominal and collusive one as if respondent No.1 4 is sole owner of the petition properties and the same is illegal. The respondentis sole owner of the petition properties and the same is illegal. The respondent

No.1 is having only 1/3rd share in the petition properties as the petition propertiesNo.1 is having only 1/3rd share in the petition properties as the petition properties are ancestral properties. The same is brought into existence to evade his share.are ancestral properties. The same is brought into existence to evade his share.

The petitioners are close friends of respondent No.1 and with a view to createThe petitioners are close friends of respondent No.1 and with a view to create litigation on the petition properties and harass him respondent No.1 createdlitigation on the petition properties and harass him respondent No.1 created pronotes in the name of petitioners and got filed the above IP. As the petitionerpronotes in the name of petitioners and got filed the above IP. As the petitioner

No.1 is not sole owner of the petition properties the IP is not maintainable as perNo.1 is not sole owner of the petition properties the IP is not maintainable as per law. During pendency of the above IP the respondent No.1 who committed act oflaw. During pendency of the above IP the respondent No.1 who committed act of

Insolvency died. The act of Insolvency is personal act. So declaration of theInsolvency died. The act of Insolvency is personal act. So declaration of the respondent No.1 as an insolvent and vesting the petition properties to the Officialrespondent No.1 as an insolvent and vesting the petition properties to the Official

Receiver does not arise. On this point alone the above petition is liable to beReceiver does not arise. On this point alone the above petition is liable to be dismissed. After coming to know the illegal acts of respondent No.1 he filed suit indismissed. After coming to know the illegal acts of respondent No.1 he filed suit in

O.S.No.182/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kanigiri for partitionO.S.No.182/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kanigiri for partition

and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the petition properties against theand separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the petition properties against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the same is pending on 14.10.2016 after filing of therespondent Nos.1 and 2 and the same is pending on 14.10.2016 after filing of the above petition. There is no cause of action for the petition and the alleged one isabove petition. There is no cause of action for the petition and the alleged one is false. The petitioners did not come to court with clean hands and true facts. Hencefalse. The petitioners did not come to court with clean hands and true facts. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.4.Now the points for determination are;Now the points for determination are;

1. Whether the petitioners proved that R.1 committed act of insolvency1. Whether the petitioners proved that R.1 committed act of insolvency by executing registered settlement deed in favour or R.2 andby executing registered settlement deed in favour or R.2 and consequently setting aside of registered settlement deed, datedconsequently setting aside of registered settlement deed, dated 19.11.2015?19.11.2015?

2. Whether R.1 has got sufficient properties other than the properties2. Whether R.1 has got sufficient properties other than the properties covered by the registered settlement deed dated 19.11.2015 executedcovered by the registered settlement deed dated 19.11.2015 executed infavour of R.2 to discharge the amount due to petitioners?infavour of R.2 to discharge the amount due to petitioners?

3.3.To what result?To what result?

5.5.In order to prove respective contentions the petitioners examined petitionerIn order to prove respective contentions the petitioners examined petitioner

No.2 as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. The respondents examinedNo.2 as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. The respondents examined respondent No.2 as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1, Ex.B.1/2 and Ex.B.2. It isrespondent No.2 as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1, Ex.B.1/2 and Ex.B.2. It is necessary to point out here that originally on 27.04.2023 1B namoona in the namenecessary to point out here that originally on 27.04.2023 1B namoona in the name of R.1 was marked as Ex.B.1 and subsequently again market value certificate wasof R.1 was marked as Ex.B.1 and subsequently again market value certificate was marked as Ex.B.1 on 21.09.2023 by oversight and mistake and as such formarked as Ex.B.1 on 21.09.2023 by oversight and mistake and as such for convenience the Market Value Certificate marked on 21.09.2023 as Ex.B.1 is re-convenience the Market Value Certificate marked on 21.09.2023 as Ex.B.1 is re- marked as Ex.B.1/2. The respondent No.4 examined himself as R.W.2 and nomarked as Ex.B.1/2. The respondent No.4 examined himself as R.W.2 and no documents were marked on his behalf.documents were marked on his behalf.

6.6.Heard both sides. Perused the record.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7.7.Point Nos.1 & 2:-:-Point Nos.1 & 2

P.W.1 in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination reiterated theP.W.1 in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination reiterated the averments of the petition to the extent of his debt. averments of the petition to the extent of his debt.

5 b. R.W.1 in her chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination reiteratedb. R.W.1 in her chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination reiterated the averments of the counter.the averments of the counter.

ii. R.W.2 in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination reiteratedii. R.W.2 in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination reiterated the averments of the counter. the averments of the counter.

c. The contention of the petitioner is that, the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.1c. The contention of the petitioner is that, the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 coupled with cross of P.W.1 and P.W.2 proves the debts due to R.W.1 andto Ex.A.3 coupled with cross of P.W.1 and P.W.2 proves the debts due to R.W.1 and themselves. Except the property covered by the sale deed dated 19.11.2015themselves. Except the property covered by the sale deed dated 19.11.2015 executed in favour of R.2 by R.1, R.1 has no other property. Even assuming thatexecuted in favour of R.2 by R.1, R.1 has no other property. Even assuming that

Ex.B.1 property belongs to R.1 it is only a dry land and Vaggampalli village is aEx.B.1 property belongs to R.1 it is only a dry land and Vaggampalli village is a small village the market value is very less i.e., Rs.60,000/- as on today. Ex.B.2 wassmall village the market value is very less i.e., Rs.60,000/- as on today. Ex.B.2 was obtained by manipulating the registrar office by showing it as house site andobtained by manipulating the registrar office by showing it as house site and obtained for square yards. The value of agriculture land an extent of Ac.0.20 centsobtained for square yards. The value of agriculture land an extent of Ac.0.20 cents under Ex.B.1 is only Rs.60,000/- as on this date. Therefore Ex.B.1/2 market valueunder Ex.B.1 is only Rs.60,000/- as on this date. Therefore Ex.B.1/2 market value certificate cannot be relied upon. The respondents 1 and 2 did not produce anycertificate cannot be relied upon. The respondents 1 and 2 did not produce any record to show that as on the date of this petition or as on the date of settlementrecord to show that as on the date of this petition or as on the date of settlement deed dated 19.11.2015 the value of Ex.B.1/2 site is sufficient to discharge the debtsdeed dated 19.11.2015 the value of Ex.B.1/2 site is sufficient to discharge the debts due by R.1. Therefore the execution of settlement deed in favour of R.2 by R.1 is andue by R.1. Therefore the execution of settlement deed in favour of R.2 by R.1 is an act of insolvency as R.1 is not left with sufficient valuable properties to dischargeact of insolvency as R.1 is not left with sufficient valuable properties to discharge their debts. Hence prayed to declare R.1 as insolvent by allowing this IP.their debts. Hence prayed to declare R.1 as insolvent by allowing this IP.

d. The contention of R.2 is that, Ex.B.1, Ex.B.1/2 i.e., Ac.0.20 cents landd. The contention of R.2 is that, Ex.B.1, Ex.B.1/2 i.e., Ac.0.20 cents land worth of Rs.6,77,600/- is on the name of R.1 still on this date. The debts of theworth of Rs.6,77,600/- is on the name of R.1 still on this date. The debts of the petitioners are false and R.1 did not borrow said amounts. Even assuming that thepetitioners are false and R.1 did not borrow said amounts. Even assuming that the said debts are true the property covered by Ex.B.1 is sufficient to discharge thesaid debts are true the property covered by Ex.B.1 is sufficient to discharge the same as per Ex.B.1/2 market value certificate. Therefore executing the registeredsame as per Ex.B.1/2 market value certificate. Therefore executing the registered settlement deed in her favour cannot be treated as an act of insolvency. The crosssettlement deed in her favour cannot be treated as an act of insolvency. The cross of P.W.1 and R.W.2 supports her case. Hence prayed to dismiss the IP.of P.W.1 and R.W.2 supports her case. Hence prayed to dismiss the IP.

e. The contention of R.4 is that, the property covered by the settlement deede. The contention of R.4 is that, the property covered by the settlement deed

dated 19.11.2015 is ancestral property that he has got share in the same butdated 19.11.2015 is ancestral property that he has got share in the same but

illegally R.1 executed settlement deed in favour of R.2 to evade his share. He filedillegally R.1 executed settlement deed in favour of R.2 to evade his share. He filed suit in O.S.No.182/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kanigiri for hissuit in O.S.No.182/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kanigiri for his share out of the ancestral properties. Ex.B.1 property does not belongs to hisshare out of the ancestral properties. Ex.B.1 property does not belongs to his father. The debts alleged by the petitioners as borrowed by R.1 are all false andfather. The debts alleged by the petitioners as borrowed by R.1 are all false and only to evade his share the same are brought up. Hence prayed to dismiss the IP.only to evade his share the same are brought up. Hence prayed to dismiss the IP.

f. As can be seen from the record f. As can be seen from the record as per the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 toas per the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.3 on 01.05.2013 R.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from him forEx.A.3 on 01.05.2013 R.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from him for discharge of own debts and executed the suit pronote agreeing to repay the samedischarge of own debts and executed the suit pronote agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum, that he filed suit against R.1 in O.S.No.31/2016with interest at 18% per annum, that he filed suit against R.1 in O.S.No.31/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur which was decreed against R.1on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur which was decreed against R.1 vide Ex.A.2 decree and judgment dated 24.10.2017, that he came to know that R.1vide Ex.A.2 decree and judgment dated 24.10.2017, that he came to know that R.1 6 to evade his debt executed Ex.A.1 registered settlement deed on 18.11.2015to evade his debt executed Ex.A.1 registered settlement deed on 18.11.2015 registered on 19.11.2015 in favour of R.2 settling his entire properties, that R.1 hasregistered on 19.11.2015 in favour of R.2 settling his entire properties, that R.1 has no other valuable properties except the properties covered by Ex.A.1, that the sameno other valuable properties except the properties covered by Ex.A.1, that the same was only brought up to evade payment of debts due to him and petitioner No.1,was only brought up to evade payment of debts due to him and petitioner No.1, that as such he filed the above IP along with petitioner No.1. that as such he filed the above IP along with petitioner No.1.

ii. The respondents 1 and 2 denied borrowing of amounts from petitioners 1ii. The respondents 1 and 2 denied borrowing of amounts from petitioners 1 and 2 and admitted execution of Ex.A.1 registered settlement deed by R.1 in favourand 2 and admitted execution of Ex.A.1 registered settlement deed by R.1 in favour of R.2 and claimed that R.1 still has got properties sufficient to discharge theof R.2 and claimed that R.1 still has got properties sufficient to discharge the amount even though denied borrowing of the amounts from petitioner No.1 and 2,amount even though denied borrowing of the amounts from petitioner No.1 and 2, that the petitioners 1 and 2 are relatives and close associates of R.4 i.e., son of R.1that the petitioners 1 and 2 are relatives and close associates of R.4 i.e., son of R.1 who created those debts, that R.4 sold away the joint family properties bywho created those debts, that R.4 sold away the joint family properties by threatening R.1 and purchased properties in the name of own wife, that R.1 wasthreatening R.1 and purchased properties in the name of own wife, that R.1 was looked after affectionately by R.2 daughter and as such R.4 bore grudge againstlooked after affectionately by R.2 daughter and as such R.4 bore grudge against

R.1 and got filed those cases through the petitioners to grab the properties, thatR.1 and got filed those cases through the petitioners to grab the properties, that

A.1 transaction is a bonafide transaction as R.2 looked after him and possessionA.1 transaction is a bonafide transaction as R.2 looked after him and possession was also delivered to R.2 that R.1 did not commit any act of insolvency. was also delivered to R.2 that R.1 did not commit any act of insolvency.

iii. The contention of R.4 is that he admitted the relationship and denied theiii. The contention of R.4 is that he admitted the relationship and denied the debts as alleged by the petitioner, that he demanded partition of the joint familydebts as alleged by the petitioner, that he demanded partition of the joint family properties but R.1 did not heed his request and keeping those disputes in mind R.1properties but R.1 did not heed his request and keeping those disputes in mind R.1 and R.2 hatched out a plan to avoid his legitimate share and executed Ex.A.1and R.2 hatched out a plan to avoid his legitimate share and executed Ex.A.1 settlement deed in favour of R.2, that R.1 is having only 1/3rd share in thesettlement deed in favour of R.2, that R.1 is having only 1/3rd share in the properties covered by Ex.A.1 got created the pronotes in favour of close friends i.e.,properties covered by Ex.A.1 got created the pronotes in favour of close friends i.e., petitioners herein and got filed this IP, that as R.1 is not the sole owner of thepetitioners herein and got filed this IP, that as R.1 is not the sole owner of the properties covered by Ex.A.1 this IP is not maintainable as per law, that R.1 whoproperties covered by Ex.A.1 this IP is not maintainable as per law, that R.1 who committed the act of insolvency died and the same is being personal act declaringcommitted the act of insolvency died and the same is being personal act declaring

R.1 insolvent and vesting the properties covered by Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 does not arise,R.1 insolvent and vesting the properties covered by Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 does not arise, that he filed O.S.No.182/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kanigiri forthat he filed O.S.No.182/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kanigiri for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share of Ex.A.1 properties and thepartition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share of Ex.A.1 properties and the same is pending.same is pending.

iv. With regard to the contention of the respondent No.4 that sinceiv. With regard to the contention of the respondent No.4 that since respondent No.1 died and as declaring respondent No.1 as insolvent being personalrespondent No.1 died and as declaring respondent No.1 as insolvent being personal cause of action doesn’t survive is concerned, as per Section 17 Continuance ofcause of action doesn’t survive is concerned, as per Section 17 Continuance of proceedings on death of debtor. —If a debtor by or against whom an insolvencyproceedings on death of debtor. —If a debtor by or against whom an insolvency petition has been presented dies, the proceedings in the matter shall, unless thepetition has been presented dies, the proceedings in the matter shall, unless the

Court otherwise orders, be continued so far as may be necessary for the realisationCourt otherwise orders, be continued so far as may be necessary for the realisation and distribution of the property of the debtor. Therefore, as per this section theand distribution of the property of the debtor. Therefore, as per this section the same shall be continued unless the Court orders otherwise insofar as may besame shall be continued unless the Court orders otherwise insofar as may be necessary for the realisation and distribution of the property of the debtor. Asnecessary for the realisation and distribution of the property of the debtor. As such, the contention of R.4 that the cause of action doesn’t survive on the death ofsuch, the contention of R.4 that the cause of action doesn’t survive on the death of

R.1 is found to be incorrect.R.1 is found to be incorrect.

7 v. Ex.A.1 settlement deed is admitted by all the parties. There is no disputev. Ex.A.1 settlement deed is admitted by all the parties. There is no dispute with regard to Ex.A.1 settlement deed executed by R.1 in favour of R.2. Withwith regard to Ex.A.1 settlement deed executed by R.1 in favour of R.2. With regard to the contention of petitioners that the same is a created one only for theregard to the contention of petitioners that the same is a created one only for the purpose of evading their debts is concerned, there is no dispute with regard topurpose of evading their debts is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to relationship between R.1, R.2 and R.4. R.1 is the father and R.2 is daughter andrelationship between R.1, R.2 and R.4. R.1 is the father and R.2 is daughter and

R.4 is son of R.1. Admittedly Ex.A.1 is a settlement deed no consideration was paidR.4 is son of R.1. Admittedly Ex.A.1 is a settlement deed no consideration was paid to R.1. Ex.A.2 is certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.32/2016 showingto R.1. Ex.A.2 is certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.32/2016 showing that R.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from P.2 and executed a pronote onthat R.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from P.2 and executed a pronote on 01.05.2013, that inspite of repeated demands and notice R.1 did not pay the said01.05.2013, that inspite of repeated demands and notice R.1 did not pay the said amount and as such P.2 filed suit in O.S.No.32/2016 on the file of Junior Civilamount and as such P.2 filed suit in O.S.No.32/2016 on the file of Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Atmakur and the same was decreed vide judgment and decreeJudge’s Court, Atmakur and the same was decreed vide judgment and decree

dated 24.10.2017 directing R.1 to pay Rs.2,98,500/- along with subsequent interestdated 24.10.2017 directing R.1 to pay Rs.2,98,500/- along with subsequent interest

at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of suit tillat 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date decree and there after 6% per annum from the date of decree tillthe date decree and there after 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. realisation.

vi. Even though R.1, R.2 and R.4 denied about the said debt did not choosevi. Even though R.1, R.2 and R.4 denied about the said debt did not choose to file the appeal against the said judgment and decree. Therefore the saidto file the appeal against the said judgment and decree. Therefore the said judgment and decree is final and binding on the R.1. Even though it is shown thatjudgment and decree is final and binding on the R.1. Even though it is shown that

Rs.1,50,000/- was borrowed by R.1 from P.1 on 10.12.2013 by agreeing to repay theRs.1,50,000/- was borrowed by R.1 from P.1 on 10.12.2013 by agreeing to repay the same at 24% per annum and filing of suit by P.1 on the file of Principal Junior Civilsame at 24% per annum and filing of suit by P.1 on the file of Principal Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Kandukur did not file any record in support of the same. 1Judge’s Court, Kandukur did not file any record in support of the same. 1stst

petitioner was also not examined. However, R.1 and R.2 in their counter admittedpetitioner was also not examined. However, R.1 and R.2 in their counter admitted filing of suit by P.1. But, R.W.1 in her chief affidavit stated that P.1 didn’t obtainfiling of suit by P.1. But, R.W.1 in her chief affidavit stated that P.1 didn’t obtain decree. The petitioners didn’t file any record to show that petitioner No.1 suit wasdecree. The petitioners didn’t file any record to show that petitioner No.1 suit was decreed. Therefore, the debt of petitioner No.2 alone is proved.decreed. Therefore, the debt of petitioner No.2 alone is proved.

vii. Now the only point to be considered is Whether R.1 has got any othervii. Now the only point to be considered is Whether R.1 has got any other properties sufficient to discharge the amount due to his creditors?. Theproperties sufficient to discharge the amount due to his creditors?. The respondents 1 and 2 are relying on Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.1/2 to show that R.1 has gotrespondents 1 and 2 are relying on Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.1/2 to show that R.1 has got sufficient property to discharge the amount due to petitioners. As per Ex.B.1, R.1sufficient property to discharge the amount due to petitioners. As per Ex.B.1, R.1 has got Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.318/1 of Vaggampalli Village. As per Ex.B.2 it ishas got Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.318/1 of Vaggampalli Village. As per Ex.B.2 it is shown as house site and its value is shows as Rs.6,77,000/- As already discussedshown as house site and its value is shows as Rs.6,77,000/- As already discussed supra the petitioners proved only the debt of P.2 which is nearly 3 lakhs and odd.supra the petitioners proved only the debt of P.2 which is nearly 3 lakhs and odd.

Therefore it is the contention of the petitioners that the market value of theTherefore it is the contention of the petitioners that the market value of the property covered by Ex.B.1 as shown in Ex.B.1/2 is sufficient to discharge the saidproperty covered by Ex.B.1 as shown in Ex.B.1/2 is sufficient to discharge the said amount. It is the contention of the petitioners that Ex.B.1 property is only anamount. It is the contention of the petitioners that Ex.B.1 property is only an agriculture land and not house site and it is out of Vaggampalli Village and only byagriculture land and not house site and it is out of Vaggampalli Village and only by manipulating it as house site the respondents 1 and 2 brought Ex.B.1/2 certificatemanipulating it as house site the respondents 1 and 2 brought Ex.B.1/2 certificate for Rs.6,77,600/-. The respondents 1 and 2 did not give any details of the propertiesfor Rs.6,77,600/-. The respondents 1 and 2 did not give any details of the properties owned by R.1 other then the properties covered by Ex.A.1 in their respectiveowned by R.1 other then the properties covered by Ex.A.1 in their respective counters. They only stated that R.1 has got other immovable properties sufficientcounters. They only stated that R.1 has got other immovable properties sufficient 8 to discharge the debts. As per cross of P.W.1 a suggestion was given to him statingto discharge the debts. As per cross of P.W.1 a suggestion was given to him stating that R.1 is having house site of Ac.0.10 cents in Vaggampalli Village and Ac.0.20that R.1 is having house site of Ac.0.10 cents in Vaggampalli Village and Ac.0.20 cents of agriculture land in Vaggampalli Village. The respondents 1 and 2 did notcents of agriculture land in Vaggampalli Village. The respondents 1 and 2 did not file any record to show that R.1 is having house site in Ac.0.10 cents infile any record to show that R.1 is having house site in Ac.0.10 cents in

Vaggampalli Village other than Ac.0.20 cents covered by Ex.B.1. Therefore even asVaggampalli Village other than Ac.0.20 cents covered by Ex.B.1. Therefore even as per the suggestions in the cross of P.W.1 an extent of Ac.0.20 cents only agricultureper the suggestions in the cross of P.W.1 an extent of Ac.0.20 cents only agriculture land but Ex.B.1/2 was produced by showing the said Ac.0.20 cents as house site.land but Ex.B.1/2 was produced by showing the said Ac.0.20 cents as house site.

The respondents 1 and 2 did not produce any record to show that the propertyThe respondents 1 and 2 did not produce any record to show that the property covered by Ex.B.1 i.e., Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.318/1 is categorised as fit for housecovered by Ex.B.1 i.e., Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.318/1 is categorised as fit for house sites as per the sub registrar valuation. If really the property covered by Ex.B.1 issites as per the sub registrar valuation. If really the property covered by Ex.B.1 is categorized by the Sub-Registrar’s Office as fit for house site then the market valuecategorized by the Sub-Registrar’s Office as fit for house site then the market value will not be given for agriculture land and as per the market value certificates filedwill not be given for agriculture land and as per the market value certificates filed by petitioner it shows as agriculture land and the valuation is shown as Rs.60,000/-by petitioner it shows as agriculture land and the valuation is shown as Rs.60,000/- as on 21.08.2023. as on 21.08.2023.

viii. R.W.2 in his cross admitted the debts due by R.1 in favour of petitionersviii. R.W.2 in his cross admitted the debts due by R.1 in favour of petitioners 1 and 2. He admitted that R.1 and himself didn’t discharge the debt due to the1 and 2. He admitted that R.1 and himself didn’t discharge the debt due to the petitioners and the same is still pending. It is necessary to point out here that aspetitioners and the same is still pending. It is necessary to point out here that as per two I-Bs with Khata No.189 in the name of R.1 attached to Ex.A.1 R.1 has gotper two I-Bs with Khata No.189 in the name of R.1 attached to Ex.A.1 R.1 has got

Ac.1.01 cents in Sy.No.292/4, Ac.0.51 cents in Sy.No.354/4, Ac.0.54 cents inAc.1.01 cents in Sy.No.292/4, Ac.0.51 cents in Sy.No.354/4, Ac.0.54 cents in

Sy.No.354/6 and Ac.0.70 cents in Sy.No.283. The same are settled in favour of R.2Sy.No.354/6 and Ac.0.70 cents in Sy.No.283. The same are settled in favour of R.2 by R.1 vide Ex.A.1. There are no other properties in the name of R.1 as per theby R.1 vide Ex.A.1. There are no other properties in the name of R.1 as per the both 1Bs with same katha No.189. Now the respondents 1 and 2 putforth Ex.B.1both 1Bs with same katha No.189. Now the respondents 1 and 2 putforth Ex.B.1 for same katha No.189 claiming that Ac.0.20 cents were on the name of R.1. Asfor same katha No.189 claiming that Ac.0.20 cents were on the name of R.1. As already stated supra even assuming that Ex.B.1 property is on the name of R.1already stated supra even assuming that Ex.B.1 property is on the name of R.1 there is nothing brought on record to show that the same is sufficient to dischargethere is nothing brought on record to show that the same is sufficient to discharge the debts due by R.1 to the petitioners. Further, even assuming the same is truethe debts due by R.1 to the petitioners. Further, even assuming the same is true also as it is ancestral property, R.1 will get only 1/3rd share only as R.2 and R.4 arealso as it is ancestral property, R.1 will get only 1/3rd share only as R.2 and R.4 are also entitled equal shares in the same. As such, the said 1/3rd share is less thanalso entitled equal shares in the same. As such, the said 1/3rd share is less than

Rs.2,26,000/- as on this date. The amount due to petitioner No.2 is itself more thanRs.2,26,000/- as on this date. The amount due to petitioner No.2 is itself more than

Rs.3 lakhs.Rs.3 lakhs.

ix. With regard to setting aside Ex.A.1 registered settlement deed is concerned,ix. With regard to setting aside Ex.A.1 registered settlement deed is concerned, as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature atas per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh made inHyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh made in

Tadikamalla Venkata Ramana Vs. Padarthi Santha Kumari and others reported inTadikamalla Venkata Ramana Vs. Padarthi Santha Kumari and others reported in 2015 (3) CCC 409 to the effect that “the order of annulment of transactions cannot2015 (3) CCC 409 to the effect that “the order of annulment of transactions cannot be passed simultaneously while adjudging the debtor as insolvent”. However, thebe passed simultaneously while adjudging the debtor as insolvent”. However, the above discussion shows that the petitioners proved that the 1stabove discussion shows that the petitioners proved that the 1st respondent respondent committed act of insolvency. Under these circumstances this court is of the opinioncommitted act of insolvency. Under these circumstances this court is of the opinion that the petitioners proved that he is entitled to seek declaration that R1 is insolventthat the petitioners proved that he is entitled to seek declaration that R1 is insolvent 9 and failed to prove that he is entitled to seek setting aside Ex.A.1 registeredand failed to prove that he is entitled to seek setting aside Ex.A.1 registered settlement deed at this stage.settlement deed at this stage.

In view of the aforementioned discussion the point No.1 is decided in favorIn view of the aforementioned discussion the point No.1 is decided in favor of petitioners in part and point No.2 is decided in favor of the petitioners.of petitioners in part and point No.2 is decided in favor of the petitioners.

8.8.Point No.2: Point No.2:

In view of the findings on point No.1 in part and point No.2 in favor of theIn view of the findings on point No.1 in part and point No.2 in favor of the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to seek adjudication of 1stpetitioners, the petitioners are entitled to seek adjudication of 1st respondent as respondent as insolvent.insolvent.

In the result, this petition is allowed in part and the first respondent isIn the result, this petition is allowed in part and the first respondent is hereby declared as insolvent in so far as may be necessary for realization andhereby declared as insolvent in so far as may be necessary for realization and distribution of his property to the creditors. Time granted to respondents No.2 & 4distribution of his property to the creditors. Time granted to respondents No.2 & 4 being legal heirs of respondent No.1 for filing discharge petition is one year.being legal heirs of respondent No.1 for filing discharge petition is one year.

Dictation to the shorthand writer of this court, transcribed by him,Dictation to the shorthand writer of this court, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 12thcorrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of April, 2024. day of April, 2024.

Senior Civil Judge, Senior Civil Judge,

Kandukur. Kandukur.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // // APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

-: WITNESSES EXAMINED :- -: WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

For Petitioners::For Petitioners For respondents::For respondents

P.W.1/Guntaka Sriramula Reddy.P.W.1/Guntaka Sriramula Reddy.R.W.1/Pilli Vengamma.R.W.1/Pilli Vengamma. R.W.2/Byreddy Vengal Reddy.R.W.2/Byreddy Vengal Reddy.

// DOCUMENTS MARKED // // DOCUMENTS MARKED //

For Petitioners: For Petitioners:

Ex.A.1/Certified copy of registered settlement deed dated 18.11.2015.Ex.A.1/Certified copy of registered settlement deed dated 18.11.2015. Ex.A.2/Certified copy of decree and judgment in O.S.No.31/2016 on the file of Ex.A.2/Certified copy of decree and judgment in O.S.No.31/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District.Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District.

For respondents::For respondents

Ex.B.1/1B namoona.Ex.B.1/1B namoona. Ex.B.1/2/Market Value Certificate.Ex.B.1/2/Market Value Certificate. Ex.B.2/Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.182/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Ex.B.2/Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.182/2016 on the file of Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Kanigiri.Judge’s Court, Kanigiri.

S.C.J., Kandukur. S.C.J., Kandukur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KANDUKUR

Present: Sri N.Vijaya Babu,

Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur

Friday, the 12th day of April, 2024

Insolvency Petition No.9/2018

Daggumati Venkata Krishnaiah, S/o. Kondaiah, Hindu, aged about 59 years, Hindu,Daggumati Venkata Krishnaiah, S/o. Kondaiah, Hindu, aged about 59 years, Hindu, Coolie, Angirekulapadu Village, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District.Coolie, Angirekulapadu Village, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District.

….. Petitioner….. Petitioner

VsVs

1. Lingabathina Malakondaiah, S/o. Malakondaiah, aged 66 years.1.Lingabathina Malakondaiah, S/o. Malakondaiah, aged 66 years.

2. Ganta Venkateswarlu, S/o. Ankaiah, aged 53 years.2.Ganta Venkateswarlu, S/o. Ankaiah, aged 53 years.

3. Galla Malakondaiah, S/o. Malakondaiah, aged 60 years.3.Galla Malakondaiah, S/o. Malakondaiah, aged 60 years.

4. Ganta Singaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, aged 45 years.4.Ganta Singaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, aged 45 years.

5. Namburi Venkata Rao, S/o. Nagaiah, aged 47 years.5.Namburi Venkata Rao, S/o. Nagaiah, aged 47 years. All are Hindus, R.1 & R.2 are R/o. Badevaripalem Village, Voletivaripalem All are Hindus, R.1 & R.2 are R/o. Badevaripalem Village, Voletivaripalem Mandal.Mandal. R.3 & R.4 are R/o. Angirekulapadu Village, Lingasamudram Mandal.R.3 & R.4 are R/o. Angirekulapadu Village, Lingasamudram Mandal. R.5 is R/o. Peretipalli Village, Gudlur Mandal.R.5 is R/o. Peretipalli Village, Gudlur Mandal.

6. The Official Receiver, District Court Premises, Ongole. 6.The Official Receiver, District Court Premises, Ongole.

….. Respondents….. Respondents

This petition is coming on 01.04.2024 before me for final hearing in the presenceThis petition is coming on 01.04.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L.Brahmaiah, of Sri L.Brahmaiah, Advocate for the petitioner and of Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri Y. Sambasiva Rao, Sri Y. Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for R.5, R.1 to R.5 set exparte and O.R for R.6, and on careful perusal ofAdvocate for R.5, R.1 to R.5 set exparte and O.R for R.6, and on careful perusal of material available on record and on hearing on petitioner side and having considered tillmaterial available on record and on hearing on petitioner side and having considered till this day, this court delivered the following:this day, this court delivered the following:

// O R D E R // // O R D E R //

This is an Insolvency Petition filed by the Petitioner against the respondentsThis is an Insolvency Petition filed by the Petitioner against the respondents U/s.10 of Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 to adjudicate him U/s.10 of Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 to adjudicate him as insolvent and as insolvent and vest all hisvest all his properties to the Official Receiver for proper distribution among the general body ofproperties to the Official Receiver for proper distribution among the general body of creditor and for costs.creditor and for costs.

2.2.The brief averments of the petition filed by the petitioner are that, he is havingThe brief averments of the petition filed by the petitioner are that, he is having ancestral property of Ac.4.80 cents. He is manager and kartha of the said joint family.ancestral property of Ac.4.80 cents. He is manager and kartha of the said joint family. The revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed passbook in his nameThe revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed passbook in his name for the said extent. In fact he has got 4 daughters and one son who are got joint rightsfor the said extent. In fact he has got 4 daughters and one son who are got joint rights along wit him as the same is ancestral property. They partitioned the said extent andalong wit him as the same is ancestral property. They partitioned the said extent and reduced the partition into writing in an unregistered partition deed. Since the partitionreduced the partition into writing in an unregistered partition deed. Since the partition was unregistered the revenue authorities did not mutate names of his children forwas unregistered the revenue authorities did not mutate names of his children for respective shares of his children. As such he is having only 1/6th share i.e., Ac.0.80respective shares of his children. As such he is having only 1/6th share i.e., Ac.0.80 cents. He sold away Ac.0.80 cents to one Cherukuri Audhiseshaiah for discharging hiscents. He sold away Ac.0.80 cents to one Cherukuri Audhiseshaiah for discharging his debts which were borrowed for own medical treatment under an agreement of sale. Asdebts which were borrowed for own medical treatment under an agreement of sale. As such he has no immovable properties. He is having a house issued by Government ofsuch he has no immovable properties. He is having a house issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh as pacca house. He has been doing cultivation of lands on lease sinceAndhra Pradesh as pacca house. He has been doing cultivation of lands on lease since about 15 years. He has been borrowing the loans from the creditors for his cultivation byabout 15 years. He has been borrowing the loans from the creditors for his cultivation by executing pronotes and discharging the same from out of the income derived from theexecuting pronotes and discharging the same from out of the income derived from the said cultivation. He borrowed amounts from R.1 to R.5 for own cultivation since 15 yearssaid cultivation. He borrowed amounts from R.1 to R.5 for own cultivation since 15 years by executing the pronotes and renewing the same from time to time. As such he becameby executing the pronotes and renewing the same from time to time. As such he became due to respondents as mentioned in petition A schedule. He is indebted to R.1 to R.5 andue to respondents as mentioned in petition A schedule. He is indebted to R.1 to R.5 an amount of Rs.11,20,342/-. As he has been sustaining loss since about 8 years he couldamount of Rs.11,20,342/-. As he has been sustaining loss since about 8 years he could not discharge the debts to the respondents 1 to 5. He completely sustained heavy loss innot discharge the debts to the respondents 1 to 5. He completely sustained heavy loss in the said cultivation and unable to discharge the same. R.5 filed a suit inthe said cultivation and unable to discharge the same. R.5 filed a suit in 2

O.S.No.132/2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, KandukurO.S.No.132/2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kandukur for for

realisation of the amounts due under the pronotes and obtained decree against him onrealisation of the amounts due under the pronotes and obtained decree against him on 13.04.2016. Subsequently R.5 filed E.P.No.35/2016 for his arrest. Later he was brought13.04.2016. Subsequently R.5 filed E.P.No.35/2016 for his arrest. Later he was brought under arrest before the said court in the said EP and he was released on that day as heunder arrest before the said court in the said EP and he was released on that day as he submitted unable to discharge the debts and committed act of insolvency and requestedsubmitted unable to discharge the debts and committed act of insolvency and requested time for filing IP. The said EP is posted to 22.01.2018. R.1 to R.5 also threatening himtime for filing IP. The said EP is posted to 22.01.2018. R.1 to R.5 also threatening him to file suits against him and proceed against him. He is not doing any work since 2 yearsto file suits against him and proceed against him. He is not doing any work since 2 years due to ill health and has no any source of income and depending upon own wife for hisdue to ill health and has no any source of income and depending upon own wife for his livelihood. He has not file any petition of this nature to any court previously and there islivelihood. He has not file any petition of this nature to any court previously and there is no any collusion between him and respondents in filing this petition. Hence, thisno any collusion between him and respondents in filing this petition. Hence, this petition.petition.

3.3.Respondents 1 to 4 and 6 did not choose to appear inspite of service of notices. AsRespondents 1 to 4 and 6 did not choose to appear inspite of service of notices. As such and as there was no representation on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 & 6 theysuch and as there was no representation on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 & 6 they were set exparte.were set exparte.

3ii. The brief averments of the counter filed by the R.5 are that, he denied the3ii. The brief averments of the counter filed by the R.5 are that, he denied the averments of the petition word to word. R.1 to R.4 are close relatives and caste man ofaverments of the petition word to word. R.1 to R.4 are close relatives and caste man of petitioner. Except him the other respondent did not give any cash to the petitioner andpetitioner. Except him the other respondent did not give any cash to the petitioner and petitioner never executed any pronote in favour of those respondents. The petitionerpetitioner never executed any pronote in favour of those respondents. The petitioner never renewed the said pronotes. The petitioner shown R.1 to R.4 only to boost up thenever renewed the said pronotes. The petitioner shown R.1 to R.4 only to boost up the debts. The petitioner has got Ac.4.80 cents of land and movable properties. The revenuedebts. The petitioner has got Ac.4.80 cents of land and movable properties. The revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed passbook in favour of the petitionerauthorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed passbook in favour of the petitioner and recognized possession and entered the name in the adangals. The petitionerand recognized possession and entered the name in the adangals. The petitioner borrowed the amount from him for joint family. The petitioner and children of petitionerborrowed the amount from him for joint family. The petitioner and children of petitioner never partitioned the said Ac.4.80 cents. The petitioner is not manager and kartha ofnever partitioned the said Ac.4.80 cents. The petitioner is not manager and kartha of the said joint family. The unregistered partition deed created by the petitioner only tothe said joint family. The unregistered partition deed created by the petitioner only to evade his debt. The petitioner never sold Ac.4.80 cents of land to one Cherukukri Audievade his debt. The petitioner never sold Ac.4.80 cents of land to one Cherukukri Audi Seshaiah for discharging the debts and for medical treatment under an agreement ofSeshaiah for discharging the debts and for medical treatment under an agreement of sale. The same is created to evade his debts. The petitioner never took lands on lease forsale. The same is created to evade his debts. The petitioner never took lands on lease for the past 15 years and never borrowed the amounts from R.1 to R.4 for cultivation. Thethe past 15 years and never borrowed the amounts from R.1 to R.4 for cultivation. The petitioner never discharged the debts from out of the income derived from the saidpetitioner never discharged the debts from out of the income derived from the said cultivation. The petitioner is able to discharge his debt. The petitioner is solvent and cancultivation. The petitioner is able to discharge his debt. The petitioner is solvent and can discharge his debt. The petitioner is hale and healthy and doing agricultural works. Thedischarge his debt. The petitioner is hale and healthy and doing agricultural works. The petitioners assets are more than debts. As such the petitioner cannot be declared aspetitioners assets are more than debts. As such the petitioner cannot be declared as insolvent. The petitioner suppressed the movable and immovable properties in the aboveinsolvent. The petitioner suppressed the movable and immovable properties in the above IP as such this IP is not maintainable. There are no merits or bonafides in filing theIP as such this IP is not maintainable. There are no merits or bonafides in filing the petition. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.petition. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.4.Now the points for consideration isNow the points for consideration is

1. Whether the petitioner proved that his debts are more than his assets and 1. Whether the petitioner proved that his debts are more than his assets and as such committed the Act of Insolvency? as such committed the Act of Insolvency?

2. To What result?2. To What result?

3

5.5.In order to prove the petitioner’s contention, the petitioner examined himself asIn order to prove the petitioner’s contention, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1, P.W.2/Galla Mallikarjuna and no documents marked on his behalf. R.5 examinedP.W.1, P.W.2/Galla Mallikarjuna and no documents marked on his behalf. R.5 examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3. himself as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3.

6.6.Heard both sides. Perused the record.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7.7.Point Nos.1 & 2 : Point Nos.1 & 2 :

P.W.1 in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination reiterated theP.W.1 in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination reiterated the averments of the petition.averments of the petition.

ii. P.W.2 in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination supported the caseii. P.W.2 in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination supported the case of the petitioner in toto.of the petitioner in toto.

b. R.W.1 in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination reiterated theb. R.W.1 in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination reiterated the averments of the counter. averments of the counter.

c. The contention of the petitioner is that, he took lands on lease and conductedc. The contention of the petitioner is that, he took lands on lease and conducted cultivation since 15 years prior to filing of this petition, that for the said cultivation hecultivation since 15 years prior to filing of this petition, that for the said cultivation he used to borrow amounts and as such indebted to R.1 to R.5, that he sustained heavyused to borrow amounts and as such indebted to R.1 to R.5, that he sustained heavy losses for the last 8 years and could not discharge the debts, that he has got Ac.4.80losses for the last 8 years and could not discharge the debts, that he has got Ac.4.80 cents which is joint family property, that he has got 4 daughters and one son who arecents which is joint family property, that he has got 4 daughters and one son who are also entitled for equal shares along with him, that unregistered partition deed executedalso entitled for equal shares along with him, that unregistered partition deed executed between him and his children, that he got only Ac.0.80 cents, that he sold away the samebetween him and his children, that he got only Ac.0.80 cents, that he sold away the same to one Cherukuri Audi Seshaiah to discharge his debts borrowed for his medicalto one Cherukuri Audi Seshaiah to discharge his debts borrowed for his medical necessities, that as such has no immovable properties and movables are shown under Bnecessities, that as such has no immovable properties and movables are shown under B schedule. His debts due to R.1 to R.5 are more than his assets. R.5 filed suit inschedule. His debts due to R.1 to R.5 are more than his assets. R.5 filed suit in

O.S.No.132/2015 and obtained decree and also filed E.P in that E.P when he wasO.S.No.132/2015 and obtained decree and also filed E.P in that E.P when he was

brought under arrest he was released on condition of filing IP. As such he committed actbrought under arrest he was released on condition of filing IP. As such he committed act of insolvency. Hence prayed to allow the petition.of insolvency. Hence prayed to allow the petition.

d. The contention of R.5 is that, R.1 to R.4 are relatives and same caste people ofd. The contention of R.5 is that, R.1 to R.4 are relatives and same caste people of petitioner. Petitioner never took lease of any lands, did not conduct cultivation, did notpetitioner. Petitioner never took lease of any lands, did not conduct cultivation, did not borrow amounts from R.1 to R.4 and the same are created for the purpose of thisborrow amounts from R.1 to R.4 and the same are created for the purpose of this petition, there is no partition between petitioner and his children and petitioner did notpetition, there is no partition between petitioner and his children and petitioner did not get Ac.0.80 cents of land in the said partition and did not sell the same to Cherukuriget Ac.0.80 cents of land in the said partition and did not sell the same to Cherukuri Audiseshaiah and this petition is filed in collusion with R.1 to R.4 to evade his debt. TheAudiseshaiah and this petition is filed in collusion with R.1 to R.4 to evade his debt. The cross of P.W.1 proves his case. Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3 clearly proves as on this date alsocross of P.W.1 proves his case. Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3 clearly proves as on this date also Ac.2.66 cents is still in the name of petitioner. If really the petitioner and children ofAc.2.66 cents is still in the name of petitioner. If really the petitioner and children of petitioner partitioned the properties the same would have entered in the respectivepetitioner partitioned the properties the same would have entered in the respective names. There is no need for registered partition deed. The same is only created by thenames. There is no need for registered partition deed. The same is only created by the petitioner for the purpose of filing this IP to avoid his debt. The petitioner approachedpetitioner for the purpose of filing this IP to avoid his debt. The petitioner approached this court by suppressing material facts. The properties of petitioner are very muchthis court by suppressing material facts. The properties of petitioner are very much more than debts. Hence prayed to dismiss the IP.more than debts. Hence prayed to dismiss the IP.

e. As can be seen from the record ae. As can be seen from the record as per the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, thes per the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the petitioner conducted cultivation by taking lands on lease, borrowed amounts for the saidpetitioner conducted cultivation by taking lands on lease, borrowed amounts for the said purpose and became indebted to R.1 to R.5, that he sustained severe loss in agriculturepurpose and became indebted to R.1 to R.5, that he sustained severe loss in agriculture for the last 8 years and as such unable to discharge the amount due to R.1 to R.5, thatfor the last 8 years and as such unable to discharge the amount due to R.1 to R.5, that 4

R.5 filed suit in O.S.No.132/2015 and obtained decree and filed E.P.No.35/2016, that heR.5 filed suit in O.S.No.132/2015 and obtained decree and filed E.P.No.35/2016, that he was brought under arrest and released at his request for filing IP, that he has got onlywas brought under arrest and released at his request for filing IP, that he has got only Ac.4.80 cents of joint family properties and in partition between him and his fiveAc.4.80 cents of joint family properties and in partition between him and his five children he got only Ac.0.80 cents which was sold by him to Cherukuri Audiseshaiahchildren he got only Ac.0.80 cents which was sold by him to Cherukuri Audiseshaiah under an agreement of sale and as such he has no properties left to discharge the debtsunder an agreement of sale and as such he has no properties left to discharge the debts due to R.1 to R.5, that debts are more than his assets. due to R.1 to R.5, that debts are more than his assets.

ii. R.5 denied the entire facts and claimed that the debts shown due to R.1 to R.4ii. R.5 denied the entire facts and claimed that the debts shown due to R.1 to R.4 are false and R.1 to R.4 are relatives and caste people of petitioner, that there was noare false and R.1 to R.4 are relatives and caste people of petitioner, that there was no partition and the properties are still in the name of petitioner and only to evade his debtpartition and the properties are still in the name of petitioner and only to evade his debt the petitioner came up with this petition. the petitioner came up with this petition.

iii. The petitioner did not file any documents in support of his contention withiii. The petitioner did not file any documents in support of his contention with regard to partition allotment of Ac.0.80 cents to him and sale of Ac.0.80 cents toregard to partition allotment of Ac.0.80 cents to him and sale of Ac.0.80 cents to Cherukuri Audiseshaiah. The petitioner also did not file any document to show that heCherukuri Audiseshaiah. The petitioner also did not file any document to show that he took lands on lease of others cultivated the same and sustained loss in cultivation. R.1 totook lands on lease of others cultivated the same and sustained loss in cultivation. R.1 to R.4 remained exparte. Therefore there is no denial by R.1 to R.4 about the contentions ofR.4 remained exparte. Therefore there is no denial by R.1 to R.4 about the contentions of petitioner. P.W.1 cross shows that R.1 to R.4 are same caste as of petitioner and R.1 topetitioner. P.W.1 cross shows that R.1 to R.4 are same caste as of petitioner and R.1 to R.4 did not file any suits against the petitioner. P.W.1 in cross stated that even afterR.4 did not file any suits against the petitioner. P.W.1 in cross stated that even after filing of IP also he renewed pronotes. It is some what unbelievable since as per thefiling of IP also he renewed pronotes. It is some what unbelievable since as per the petition averments the petitioner has no properties and movable shown in B schedulepetition averments the petitioner has no properties and movable shown in B schedule are only utensils, 4 pair clothes, plastic chairs, 4 bed sheets and 3 dhovathies worth ofare only utensils, 4 pair clothes, plastic chairs, 4 bed sheets and 3 dhovathies worth of Rs.7,000/-. When the petitioner has no properties at all for even ratable distribution noRs.7,000/-. When the petitioner has no properties at all for even ratable distribution no ordinary prudent person much less the creditors will kept quite by taking renewalordinary prudent person much less the creditors will kept quite by taking renewal pronotes unless they had got some assurance from the petitioner that he will dischargepronotes unless they had got some assurance from the petitioner that he will discharge their amounts. their amounts.

iv. R.5 is relying on the cross of P.Ws.1 & 2 to show that petitioner approachediv. R.5 is relying on the cross of P.Ws.1 & 2 to show that petitioner approached this court by suppressing material facts. P.W.1 in cross stated that he filed unregisteredthis court by suppressing material facts. P.W.1 in cross stated that he filed unregistered partition deed in this court but the petitioner filed unregistered settlement deedspartition deed in this court but the petitioner filed unregistered settlement deeds executed in favour of his five children. The same were not marked by the petitioner. Theexecuted in favour of his five children. The same were not marked by the petitioner. The petitioner also filed an agreement of sale said to have been executed in favour of Ch.petitioner also filed an agreement of sale said to have been executed in favour of Ch. Audiseshaiah but the same was also not got marked by the petitioner. P.W.1 in crossAudiseshaiah but the same was also not got marked by the petitioner. P.W.1 in cross stated that he did not remember for how much consideration he sold his property tostated that he did not remember for how much consideration he sold his property to Cherukuri Adiseshaiah, that he do not remember the date of sale to CherukuriCherukuri Adiseshaiah, that he do not remember the date of sale to Cherukuri Adiseshaiah as he did not take the advance at one time, that he do not remember howAdiseshaiah as he did not take the advance at one time, that he do not remember how much advance taken by him from Chekururi Adiseshaiah and added that he executedmuch advance taken by him from Chekururi Adiseshaiah and added that he executed the agreement of sale in favour of Cherukuri Adiseshaiah towards old debt but not bythe agreement of sale in favour of Cherukuri Adiseshaiah towards old debt but not by receiving advance as on the date of agreement of sale, that on confrontation with thereceiving advance as on the date of agreement of sale, that on confrontation with the unregistered agreement of sale dated 23.08.2016 filed he admitted that as per the saidunregistered agreement of sale dated 23.08.2016 filed he admitted that as per the said agreement of sale he sold Ac.1.16 cents for Rs.10 lakhs and received Rs.9,50,000/- asagreement of sale he sold Ac.1.16 cents for Rs.10 lakhs and received Rs.9,50,000/- as advance from Cherukuri Adiseshaiah. advance from Cherukuri Adiseshaiah.

v. Therefore the said contention of the petitioner that he did not receive anyv. Therefore the said contention of the petitioner that he did not receive any advance from Cherukuri Adiseshaiah and executed the same towards old debt is foundadvance from Cherukuri Adiseshaiah and executed the same towards old debt is found to be false. In fact as per the said admission the sale consideration was fixed as Rs.10to be false. In fact as per the said admission the sale consideration was fixed as Rs.10 5 lakhs and he received only Rs.9,50,000/-. Even as per the said unregistered agreement oflakhs and he received only Rs.9,50,000/-. Even as per the said unregistered agreement of sale the petitioner is entitled for Rs.50,000/- still but the petitioner did not show the saidsale the petitioner is entitled for Rs.50,000/- still but the petitioner did not show the said Rs.50,000/- in the petition schedule. No ordinary prudent person will give his originalRs.50,000/- in the petition schedule. No ordinary prudent person will give his original unregistered agreement of sale to the petitioner. The petitioner filing originalunregistered agreement of sale to the petitioner. The petitioner filing original unregistered deed said to have been executed by him in favour of Cherukuri Adiseshaiahunregistered deed said to have been executed by him in favour of Cherukuri Adiseshaiah that too in the present circumstances creates a lot of doubt. If really the said agreementthat too in the present circumstances creates a lot of doubt. If really the said agreement of sale was given by Cherukuri Adiseshaiah the petitioner could have examined the saidof sale was given by Cherukuri Adiseshaiah the petitioner could have examined the said person on his behalf to prove the sale transaction. Further the said agreement of sale isperson on his behalf to prove the sale transaction. Further the said agreement of sale is 23.08.2016. This IP is filed on 26.01.2018. Therefore the said sale was made within two23.08.2016. This IP is filed on 26.01.2018. Therefore the said sale was made within two years prior to filing of this petition that too for discharging the debt of one creditor whileyears prior to filing of this petition that too for discharging the debt of one creditor while denying ratable distribution to the remaining creditors. R.5 filed suit in O.S.No.132/2015denying ratable distribution to the remaining creditors. R.5 filed suit in O.S.No.132/2015 and obtained decree against him on 13.04.2016. Whereas the alleged sale was datedand obtained decree against him on 13.04.2016. Whereas the alleged sale was dated 23.08.2016 i.e., subsequent to the decree and filing of EP. As per the petition averments23.08.2016 i.e., subsequent to the decree and filing of EP. As per the petition averments he got only 80 cents in partition and sold the same to Cherukuri Adiseshaiah but as perhe got only 80 cents in partition and sold the same to Cherukuri Adiseshaiah but as per the admitted cross of P.W.1 he sold Ac.1.16 cents to Cherukuri Adiseshaiah and stillthe admitted cross of P.W.1 he sold Ac.1.16 cents to Cherukuri Adiseshaiah and still balance sale consideration payable is Rs.50,000/-. As per the petition averments thebalance sale consideration payable is Rs.50,000/-. As per the petition averments the petitioner stated that he sold the said property for discharging the debts borrowed bypetitioner stated that he sold the said property for discharging the debts borrowed by him for his medical necessities. But, the above cross shows that he executed the saidhim for his medical necessities. But, the above cross shows that he executed the said agreement of sale towards old debt due to Cherukuri Audiseshaiah. Both are contrary toagreement of sale towards old debt due to Cherukuri Audiseshaiah. Both are contrary to each other. The petitioner did not file any medical record to show that he has got any illeach other. The petitioner did not file any medical record to show that he has got any ill health and he obtained treatment. The above discussion clearly shows that thehealth and he obtained treatment. The above discussion clearly shows that the petitioner approached this court by suppressing material facts. petitioner approached this court by suppressing material facts.

vi. The petitioner stated himself as kartha of the joint family. Therefore he beingvi. The petitioner stated himself as kartha of the joint family. Therefore he being kartha of the joint family cultivated the joint family properties and as per him he alsokartha of the joint family cultivated the joint family properties and as per him he also cultivated some other lands by taking on lease. The petitioner did not even state fromcultivated some other lands by taking on lease. The petitioner did not even state from whom he took lands on lease the survey numbers etc. If the petitioner used the amountwhom he took lands on lease the survey numbers etc. If the petitioner used the amount for his medical necessities and for discharging his debts the children of the petitioner arefor his medical necessities and for discharging his debts the children of the petitioner are also liable to discharge the debts to the extent of joint family properties. also liable to discharge the debts to the extent of joint family properties.

vii. As per Ex.B.1 1B the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.2.66vii. As per Ex.B.1 1B the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.2.66 cents in the year 2019 also. If really there was partition between him and his childrencents in the year 2019 also. If really there was partition between him and his children the same would have been mutated in the names of respective children. The petitionerthe same would have been mutated in the names of respective children. The petitioner filed five unregistered settlement deeds dated 20.09.2016 executed by him in the name offiled five unregistered settlement deeds dated 20.09.2016 executed by him in the name of his children. The same were not marked by the petitioner. P.W.1 in cross admitted onhis children. The same were not marked by the petitioner. P.W.1 in cross admitted on confrontation of the said unregistered deeds dated 20.09.2016 he executed the sameconfrontation of the said unregistered deeds dated 20.09.2016 he executed the same settling some extent to his respective daughters and son but not as partition, that hesettling some extent to his respective daughters and son but not as partition, that he alone signed in the said unregistered settlement deed, that as the said property belongsalone signed in the said unregistered settlement deed, that as the said property belongs to him he executed settlement deeds in favour of his children. But the petitioner statedto him he executed settlement deeds in favour of his children. But the petitioner stated in the petition and also in the chief affidavit that the partition deed was executed butin the petition and also in the chief affidavit that the partition deed was executed but nowhere he stated that execution of settlement deeds. The date of settlement deeds isnowhere he stated that execution of settlement deeds. The date of settlement deeds is 20.09.2016 i.e., subsequent to filing of suit and EP by R.5. Nothing was elicited in the20.09.2016 i.e., subsequent to filing of suit and EP by R.5. Nothing was elicited in the cross of R.W.1 to support the contention of the petitioner. P.W.2 evidence is of no use tocross of R.W.1 to support the contention of the petitioner. P.W.2 evidence is of no use to the petitioner in view of the above discussion. The above discussion clearly shows thatthe petitioner in view of the above discussion. The above discussion clearly shows that 6 the petitioner approached this court by suppressing material facts and properties. Asthe petitioner approached this court by suppressing material facts and properties. As such the petitioner is not entitled to seek declaration of him as insolvent.such the petitioner is not entitled to seek declaration of him as insolvent.

8.8.IIn the result, the petition is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the shorthand writer of this court, transcribed by him, corrected andDictated to the shorthand writer of this court, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 12thpronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of April, 2024. day of April, 2024.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KANDUKUR KANDUKUR

// Appendix of Evidence// // Appendix of Evidence//

Witnesses examinedWitnesses examined

For Petitioner: For Petitioner: For Respondents: For Respondents:

P.W.1//Daggumati Venkata P.W.1Daggumati Venkata Krishnaiah.Krishnaiah.R.W.1/Namburi Venkata Rao.R.W.1/Namburi Venkata Rao. P.W.2/Galla Mallikarjuna.P.W.2/Galla Mallikarjuna.

// Exhibits marked // // Exhibits marked //

For Petitioner: For Petitioner:

Nil.Nil.

For Respondents: For Respondents:

Ex.B.1/Public Copy of 1B register dated 09.10.2019.Ex.B.1/Public Copy of 1B register dated 09.10.2019. Ex.B.2/Public Copy of Adangal dated 09.10.2019 for fasili 1429 for Sy.No.51/2.Ex.B.2/Public Copy of Adangal dated 09.10.2019 for fasili 1429 for Sy.No.51/2. Ex.B.3/Public Copy of Adangal dated 09.10.2019 for fasili 1429 for Sy.No.51/1.Ex.B.3/Public Copy of Adangal dated 09.10.2019 for fasili 1429 for Sy.No.51/1.

S.C.J., Kandukur S.C.J., Kandukur

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KANDUKUR IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KANDUKUR

Present : Sri N.Vijaya Babu,Present : Sri N.Vijaya Babu,

Senior Civil Judge, KandukurSenior Civil Judge, Kandukur

Monday, the 15thMonday, the 15th day of April, 2024 day of April, 2024

H.M.O.P.No.145/2023 H.M.O.P.No.145/2023

1.1.Yakkatilli @ Gaddam Sandya Rani @ Sai Sandya Rani, W/o. Kasi Ratnam, D/o.Yakkatilli @ Gaddam Sandya Rani @ Sai Sandya Rani, W/o. Kasi Ratnam, D/o. Yakkatilli Nageswara Rao, aged 30 years, Housewife, Sundarayya Colony,Yakkatilli Nageswara Rao, aged 30 years, Housewife, Sundarayya Colony, Vikkiralapeta Road, Kandukur Town and Municipality, Old Prakasam District,Vikkiralapeta Road, Kandukur Town and Municipality, Old Prakasam District, SPSR Nellore District.SPSR Nellore District.

2.2.Gaddam Kasi Ratnam, S/o. Venkataiah, aged 39 years, Employee, ThurpuGaddam Kasi Ratnam, S/o. Venkataiah, aged 39 years, Employee, Thurpu Boyamadugula Village and Post, Varikuntapadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.Boyamadugula Village and Post, Varikuntapadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

….. Petitioners….. Petitioners

V/sV/s NoneNone

….. Respondent….. Respondent

This petition is coming on 15.03.2024 before me for final hearing in theThis petition is coming on 15.03.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Sridhar Naidu,presence of Sri V.Sridhar Naidu, Advocate for petitioners and none was shown as Advocate for petitioners and none was shown as respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court deliveredrespondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;the following;

// O R D E R // // O R D E R //

1.1.This is a petition filed by the petitioners/wife and husband U/s.13(B) of HinduThis is a petition filed by the petitioners/wife and husband U/s.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent.Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent.

2.2.The brief averments of the petition filed by the petitioners are that, theThe brief averments of the petition filed by the petitioners are that, the marriage between them was performed on 08.12.2012 at 2ndmarriage between them was performed on 08.12.2012 at 2nd petitioner’s house as per petitioner’s house as per Hindu Religion, Caste custom and usage. After the marriage the 1stHindu Religion, Caste custom and usage. After the marriage the 1st petitioner joined petitioner joined with the 2ndwith the 2nd petitioner to lead marital life and they lived together for 8 years. petitioner to lead marital life and they lived together for 8 years. Thereafter unfortunately certain misunderstandings and serious difference of opinionsThereafter unfortunately certain misunderstandings and serious difference of opinions arose between them which led them unhappy to live together. As such the 1starose between them which led them unhappy to live together. As such the 1st petitioner left the 2ndpetitioner left the 2nd petitioner and reached 1 petitioner and reached 1stst petitioner’s parents house and have petitioner’s parents house and have been living separately for the past two years. They have no children. Elders namelybeen living separately for the past two years. They have no children. Elders namely Gangavarapu Venkata Rao and Maganti Venkata Rao conducted panchayat onGangavarapu Venkata Rao and Maganti Venkata Rao conducted panchayat on 12.09.2020 and tried to amalgamate them to live and convince them several times but12.09.2020 and tried to amalgamate them to live and convince them several times but in vain. As such elders advised them to solve issue amicably by filing mutual divorcein vain. As such elders advised them to solve issue amicably by filing mutual divorce petition. The 2ndpetition. The 2nd petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- which were gifted by petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- which were gifted by parents of the 1stparents of the 1st petitioner at the time of marriage to the 2 petitioner at the time of marriage to the 2ndnd petitioner and the 1 petitioner and the 1stst petitioner agreed for the same as full and final settlement as permanent alimony.petitioner agreed for the same as full and final settlement as permanent alimony. They already exchanged respective gold ornaments before filing of this petition. The 2ndThey already exchanged respective gold ornaments before filing of this petition. The 2nd petitioner agreed to pay the said amount of Rs.5,50,000/- at the time of taking evidencepetitioner agreed to pay the said amount of Rs.5,50,000/- at the time of taking evidence in this case. The 1stin this case. The 1st petitioner give up her right for the past, present and future petitioner give up her right for the past, present and future maintenance from the 2ndmaintenance from the 2nd petitioner. Themselves and respective family members petitioner. Themselves and respective family members agreed and undertake to restrain them from interfering with the life of each other.agreed and undertake to restrain them from interfering with the life of each other. They will not discuss, spread defaming news and malice about each other in any formThey will not discuss, spread defaming news and malice about each other in any form of media including social media nor will they malign or defame each other withof media including social media nor will they malign or defame each other with respective relatives, friends or others. In the event of either party breaching the samerespective relatives, friends or others. In the event of either party breaching the same will be entitled to claim damages from each other. Hence this petition. will be entitled to claim damages from each other. Hence this petition.

3.3.None was shown as respondents. None was shown as respondents.

2

4.4.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the petitioners are entitled toNow the point for consideration is “Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek dissolution of their marriage that took place on 08.12.2012”??seek dissolution of their marriage that took place on 08.12.2012”

5.5.In order to prove the petitioners’ contention, the petitioners examinedIn order to prove the petitioners’ contention, the petitioners examined themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2, P.W.3/Yakkatilli Ramadevi and got marked Ex.A.1 &themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2, P.W.3/Yakkatilli Ramadevi and got marked Ex.A.1 & Ex.A.2. Ex.A.2.

6.6.Heard. Perused the record.Heard. Perused the record.

7.7.Point: P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their respective chief affidavits filed in lieu of theirPoint: P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their respective chief affidavits filed in lieu of their respective chief examinations reiterated the averments of the petition. P.W.3 who isrespective chief examinations reiterated the averments of the petition. P.W.3 who is mother of 1stmother of 1st petitioner in her chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination supported petitioner in her chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination supported the case of the petitioners in toto. the case of the petitioners in toto.

8.8.As can be seen from the record i.e., the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Ex.A.1 &As can be seen from the record i.e., the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Ex.A.1 & Ex.A.2 shows that the marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 took place onEx.A.2 shows that the marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 took place on 08.12.2012 at 2nd08.12.2012 at 2nd petitioner’s house as per Hindu Religion, Caste custom and usage, petitioner’s house as per Hindu Religion, Caste custom and usage, that after the marriage the 1stthat after the marriage the 1st petitioner joined with the 2 petitioner joined with the 2ndnd petitioner to lead marital petitioner to lead marital life and they lived together for 8 years, that thereafter unfortunately certainlife and they lived together for 8 years, that thereafter unfortunately certain misunderstandings and serious difference of opinions arose between the petitioners 1misunderstandings and serious difference of opinions arose between the petitioners 1 and 2 which led the petitioners unhappy to live together, that as such the 1stand 2 which led the petitioners unhappy to live together, that as such the 1st petitioner petitioner left the 2ndleft the 2nd petitioner and reached 1 petitioner and reached 1stst petitioner’s parents house and have been living petitioner’s parents house and have been living separately for the past two years, that they have no children, that elders namelyseparately for the past two years, that they have no children, that elders namely Gangavarapu Venkata Rao and Maganti Venkata Rao conducted panchayat onGangavarapu Venkata Rao and Maganti Venkata Rao conducted panchayat on 12.09.2020 and tried to amalgamate the petitioners 1 and 2 to live and convince the12.09.2020 and tried to amalgamate the petitioners 1 and 2 to live and convince the petitioners 1 and 2 several times but in vain, that as such elders advised thepetitioners 1 and 2 several times but in vain, that as such elders advised the petitioners to solve issue amicably by filing mutual divorce petition, that the 2ndpetitioners to solve issue amicably by filing mutual divorce petition, that the 2nd petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- which were gifted by parents of the 1stpetitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- which were gifted by parents of the 1st petitioner at the time of marriage to the 2ndpetitioner at the time of marriage to the 2nd petitioner and the 1 petitioner and the 1stst petitioner agreed for petitioner agreed for the same as full and final settlement as permanent alimony, that they alreadythe same as full and final settlement as permanent alimony, that they already exchanged respective gold ornaments before filing of this petition, that the 2ndexchanged respective gold ornaments before filing of this petition, that the 2nd petitioner agreed to pay the said amount of Rs.5,50,000/- at the time of taking evidencepetitioner agreed to pay the said amount of Rs.5,50,000/- at the time of taking evidence in this case, that the 1stin this case, that the 1st petitioner give up her right for the past, present and future petitioner give up her right for the past, present and future maintenance from the 2ndmaintenance from the 2nd petitioner, that themselves and respective family members petitioner, that themselves and respective family members agreed and undertake to restrain the petitioners from interfering with the life of eachagreed and undertake to restrain the petitioners from interfering with the life of each other, that they will not discuss, spread defaming news and malice about each other inother, that they will not discuss, spread defaming news and malice about each other in any form of media including social media nor will they malign or defame each otherany form of media including social media nor will they malign or defame each other with respective relatives, friends or others, that in the event of either party breachingwith respective relatives, friends or others, that in the event of either party breaching the same will be entitled to claim damages from each other. P.W.2 in her evidencethe same will be entitled to claim damages from each other. P.W.2 in her evidence stated that she received Rs.5,50,000/- from P.W.1 towards past, present and futurestated that she received Rs.5,50,000/- from P.W.1 towards past, present and future maintenance. P.W.1 admitted the same. P.W.3 also supported the same. Ex.A.1 ismaintenance. P.W.1 admitted the same. P.W.3 also supported the same. Ex.A.1 is wedding card and Ex.A.2 is marriage photo along with CD. Even after expiry ofwedding card and Ex.A.2 is marriage photo along with CD. Even after expiry of statutory period, both parties expressed their willingness to live separately by takingstatutory period, both parties expressed their willingness to live separately by taking divorce. There are no chances for reunion. As none was shown as respondent, there isdivorce. There are no chances for reunion. As none was shown as respondent, there is 3 no denial to the petitioners contention. Under these circumstances, this court is of theno denial to the petitioners contention. Under these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the petitioners proved that they are entitled to seek dissolution of theiropinion that the petitioners proved that they are entitled to seek dissolution of their marriage which took place on 08.12.2012. Accordingly, this point is answered.marriage which took place on 08.12.2012. Accordingly, this point is answered.

9.9.In the result, the petition is allowed without costs and the marriage betweenIn the result, the petition is allowed without costs and the marriage between the petitioners No.1 and 2, which took place on 08.12.2012, is hereby dissolved by waythe petitioners No.1 and 2, which took place on 08.12.2012, is hereby dissolved by way of mutual consent. of mutual consent. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this theTyped to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 15 th 15 th day of March, 2024. day of March, 2024.

Senior Civil Judge, Senior Civil Judge,

Kandukur. Kandukur.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // // APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

-: WITNESSES EXAMINED :- -: WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

For Petitioners For Petitioners

P.W.1/Gaddam Kasi Ratnam.P.W.1/Gaddam Kasi Ratnam. P.W.2/Yakkatilli @ Gaddam Sandya Rani.P.W.2/Yakkatilli @ Gaddam Sandya Rani. P.W.3/Yakkatilli Ramadevi.P.W.3/Yakkatilli Ramadevi.

// DOCUMENTS MARKED // // DOCUMENTS MARKED //

For Petitioners For Petitioners

Ex.A.1/Wedding Card. Ex.A.1/Wedding Card. Ex.A.2/Marriage Photo along with CD.Ex.A.2/Marriage Photo along with CD. S.C.J., Kandukur. S.C.J., Kandukur.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KANDUKUR IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KANDUKUR

Present : Sri N.Vijaya Babu,Present : Sri N.Vijaya Babu,

Senior Civil Judge, KandukurSenior Civil Judge, Kandukur

Monday, the 15thMonday, the 15th day of April, 2024 day of April, 2024

H.M.O.P.No.145/2023 H.M.O.P.No.145/2023

1.1.Yakkatilli @ Gaddam Sandya Rani @ Sai Sandya Rani, W/o. Kasi Ratnam, D/o.Yakkatilli @ Gaddam Sandya Rani @ Sai Sandya Rani, W/o. Kasi Ratnam, D/o. Yakkatilli Nageswara Rao, aged 30 years, Housewife, Sundarayya Colony,Yakkatilli Nageswara Rao, aged 30 years, Housewife, Sundarayya Colony, Vikkiralapeta Road, Kandukur Town and Municipality, Old Prakasam District,Vikkiralapeta Road, Kandukur Town and Municipality, Old Prakasam District, SPSR Nellore District.SPSR Nellore District.

2.2.Gaddam Kasi Ratnam, S/o. Venkataiah, aged 39 years, Employee, ThurpuGaddam Kasi Ratnam, S/o. Venkataiah, aged 39 years, Employee, Thurpu Boyamadugula Village and Post, Varikuntapadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.Boyamadugula Village and Post, Varikuntapadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

….. Petitioners….. Petitioners

V/sV/s NoneNone

….. Respondent….. Respondent

This is a petition filed by the petitioners/wife and husband U/s.13(B) of HinduThis is a petition filed by the petitioners/wife and husband U/s.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent.Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent.

Petition presented on 14.08.2023 and filed on 28.08.2023.Petition presented on 14.08.2023 and filed on 28.08.2023.

Cause of action: Cause of action arose on 08.12.2012 when the marriage between theCause of action: Cause of action arose on 08.12.2012 when the marriage between the petitioners took place and when disputes arose between the petitioners and the effortspetitioners took place and when disputes arose between the petitioners and the efforts made by the parents of petitioners for reunion proved futile within the jurisdiction ofmade by the parents of petitioners for reunion proved futile within the jurisdiction of this court.this court.

Valuation: : A fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under schedule II Article I(vii) of APCFValuationA fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under schedule II Article I(vii) of APCF & SV Act.& SV Act.

This petition is coming on 15.03.2024 before me for final hearing in theThis petition is coming on 15.03.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Sridhar Naidu,presence of Sri V.Sridhar Naidu, Advocate for petitioners and none was shown as Advocate for petitioners and none was shown as respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth orderrespondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decretal order:and decretal order:

i.That the petition is allowed without costs and the marriage between thethe petition is allowed without costs and the marriage between the petitioners No.1 and 2, which took place on 08.12.2012, is herebypetitioners No.1 and 2, which took place on 08.12.2012, is hereby dissolved by way of mutual consent; anddissolved by way of mutual consent ii.That each party do bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 15 15 th th day of April, 2024. day of April, 2024.

Senior Civil Judge, Senior Civil Judge,

Kandukur. Kandukur.

TABLE OF COSTS TABLE OF COSTS

NIL ( CM & FC not filed ) NIL ( CM & FC not filed )

S.C.J., Kandukur. S.C.J., Kandukur.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

PRESENT : Sri N.Vijaya Babu,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Friday, the 9th day of April, 2021.

Original Suit No.1186/2019

Between: Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Mangamuru Road Branch, Ongole. Rep. By its Branch Manager.… Plaintiff

And

1.Kadiyala Subba Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu, aged about 40 years, R/o Ramachandrapuram village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District.

2.Kilari Anjaneyulu, S/o Yalamanda, aged about 60 years, R/o Mylavaram village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District.… Defendants

This suit is coming on 06-04-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Koteswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and the Defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte; upon hearing the plaintiff side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

This suit is filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of Rs.3,48,701/- being the principal and interest due as per the account copy maintained by the plaintiff bank with subsequent interest @ 15.5% per annum and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief facts of the plaint filed by the plaintiff Bank are that, in view of the notification dated 01.06.2006 issued by Government of

India, Ministry of Finance Department of Economics Affairs, Under

Section 23-A & 23-B of Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, the Regional

Rural Bank which are sponsored by the Syndicate Bank i.e., Pinakini

Grameena Bank and other two banks were amalgamated into a single

Regional Rural Bank, which shall be called as Andhra Pragathi

Grameena Bank and now the plaintiff bank is being represented in the said name though the documents stated in the name of Pinakini 2

Grameena Bank and the same is maintainable under law in view of notification.

(ii)D1 approached it for grant of agricultural loan and on its satisfaction it sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 14.09.2015 with loan account No.91061985603, for which 1st defendant executed agreement for agricultural advances with interest of 7% and overdue excess interest @ 2%. The 2nd defendant stood as guarantor for the said loan executed guarantee agreement on the same day in its favour with joint and several liability along with D1. Further 1st defendant also executed acknowledgment of debt on 10.09.2018 to an amount of

Rs.2,71,815/- in its favour. Subsequently, account of 1st defendant became irregular and its officials demanded the defendants to pay the loan installments, but in vain. Therefore, it got issued notice to the defendants on 17.8.2019 and demanded to repay the outstanding amount as per the terms of agreement of agricultural advances. The 1st defendant received the legal notice dated 17.8.2019 and kept quite without any reply or payment. As the defendants failed to pay the outstanding loan amount, it is constrained to file the suit for recovery of outstanding amount of Rs.3,48,701/- as on 25.10.2019 with penal interest of 2% PA as account became NPA as per the loan account statement maintained by it. The provisions of Act VII of 77 and Act IV of 38 are not applicable to the suit as it is a Nationalized Bank. The

Bank is claiming interest @ 15.5% as per the guidelines of Reserve

Bank of India and as the account became NPA.

3.Inspite of serving of summons, D1 and D2 did not choose to appear before this Court. As such and as there was no representation this Court was constrained to set the defendants exparte.

3

4.Now the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount?

2. To what result?

5. In order to prove the contention, the plaintiff examined its Branch

Manager as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A8. As the defendants remained exparte, there is no defence evidence.

06. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the record.

07. Points No.1 & 2:-

P.W.1 in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination reiterated the averments of plaint.

As can be seen from the record, as per the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 to A8, on application of D1 to the plaintiff’s Bank the plaintiff's Bank sanctioned loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to D1 who executed Ex.A1 agreement of agricultural advances, dated 1-09-2015 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 7% per annum for which 2nd defendant stood as guarantor and executed Ex.A2 guarantee agreement dated 14.09.2015, that D1 made some part payments and executed Ex.A3 acknowledgment of debt dated 10.09.2018 for balance of Rs.2,71,815/-, that as the payments became irregular, the plaintiff’s bank treated the same as Non performing asset and issued Ex.A4 Legal notice dated 17.8.2019 to D1 and D2 vide Ex.A5 postal receipts, served on D1 vide Ex.A7 postal acknowledgment, but, the defendants failed to discharge the balance inspite of repeated demands and fell due an amount of Rs.3,48,701/- (i.e., Rs.2,09,542/- + Rs.1,39,158/- (interest which is credited and debited on 11-10-2019 since the account is treated as non performing asset)) as on 25.10.2019 as per Ex.A6 statement of account that at present the interest rate fixed for the loan is 15.5%. A8 is the true copy of General Power of Attorney issued by Bank Authorities in favour of P.w.1. As the defendants remained exparte there is no denial to the claim of the plaintiff's Bank. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff Bank is entitled to recover the suit amount.

4

8. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff. The

principal sum is adjudged as Rs.3,48,701/-. The defendants 1 and 2 are

directed to pay to the plaintiff Bank an amount of Rs.3,48,701/- along with interest on the principal sum adjudged @12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and after that @6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court,this the 9thday of April, 2021.

Sd/- N.Vijaya Babu,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendants:-

PW-1: Choppara Ravi Kumar,Exparte Branch Manager.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1/14.09.2015Agreement of agricultural advances executed by 1st defendant. Ex.A2/14.09.2015Guarantee agreement executed by 2nd defendant. Ex.A3/10.09.2018Acknowledgment of debt in favour of Bank. Ex.A4/17.08.2019Office copy of Registered legal notice. Ex.A5/17.08.2019Two postal receipts Ex.A6/25.10.2019Account statement maintained by Plaintiff Bank. Ex.A7/--Acknowledgment from the 1st defendant. Ex.A8/--True copy of GPA given to Manager by Plaintiff Bank.

For Defendant:NIL

Sd/- N.Vijaya Babu,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ongole

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

PRESENT : Sri N.Vijaya Babu,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Friday, the 9th day of April, 2021.

Original Suit No.1186/2019

Between: Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Mangamuru Road Branch, Ongole. Rep. By its Branch Manager.… Plaintiff

And

1.Kadiyala Subba Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu, aged about 40 years, R/o Ramachandrapuram village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District.

2.Kilari Anjaneyulu, S/o Yalamanda, aged about 60 years, R/o Mylavaram village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District.… Defendants

This suit is filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of Rs.3,48,701/- being the principal and interest due as per the account copy maintained by the plaintiff bank with subsequent interest @ 15.5% per annum and for costs of the suit.

Valuation: Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.3,48,701/- on which a court fee of Rs.5,926/- is paid U/s.20 of

APCF & SV Act.

Cause of action: The cause of action for the suit arose when on 14.09.2015 the 1st defendant executed agreement for agricultural advances to an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- received by him in favour of the plaintiff bank, the 2nd defendant as guarantor to the adove loan executed guarantee agreement, when the 1st defendant executed acknowledgment of debt to an amount of Rs.2,71,815/- on 10.09.2018, when 1st defendant’s account became irregular and the plaintiff Bank officials demanded the defendants to pay the loan amount, and also demanded by issuing register legal notice to the defendants on 17.08.2019, when the 1st defendant received the same and kept quite without any payment or reply, when the defendants failed to pay the loan amount as stated above the plaintiff bank is constrained to file the suit for recovery of outstanding loan amount of Rs.3,48,701/- as on 25.10.2019 with interest, as per the loan account statement maintained by the plaintiff bank when the defendants failed to pay the loan amount at Chimakurthy where the transaction took place within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Plaint presented on 28-10-2019 and filed on 17-12-2019

This suit is coming on 06-04-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Koteswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and the Defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte; upon hearing the plaintiff side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

1. that the suit be and same is hereby decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff;

2. that the principal sum is adjudged as Rs.3,48,701/-;

3. that the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to pay to the plaintiff Bank an amount of Rs.3,48,701/- along with interest on the principal sum adjudged @ 12% PA from the date of filing of suit i.e., 17.12.2019 till the date of decree and @6% PA from the date of decree till the date of realization;

4. That defendants 1 and 2 do also pay to the plaintiff's bank a sum of Rs.5,928-00 towards institutional costs of the suit; and do bear his own costs; (C.M. & F.C. not filed by both sides)

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 9th day of April, 2021.

Sd/- N.Vijaya Babu,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ongole.

//TABLE OF COSTS//

For Plaintiff For Defendant (Rs.) (Rs.) Stamp on Vakalat2-00Exparte Stamp on Plaint5,926-00 TOTAL 5,928-00

Sd/- N.Vijaya Babu,

P.J.C.J., ONGOLE.

NOTE: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents, which are marked, have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.