Sri Nandikonda Narsing Rao

1 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018

IN THE COURT OF I - ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, WARANGAL.

Monday, this the 31st day of January, 2022.

PRESENT: Nandikonda Narsing Rao, Prl.District and Sessions Judge, FAC.I - Addl. District Judge, Warangal.

A.S.No. 110 OF 2018

B E T W E E N :

Gandra Sai Reddy, S/o.Adi Reddy, Age: 58 years, Occu: Business, R/o.H.No.2-12-162, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban district.

..Appellant/plaintiff

A N D

1. Jakkula Sammaiah, S/o.Papaiah, Age: 62 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.2/46-1, Waddepally, Hanamkonda, Warangal district.

2. Md.Yusuf, S/o.Miskin, Age: 62 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.4-5-41, Kumarpally, Hanamkonda.

3. Md.Gouse Mohinuddin, S/o.Khaja Ahmed, Age: 72 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.13-3-89, Patak Street, Warangal.

4. Md.Kousar, S/o.Ohusman, Age: 64 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.6-6-78, Raipura, Hanamkonda.

5. Thummalapally Chandraiah, S/o.Yellaiah, Age: 65 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o.Cherial (V & M), Warangal district.

6. Nagaraboina Kanukamma, D/o.Chandraiah, Age: 66 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.22-3-14, Desaipet, Warangal district.

7. Thota Kotaiah, S/o.Venkataiah, Age: 79 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.6-3-2, Rajputhwada, Hanamkonda.

8. Madadi Devender Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Age: 70 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.2-442-356, Excise Colony, Hanamkonda.

..Respondents/Defendants

* * *

Appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed on 23-03-2018 in O.S.No.824/2011 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

B E T W E E N :

Gandra Sai Reddy, S/o.Adi Reddy, Age: 58 years, Occu: Business, R/o.H.No.2-12-162, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban district. … Plaintiff 2 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018

A N D

1. Jakkula Sammaiah, S/o.Papaiah, Age: 62 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.2/46-1, Waddepally, Hanamkonda, Warangal district.

2. Md.Yusuf, S/o.Miskin, Age: 62 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.4-5-41, Kumarpally, Hanamkonda.

3. Md.Gouse Mohinuddin, S/o.Khaja Ahmed, Age: 72 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.13-3-89, Patak Street, Warangal.

4. Md.Kousar, S/o.Ohusman, Age: 64 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.6-6-78, Raipura, Hanamkonda.

5. Thummalapally Chandraiah, S/o.Yellaiah, Age: 65 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o.Cherial (V & M), Warangal district.

6. Nagaraboina Kanukamma, D/o.Chandraiah, Age: 66 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.22-3-14, Desaipet, Warangal district.

7. Thota Kotaiah, S/o.Venkataiah, Age: 79 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.6-3-2, Rajputhwada, Hanamkonda.

8. Madadi Devender Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Age: 70 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.2-442-356, Excise Colony, Hanamkonda.

... Defendants.

* * * This Appeal Suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 25-01-2022 in the presence of Sri M.Ranjith, Advocate for the appellant/plaintiff and Sri Y.Nagender, Advocate for respondents / defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This appeal preferred by the appellant / plaintiff under Order XLI

Rule 1 of C.P.C., being aggrieved by the Judgment and Degree passed in O.S.No.824/2011, dated: 23-03-2018 on the file of

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, praying the Court to decree the said suit filed for permanent injunction by setting aside the

Judgment and Decree the suit.

2.The brief averments of the case are as follows: The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the open land to an extent of Acre 01-04 guntas out of Sy.No.53/A of Chinthagattu Revenue village, 3 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018

Hasanparthy mandal, Warangal district, who purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed bearing doc.No.5789/2010,

dated: 20-10-2010 from Billa Ravinder Reddy, S/o.Kishan Reddy

for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.26,62,000/-; and that he was inducted into possession over the suit schedule property and after execution of sale deed, the plaintiff is in peaceful and uninterrupted possession over the same.

3.The vendor of the plaintiff Billa Ravinder Reddy acquired the ownership and possession over the suit schedule property through inheritance; and that the vendor of the plaintiff was having rightful ownership to alienate the same; and that after the purchase of the same, the plaintiff had acquired possession over the suit schedule property and prior to his purchase, the vendor of the plaintiff had fixed the boundaries to this property with the help of land surveyor by conducting the panchanama and thereafter, he was executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff with an intention to construct a shed in the suit schedule property along with the compound wall around the suit schedule property, he had obtained construction permission from the Grampanchayath Chinthagattu on 15-04-2011 and started the construction in the suit schedule property.

4.The defendants were nothing to do with the suit schedule property and they have no right or interest over the suit schedule property, made an attempt to grab the same illegally and in implementation of their plan, the defendants along with some unsocial elements came to the suit schedule property and tried to disturb the existing boundary stones on 23-07-2011, 4 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018 however, the plaintiff could able to resist the same with the help of his well-wishers. As the plaintiff is still apprehending interference, as such, the present suit is filed for permanent injunction.

5.The defendant Nos.1,2,5,8 appeared through their Advocate and the defendant Nos.3 and 6 remained exparte; and the suit against the defendant Nos.4 and 7 was dismissed. The defendant

No.1 filed written statement. Initially, the defendant Nos.1,2,5 and 8 were absent and they were set exparte. Subsequently, they came on record and exparte order was set aside as per the

Interlocutory Application Orders and written statement of the defendant No.1 was filed and adoption memo was filed by the defendant Nos.2,5,8 filed.

6.The brief averments of the written statement are that the allegations made in the plaint are false and baseless and denied the same. The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff did not choose to file any other documents to prove his contentions and the defendant No.1 never tried to grab the property of the plaintiff on any date as alleged by him. The defendants further submits that the plaintiff is neither the owner nor possessor of the open land to an extent of Acre 01-04 guntas out of

Sy.No.53/A of Chintagattu village, Hasanparthy mandal,

Warangal district and neither the plaintiff nor his vendor owned the said property. The plaintiff is not owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, the question of interference by the defendant does not arise and nothing was happened on the alleged date i.e., 23-07-2011.

5 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018

7.The defendant No.1 further submit that in fact the defendant

No.1 along with other defendants herein filed the suit in

O.S.No.496/2011 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Warangal

against the vendor of the plaintiff i.e., Billa Ravinder Reddy for grant of permanent injunction in Sy.No.53/A and after filing of the suit, the plaintiff in collusion with Billa Ravinder Reddy filed the present suit to counter blast and all the defendants are absolute owners and possessors of the property and they are enjoying their respective properties. These defendants purchased through the registered sale deed from the original owners.

8.The defendants further submits that Janagani Kanakaiah father of Janagani Ramaswamy has purchased the property in

Sy.No.53/A to an extent of Acre 3-00 guntas and in Sy.No.57 to an extent of Acre 05-00 guntas and in Sy.No.58 to an extent of

Acre 06-00 guntas from Billa Jagannath Reddy through registered sale deed in the year 1968 and the suit is filed only basing on mere assumptions and created for the purpose of suit and there is no cause of action and the suit itself is not maintainable and barred by limitation and there is suppression of material facts and prayed this Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

9.After filing of the written statement and basing on the above pleadings and documents filed by both the parties, the learned trial Court, settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?

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

3. To what relief ?

6 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018

10.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 and A.Nitya was examined as PW2. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant

No.1 examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 and Mohd.Yousuf / defendant No.2 examined as DW2 and the defendant No.3 / Ghouse Moinuddin examined as DW3.

11.After hearing both the parties and after going into the merits of the case, the learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal held the

Issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed as there is no prima facie possession was made out by the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

12.Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, the present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff on the following grounds:

13.That the Judgment and Decree under the appeal is against law and facts; and that the learned Trial Judge did not consider the admissions of DW1 to DW3 with regard to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and also admitted the existing structures of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and basing on mere presumptions and assumptions dismissed the suit; and that though there was no evidence produced by either side with regard to the pendency of

O.S.No.496/2011, drawn a presumption in favour of the

defendants herein and in order to pass decree in their favour, in which the defendants herein are the plaintiffs and without considering the non-citing of the plaintiff in the above suit, but 7 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018 taking into consideration of the prior filing of the suit by the defendants herein against third parties and dismissed the suit.

14.Further, the learned trial court ought to have observed the total extent of the land covered by Sy.No.53/A and ought to have believed the version of the plaintiff and the rights of his vendor and also the admissions made by the defendants with regard to enjoyment and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and basing on mere presumptions and assumptions dismissed the suit. Further, the learned trial court wrongly taken into consideration with regard to the total extent of the land covered by Sy.No.53/A as only Acre 03-00 guntas is totally beyond the record and the lower court with predetermined mind dismissed the suit and further, the trial court failed to observe the non-filing of any document to show the possession of the defendants over the suit schedule property and having admitted the existing shed of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property and simply passed the Judgment in favour of the defendants.

15.After registering the suit as A.S.No.110/2018, the same was allotted to this Court by the Hon'ble Prl.District Judge for disposal of the same as per law. After receipt of the same, notices were given to all the defendants. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2,3,5,6,8, Sri Y.Nagender appeared and the respondent Nos.4 and 7 did not choose to contest the suit, as such, they were remained exparte. After receiving the lower court record, heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. For the sake of convenience, I referred the parties herein as arrayed in the main suit as plaintiff and the defendants.

8 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018

16.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants.

17.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted oral arguments and the counsel for the defendants filed written arguments supporting the Judgment passed by the trial court.

18.Basing on the above said pleadings and the grounds and submissions made by both the parties, the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the plaintiff has proved the possession over the suit schedule property and made out the grounds for seeking permanent injunction against the defendants?

2. Whether the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Warangal in O.S.No.824/2011 is sustainable under law?

3. Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.824/2011 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal?

4. To what relief?

19. As all the points settled are interlinked, to avoid repetition of discussion and brevity, this court is opted to discuss and answer them together.

20.POINTS: The present suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants praying this Court to grant permanent injunction by restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property i.e., open land to an extent of Acre 01-04 guntas out of

Sy.No.53/A of Chinthagattu Revenue village, Hasanparthy mandal, Warangal district, having purchased the same from its lawful owner Billa Ravinder Reddy under a registered sale deed vide doc.No.5789/2010, dated: 20-10-2010 and the vendor of the plaintiff acquired the suit schedule property by way of 9 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018 inheritance; and that after execution of the same, the plaintiff was inducted into the possession and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and the defendants who are strangers and making attempts to grab the suit schedule property illegally and the plaintiff has obtained the permission for construction of the house and compound wall; and that when he was commenced the construction, the defendants started interference with the suit schedule property without any semblance or right or interest over the same.

21.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff never purchased the suit schedule property and the defendants claiming the ownership over the suit schedule property; and that he is already filed O.S.No.496/2011 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil

Court, Warangal against the vendor of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff in collusion with his vendor filed the suit to counter blast the suit in O.S.No.496/2011; and that Janagani Kanakaiah, father of Janagani Ramaswamy purchased Acre 3-00 guntas of land in

Sy.No.53/A and in fact, the Sy.No.57 is total extent of Acre 5-00 guntas, Sy.No.58 a total extent of Acre 6-00 guntas of land purchased by the vendors of the defendant No.1 from Billa

Jagannadha Reddy under a registered sale deed in the year 1968 and thereafter, Jangani Ramaswamy executed a GPA in favour of

Billa Prabhakar Rao and two others for the suit survey number.

The main contention of the plaintiff is that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendants are interfering with his possession over the schedule property.

10 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018

22.In support of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 by filing chief affidavit by reiterating the averments made in the plaint. On perusal of the cross examination, it is elicited that the plaintiff has purchased the property from Billa Ravinder in Sy.No.53/A to an extent of Acre 01-04 guntas; and that the total extent of Sy.No.53 is Acre 13-11 guntas and the total extent of Sy.No.53/A is Acre 02-11 guntas were in the name of Billa Jagannadhareddy who is none other than the grandfather of PW1 and it is also elicited that to his knowledge in Sy.No.53/A Billa Jagannadhareddy is having land to an extent of Acre 13-11 guntas. It is also elicited that the defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.496/2011 on the file of

Prl.Junior Civil Court, Warangal against Ravinder Reddy who is the vendor of the plaintiff and he is also having knowledge about the same after purchase of property. It is also admitted that the present suit is a subsequent suit and he also pleaded ignorance of the purchase of the property by the defendant from Billa

Jagannadhareddy and also pleaded ignorance about the defendant No.1 is in possession of the property since the date of his purchase and the defendant might be in possession of his property, but he reiterated that he is in possession of his property and he also pleaded ignorance of the suit in

O.S.No.1026/2012 against his vendor and he do not know the

suit in O.S.No.1026/2012 filed by one J.Sambaiah and Sarojana against his vendor and the said suit was decreed recently.

Though, it is suggested that Ex.A7 was created and the same was denied by the plaintiff. It is also elicited in the cross examination that he made an enquiry after filing of the present suit and he came to know that one Billa Prabhakar Rao executed 11 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018 a sale deed, but the said Billa Prabhakar Rao is not having lawful authority to execute the documents and he does not know whether Billa Jagannadhareddy sold any extent of property to his vendors in Sy.No.53/A out of Acre 13-11 guntas and he added that he purchased the property from his vendor on measuring the property by fixing boundaries; and that at the time of his purchase, he has verified pattedar passbook in the name of grandfather of his vendor; and that he explained that he is the legal heir of Billa Jagannadhareddy; and that Billa Kishanreddy is son of Billa Jagannadhareddy and the said Billa Kishanreddy is no other than the father of his vendor; and that in Ex.A7, the sisters of his vendor are not signed.

23.Further, on perusal of the evidence of PW2 who is a third party to the suit filed the chief affidavit contending that he is resident of

Chinthagattu village and having house bearing No. 29-1-54/A constructed in the plot covered by Sy.No.57/A/2 of Chinthagattu village, Hasanparthy mandal, Warangal district; and that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed vide doc.No.5789/2010, dated: 20-10-2010 from one Billa Ravinder Reddy, S/o.Kishan Reddy for a total sale consideration of Rs.26,62,000/-; and that he was present at the time of sale transaction and fixing the boundaries; and that the plaintiff is enjoying the property peacefully without uninterrupted possession; and that at the time of constructing the shed in the suit schedule property, the plaintiff constructed compound wall around the suit schedule property; and he also submits that the plaintiff is also obtained construction permission from

Grampanchayath Chinthagattu on 15-04-2011. He also submits 12 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018 that the defendants are strangers to the suit schedule property and they along with some unsocial elements came to the suit schedule property on 23-07-2011 and 24-07-2011 and tried to disturb the existing boundary stones of the suit schedule property by creating problem to the plaintiff. On perusal of the cross examination, it is elicited that PW2 is not aware about any cases pending in the present court in Sy.No.57/A of Chinthagattu village; and that the vendor of the plaintiff is Billa Ravinder

Reddy and he came to know that the plaintiff acquired land from his grandfather Billa Jagannadhareddy; and that he knows the vendor of the plaintiff personally. It is also elicited that the total extent of Sy.No.53/A is Acre 02-11 guntas and he does not know when the Sy.No.53 was subdivided and he does not know whether the total extent of Sy.No.53/A is Acre 3-00 guntas, but not as Acre 02-11 as he stated earlier. He stated that he know the plaintiff from the date of purchase of land from him situated at Chinthagattu prior to that he does not know him; and that he also stated that he does not know whether the defendants purchased property from their vendors namely late Janagani

Kanakaih in the year 1994 so also he does not know whether the defendants are in possession of the property since 1994. He further stated that he does not know whether the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property even by the date of filing of the suit since 1994 till so far.

24.Now, coming to the evidence of defendants. The defendant

Nos.1 to 3 filed their chief affidavits as DW1 to DW3 and reiterated the contentions made in their written statement.

During the cross examination by the counsel for the plaintiff, 13 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018

DW1 contended that he does not know the total extent of

Sy.No.53. DW1 admitted that the compound wall is existing around the suit schedule property and the plaintiff had constructed the said compound wall subsequent to their purchase of the land so also admitted that the plaintiff had also constructed house in the suit schedule property. DW1 further admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.

25. DW1 stated that he along with other defendants have jointly purchased the house plots to an extent of 200 Sq.yards each and he cannot say the boundaries of property purchased by them. He further stated that he purcahsed his alleged plot from one Billa

Prabhakar Rao and he has not made any enquiry to know who is the original pattadar of Sy.No.53/A so also stated that he does not know from whom Billa Prabhakar Rao obtained G.P.A. He admitted that Billa Prabhakar Rao is not the original pattedar of

Sy.No.53/A. He stated that he cannot say how much extent of property, the G.P.A. executed and who executed in favour of

Billa Prabhakar Rao. He admitted that he has not raised any objection before Gram Panchayath prior to issuance of permission and sanction in favour of the plaintiff for construction of compound wall and room in the suit schedule property. He does not know whether the plaintiff obtained sanction from Gram

Panchayath for the above said constructions and he also does not know whether Gram Panchayath, Chinthagattu village has given paper public on 26-03-2011 prior to granting permission and sanction in favour of the plaintiff for construction of compound wall and room in the suit schedule property and he 14 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018 does not know whether the plaintiff constructed compound wall in the suit schedule property along with a room. He further stated that he never visited the suit schedule property.

26.DW1 further stated that he has not received any letter from

Gram Panchayath intimating the Gram Panchayath rejected their objections on 13-04-2011 and permitted the plaintiff to raise constructions in the suit schedule property. He does not know whether Grampanchayath decided that his vendor and himself are not having any right over the land in Sy.No.53/A. He does not know even prior to filing of O.S.No.496/2011, he is not having knowledge of purchase of suit schedule property by the plaintiff in Sy.No.53/A. He contended that the total extent of Sy.No.53/A is Acre 3-00 guntas and Billa Prabhakar Rao who executed sale deeds in their favour under Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 carved house plots.

He admitted that he has not filed any documents to show principles of Billa Prabhakar Rao having land in their favour in

Sy.No.53/A and Billa Prabhakar Rao intimated them that G.P.A.

was executed in his favour in the year 1968. He stated that in the year 2010 the plaintiff is not allowed them into the suit schedule property. DW1 denied the suggestions made by the counsel for the plaintiff.

27.During the cross examination of DW2, he stated that he cannot say the extent of the suit schedule property and he does not know whether the plaintiff constructed a compound wall around the property and admitted that he along with other filed the suit in O.S.No.496/2011. DW2 stated that he purchased 200

Sq.yards and his plot No.101 and also stated that the plaintiff 15 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018 encroached in their plots. He does not know whether he has got mentioned in his chief affidavit that Sy.No.53/A was carved out to plots and he also does not know the entire contents of his chief affidavit. He admitted that in O.S.No.496/2011, the plaintiff herein is not a party in that suit.

28.During the cross examination of DW3, he has given his evidence in O.S.No.496/2011 and admitted that he does not know about his plot 103 and where it was. As per his knowledge, Sy.No.53/A total extent is Acre 3-00 guntas. He does not know whether the plaintiff applied permission from Grampanchayath and also does not know whether Grampanchayath, Chinthagattu refused to consider his objection which was given to it before permission obtained by the plaintiff. He stated that he constructed a boundary wall in their land and he purchased the plot from Billa

Prabhakar Reddy and J.Kanakaiah executed a document in his favour and also stated that Kanakaiah has given G.P.A.in favour of Prabhakar and Prabhakar executed a document in their favour. He admitted that he is not filed any document to show that he is having plot in the suit schedule number. He does not know whether either Kanakaiah or Prabhakar not having any land in the suit schedule property.

29.The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the open land to an extent of Acre 1-04 guntas in Sy.No.53/A of Chinthagattu revenue, Hasanparthy, Warangal district; and that he acquired the same by way of purchasing the property under a registered sale deed vide doc.No.5789/2010,

dated: 20-10-2010 from one Billa Ravinder Reddy, S/o.Krishna

16 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018

Reddy. It is further case of the plaintiff is that the said vendor

Billa Ravinder Reddy acquired the property from his grandfather.

The case of the respondents / defendants is that they have already filed the suit in O.S.No.496/2011 which is pending before the Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Warangal against the vendor of the plaintiff Billa Ravinder Reddy and sought for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit survey number.

Besides that, it is the contention of the defendants that they purchased the said property under various sale deeds i.e., Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 for the Sy.No.53/A.

30.On perusal of the said sale deeds, no doubt, the said sale deeds are produced to show that the defendants are said to have been purchased the said properties by Jakkula Sammaiah, S/o.Papaiah under the said register sale deed vide doc.No.159/1994 from

Janagani Ramaswamy, Mark Uppalaiah, Mark Yadamma, Valija

Manemma and Mediapalli Kanakatara represented by

G.P.A.Holder Sri Billa Prabhakar Rao under G.P.A. vide doc.No.5/1994, dated: 16-02-1994. The defendant No.1, Jakkula

Sammaiah, purchased the Plot No.118; and the defendant No.2,

Md.Yusuf, purchased the Plot No.104; defendant No.3, Ghouse

Mohinuddin, purchased the Plot No.103; defendant No.4,

Md.Kousar, purchased the Plot No.102; the defendant No.5,

Thummalapally Chandraiah purchased the Plot No.119; the defendant No.6, Nagaraboina Kanukamma purchased the Plot

No.106; the defendant No.7, Thota Kotaiah purchased the Plot

No.99, from above said vendors through their G.P.A.Holder

Sri Billa Prabhakar Rao vide G.P.A. vide doc.No.5/1994, dated:

17 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018 16-02-1994; and the defendant No.8, Madadi Devender Reddy, sale deed is not produced.

31.As per the said sale deeds, it shows that the said Janagani

Ramaswamy, Mark Uppalaiah, Mark Yadamma, Valija Manemma and Mediapalli Kanakatara have executed the General Power of

Attorney in favour of Billa Prabhakar Rao, S/o.Mallaiah, vide

G.P.A.doc.No.5/1994 in respect of the land in Sy.No.53/A, basing on which, the said Billa Prabhakar Rao has executed the sale deeds in favour of the defendants herein. The said G.P.A. is filed

before this Court vide Ex.B11 which shows that the said G.P.A.

was executed by T.Peethamber Rao, S/o.Narayana Rao and

T.Mohan Rao, S/o.late T.Narayana Rao, were resident of

Survaram village of Yelkathurthy mandal, Karimnagar district at present residing at Siddarthanagar, Kazipet, Warangal district and they are appointed, nominated, constituted and created

Sri Potlapally Shyam Prasad, S/o.Potlapally Janardhan Rao, as their lawful attorney and authorized him to manage the lands in

Sy.Nos.199/1 & 2, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205 and 206 situated at

Bandlaguda village, Charminar mandal, Hyderabad district.

Further, the defendants have relied upon the sale deed vide doc.No.604/1968 which shows that the same was executed by oneGangulaJanardhanReddy,S/o.RangaReddy,

R/o.Lingampally Taluq, Warangal district, in favour of one

Chithimilla Rangaiah, S/o.Venkataiah, R/o.Lingampally Taluq,

Warangal district in respect of the wet lands bearing Nos.240/C, 241/C measuring Acre 0-16 guntas and Acre 0-18 guntas respectively, in total Acre 0-34 guntas, Whereas the sale deeds, which the defendants alleged to have been purchased in respect 18 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018 of the lands in Sy.No.53/A. No documentary evidence is placed by the defendants to show that the said Billa Prabhakar Rao is duly authorized by the said vendors and they said to have been purchased, Janagani Ramaswamy, Mark Uppalaiah, Mark

Yadamma, Valija Manemma and Mediapalli Kanakatara, the said property from its lawful owners of Sy.No.53/A. As the plaintiff's contention is that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed vide doc.No.5789/2010,

dated: 20-10-2010 from one Billa Ravinder Reddy, S/o.Kishan

Reddy for a total sale consideration of Rs.26,62,000/- and he was inducted into possession over the suit schedule property. It is pertinent to mention here that the present suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In such a case, the law being settled that the possession would play a vital role in deciding whether to grant injunction or not, as such, it is just and necessary to see whether the plaintiff was in possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the present suit.

32.Though, the defendants have filed the sale deeds showing that they have purchased the said property of different plots in

Sy.No.53/A whereas, the plaintiff has also filed the sale deed stating that he purchased the land through Ex.A7 and the said

Ex.A7 also shows that he is in possession of the property. The plaintiff has also relied on Ex.A8, Construction Permission issued by the Gram Panchayath, Chinthagattu, Hasanparthy mandal,

Warangal district, dated: 13-04-2011 along with Ex.A9 is approved plan of panchayath. Besides that the plaintiff has also 19 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018 relied upon Ex.A1 is the Title Deed and Ex.A2 is the Pattadar

Passbook, Ex.A3 is the Property Tax Receipt, Dated: 09-11-2011,

Ex.A4 is the Property Tax Demand Notice, dated: 20-06-2015,

Ex.A5 is the Payment receipt for property tax receipt, dated:

11-07-2017 and Ex.A6 is the Photographs along with C.D., The said documents also would clearly shows that after the purchase of the said property by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has obtained the

Pattadar passbook and title deeds from the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Warangal under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 which shows that the name of the plaintiff was entered in Sy.No.53/A/5 to an extent of

Acre 01-04 guntas and the same was acquired by way of purchase under the document number vide Proceedings of the

Tahsildar, Hasanparthy mandal, bearing No. B/1068/2012,

dated: 12-08-2012. The entries in the pattadar passbook and the

entries in title deed (ROR) is neither questioned by the defendants at any point of time. The plaintiff has exercised his rights over the said land and filed the tax receipts issued by

Grampanchayath, dated: 09-11-2011 with H.No.1-54/2 and also

Ex.A4, shows the name of the Gandra Sai Reddy in the Property

Tax Demand Notice issued by Greater Warangal Municipal

Corporation, Warangal, dated: 20-06-2017 and so also the

Municipal Corporation receipt showing the payment and the

Photographs under Ex.A6 would shows the compound wall being constructed in the open land and Ex.A7, sale deed which is said to have been executed by Billa Prabhakar Rao in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the land to an extent of Acre 01-04 guntas in Sy.No.53/A.

20 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018

33.Considering the admissions of the DW1 and the documents filed by the plaintiff and on proper analysis of the evidence of documentary and oral evidence of plaintiff and admissions of the defendants.

34.The above documents would clearly shows that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. The documents filed by the defendants would show that they are having title over the said property, but prima facie, the plaintiff is in possession of the property which is a requirement for granting the injunction.

Besides that, the plaintiff has established the possession and title over the suit schedule property by way of Ex.A1 to Ex.A9.

Even the defendants have also admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, which also shows that there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants are claiming title over the property and trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and if the defendants are not restrained there would be an irreparable loss to the plaintiff rather than to the defendants, as such, the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge ought to have granted permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, but the learned trial Judge without going into the documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff, have come to a conclusion that the vendor of the plaintiff himself admitted in his written statement in

O.S.No.496/2011 that his grandfather Jagannath Reddy sold land

in favour of Janagani Kanakaiah and no such documentary evidence is filed by the plaintiff except the sale deed. In fact, 21 OF 21 A.S.No. 110 OF 2018

Janagani Ramaswamy and others sold the property to the defendants through G.P.A.Holders, but it is not mentioned in the sale deeds that how they acquired the title over the property and no documentary evidence is placed by the defendants to prove the same. Without going into the said aspects, the learned trial

Judge come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is not proved his

possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and dismissed the suit. The learned trial Court without proper appreciation of the fact and law relating to the subject, erroneously dismissed the suit which requires interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and he is entitled for permanent injunction.

The points are, accordingly, answered in favour of the appellant / plaintiff and against the respondents/ defendants.

35.In the result, this Appeal Suit is allowed, setting aside the

Judgment and Decree, dated:23-03-2018 made in

O.S.No.824/2011, on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

Consequently, the suit in O.S.No.824/2011 is hereby decreed as prayed for by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

(Dictated to the Typist, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 31st day of January, 2022).

Sd/-.

I Addl. District Judge, Warangal. Appendix of Evidence -Nil-

Sd/-.

I Addl. District Judge, Warangal.

1 OF 12Crl.Appeal No.07 OF 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I - ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

Tuesday, this the 26th day of April, 2022. Present : Sri Nandikonda Narsingl Rao, Prl.District and Sessions Judge, FAC. I - Addl.Sessions Judge, Warangal. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.07 OF 2018 (On appeal against the Judgment in C.C.No. 187/2014 on the file of I-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, dated: 12-12-2017) 1Name and Description of 1. Bharathapu Naveen Kumar, S/o.Bhoopal, Appellant.Age: 35 years, Occu: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.25-11-329,Balajinagar, Kazipet, Warangal city and Urban district.

2. Bharathapu Sarojana, W/o.Bhoopal, Age: 55years,Occu:Housewife, R/o.H.No.25-11-329,Balajinagar, Kazipet, Warangal city and Urban district.

3. Bharathapu Bhoopal, S/o.Venkataiah, Age: 60 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.25-11-329,Balajinagar, Kazipet, Warangal city and Urban district. 2Name and description of the The State of Telangana through respondent.S.H.O., W,P.S.Warangal. 3The sentence and law under A1 to A3 are found guilty for the offences which the conviction was punishable under Sec.498-A of Indian Penal imposed in the trial courtCode and accordingly, they are convicted under Sec.248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code. A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years each and shall pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of I.P.C., In default of payment of fine, A1 to A3 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months each. The remand period undergone by A1 and A2 from 05-07-2011 to 06-07-2011 shall be set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. There is no remand period of A3 to be set off under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. The A1 to A3 are informed about the right of appeal and the availability of Free Legal Aid. 4Whether confirmed/modified Reversed. or reversed If modified, the The appeal is allowed. The conviction and modification sentence awarded to the appellants/ accused in C.C.No.187/2014, on the file of I-Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal,

dated: 12-12-2017 is set aside. Accordingly,

A1 to A3 are acquitted for the offence under Sec.498-A of I.P.C., The fine amount paid by the appellants shall be refunded after appeal time is over. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

2 OF 12Crl.Appeal No.07 OF 2018

DATE OF

PresentationFilingNoticeBail AppellantHearingJudgment Issuedbonds ifOrdered to By theAppellaappear Court to nts appearAre let out Bail 03-01-2018 03-01-201808-01-2018----31-01-201811-04-2022 26-04-2022

This Criminal Appeal is coming before me for final hearing on 11-04-2022 in the presence of Sri M.Sahoder Reddy, Advocate for Appellants and of Sri M.Satyanarayana, learned Addl.P.P. for State and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants / A1 to A3 against the

Judgment passed in C.C.No.187/2014 on the file of I-Addl.Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Warangal, as provided under Sec.374(3) of Cr.P.C., challenging the correctness of the Judgment where A1 to A3 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A of I.P.C.; and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years each and shall pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of I.P.C., In default of payment of fine, A1 to

A3 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months each.

2.The brief facts of the case are that, initially, the appellants / A1 to A3 were charged for the offences under Sec.498-A of I.P.C., and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Basing on the complaint of PW1, the S.I.of

Police, W.P.S., Warangal, registered a case in Crime No.99/2011 against

A1 to A3 and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against A1 to A3 stating that PW1 lodged a complaint against A1 to

A3 that her marriage was took place with A1 on 20-04-2017 and at the time of her marriage, her parents gave Rs.2,80,000/- net cash, 6 tulas of gold and household articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused on demand and after the marriage, they lead happy marital life for about one year. Subsequently, the accused harassed PW1 for want of 3 OF 12Crl.Appeal No.07 OF 2018

additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and a panchayath was held in the

presence of elders and the accused agreed to look after PW1 properly; and that she was joined the accused and stayed at Hyderabad for about one month and thereafter, the accused harassed her by suspecting her character and alleged that the female child not born through A1, as such, she lodged a report before the Police.

3.Basing on the said report, W.P.S., Warangal registered a case in Crime

No.99/2011 for the offence under Sec.498-A of I.P.C., and Sec. 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act and after completion of the investigation, filed final report.

4.After filing of the said final report by the Police, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of I.P.C., and Sec.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act against A1 to A3. After appearance of A1 to A3, copies were furnished to A1 to A3 as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

and they were examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. for the above said offences, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the case of the prosecution as against A1 to A3, the prosecution has examined the victim / complainant as PW1 and father of PW1 as

PW2, eye witness as PW3 and panchayath elders as PW4 and PW5 and the Investigating Officer as PW6 and also got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.

After completion of the prosecution evidences, A1 to A3 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material evidence available against them and the same was denied and A1 to A3 reported no defence evidence, as such, the learned Trial Judge after going into the merits of the case and after considering the entire material placed, came to a conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of

A1 to A3 for the offences under Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and acquitted them for the said offences; and also came to conclusion that 4 OF 12Crl.Appeal No.07 OF 2018 the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of I.P.C., and they are convicted under Sec.248(2) of

Criminal Procedure Code and sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of two years each and shall pay fine of

Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of I.P.C., In default of payment of fine, A1 to A3 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months each.

6.Being aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the learned magistrate, the present appeal is preferred by the appellants on the following grounds:

The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6, out of which, PW3 to PW5 are interested witnesses and as the prosecution failed to examine LW7 and LW8 who are the crucial witnesses to support the case of the accused. Further, the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the cross examination of the witnesses and passed the conviction against the accused for the offence under Sec.498-A of I.P.C., though they were acquitted for the offences under Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

7.After registering the Criminal Appeal No.07/2018, the same was made over to this Court by the Sessions Judge for disposal of the same as per law.

8.Notices were issued to the respondent and the lower court record was called for. After receiving the lower court records, heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the Additional Public Prosecutor. Perused the material on record.

9.Now the Point for determination is:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of I.P.C.,

2. Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the Judgment of the trial court passed in C.C.No.187/2014 on the file of I Addl.Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Warangal?

5 OF 12Crl.Appeal No.07 OF 2018

10.Points : The main allegations against A1 to A3 are that A1 to A3 were charged under Sec.498-A of I.P.C. and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act. Though, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, but convicted them for the offence under Sec.498-A of I.P.C., on the ground that as PW1 attempted to commit suicide as all the accused beat her, kept her in a room and locked; and that when she questioned about the payment of loan installments, A3 / father-in-law of PW1 stated with PW1 that she has to earn money by doing prostitution and pay the loan amount. Subsequently, she got pregnant and on one day, her elder son suffered with fever and her father came to see her son, then, the accused said that PW1 talking with alien persons and also alien persons were visited to their house and when she questioned the accused, then all the accused beat her and kept her in a room and with a great difficulty, she escaped from the house, which made her subject to mental agony, having vexed with her life, she attempted to commit suicide and the learned Trial Judge came to a conclusion that the said acts amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Sec.498-A of I.P.C., and due to the said acts of the accused, PW1 decided to commit suicide which is sufficient to come to a conclusion that A1 to A3 subjected PW1 to cruelty.

11.In support of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW6 and relied on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. No oral or documentary evidence is lead on behalf of the accused / defence.

12.On considering the evidence of PW1, it reveals that at the time of the marriage, on demand of A1 to A3, the parents of PW1 gave Rs.2,80,000/- net cash, 6 tulas of gold and household articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry and she lead happy marital life for about one year at her in-laws place; and that at the time of marriage, accused informed that A1 is 6 OF 12Crl.Appeal No.07 OF 2018 working in Eenadu Press and her father-in-law told that he will arrange a

Government Job to A1 on the condition that if PW1 shall get

Rs.1,50,000/- for his Job from her parents house. Since then, she has been subjected to harassment. It is also stated that A1 took her to his parents house and said that he will take back her after arranging of

Rs.1,50,000/-, but A1 did not turn up though she made a call, but he informed her that he will take her back only after arrangement of

additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- by her parents. The elders LW5 and

LW6 conveyed a panchayath and convinced A1, basing on that, A1 said to have took PW1 that he would take care of her properly. Besides that, it is also further stated that her mother-in-law used to harass her on the ground that her husband is not working and she is unable to maintain her family. The main reason for attempting to commit suicide by PW1 was that when her father came to her house to see her elder son who was sick and the comments made by A1 that she is talking with alien persons and the said alien persons are visiting their house. Further, A1 to A3 beat her when she questioned and kept her in a room and locked.

13.The entire crux of the case, as per the prosecution, she married A1 that he was doing good Job and after three months, they put up a separate family, subsequently, they also started a separate family and lived at various places. Though, it is elicited in the cross examination that she has not stated before the Police that her father-in-law asked

Rs.1,50,000/- from her parents to arrange a Job to her husband. It appears that, the said amount was not an additional dowry, it is for securing the Job for A1 and she also did not state before the police that

A1 brought her to her parents house and left her stating that he can allow her into his matrimonial home only if she brought the additional demanded dowry.

7 OF 12Crl.Appeal No.07 OF 2018

14.Sec.498-A of I.P.C., is reads as follows:

498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:— Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman, to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation:— For the purposes of this section “cruelty” means—

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

15.To come to a conclusion that PW1 has been subjected to harassment which leads to commission of suicide whether it is mental or physical harassment which is related to the demand of additional dowry by the husband or his relatives. But, in the present case, though the alleged harassment made by A1 to A3 to PW1, as it appears that except demanding of Rs.1,50,000/- after the marriage, that too, for the purpose of securing the Job for A1, as there are no allegations made and any of the allegations which are made in respect of the alleged harassment are not related to the demand of dowry nor it is in pursuant to asking PW1 to get the dowry.

16.Even on perusal of the evidence of PW2 who is father of PW1 as there is nothing has been elicited in respect of demand of dowry and due to which, she was forced to attempt to commit suicide.

17.Though, there is an allegation that PW1 informed PW2 that A1 to A3 harassed her and beat her indiscriminately, as such, she decided to commit suicide. PW2 has stated that thereafter four days of the incident, 8 OF 12Crl.Appeal No.07 OF 2018

A1 to A3 came to their house and tried to pacify the issue through LW5 and LW6 and demanded for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- failing which they will not take back PW1 to their house, as such, the present complaint was lodged, but the said aspect of demanding of Rs.1,50,000/- towards additional dowry that too after PW1 attempted to commit suicide, is found missing in the evidence of PW1. It appears that this is the development made by PW2. It is also stated by PW2 that after the marriage, PW1 and A1 lead happy marital life and thereafter, A1 necked out PW1 from his house and PW1 came to their house for want of

additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. But, the said aspect of PW1 being

necked out of their house has not been stated by PW1 in her evidence and also that too for demand of additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. The entire evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly shows that there are disputes regarding the employment of A1, as initially, A1 used to work in Eenadu

Press and subsequently, he came out of the same and when he was asked to work, he never used to go for Job, subsequently, when they set up a separate family as their in-laws necked out them, A1 was joined as a Security Guard and worked for one month at Hyderabad and subsequently, he stopped the work and as there was no groceries in the house, A1 used to have lunch and meals at his parents house and he kept her in fasting. The accused made PW1 to join in Mahila Sangam by taking loan, then, they have started a Kirana Shop and the accused said to have defaulted in payment of installments and when she questioned about the payment, her father-in-law stated that she has to earn money by doing prostitution and clear the loan.

18.Coming to the evidence of PW3 who saw PW1 near Bhadrakali Cheruvu while she was going along with her child to fell in Bhadrakali Cheruvu and when he went and stopped her, then PW1 informed him that there were disputes arose with her husband, then he suggested her to place the matter before the elders and pacify the issue and committing suicide 9 OF 12Crl.Appeal No.07 OF 2018 is not the solution and he brought her and her child to the house of PW2 and dropped them at their house and he came to know through PW2 that

A1 never used to go for work and A1 to A3 harassed her for want of

additional dowry. It is also further elicited in the cross examination that

he did not state before the Police that he came to know through PW2 that A1 never used to go for work and A1 to A3 harassed for want of

additional dowry.

19.Further, the evidence of PW4, who is one of the panchayath elders and he stated that after the marriage, PW1 and A1 lead happy marital life for about two years and subsequently, the accused started harassing PW1 for want of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and he came to know about the same through PW1, subsequently, a panchayath took place in which, they pacified the issue and made PW1 to join A1 and thereafter, 15 days, they lived together and thereafter, again the accused harassed PW1; and that in the year 2011, PW2 informed him that PW1 tried to commit suicide in a Bhadrakali Cheruvu due to unbearable harassment made by the accused. It is also elicited in the cross examination that PW4 did not state before the Police that in the year 2010 a panchayath took place and after pacifying the issue, PW1 joined A1 and they lived together for about 15 days and thereafter, the accused again harassed PW1; and that he did not state before the Police that PW2 informed him about PW1 attempted to commit suicide to Bhadrakali Cheruvu and PW3 brought

PW1 to the house of PW2. Though, he has stated that no document was reduced into writing in the panchayath took place in the year 2010 and he does not know the names of the elders who attended the panchayath; and whereas PW1 has stated in her evidence that the said panchayath resolution was made in writing, PW4 stated that no document was reduced into writing. Except the oral contention of PW4 that he saw PW1 at Bhadrakali Cheruvu that she came there for committing suicide besides that there is no specific allegations that before her going for 10 OF 12Crl.Appeal No.07 OF 2018 committing suicide, there are allegations that A1 to A3 have harassed

PW1 for want of additional dowry. The entire evidence of PW1 would reveal that A1 never used to work and he do not had any permanent Job due to which they used to harass PW1, but nowhere it is suggested that the said alleged harassment was only for want of additional dowry.

20.The evidence of PW1 would reveal that A1 to A3 harassed her for want of

additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- whereas the evidence of PW2 would

reveal that the accused were harassed PW1 for want of Rs.1,00,000/- much earlier to the alleged attempted to commit suicide.

21.Even in the evidence of PW5 who is one of the Panchayath elders who stated that after the marriage, PW1 and A1 lead happy marital life for about one year and thereafter, disputes arose between PW1 and A1, due to which, A3 directed A1 to set up a separate family; and that the

Accused No.1 never used to work and he never used to pay the sufficient amounts for their livelihood and on 26-09-2010 a panchayath took place in his presence and in the presence of PW4 in which, they suggested

PW1 and A1 to live happily and PW1 joined A1 and thereafter, again disputes arose between A1 and PW1 on 24-04-2011 and then they pacified the issue to live together and subsequently PW1 gave report.

Nowhere PW1 stated about demand of additional dowry by the accused.

22.On overall assessment of the entire evidence placed by the prosecution, the learned Trial Judge convicted the accused for the offence under

Sec.498-A of I.P.C. and there is a necessity that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt that PW1 was subjected harassment mentally and physically which lead her to commission of suicide. Though, in the present case, it is contended that she is trying to commit suicide along with her child at Bhadrakali

Cheruvu, though, the evidence is placed that PW1 attempted to commit 11 OF 12Crl.Appeal No.07 OF 2018 suicide by falling into the Bhadrakali Cheruvu, but nowhere it is elicited in the evidence that prior to that she has been subjected to harassment of the accused for the purpose of demanding of additional dowry and there is also discrepancy in demand of dowry amount, as per PW1 the accused demanded Rs.1,50,000/- to procure for the Job of A1 and as per

PW2 the accused demanded Rs.1,00,000/- towards additional dowry, but he did not state that the same made for securing Job for A1 and there is no supporting evidence of additional dowry i.e., specific amount. The entire evidence of PW1 to PW4 who was specifically stated that there was disputes between PW1 and the accused in respect of maintenance of the family by the accused, as such, I am of the opinion that as there is concrete evidence placed by the prosecution to come to a conclusion that A1 to A3 harassed PW1 only for want of additional dowry which lead to commission of attempting of suicide.

23.In the absence of any such concrete evidence and basing on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 which is not supported by any other evidence that there was a demand of dowry prior to the commission of offence.

Though, it is stated that PW1 was asked to do prostitution and get money for payment of loan, though it is not come within the meaning of the harassment of additional dowry. On over all assessment, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Trial Judge ought not to come to a conclusion that there was a demand of additional dowry though she came to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as she has already gave a finding that there was no demand of

additional dowry after the marriage and having acquitted the accused

for the offence under Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and subsequently, on the ground as she has attempted to commit suicide, that too, in the absence of any demand of additional dowry immediately 12 OF 12Crl.Appeal No.07 OF 2018 or prior to the commission of attempt to commit suicide, I hold that the learned Trial Judge ought to acquit the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of I.P.C., The learned trial court, without proper appreciation of the law and fact, erroneously recorded the conviction against the accused / appellants for the offence under

Sec.498-A of I.P.C., which require interference by this court. Accordingly, the appellants / accused are entitled to acquittal. The points are, accordingly, answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

24.In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants/ accused in C.C.No.187/2014, on the file of

I-Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, dated: 12-12-2017 is set aside. Accordingly, A1 to A3 are acquitted for the offence under Sec.498-

A of I.P.C., The fine amount paid by the appellants shall be refunded after appeal time is over. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

(Dictated to Stenographer Grade – III, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 26th day of April, 2022)

Sd/-.

FAC. I - ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

Appendix of Evidence -Nil-

Sd/-.

FAC. I - ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1 OF 7 S.S.C.No. 118 OF 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT-CUM-

I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

Tuesday, this the 18th day of January, 2022.

PRESENT: Sri Nandionda Narsing Rao, Prl.Sessions Judge, Warangal, FAC.Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-cum-I-Additional Sessions

Judge, Warangal.

SPL. SESSIONS CASE No.118/2020 in Crime No.270/2018 of P.S. Maripeda.

1.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana rep. by complainant.Sub Inspector of Police, Maripeda P.S.

2.Name and description of the :A1: Bhasipangu Gopala Krishna, accusedS/o.Uppalaiah, Age: 20 years, Caste: Madiga, Occu: Coolie, R/o.Giripuram village, Maripeda. A2:ThappetlaSaidulu, S/o.Venkanna, Age: 28 years, Caste: Madiga, Occu: Mason, R/o.ThallaOokalvillage, Maripeda.

3.Offences charged:Offences punishable under Sec.448, 376(3) r/w 511 of I.P.C., Sec.7 r/w 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1; Offences punishable under Sec.109 of I.P.C., and Sec.16 r/w 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A2.

4.Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

5.Finding of the Court: A1 is found not guilty for the charges under Sec.448, 376(3) r/w 511 of I.P.C., Sec.7 r/w 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and A2 is found not guilty for the charges under Sec.109 of I.P.C., and Sec.16 r/w 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted under Sec.232 of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months, as provided under Sec.437A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed forthwith.

2 OF 7 S.S.C.No. 118 OF 2020

6.Conviction,sentenceor :Acquittal acquittal

7.Name of the Counsel for the :Sri M.Satyanarayana, prosecutionAddl.P.P.

8.Name of the Counsel for :Sri K.Krupakar Rao, accusedAdvocate

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Satyanarayana, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri K.Krupakar Rao, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Maripeda P.S., laid a charge sheet against Bhasipangu Gopala Krishna (A1) and Thappetla Saidulu (A2), for the offences punishable under Sec.448, 354A(1)(i) r/w 511 of I.P.C., Sec.7 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 against A1 and Sec.109 of I.P.C., against A2, in

Crime No.270/2018 of Maripeda P.S., alleging that during Dasara

Vacation, the victim girl aged about 13 years went to her grandparents house as she lost her parents and that A1 had kept an evil eye over the victim girl to fulfill his sexual desire and observed her while she arrived from the school and waiting for an opportunity; and that on 26-10-2018 at morning hours, the grandmother (LW1) of the victim girl went to Coolie works, at about 5:45 PM, A1 and A2 went to the house of the victim girl where A2 diverted the attention of her grandfather (LW3) by chitchatting with him and A1 criminally trespassed into the house by side way of the house and closed mouth of the victim girl, lifted her from Varanda in his hands, took her into kitchem-cum-living room and laid down her on the ground, removed his pants and also drag the pants of victim and slept on her with an intention to 3 OF 7 S.S.C.No. 118 OF 2020 commit rape on her and the victim girl beat on the face of A1 and pushed him and came outside and again A1 lifted the victim girl in his hands and took her into store room and again used criminal force to commit rape on her to fulfill his sexual desire when the victim girl made hues by calling as “Thatha Thatha”, and in the meantime, A1 closed her mouth, victim girl caught hold hair of A1, beat her and herself rescued from the clutches of A1 and come out and made hues and cries, on hearing the same, A1 and A2 fled away from the scene.

2.On the strength of the report given by the grandmother of the victim girl (PW2), L.Pavan Kumar (LW11), S.I.of Police, P.S.

Maripeda, registered a case against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sec.448, 109, 354A(1)(i) r/w 511 of I.P.C., Sec.7 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and issued FIRs to all the concerned, investigated the matter, got recorded the statement of the alleged victim (PW1) through

B.Ramyasree (LW10), Women Police Constable, Maripeda P.S., recorded the statements of other witnesses, observed the scene of offence in the presence of panch witnesses, obtained the date of birth certificate of the victim girl from Smt.Challuri Madhavi, (LW8), Special Officer (SO) in Kasturiba Gandhi Balikala

Vidyalayam at Gundepudi, R/o.Maripeda Banglow, and thereafter, arrested the accused on 01-11-2018, produced them before the jurisdictional magistrate for remand and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

4 OF 7 S.S.C.No. 118 OF 2020

3.My learned predecessor took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sec.448, 376(3) r/w 511 of I.P.C., Sec.7 r/w 8 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1 and Sec.448, 376(3) r/w 511 of I.P.C., and Sec.7 r/w 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 r/w 109 of I.P.C., against A2, secured the presence of the accused, supplied them with the copies of documents as provided under Sec.207 of the

Cr.P.C., examined him under Sec.228(1) Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned Addl.P.P., the charges under Sec.448, 376(3) r/w 511 of

I.P.C., Sec.7 r/w 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 against A1 and Sec.109 of I.P.C., and Sec.16 r/w 17 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A2, were framed, read over and explained to A1 and A2 in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In its attempt to prove the complicity of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3, marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.

Understandably, as all the material witnesses including the alleged victim turned hostile to the prosecution, the learned Addl.P.P. has given up the evidence of LW4 to LW11. As there is no incriminating material appearing against A1 and A2 in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, their examination under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

5.Heard the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

5 OF 7 S.S.C.No. 118 OF 2020

6.The point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of A1 and A2 for the charges under under Sec.448, 376(3) r/w 511 of I.P.C., Sec.7 r/w 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1 and Sec.109 of I.P.C., and Sec.16 r/w 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A2, beyond reasonable doubt ?”

7. Point: It is the case of the prosecution that A2 abetted the

Accused No.1 to commit rape on the victim girl aged about 13 years by diverting the attention of the grandfather (LW3) of the victim by chitchatting him and facilitated A1 to commit rape on her; and that A1 committed house trespass by entering into house of the victim girl aged about 13 years, closed her mouth and lifted her from Varanda and took her into kitchen-cum-living room and laid down her on the ground and removed his pants and also drag the pants of the victim and slept on her with an intention to commit rape on her, however, she pushed him and

A1 again took her into store room and used criminal force to commit rape on her to fulfill his sexual desire, then she called her grandfather (LW3) and rescued herself from his (A1) clutches.

8.The defence of the accused is one of total denial.

9. During the trial, the prosecution has examined the victim girl as

PW1. She did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that about three years back, on one day, she signed on the papers given by the Police, but she does not know the contents mentioned in the papers and she does not know anything about 6 OF 7 S.S.C.No. 118 OF 2020 this case. Though, the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor cross examined PW1 nothing was elicited to disprove the contents of the chief examination and also nothing was elicited in her cross examination against the accused. The grandparents of the victim girl were examined as PW2 & PW3. Both of them did not support the case of the prosecution and they also spoke in the similar lines as that of PW1. They stated that about three years back, there was a civil dispute between their family and the family of accused and keeping this in view, PW2 lodged a report in

Maripeda P.S., and the Police obtained the signature of PW2 on some written papers, but PW2 does not know the contents of it and they do not know anything about this case. Though, the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor cross examined PW2 & PW3, nothing was elicited in support the case of the prosecution. In the absence of any incriminating material against A1 and A2 and the evidence placed by the prosecution as PW1 to PW3 who are the victim girl and her grandparents, they were turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Point is, accordingly, answered in favour of the defence and against the prosecution.

10. In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the charges under

Sec.448, 376(3) r/w 511 of I.P.C., Sec.7 r/w 8 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and A2 is found not guilty for the charges under Sec.109 of I.P.C., and Sec.16 r/w 17 7 OF 7 S.S.C.No. 118 OF 2020 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted under Sec.232 of Cr.P.C.

The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months, as provided under Sec.437A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed forthwith.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 18th day of January, 2022).

Sd/-.

FAC.SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT

CUM- I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE : PW1 :Victim-None- PW2 :Patla Mariyamma PW3 :Patla Pedda Bixam

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1 Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - Nil -.

Sd/-.

FAC.SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT-CUM-

I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1 OF 6 S.S.C.No. 85 OF 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT-CUM-

I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

Tuesday, this the 4th day of January, 2022.

PRESENT: Sri Nandionda Narsing Rao, Prl.Sessions Judge, Warangal, FAC.Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-cum-I-Additional Sessions

Judge, Warangal.

SPL. SESSIONS CASE No.85/2021 in Crime No.260 /2020 of P.S. Inthezargunj.

1.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana rep. by complainant.Asst.Commissioner of Police, Warangal.

2.Name and description of the :Md.Feroz, S/o.late Arif, Age: 23 accusedyears, Caste: Muslim, Occu: AC Technician,R/o.Lothukunta, Warangal.

3.Offences charged:Offences punishable under Sec.376(3), 376(2)(n) of I.P.C., Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

4.Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

5.Finding of the Court: Accused is found not guilty for the charges under Sec.376(3), 376(2)(n) of I.P.C., Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Sec.232 of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months, as provided under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed forthwith.

6.Conviction,sentenceor :Acquittal acquittal

7.Name of the Counsel for the :Sri M.Satyanarayana, prosecutionAddl.P.P.

8.Name of the Counsel for :Sri K.Ambareesha Rao, accusedAdvocate

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Satyanarayana, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri K.Ambareesha Rao, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 OF 6 S.S.C.No. 85 OF 2021

J U D G M E N T

1.The Asst.Commissioner of Police, Warangal, laid a charge sheet against the accused, Md.Feroz, for the offences punishable under

Sec.376(3) of I.P.C., Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in Crime No.260/2020 of Inthezargunj

P.S., alleging that the accused is used to follow the victim girl aged about 15 years in the name of the love and took her to

Restaurants, Movies, Parks and entertained her with an intention to sexually exploit her; and that in the year 2015, the accused went to the house of the victim girl in the absence of inmates and forcibly participated in sexual intercourse; and that in the year 2017 when the victim was at the house of her aunt at

Chilakalaguda, Secunderabad, the accused went there and had sexual intercourse with her in the absence of inmates for four days by promising to marry and thereafter, refused to marry her.

2.On the strength of the report given by the victim girl (PW1),

R.Venkateshwarlu (LW20), Inspector of Police, P.S. Inthezargunj, registered a case against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.376(3) of I.P.C., Sec.5(l) r/w 6, 16 r/w 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and issued FIRs to all the concerned, investigated the matter, got recorded the statement of the alleged victim (PW1) through D.Srilaxmi (LW6),

Inspector of Police, Bharosa Center, Subedari, Warangal, recorded the statements of other witnesses, observed the scene of offence in the presence of panch witnesses, obtained the date of birth 3 OF 6 S.S.C.No. 85 OF 2021 certificate of the victim girl from Smt.Rana Firdoze (LW8), Head

Master of Islamia English Medium Public School, L.B.Nagar, Mandi

Bazar, Warangal, and thereafter, arrested the accused on 28-10-2020, produced him before the jurisdictional magistrate for remand and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

3.My learned predecessor took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sec.376(3) of I.P.C., Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, secured the presence of the accused, supplied him with the copies of documents as provided under Sec.207 of the Cr.P.C., examined him under

Sec.228(1) Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned Addl.P.P., the charges under Sec.376(3), 376(2)(n) of I.P.C., Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In its attempt to prove the complicity of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3, marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

Understandably, as all the material witnesses including the alleged victim turned hostile to the prosecution, the learned Addl.P.P. has given up the evidence of LW4 to LW22. As there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, his examination under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

4 OF 6 S.S.C.No. 85 OF 2021

5.Heard the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

6.The point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the charges under Sec.376(3), 376(2)(n) of I.P.C., Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, beyond reasonable doubt ?”

7. Point: It is the case of the prosecution that the accused alleged to have been followed the victim girl aged about 15 years in the name of the love and took her to Restaurants, Movies, Parks and entertained her with an intention to sexually exploit her; and that in the years 2015 and 2017, the accused had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly by promising her to marry and thereafter, refused to marry her.

8.The defence of the accused is one of total denial.

9. During the trial, the prosecution has examined the victim girl who is the defacto complainant, as PW1. She did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that about one year back, on one day, the accused came to their house when she was alone and started fighting with her demanding money which was due by her father and after returning of her parents, she informed the same to them then they took her to Police Station and she lodged a report; and that she has signed on the report prepared by the Police, but she does not know the contents of it and she was examined by the magistrate (LW19) and she stated before 5 OF 6 S.S.C.No. 85 OF 2021 the magistrate as told by the Police. Though, the learned

Addl.Public Prosecutor cross examined PW1 nothing was elicited to disprove the contents of the chief examination and also nothing was elicited in her cross examination against the accused. The parents of the victim girl were examined as PW2 &

PW3. Both of them did not support the case of the prosecution and they also spoke in the similar lines as that of PW1. They stated that about two years back, on one day, the accused came to their house in their absence and quarreled with PW1 and demanded to return money which was due by PW3 and that PW1 informed the same to them, then they took PW1 to the Police

Station where she signed on some written papers. Though, the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor cross examined PW2 & PW3, nothing was elicited in support the case of the prosecution. In the absence of any incriminating material against the accused and the evidence placed by the prosecution as PW1 to PW3 who are the victim girl / complainant and her parents, they were turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Further, in the absence of any cogent and clear evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused and merely basing on the evidence of PW1 to PW3, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Point is, accordingly, answered in favour of the defence and against the prosecution.

6 OF 6 S.S.C.No. 85 OF 2021

10. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charges under

Sec.376(3), 376(2)(n) of I.P.C., Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Sec.232 of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months, as provided under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed forthwith (Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 4th day of January, 2022).

Sd/-.

FAC.SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT

CUM- I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE : PW1 :Victim-None- PW2 :Mother of the victim PW3 :Father of the victim

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the report, dated:01-10-2020 Ex.P2: Portion in Report of PW1, dated: 01-10-2020 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1 Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - Nil -.

Sd/-.

FAC.SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT-CUM-

I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1 OF 4 D.O.P.No.9/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE I - ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, WARANGAL.

Thursday, this the 3rd day of March, 2022

PRESENT:Nandikonda Narsinga Rao,

Principal District Judge,

FAC. I Addl. District Judge, Warangal.

D.O.P.No.9/2019 B E T W E E N :

Nadimidodla @ Enugal Hanna @ Annapurna W/o. Nadimidodla Jekariya @ Shankar, Aged: 31 years, occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 8-224/2, padmashaliwada, Parkal Village and mandal, Warangal District.

...Petitioner

A N D

Nadimidodla Jekariya @ Shankar S/o. Mogilaiah, Aged: 35 yrs, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No. 16-30/1, Vivekananda Nagar, Near Nava Bharati High School, IDA, Jeedimetla, Qutubullapur, Ranga Reddy District.

...Respondent

This petition coming up for final hearing on 3.3.2022 before me in the presence of Sri G.Sreedhar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent remained exparte; and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed as provided under section 10 of Indian 1.

Divorce Act, with a prayer to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner, with the respondent, dated: 14.2.2011 and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the petition, are as follows: 2. The marriage of the petitioner with respondent is performed on 14.2.2011 at Horebu Prarthana Mandiram, CCC, Gandhi Nagar,

Mancherial as per the customs prevailing in Christian community and the same is an arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, the parents 2 OF 4 D.O.P.No.9/2019 of the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash towards dowry and presented 5 tulas of gold ornaments and 10 tulas of silver ornaments and household articles and other valuable articles worth Rs.1,50,000/-. Immediately after the marriage, the petitioner joined the conjugal society of the respondent at Jeedimetla and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a female child. After the birth of the female child, the respondent started suspecting her character and the respondent also started harassment upon her mentally and physically demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and the parents of the petitioner paid Rs.1,000,00/- and even after receiving the same, the respondent again started harassment. The petitioner bore all the harassment made by the respondent and she used to attend her duties as staff nurse with a fond hope of change in his attitude but the respondent’s attitude never changed and he threated the petitioner with dire consequences to bring additional dowry and hand over the entire salary of her to him.

3. It is further submitted that the respondent used to blemish her character and beat her indiscriminately and used to consume alcohol daily and many times neck out her from the house in the mid night in the drunken condition. A panchayat was also convened wherein the respondlent was advised to live amicaly with the petitioner.

On the complaint of the petitioner, the police, Jeedimetla also conducted counselling. In the night hours on 28.1.2019, the 3 OF 4 D.O.P.No.9/2019 respondent necked out the petitioner from his house by taking her entire gold ornaments and the daughter of the petitioner is in the custody of the respondent.

4. It is further submitted that there is no hope of reunion and the petitioner left with no option except seek dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and respondent. Hence the petition.

3.

5. The respondent is remained ex parte. 4.

5.

6. The petitioner herself examined as PW1. She filed her examination in chief in the form of sworn affidavit reiterating the averments of his petition. In her further examination, Exs.P1 to Ex.P.3 were marked. The undisputed evidence of PW1 would prove that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized in a church at Mancherial on 14.2.2011. Further, her evidence would prove that they blessed with a girl now aged 8 years. Further, the evidence of PW1 would prove that the respondent harassed her for additional dowry. The evidence of PW1 would prove that the respondent necked out from his house. It appears from the evidence of PW1 that even in the panchayat, the elders found fault with the respondent and advised him to live amicably.

Moreover, the respondent did not choose to contest the petition as such, the allegations made in the petition remained unchallenged and 4 OF 4 D.O.P.No.9/2019 unrebutted. As there is no possibility for the couple to reunion, this court has no option except to accede to the request of the petitioner.

7. In the result, this petition is allowed dissolving the marriage of the petitioner, Nadimidodla @ Enugula Hanna @ Annapurna with the respondent, Nadimidodla Jekariya @ Shankar, dated: 14.2.2011. No costs.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 3 rd day of March, 2022)

Sd/-

(Sri Nandikonda Narsing Rao) FAC. I Addl.District Judge, Warangal.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For petitioner:

PW1: Nadimidodla @ Enugula Hanna @ Annapurna.

For Respondent:

None

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1: Wedding Card. Ex.P2: Marriage photos. Ex.P3: Certificate of marriage.

For Respondent:

-Nil-

Sd/-

(Sri Nandikonda Narsing Rao) FAC. I Addl. District Judge, Warangal.