Sri.P.B.Kiran Kumar
Prl Junior Civil Judge-cum-VII Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medchal
Medchal, ADJ Court Complex · Medchal Malkajgiri · Telangana
Based on 8 recent ordersSri.P.B.Kiran Kumar, Prl Junior Civil Judge-cum-VII Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medchal, is posted at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex, Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana, India. 8 court orders on record since 2019. 8 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS cases.
Featured Judgments
OS.No.155 of 2013 Page No.1
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
AT: MEDCHAL
PRESENT:- Smt. M.Aruna, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal
Original Suit No.155 of 2013
On this the 30 th day of August, 2019
Between:- 1.Cherukuri Ratna Kumari, W/o.Late Ch.Govinda Ramaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ:Housewife 0
2. Cherukuri Venkata Lakshmi Narayana, S/o.Late Ch.Govinda Ramaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ:Business
3. Cherukuri Vijay, S/o.Late Ch.Govinda Ramaiah, Aged about 30 years, Occ:Business
4. Cherukuri Sirisha, D/o.Late Ch.Govinda Ramaiah, Aged about 31 years, Occ:Student Rep. by her GPA holder Sri Ch.Venkata Lakshmi Narayana, S/o.Late Ch.Govinda Ramaiah (the Plaintiff No.2 herein) All are R/o.H.No. 12-178, Adarsh Nagar, Opp.IDPL Colony, Quthbullapur Muncipal Circle, GHMC, Quthbullapur Mandal, RR District, Hyderabad 37 … Plaintiffs
and
Meesala Bala Ram, Aged about 55 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.56-531,Sanjeevaiah Nagar, Weaker Section Colony, Quthbullapur Municipal Circle, GHMC Quthbullapur,
Mandal, R.R.District ... Defendant
This suit came before me on 08-08-2019 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M.Chandra Sekhar, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and Sri J.Rama Krishna, learned Counsel for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivers the following:
-:JUDGMENT:-
1.This suit is filed for perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining him from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.155 of 2013 Page No.2
2.The brief averments of the plaint are that: Originally Cherukuri Govinda
Ramaiah, S/o.Ch.Sathyanarayana was the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas in Sy.No.49/Part situated at
Quthbullapur village who is none other than the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 to 4 and he died leaving behind the plaintiffs as his only legal heirs. During his lifetime he purchased property to an extent of
Ac.2-00 guntas through an agreement of sale dated 07-05-1979 and 20-08- 1979 from K.Bujangabushana Rao and Ayyanki Seetharamamma, later the name of Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah was mutated in revenue records vide proceedings No.A/691/93 dated 06-07-1993 as pattadar and possessor since from 1993-94 to 2011-2012 and the vendors of the Cherukuri Govinda
Ramaiah i.e. K.Bujangabushana Rao and Ayyanki Seetharamamma in turn purchased total extent of Ac.3-01 guntas in sy.No.49 of Quthbullapur Village through the registered sale deed bearing document No. 653 of 1967 dated 15-03-1967 from Kotha Venkata Narsamma and K.Sarojini Bai, the said Kotha
Venkata Narsamma and K.Sarojini Bai purchased the property from
N.Venugopala Chary through the registered sale deed bearing document No.
483 of 1966 dated 17-08-1966 and the said Venugopala Chary was the pattadar of the land in Sy.No.49 and after purchase of Ac.2-00 guntas by the
Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah he converted the said Ac.2-00 guntas into house sites and made layout, sold some plots to the prospective purchasers and he kept the suit schedule property plot No.14/A admeasuring 144 Sq.yards in sy.No.49/AA with him and after his death the plaintiffs who are his legal heirs are in possession and enjoyment of the property but the defendant who is noway concerned with the suit schedule property is interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs and during the lifetime of Cherukuri Govinda
Ramaiah, he filed the suit against T.Venkateshwara Rao in OS No.123 of 2002 for the same suit property, it was decreed in favour of Cherukuri Govinda
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.155 of 2013 Page No.3
Ramaiah, then again the defendant is now interfering into the possession of plaintiffs, hence the plaintiffs filed the suit.
3.The defendant filed the written statement by submitting that: The plaintiff came to this court with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts, so they are not entitled to any relief, more specifically for the relief of perpetual injunction and further submitting that the father of the defendant by name M.Muthaiah purchased the plot No.16/part admeasuring 125
Sq.yards out of 344 Sq.yards from Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah and
T.Venkateswara Rao through the agreement of sale dated 28-04-1989 and also paid valid sale consideration, the said agreement of sale was duly notarized by the Notary Advocate and after purchase, the father of this defendant by name M.Muthaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the property, later he executed the Agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of the defendant vide document bearing No. 10788 of 2013 dt. 04-07-2013 and thereafter this defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property, but the plaintiffs are interfering into the possession of the defendant after death of Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah and filed this suit under the guise of injunction order, they are interfering into the property of the defendant ie.
Plot No.16/Part, but they got injunction order for Plot No.14/A, therefore this defendant do not have any objection if the Hon’ble Court decree the suit for plot No.14/A as there is no such existence of property physically but under the guise of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court, they are interfering into the possession of the plot No.16/part, therefore, the plaintiff by suppressing the true and material facts came to this court and filed the suit against the defendant by taking the advantage of unregistered agreement of sale of this defendant’s father and the father of the defendant M.Muthaiah was an illiterate person, therefore he do not know with regard to registration, hence
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.155 of 2013 Page No.4
he kept quite during the lifetime of his vendor, therefore by taking such advantage the plaintiffs approached this court with unclean hands, hence requesting to dismiss the same.
4. Basing on the pleadings and material available on record, this court framed the following issues.
1. Whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on date of filing of the suit?
2. Whether the defendant has interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property on 30-06-2013 and 02-07- 2013?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?
4. To what relief?
5. To support the disputed issues, plaintiff No.2 is examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A15. The third party is also examined on behalf of the plaintiffs as PW2. On behalf of the defendant, he is examined as DW1 and
Ex.B1 to Ex.B11.
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. As the Issue No.1 to 3 are co-related to each other, hence they are discussed below at once.
8. ISSUE No.1 to 3:
(a) This suit filed by the plaintiffs for grant of perpetual injunction claiming that the suit schedule property plot No. 14/A to an extent of 144
Sq.yards in Sy.No. 49/AA and the further contention of the plaintiff counsel is that the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and the father of the plaintiff No.2 to 4 by name Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah purchased property to total extent of
Ac.2-00 guntas in Sy.No.49/part through the unregistered agreement of sale
dated 07-05-1979 and 20-08-1979, later his name was mutated in revenue
records as pattadar and possessor and he purchased the property from
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.155 of 2013 Page No.5
K.Bujangabushana Rao and Ayyanki Seetharamamma and inturn the vendors of this Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah purchased total extent of Ac.3-01 guntas in sy.No.49 through the registered sale deed bearing document No.653 of 1967 dt. 15-03-1967 from Kotha Venkata Narsamma and K.Sarojini Bai, inturn they purchased from N.Venugopala Chary through registered sale deed bearing document No. 483 of 1966 dt. 17-08-1966 who had the property to an extent of Ac.11-01 guntas in sy.No.49 and he was the pattadar and possessor of the total extent. So, out of that the said Cherukuri Govinda
Ramaiah purchased Ac.2-00 guntas and during his lifetime he converted the said agricultural land into house sites by making layout and he sold some plots to third parties and he kept the suit schedule property i.e. plot No. 14/A admeasuring 144 Sq.yards with him, but the defendant who is noway concerned has interfered into their property, hence they filed the suit.
(b). In contra, the defendant contending that the father of the defendant by name M.Muthaiah purchased plot No.16/part admeasuring 125 Sq.yards out of 344 Sq.yards from the father of plaintiffs No.2 to 4 and husband of plaintiff No.1 by name Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah and later he was inducted in that property, then the father of the defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the property. Later, he executed agreement of sale-cum-GPA which is registered vide document bearing No.10788 of 2013 dated 04-07- 2013 in favour of the defendant, therefore the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property but the plaintiff filed this false suit basing on suit vide OS 123 of 2002 in which they obtained the interim injunction orders against one T.Venkateshwara Rao for plot No.14/A and under the guise of the orders they are interfering into the property of the defendant in plot
No.16/Part but the plaintiffs are not having the property Plot No.14/A also, therefore there is no physical existence of property claiming by the plaintiffs,
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.155 of 2013 Page No.6
but they are claiming the property of this defendant in plot No.16/Part.
Therefore the defendant counsel submitting that the plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie, hence requested to dismiss the suit.
(c). As per the rival contentions of both sides, admittedly the said
Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah was the owner and possessor of the property and he made layout by converting it from agricultural land into house sites and the defendant also submitting that the father of the defendant by name
M.Muthaiah purchased the plot No.16/Part to an extent of 125 Sq.yards out of 344 Sq.yards from Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah and T.Venkateswara Rao through the unregistered agreement of sale dated 28-04-1989, but as the father of the defendant was illiterate person, due to that illiteracy he do not know with regard to the registration, therefore by taking that advantage of unregistered agreement of sale the plaintiffs are interfering into his possession but at the same time the plaintiffs counsel submitting that after selling of plots by Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah he kept the plot No.14/A with him and they are claiming the property as 14/A.
(d) So, as per the above said rival contentions of both sides, the both parties are claiming the same property but with different plot numbers, therefore at this stage it is the duty of the plaintiffs to establish that there is an existence of suit schedule plot No.14/A to an extent of 144 Sq.yards in
Sy.No. 49/AA within the boundaries mentioned as Schedule of property. To support the same, the plaintiff relied on Ex.A1 document bearing No.
483/1966, Ex.A2 is document bearing No. 653 of 1967, Ex.A3 is document
dated 07-05-1979 and Ex.A4 is document dated 20-08-1979. These are all
link documents. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are link documents and the Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 are the certified copies of unregistered agreement of sales dated 07-05-1979
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.155 of 2013 Page No.7
and 20-08-1979. As per these documents, the contention of the plaintiff is that the said Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah purchased the property through the unregistered agreements of sales under Ex.A3 and Ex.A4. The defendant also not disputing with regard to the documents under Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and also not disputing the title of Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah but the defendant is disputing with regard to the existence of the suit schedule property i.e. plot
No.14/A to an extent of 144 Sq.yards in Sy.no. 49/AA. Therefore, at this stage the plaintiffs have to establish the existence of suit plots only alleged to be kept with Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah after selling of other plots in the same layout which is alleged to be made by the Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah. To prove the same the plaintiffs filed the xerox copy of the layout but it is not marked because the said document is xerox one and not issued by any authenticated or proper authorities and it is also not an approved layout, however as per the said layout there are 17 plots covered under that layout, as per the plot No.14 claiming by the plaintiffs is having 200 Sq.yards but the plaintiffs are claiming the suit schedule property is 144 Sq.yards, but have not mentioned about the remaining extent of the property and when the plaintiffs are claiming the plot No.14/A, it has to be explained that when the plot No.14 is sub-divided as ‘14/A’ and what is the total extent of plot No.14 is to be mentioned but as per the xerox copy of the layout filed by the plaintiffs, it is showing as 200 sq.yards but whereas plaintiff is claiming the property to an extent of 144 Sq.yards in plot No. 14/A, therefore there is no clarity with regard to the extent of property in plot No.14. However, plaintiffs mentioned the boundaries to the suit schedule property in plaint as North:
H.No.8-215/1 on Plot No.16/a, South: H.No.8-216 on Plot No.14, East: 30’ wide road and West: 25’ wide road. As per these boundaries and on perusal of the boundaries of plot No.14 in xerox copy of layout submitted by the plaintiffs are different, if the plaintiffs claiming the plot No.14/A admeasuring
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.155 of 2013 Page No.8
144 Sq.yards then one of the boundaries should be part of the plot No.14 and then there should be one of the boundaries as plot No.15, why because if the plaintiffs claiming the plot No.14/A, then it means that he is claiming the part of the property in plot No.14 but in the boundaries mentioned at southern side as plot No.14 only but it is not 14/A and as per the xerox copy of the layout the plaintiffs highlighted the plot No.14 is having 144 Sq. yards but the plot number is mentioned as 14/A, therefore the property claiming by the plaintiffs is not tallying with the xerox copy of layout which submitted by them. The other documents Ex.A5 to Ex.A13 filed by them are not disputed as the defendant also claiming the property through Cherukuri Govinda
Ramaiah who is none other than the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 to 4.
(e) The defendant is submitting that his father M.Muthaiah purchased the plot No.16/part to an extent of 125 Sq.yards out of 344 Sq.yards from
Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah and T.Venkateswara Rao through the unregistered agreement of sale dated 28-04-1989, it is notarized document and later he sold the property to the defendant who is none other than his son through the Agreement of sale-cum-GPA vide document bearing No.
10788 of 2013 dt. 04-07-2013 but in the eye of law the unregistered agreement of sale is not valid one and the later document which is executed by M.Muthaiah is not valid why because when the first document is not valid, then no title can be transferred through the later/subsequent document as the document on which the defendant alleged to be derived title is unregistered one, then even if further documents are registered there will be no right created to them. However, this is suit for injunction simplicitor, therefore the court has to decide the possession of the parties as on date of filing of the suit. In this case, the plaintiffs approached this court by claiming
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.155 of 2013 Page No.9
plot No.14/A but they failed to establish their possession as on date of filing of the suit and they failed to give specific boundaries to the property claiming by them in plot No.14/A is in existence as per layout and they simply stated that Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah made layout but the layout is not approved one and it is not issued by any authority either by Gram Panchayat or HUDA, the identification of the property claiming by plaintiffs is not clear in the xrox copy also, the boundaries also are not clear to the property claiming by the plaintiffs i.e. whether the plot number is in existence within the schedule of boundaries or not is also nowhere mentioned and no document has been filed except the layout and on perusal of the layout the boundaries of the schedule of property is not tallying with the suit schedule property.
(f) The plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW1. She admitted the photographs shown by the defendant counsel that the property appearing in
Ex.B1 photographs belongs to the suit schedule property and there are two rooms and compound wall in existence, but the plaintiff nowhere mentioned with regard to the existence of two rooms and also compound wall to the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are claiming the open plot but when it is an open plot, then how the PW1 admitted the Ex.B1 photographs that those photographs are belongs to the suit schedule property and there are two rooms constructed surrounding the compound wall. The further contention of the plaintiffs is that after selling of the property the part of the plot No.14 i.e.
suit schedule property was kept by Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah with him but what is the total extent of the plot No.14 and from that what is the property retained with Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah and who is the owner of the other part of the plot No.14 is nowhere mentioned and no document has been filed, but the plaintiff is simply showing house numbers on north and south sides, if there are any constructions made at north and south sides, the plaintiff would
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.155 of 2013 Page No.10
have to call them as witnesses to show that the property of the plaintiffs is in existence with the boundaries and they have also purchased the property from Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah under the alleged layout, they constructed the house and the suit schedule property claiming by the plaintiff is in existence which was kept by Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah after selling of properties. PW1 admitted the signature on the agreement of sale dated 28- 04-1989 belonging to M.Muthaiah and stated that the signature at bottom column belonging to Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah, therefore the PW1 admitted the signature of Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah who is none other than her husband. In this case the defendant who is claiming the property plot No. 16/part to an extent of 125 Sq.yards in the same survey number in the same locality but he stated that he constructed two rooms and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property, so that he filed photographs under Ex.B1 but the defendant also nowhere mentioned with regard to the construction of the said two rooms and also compound wall in the suit schedule property but suddenly in cross examination of the PW1 by the defendant counsel, he has taken such plea that he constructed two rooms and also constructed compound wall, erected a gate to that compound wall, therefore the defendant also not mentioned clearly with regard to the alleged construction of two rooms and compound wall. If really the defendant constructed the said two rooms, he would have to mention the same in his in written statement and he has to explain that whether those rooms are constructed after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities or not, but for this issue the defendant is also silent.
(g) The further contention of the defendant is that the father of the defendant purchased the property through the unregistered agreement of sale under Ex.B2, later he executed registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.155 of 2013 Page No.11
with possession to the defendant on 04-07-2013, therefore he is submitting that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. However, the base document is unregistered one, therefore through the unregistered agreement of sale no title will be transferred unless and until it is registered as per the procedure established under law and the further documents if executed those documents are also not valid under eye of law. The defendant who is claiming the property on plot No.16/part and the boundaries mentioned are
North: Plot No.16/part, South: 14/A, East:road and West: road, but if the property claiming by defendant is part of plot No.16 to an extent of 125
Sq.yards, if the boundary at northern side is plot No.16/part, then southern side boundary should be plot No.15 but instead of that the southern side is mentioned as 14/A and as per the layout submitted by the plaintiffs it is clear that the southern side boundary should be 15 and east and west side boundaries will not change, therefore as per the above said discussion, the dispute of the plaintiffs and defendant is belongs to the boundary dispute, but the both side documents are not clear with regard to the boundaries, therefore the dispute arose between the parties. But, in this case the plaintiffs who approached this court have to establish their case by showing the specific boundaries and existence of the property within the boundaries, why because to seek the relief of injunction, the boundaries i.e. identity of property is very crucial to execute the decree in injunction suits and without specific boundaries, it is very difficult to execute the decree if passed by this court but in this case the documents on which both parties relied are not clear with regard to the boundaries and they failed to establish the existence of the property within the boundaries as per their version.
(h). The plaintiff also examined PW2 who is third party, he deposed a new story in his cross examination that the said Cherukuri Govinda Ramaiah
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.155 of 2013 Page No.12
kept the plot Nos. 49/A and 49/C, but it is nowhere mentioned by the plaintiffs and he further deposed that the plaintiffs are claiming the suit schedule property is having house but as per the pleadings and evidence of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are not claiming the house, but claiming an open plot
No.14/A, therefore the evidence of PW2 is also not supporting the version of the plaintiffs.
(i). The defendants relied on other documents i.e. Ex.B4 Encumbrance certificate from 01-10-2007 to 30-08-2013 in which Ex.B3 is reflecting but when Ex.B2 is unregistered document, then how the Ex.B3 got registered.
Ex.B5 is the intimation for payment for sanction of water and sewerage connection. Ex.B6 and Ex.B7 are receipts of water connection charges, Ex.B8 and Ex.B9 are water supply receipts. These are the miscellaneous receipts but there is no single document filed by the defendant which goes to show that they constructed the alleged two rooms by obtaining the permission from the concerned authorities and also to that they obtained water connection and electric connection on the name of the defendant and there is no house number mentioned by the defendant to show that after construction of structure i.e. two rooms, the concerned authorities given house number and for that house he obtained water connection and electricity connection, therefore the defendant is also not clear with regard to the possession of the property as on date of filing of the suit. Therefore, basing on the miscellaneous receipt and photographs, court cannot come to the conclusion that he is the owner and possessor over the suit schedule property, why because the defendant has also not taken any plea in written statement or in his chief affidavit that he constructed the house after obtaining the permission, therefore without pleadings he cannot give evidence why because the evidence should be within the limits of the
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.155 of 2013 Page No.13
pleadings and the plaintiffs also admitted that there is a house but there is no proof to show that the defendant himself constructed the said structure over the suit schedule property. Therefore both parties are not clear with regard to the construction of two rooms and when both parties are claiming the same property, first of all it is the bounden duty of the plaintiffs to discharge his burden, then the defendant has to disprove the burden of the plaintiff.
But, in this case, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant proved their pleadings. Hence, the plaintiffs who approached this court failed to establish their case. Therefore, these issues are answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.
10. ISSUE No.4:
As per the discussion at Issue No.1 to 3, the plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie in their favour and also failed to establish their possession over the suit schedule property as on date of filing of the suit, therefore they are not entitled for the relief of injunction.
In the result: the suit is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of August, 2019.
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined on behalf of
Plaintiffs PW-1: C.Venkata Lakshmi Narayana/Plaintiff No.2 PW-2: R.Dhanwanthary Sathya Krishna Murthy/Witness
Defendant DW-1: M.Balaram/Defendant
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.155 of 2013 Page No.14
Exhibits marked on behalf of
For Plaintiffs Ex.A1 CC of sale deed bearing No.483/1986 dt. 17-08-1966 Ex.A2 CC of sale deed bearing No.653/1967 dt. 17-08-1966 Ex.A3 CC of Agreement of sale dt. 07-05-1979 Ex.A4 CC of Agreement of sale dt. 20-08-1979 Ex.A5 MRO proceedings No.A/691/93 Ex.A6 CC of pahani for the year of 1993-94 Ex.A7 CC of pahani for the year 1998-99 Ex.A8 CC of pahani for the year 1999-2000 Ex.A9 CC of pahani for the year 2010-11 Ex.A10 CC of pahani for the year 2011-12 Ex.A11 Legal heir certificate dt. 17-01-2013 Ex.A12 Encumbrance certificate dt. 28-06-2013 Ex.A13 Encumbrance certificate dt. 28-06-2013 Ex.A14 CC of GPA bearing No. 63/2013 dt. 13-04-2013 Ex.A15 CC of docket order in IA 321 of 2001 in OS 123 of 2002
For Defendant Ex.B1 Photographs Ex.B2 Original Agreement of sale dt. 28-04-1989 Ex.B3 CC of Agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession bearing document No.10788 of 2013 dt. 04-07-2013 Ex.B4 Encumbrance certificate from 01-01-2017 to 30-08-2013 Ex.B5 Original intimation of payment issued by HMWS Ex.B6 Original water connection receipt dt. 22-07-2014 Ex.B7 Original cash acknowledgement receipt dt. 10-07-2014 Ex.B8 Original payment receipts issued by HMWSSB Ex.B9 Original Aadhar card of defendant Ex.B10 Certified copy of plaint in OS No.50 of 2019 Ex.B11 Certified copy of plaint in OS No.51 of 2019
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.140 of 2013 Page No.1
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
AT: MEDCHAL
PRESENT:- Smt. M.Aruna, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal
Original Suit No.140 of 2013
On this the 30 th day of August, 2019
Between:- Kasarla Annapurna, W/o.Raju, Aged about 34 years, Occ:Daily wage labour, R/o.H.No.5-7, Dabilpur Village, Medchal Mandal, RR District … Plaintiff
and
Battu Kamalamma, W/o.B.Muralidhar, Aged about 60 years, Occ:Labour, R/o.H.No.4-61/2, Kalakal Village,
Toopran Mandal, Medak District ... Defendant
This suit came before me on 14-08-2019 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri C.Hanumanth Reddy, learned Counsel for the plaintif and Sri S.V.Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivers the following:
-:JUDGMENT:-
1.This suit is filed for perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining her from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are that: The plaintiff has occupied the suit schedule property house bearing No.5-7 in Sy.No.5 of weaker section colony, Dabeerpur Village, Medchal Mandal, RR District and in the year 2001, she raised structure and constructed the house by developing it when it was dilapidated condition, since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any sort of interference from anybody and also obtained electricity connection, water connection, for that the plaintiff is paying consumption charges to the concerned departments and the plaintiff obtained residential certificate, Aadaar card, election ID card on the address of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff obtained the bank loan from the State Bank of India, Dabeerpur Branch for the construction of
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.140 of 2013 Page No.2
the said house, since then the plaintiff is residing in the suit schedule property with her family members as the plaintiff is the poor lady and husband of the plaintiff left her long back, so that the plaintiff is living in the suit schedule property with her small kids by doing coolie work but the defendant who is noway concerned to the suit schedule property is trying to disturb the plaintiff, hence the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction.
3.The defendant filed the written statement by submitting that: The plaintiff created a story to grab the property of this defendant as this defendant is owner and possessor of the suit schedule property claiming by the plaintiff and it was allotted to the husband of the plaintiff by the government as the government allotted the open plot on which the defendant constructed the house and residing in that but after sometime the husband of the defendant got job in Singareni Coal Mines, so for that employment, the family of the defendant shifted to Adilabad District where the husband of the defendant got the employment and at that time the defendant handed over the suit schedule property to one Duddu Swamy who is none other than the father of the plaintiff and also relative of the husband of the defendant to take care of the suit schedule property but by taking advantage of absence of the defendant, then he occupied the property, therefore this defendant approached the police and also revenue authorities with regard to the illegal grabbing of the suit schedule property by the Duddu
Swamy, basing on the representation made by the defendant to the revenue authorities they addressed a letter to the SHO, Medchal to restore the possession but the police did not take any action as the matter is civil in nature, therefore the defendant again filed the private complaint before the
Hon’ble XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal which was referred
to the police and got issued FIR, now it is pending for investigation, therefore
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.140 of 2013 Page No.3
the plaintiff is neither the owner nor possessor of the suit schedule property and by creating false documents in collusion with her father Duddu Swamy, she intends to claim the property of the defendant, therefore the injunction against the true owner is not maintainable, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. Basing on the pleadings and material available on record, this court framed the following issues.
1. Whether the plaintif is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on date of filing of the suit?
2. Whether the defendant has interfered with the possession of the plaintif over the suit schedule property on 17-03-2013 and 22-06- 2013?
3. Whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?
4. To what relief?
5. After framing of issues, the plaintiff is examined as PW1 and marked
Ex.A1 to Ex.A21. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant is examined as
DW1 and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 and PW1 is not cross examined by the defendant counsel even after giving sufficient opportunities and later they filed Interlocutory applications for recall and cross examination of PW1 but those applications were dismissed on contest, therefore there is no cross examination of the PW1.
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. ISSUE No.1 to 3:
(a) As per the pleadings and the evidence of the plaintiff she is submitting that she occupied the suit schedule property house bearing No. 5-7 in Sy.No.5 of weaker section colony, Dabeerpur village and later she raised construction by developing it and also obtained the loan from SBI, Dabeerpur branch for construction by keeping the documents of the suit schedule property and
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.140 of 2013 Page No.4
paying installments regularly to the concerned bank and also later she obtained water connection, electricity connection to the suit schedule property and paying the consumption charges to the concerned departments and also paying the property tax to the Gram Panchayat. As per the above said version, the plaintiff is not the owner to the suit schedule property, she is the occupier of the suit schedule property but the plaintiff did not mention with regard to the ownership of the suit schedule property, why because as per the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff, she occupied the house No.5- 7 in Sy.No.5 of weaker section colony, so that it is a house not an open plot, if it is a house who has constructed, who is the owner and on what capacity she occupied the property is not mentioned by the plaintiff, therefore as per this version of plaintiff, we can come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in illegal occupation of the suit schedule property without having any right or title over it.
(b). The plaintiff is further submitting that after occupation of the house she developed it by obtaining the bank loan and mortgaged the documents with the State Bank of India and when she failed to pay the installments, the concerned bank issued notice to the plaintiff, therefore the plaintiff relied on the document which is marked as Ex.A8. As per the contents of Ex.A8, the
State Bank of India issued that letter to the plaintiff but as per the recitals of the letter it is not mentioned whether it is with regard to the house number of the suit schedule property or any other property and there is no content with regard to the alleged mortgage of the documents that what are the documents she mortgaged to bank belongs to suit schedule property.
However, admittedly the plaintiff is occupier of the suit schedule property, if so generally the plaintiff do not have any documents if she is in illegal occupation, so what are the documents mortgaged with the bank is not
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.140 of 2013 Page No.5
mentioned and there is no certificate filed from the concerned bank that the plaintiff mortgaged the title deeds of the suit schedule property with the
State Bank of India. Generally, the banks will grant loans for the construction of house after furnishing all the documents and after mortgaging of the legal documents and obtaining legal opinion, the bank will sanction the loan but without documents how the plaintiff could obtain loan and mortgaged the documents and how the plaintiff taken such pleadings that she mortgaged the property with the bank without having any right or title over the suit schedule property, how the plaintiff can mortgage the property with the bank, then how the bank will grant the loan to the plaintiff as alleged by her to construct the house.. As per the pleadings and evidence there is an existence of the house, so that when there is an existence of the house there should be owner to that house, therefore when the plaintiff occupies the house, though she pays the property tax, water tax, electricity consumption charges etc., she will not become the owner of the property and mere payment of the miscellaneous charges does not create any right or title over the property to the plaintiff but the plaintiff strongly relied on Ex.A1 to
Ex.A11.
(c). Ex.A1 is the Certificate of residence issued by the Panchayat Raj,
Dabilpur. Ex.A2 is the community, nativity and birth certificate of the plaintiff. Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 are the income certificates, Ex.A5 is the letter issued by the Sarpanch dt. 05-04-2006, Ex.A6 is the letter issued by the
Sarpanch dt. 14-09-2007, Ex.A7 is also the letter issued by the Sarpanch dt.
25-07-2011. These documents are issued only basing on the information given by the plaintiff as there is no need of enquiry with regard to the title of the plaintiff to show that she is owner and possessor and more so, basing on what document they got issued these certificates are nowhere mentioned
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.140 of 2013 Page No.6
why because the defendant is clearly disputing with regard to the suit schedule property and submitting that the husband of the defendant was the allottee and government issued patta certificate to her husband when he was unemployed and after getting employment they shifted to somewhere for his employment, at that time they handed over the property to the father of the plaintiff by name Duddu Swamy and in collusion with Duddu Swamy the plaintiff being his daughter in collusion with each other, they paid property tax, electricity tax and other miscellaneous charges to the concerned authorities and claiming the property of the defendant, therefore the defendant submitting that all the documents are created and filed for the purpose of filing of the suit to grab the property of the defendant, so at this stage, to prove the genuinity of the document it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to call for the witness to prove the genuinity of the document who issued those documents, why because except the documents issued by the
Gram Panchayat authorities, there are no legal documents, either patta certificates or any title deeds of the plaintiff to show that she is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. Therefore, when the defendant strongly disputing title and possession of the property of the plaintiff, then it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to establish the same but the plaintiff did not do so. Ex.A9 are bunch of electricity demand notices and payment receipts. In these receipts the name of the plaintiff is appearing but the survey number is mentioned as 22 but whereas the plaintiff is claiming the
Sy.No.5 of weaker section colony, and there is no house number mentioned in these bunch of electricity demand notices marked under Ex.A9. Therefore,
Ex.A9 electricity demand notices are noway concerned to the suit schedule property. Ex.A10 is also the electricity demand notices, these are also having same contents as mentioned under Ex.A9. Ex.A12 is the property tax receipt on the name of the plaintiff but how the plaintiff paid property tax on her
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.140 of 2013 Page No.7
name for the house No.5-7 without having any right on the suit schedule property and the Ex.A11 is not having any house number or the survey number but it is reflecting the name of the plaintiff. Ex.A13 is the Family member details card. As per this document the house number of the plaintiff is mentioned as 5-17 but the suit schedule house property claiming by the plaintiff is 5-7, therefore this document is noway concerned to the suit schedule property. Ex.A14 is the election identity card in which the house number of the suit schedule property is mentioned. Ex.A15 are the bank receipts but whether the plaintiff has paid the installments for the suit schedule property to construct the house or not, it is also not reflecting.
Ex.A16 is the SBI Life Insurance Certificate in which the address of the plaintiff is mentioned as suit schedule property but generally the certificate issued by the authorities basing on the information given by the persons only but they will not enquire about the strict proof of residence and ownership of the persons who are in possession and having title. Therefore, this document is not at all useful to the plaintiff. Ex.A17 is the Aadaar card on the address of the suit schedule property but it also will be issued after due enquiry but basing on the information given by the parties it will be issued, why because whether the plaintiff is the owner or possessor is noway related to the authorities who issue the Aadaar card. Ex.A18 and Ex.A19 are the property tax receipts but the plaintiff herself paid the property tax on her name, therefore on what basis she paid property tax and what were the documents submitted to the Gram Panchayat to enter her name in Gram
Panchayat records is also nowhere mentioned and Ex.A20 and Ex.A21 are also the electricity bills. These are also having on Sy.No. 22 but not on
Sy.No.5 or the house No. 5-7 i.e. suit schedule property claiming by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff by securing all these documents intends to create title and ownership to the property, the plaintiff nowhere mentioned
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.140 of 2013 Page No.8
either in plaint or in chief with regard to the ownership of the suit schedule property and who was the previous owner, whether government or any private person, whether the said property was allotted to anyone which was cancelled or in existence is not mentioned and simply saying that she occupied the property and she developed it by obtaining loan from the SBI and after that she obtained electricity connection and water connection, later she is paying tax to the concerned departments for the property. But, without having any right or title how the plaintiff can pay the miscellaneous charges to the concerned authorities, if it is a government property, the plaintiff has to mention the same that the government is the owner but she has not mentioned and she is claiming the injunction against the true owner who is the allottee why because the defendant submitting that she performed love marriage and basing on that the government allotted patta certificate and at the time of issuance of patta certificate her husband was unemployee and after getting employment they shifted to the place where her husband was posted, then the husband of the defendant handed over the property to his neighbour Duddu Swamy who is none other than the father of the plaintiff to look after it but by taking that advantage the said Duddu
Swamy in collusion with his daughter i.e. plaintiff illegally occupied the property and paying property tax, electricity charges and also other miscellaneous charges and not vacating the property, now the husband of the defendant retired and when they intended to shift to the suit schedule property, the plaintiff is claiming that it belongs to her, therefore the defendant also filed the documents those are marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B9.
Ex.B1 is the Certified copy of patta certificate and submitting that the original patta certificate kept in the criminal case which is pending before the Court of Hon’ble XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal, therefore she filed CC of patta certificate. As per this patta certificate, the plot No.13 in
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.140 of 2013 Page No.9
Sy.No.5 issued on the name of the defendant but the plaintiff counsel submitting that as the defendant husband was Singareni employee therefore the government will not issue patta certificate to the employees as the government issue patta certificate to only landless poor persons, but the defendant contending that at the time of issuance of patta certificate to her husband, her husband had no employment, therefore she is submitting that after allotment of patta certificate they obtained housing loan and constructed house and for sometime they lived in that house and after getting employment to her husband, they shifted to Adilabad District to work there, therefore the defendant submitting that by taking the advantage of their absence, the plaintiff in collusion with her father occupied the property and claiming the ownership, but the plaintiff counsel contending that there are no boundaries mentioned in Ex.B1, but in cross examination of DW1 she clearly stated the boundaries those are corroborating with the plaint schedule property, therefore the claim of the defendant is for the suit schedule property basing on Ex.B1 and the defendant submitting that the government allotted the patta certificate for the plot No.13 in Sy,.No.5, then the boundaries as stated in cross examination by the DW1 is clearly supporting the suit schedule boundaries. The defendant also filed the community, nativity and date of birth certificate which is marked as Ex.B4. As per Ex.B4
dated 01-07-2007 the suit schedule property house number is mentioned on
the name of the defendant, therefore the both parties are claiming the same property but plaintiff without having any document only basing on miscellaneous receipts she is claiming the property but when the defendant claiming the property basing on patta certificate, then it is the duty of the plaintiff to establish the same that she is the legal owner and occupied the suit property but she did not do so, when the defendant also filed the same document, then how the document of the plaintiff will prevail, then how the
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.140 of 2013 Page No.10
court can consider the nativity, community, date of birth certificate of the plaintiff marked under Ex.A2, Ex.A3 and Ex.A4. Ex.B5 filed by the defendant also clearly mentioned the address of the suit schedule property. Ex.B6 is the
FIR copy. The defendant lodged complaint against the plaintiff and got issued
FIR No.250 of 2013 on 17-04-2013 with regard to the trespass of the suit schedule property. But, the said case was closed as the matter is civil in nature and again the defendant filed the private complaint before the
Hon’ble XV MM,Medchal, therefore since from the beginning the defendant is
making efforts to get evict the plaintiff from the suit schedule property but the plaintiff counsel submitting that the defendant did not file any suit for eviction against the plaintiff, therefore the plaintiff is entitled to continue her possession and defendant cannot evict the plaintiff without following due process of law. But in this case the defendant is original allottee and the plaintiff without having any right is in possession and she is not claiming the possession as tenant, she is claiming possession as occupier i.e. indirectly ownership also, so injunction against the true owner is not maintainable and it is case of the plaintiff who approached this court, she has to establish her case but she cannot say that as the defendant failed to file the suit for recovery of possession, so that the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed but the suit filed by the plaintiff is for equitable relief of injunction, therefore to seek equitable relief they should do equity and the party who approach this court has to come with clean hands by placing all true and material facts but in this case the plaintiff suppressed the material facts with regard to the ownership and possession to seek the equitable relief, so that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek injunction which is equitable one.
(d). Moreover, the further contention of the plaintiff is that PW1 is not cross examined by the defendant counsel but even the defendant counsel
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.140 of 2013 Page No.11
has not cross examined the PW1, it does not mean that the case of the PW1 should be decreed. It is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove what are the pleas taken by her have to be established. In cross examination of DW1 the counsel for the plaintiff posed some questions with regard to the patta certificate by submitting that the patta certificate will not be issued to the employees as the husband of the defendant was working as Singareni employee, therefore the certificate will not be issued to the defendant. It is the duty of the government to take steps if they issued the patta certificate on the name of the defendant’s husband and if the defendant is not below poverty line, the government will cancel the patta certificate but unless and until the government cancels the patta certificate it can be said that the person on whose name the patta issued is the possessor of the property and got right over such property. The plaintiff do not have any locus standi to question the patta certificate if it is forged and fabricated document and if the defendant’s husband is not the eligible person for grant of patta in his favour then the government or the authority who issued patta certificate will take action against the defendant’s husband or defendant for false information and also can take steps to cancel the documents but unless and until the documents under Ex.B1 gets cancelled, the defendant will become the patta holder. The plaintiff without having any right or title she cannot question the patta certificate. In cross examination of the DW1 she deposed the boundaries of the property claiming by her are East:Road, West:House of
Duddu Swamy, North:another house of Duddu Swamy, South: Road. The boundaries are tallying with the suit schedule property claiming by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is claiming the property covered under
Ex.B1 and she clearly stated that while shifting to their employment, they handed over the property to the father of the plaintiff i.e. Duddu Swamy who is relative and the defendant in collusion with Duddu Swamy filed the suit.
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.140 of 2013 Page No.12
At this stage, the plaintiff has to examine the said Duddu Swamy to support her evidence, but she did not do so. Except herself no one is examined on her behalf and the documents on which the plaintiff relied have not proved the title of the plaintiff and if we see the possession of the plaintiff, it can be said that it is illegal possession, she herself admitted that she occupied the suit house, therefore it means that it is in illegal occupation, so illegal occupier is not entitled for grant of injunction against the true owner, hence the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit against the defendant and the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of perpetual injunction.
9. ISSUE No.1 to 3:
As per the discussion at Issue No.1 to 3, the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie, hence she is not entitled for the relief sought for.
In the result: the suit is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court
on this the 30 th day of August, 2019.
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined on behalf of
Plaintiff PW-1: K.Annapurna/Plaintiff
Defendant DW-1: B.Kamalamma/Defendant
Exhibits marked on behalf of
For Plaintiff
Ex.A1 CC of Residence issued by Panchayat secretary Ex.A2 Community, nativity and date of birth certificate Ex.A3 Income certificate dt. 18-07-2005 Ex.A4 Income certificate dt. 21-08-2007 Ex.A5 Possession certificate issued by the sarpanch Ex.A6 Confirmation letter issued by Sarpanch dt. 14-09-2007
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
OS.No.140 of 2013 Page No.13
Ex.A7 Confirmation letter issued by Sarpanch dt. 25-07-2011 Ex.A8 Notice issued by SBI, Dabeerpur branch Ex.A9 Electricity bills Ex.A10 Electricity receipts Ex.A11 Tax receipt of water connection dt. 04-08-2007 Ex.A12 House tax receipt dt. 05-04-2006 Ex.A13 House hold ration card dt. 04-06-2006 Ex.A14 Voter identity card dt. 10-12-2008 Ex.A15 Amount remitted to SBI, Dabeerpur branch Ex.A16 Certificate of insurance dt. 01-10-2007 Ex.A17 Aadhaar card of plaintiff Ex.A18 Demand notice issued by Gram Panchayat, Dabilpur Ex.A19 Tax receipts paid to GP, Dabilpur Ex.A20 Electricity bills (18) Ex.A21 Electricity receipts (22)
For Defendant
Ex.B1 CC of patta certificate dt. 04-12-1997 Ex.B2 CC of death certificate Ex.B3 CC of community nativity and date of birth certificate Ex.B4 CC of community nativity and date of birth certificate Ex.B5 CC of income certificate Ex.B6 CC of FIR with complaint Ex.B7 CC of protest petition in Cr.No.250 of 2013 Ex.B8 CC of notice to the complainant Ex.B9 CC of final report dt. 30-10-2018
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RR District
Date: 30-08-2019 Prl.JCJ, Medchal
1
CC No.390 of 2015
IN THE COURT OF XXII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL
Wednesday, 28th day of August 2019 Present: Sri A. Nagaraju, B.A., LL.B., XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal
CC No.390 of 2015
Between:- The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police PS Medchal
...Complainant
AND
A.1Surendra Babu S/o. Not known, R/o. Not known (Absconding)
A.2Nadikoppu Shankar S/o. Late Krishna, Age: 36 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.9-98, Kindibasthi, Medchal (V, Mdl and District)
A.3Rajaboina Srinivas S/o. Narsimulu, Age: 31 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. LIG 147, H.B. Colony, Medchal (V, Mdl and District) …Accused
This case came up before me for final hearing on 19-08-2019 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri C. Krishna, Sri D. Santosh Rao, Advocates for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Medchal, filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 in Cr.No.206/2015 showing A.1 has absconding for the offences U/s 419, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. As A.1 is absconding, it is submitted that a separate charge sheet will be filed against him as and when he is arrested.
2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that Lw.2
Chetlapalli Ramakoti Bhaskar Rao is the original owner of Plot No.193 in
Sy.No.1085 (part), 1086 (part), 1087 (part) to the extent of 266.66 Sq.
Yards at Medchal, having purchased the same under Registered Sale
Deed vide Doc.No.148/1985 dt 04.01.1985. A.1 and A.2 are doing Real
Estate business and came to know about said plot of Lw.2, who is resident of Vishakapatnam, as such they colluded with each other to cheat the original owner. For such ulterior motive, A.3 also joined them and decided to dispose off the plot belonging to Lw.2 to other party by creating forged documents. Accordingly, A.1 impersonated Lw.2 by creating one Election ID card to make believe the general public as
Lw.2 and real owner of the Plot No.193. Accordingly, A.1 created an
Agreement of Sale cum GPA in favour of A.3 vide registered 2
CC No.390 of 2015
Doc.No.1561/2012 dt 16.04.2012. A.2 signed the said document as witness. According to their plan, A.3 in turn sold the said plot to Lw.3 vide Doc.No.1806/2012 dt 03.05.2012 who is resident of Malkajgiri, who is known to A.1, as such Lw.3 believed A.1 in purchase of the plot who do not know the evil acts of A.1 to A.3. Again she disposed off the said plot to Lw.5 vide registered Doc.No.4699/2014 dt 01.12.2014.
The entire episode came to know by Lw.1 who intended to purchase the plot from the original owner and informed the same to Lw.2 who is not in a position to move from one place to other due to his old age and as he was suffering from heart disease, Lw.2 executed Agreement of Sale
Cum GPA in favour of Lw.1 vide registered Doc.No.1817/2015.
Accordingly he filed complaint against the accused. On receipt of complaint from Pw.1 (Lw.1) a case in the above crime number was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, A.2 and A.3 were arrested on 07.05.2015 on their voluntary surrender before the police and their confessional statements were recorded in the presence of mediators
Pws.4 and 5. Later A.2 and A.3 were released on bail on furnishing sureties by the Police. After collection of certified copies of documents from the SRO, Medchal and on completion of investigation, SI of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.
3.On appearance of A.2 and A.3, they were examined U/s 239
Cr.P.C. Charge for the offences U/s 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC were framed, read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.In support of its case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P.12. Police failed to produce the original owner
Lw.2 inspite of granting number of adjournments and filed report stating that he is unable to move from bed. Hence his evidence was closed.
5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, A.2 and A.3 were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They 3
CC No.390 of 2015
denied the same, reported no defence evidence. Hence their defence evidence was closed.
6.Heard the arguments.
7.Now the Point for consideration is: Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges U/s 419, 468, 471 and 420 IPC leveled against them beyond all reasonable doubt?
POINT:
8.Pw.1 - Defacto complainant deposed that he knows the original owner Lw.2 Chetlapalli Ramakoti Bhaskar Rao who own Plot Nos.185 and 193 in Sy.Nos.1085, 1086 and 1087 of Medchal to the extent of 266.66 Sq Yards. The Plot No.185 was standing in the name of wife of
Ramakoti Bhaskar Rao. Accordingly he entered into an Agreement with
Lw.2 to purchase the plots for Rs.7,05,000/- and paid Rs.1.00 lakh as advance by way of cheque. When he applied for Encumbrance
Certificate, he came to know that there are three other names shown in respect of the said property and it was already sold to others. He informed the same to Lw.2, on that he came to Medchal and executed a
GPA to deal with the case and received the balance amount of
Rs.6,05,000/- by way of cheque stating that he is an heart patient and unable to look after the matter. On that, they both approached the police and filed complaint Ex.P1 before the Police. Lw.2 also informed to police that he sold the plot to him. In the cross examination, Pw.1 stated that complaint was drafted by the Police based on the
Encumbrance Certificate handed over to him and he only signed on it.
He could not trace out the persons who created double registration of the plot. He does not know the persons who purchased the plot and both the plots are in his possession only and no one is claiming the same. He also stated that A.2 and A.3 have not created any documents and he does not know their complicity in the offence. He also stated that A.2 and A.3 did not cause any loss to him.
9.Pw.2 who is said to be an attesting witness to the Sale Deed
Doc.No.1806/2012 said to have executed by A.3 in favour of Arram
Venu Madhavi has turned hostile and did not state anything about the signing of any document and he does not know anything about the case. He also stated that he does not know any of the accused. Pw.3 – 4
CC No.390 of 2015
Purchaser of Plot from said Arram Venu Madhavi also turned hostile.
She stated that in the year 2012, when she intended to purchase a plot near Medchal, near Railway track from Arram Venu Madhavi, she withdrew the purchase and received back the amount from Lw.3 (Venu
Madhavi) as it was in litigation. She also stated that she does not know the reasons for litigation and police did not examine her. Pws.4 and 5 – mediators for confession of A.2 and A.3 have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, except admitting their signatures.
Pw.6 is the District Registrar who issued certified copies of the documents Exs.P6 to P.10.
10.Pw.7 is the Investigation Officer deposed about registration of case, recording of statements of Lws.1 to 5 and obtaining certified copies from Pw.6. He further stated that on 07.05.2015, A.2 and A.3 voluntarily surrendered before him, on that he secured the presence of
Pws.4 and 5 and recorded their confessional statements as in Ex.P12.
He also stated that though he made efforts to apprehend A.1, he could not trace out him, as such he filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 showing A.1 as absconding. In the cross examination, Pw.7 stated that the original owner Ramakoti Bhaskar Rao did not file any complaint
before him stating that his signature was forged. He has not collected
any specimen signatures of the person who forged the documents and sent to FSL. He further volunteered stating that Ramakoti Bhaskar Rao informed him that the property is in his possession from the date of purchase and he did not sell to anyone. He further stated that A.1 forged the documents and as the accused confessed that they spent the amount, he could not recover any amount. He has not collected any original documents from Lw.2. In this case, Police did not examine the original owner Lw.2 stating that he is unable to move from bed and staying in Andhra and requested to close his evidence.
11.Pw.1 who is GPA holder of said Lw.2 also not stated anything against the accused. On the other hand he stated that though A.2 and
A.3 might having created any documents and he does not know their complicity. Pw.7 – Investigation Officer has stated in his cross examination that A.1 forged the documents who is absconding and not 5
CC No.390 of 2015
facing trial. From the evidence of Pws.1 and 7, it appears that the matter was already settled out of Court, as such none of the witnesses have come forward to depose anything against the accused. Further the Investigation Officer has also not collected the original documents from Lw.3 and Pw.3 and also from Lw.2 who is original owner, even to compare the alleged forging of original document in the name of Lw.2.
12.As per Pw.1, both the plots are still in his possession and no one is interfering with his plot and no loss caused to him by any of the accused. Documents are not original documents and not collected by the Investigation Officer. As per Ex.P7 – certified copy of Agreement of
Sale Cum GPA Doc.No.1561/2012 said to have created in favour of A.3, in the name of Ch.Ramakoti Bhaskar Rao S/o. Sitaramaiah (Lw.2) by
A.1 who is absconding and not facing trial. The said document was attested by A.2 along with one Ganesh. Pw.6 has not shown the said
Ganesh, who is resident of Medchal as accused. Though A.3 was arrested by the Police and confessional statement was recorded, the
Investigation Officer has not taken any pains to collect the original document of Ex.P7 to send the same to FSL. As seen from Ex.P7, the document was forged impersonating Lw.2 by A.1. When the evidence of Pw.1 is considered that the plots are in his possession only and no one is claiming, it cannot be said that A.2 and A.3 have colluded with
A.1 and created Ex.P7. Hence, I find that prosecution has failed to connect A.2 and A.3 with the alleged forgery of original Ex.P7 by impersonating Lw.2 through A.1. Hence, I find that prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
13.In the result, A.2 and A.3 are found not guilty for the offences U/ s 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and they are acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months as required U/s 437-A Cr.P.C.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 28th day of August 2019.
XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal 6
CC No.390 of 2015
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution
Pw.1 Chirla Ramesh, Defacto complainant Pw.2 P. Navin Kumar, distance witness to the Sale Deed Doc.No.1806/2012 Pw.3 Kaveti Srivani, Purchaser of Plot from Arram Venu Madhavi Pw.4 S. Jaipal Reddy, mediator for confession for A.2 and A.3 Pw.5 J. Dhanraj, - Do - Pw.6 M. Ravinder, District Registrar Pw.7 M. Satish Kumar, IO
For DefenceNone
Exhibits Marked for Prosecution
Ex.P1 Complaint dt 12.04.2015 Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2 before the police Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3 before the police Ex.P4 Signature of Pw.4 on confessional panchanama Ex.P5 Signature of Pw.5 on confessional panchanama Ex.P6 CC of Sale Deed Doc.No.148/1985 dt 04.01.1985 Ex.P7 CC of Agreement of Sale cum GPA vide Doc.No.1561/2012
dt 16.04.2012
Ex.P8 CC of Sale Deed Doc.No.1806/2012 dt 03.05.2012 Ex.P9 CC pf Sale Deed Doc.No.4699/2014 dt 01.12.2014 Ex.P10 CC of Agreement of Sale cum GPA with possession vide Doc.No.1817/2015 dt 10.04.2015 Ex.P11 FIR dt 12.04.2015 Ex.P12 Confessional statement of A.2 and A.3
Exhibits Marked for Defence
Nil
Material Objects marked
Nil
XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal
1
CC No.55 of 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL
Wednesday, 28th day of August, 2019
PRESENT:- Sri A. Nagaraju, B.A., L.L.B XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal
CC. No.55 of 2016
Between: The State of Telangana, represented by Sub Inspector of Police PS Medchal
….. Complainant
A N D
A1.Mukundamgari Srinivas Reddy S/o. Chandra Reddy, Age: 38 yrs, Occ: Not known, R/o. H.No.5-73/3, Ghanapur village, Medchal Mdl and District
A2.Mukundamgari Srinath Reddy S/o. Venkat Reddy, Age: 21 yrs, Occ: Not known, R/o. H.No.5-3/A, Ghanapur village, Medchal Mdl and District
A.3Dharavath Raju S/o. Davya, Age: 28 yrs, Occ: Not known, R/o. H.No.2-11, Kasanapally thanda, Chegunta Mdl, Medak District
A.4Gate Mallesh S/o. Siddi Ramulu, Age: 35 yrs, Occ: Not known, R/o. H.No.6-95, Vadiyaram village, Chegunta Mdl, Medak District
…..Accused
This case came up before me for final hearing on 21.08.2019 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri C. Hanumanth Reddy, Advocate for the Accused, upon hearing on both sides, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following.
J U D G M E N T
The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Medchal, filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.4 in Crime No.102/2015 for the offence U/s 379 IPC and
Sec.35 (ii) of AP WALTA Act, 2002.
2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that A.1 to A.4 hatched a plan to commit theft of sand in Ghanpur rivulet and sold the same. Accordingly on 01.03.2015 in the morning they all went in their tractors to Ghanpur rivulet and loaded the sand without any permission from the Revenue authorities and were transporting the same to 2
CC No.55 of 2016
Medchal for the purpose of sale and stationed the tractors near Satya
Sai Petrol Bunk. On receipt of credible information about the same,
Pw.1 – VRA along with his staff colleagues Pw.2 and Lw.3 rushed to
Satya Sai Petrol Bunk and noticed the tractors loaded with sand.
Accordingly at 12.30 p.m., Pw.1 filed complaint before the police. On receipt of said complaint, the police registered a case in the above crime number and investigated into. During the course of investigation, SI of Police recorded the statements of Lws.1 to 3, visited the place of offence, observed scene of offence and as there was no incriminating material, no panchanama was conducted. On 05.03.2015 at 8.00 p.m. all the accused surrendered before him. Hence, he recorded the confessional statements of A.1 to A.4 in the presence of
Pws.3 and 4 and proceeded to Satya Sai Petrol Bunk and seized the tractors from that place and brought them to police station. Later he released the accused on bail on furnishing sureties. After completion of investigation, Pw.5 filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.4.
3.On appearance of the accused, they were examined U/s 239
Cr.P.C. Charge for the offence U/s 379 IPC and Sec.35 (ii) of AP WALTA
Act, 2002 were framed, read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.In support of its case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 5 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P.12. Police failed to produce Lw.3 – another
Revenue Official and Eye witness to the incident inspite of granting number of adjournments. Hence the evidence of Lw.3 and prosecution was closed.
5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, A.1 to A.4 were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
They denied the same, reported no defence evidence.
6.Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A.1 to A.4 for the Offences leveled against them beyond all reasonable doubt?
3
CC No.55 of 2016
Point:-
7.Pw.1 is the defacto complainant, Pw.2 is eye witness, Pws.3 and 4 are mediators for confessional panchanama of accused and seizure of tractors and Pw.5 is the Investigation Officer.
8.Pws.3 and 4 the mediators for confessional panchanama of accused and seizure of tractors have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, except admitting their signatures on the
Exs.P11 and P12. They only deposed that they attended panchanama of their village and in the police station, police obtained their signatures. When the evidence of mediators for confessional panchanama of accused and seizure of tractors is set aside, their remains the evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 5.
9.Pw.1 deposed that on 01.03.2015 they received information about illegal transportation of sand, as such he along with Lw.2 proceeded to Satya Sai Petrol Bunk and found four tractors loaded with sand and he also identified the accused as the drivers of said tractors.
On enquiry, the accused revealed him that they were transporting sand from Ghanpur rivulet, but failed to produce any valid permission, as such they brought the tractors and accused to police station and handed over the same to the police. He also filed complaint before the police.
10.Pw.2 deposed that on 01.03.2015, Lw.3 received phone call about the illegal transportation of sand, as such he along with Pw.1 accompanied Lw.3 to said Satya Sai Petrol Bunk and found four tractors loaded with filtered sand. Then they telephoned to police and with the help of police, they took the tractors to police station. He also deposed that Lw.3 informed him that there is illegal filtration of sand at Ghanpur rivulet.
11.Coming to the evidence of Pw.5, the case was registered on 01.03.2015 at 12.30 p.m. on receipt of complaint from Pw.1 by the CI 4
CC No.55 of 2016
of Police – Lw.6. He also stated that he examined and recorded the statements of Pws.1, 2 and Lw.3. He further stated that accused were brought to police station along with the vehicles by the Revenue authorities, as such he secured the presence of Pws.3 and 4 and recorded their confessional statements and seized four tractors and trolleys loaded with soil under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama. From the evidence of Pws.1 and 5, it is clear that the accused were brought to the police station along with the tractors by the Revenue authorities. Pw.2 also stated that they informed the police and with the help of police they brought the tractors to the police station, but coming to the charge sheet filed by Pw.5, it is mentioned that after enquiry made by Pw.1 at Saty Sai Petrol Bunk, the accused fled away and on 05.03.2015 at 8.00 p.m. A.1 to A.4 voluntarily surrendered before the police, as such he recorded their confessional statements and then proceeded to said Satya Sai Petrol
Bunk and seized the tractors and brought to police station.
12.As per the charge sheet, the confessional statement was recorded four days after the complaint in the night at 8.00 p.m. on 05.03.2015., but as seen from Exs.P7 to P.10 confessional panchanamas of A.1 to
A.4, they were recorded in the police station on 05.03.2015 at 3.30 p.m. onwards till 6.30 p.m., but as per Ex.P11 another Joint confessional panchanama cum seizure panchanama, the confessional statements of A.1 to A.4 were recorded on 01.03.2015 at 1.00 p.m. at
PS, Medchal and in pursuance of the confessional statement of Ex.P11, the tractors were seized on 01.03.2015 at 3.00 p.m. at Satya Sai Petrol
Bunk, Medchal. It is also pertinent to note that another seizure report is also filed, which formed part of record. As per the said seizure report, the tractors were seized on 05.03.2015 at 7.45 p.m. from Satya
Sai Petrol Bunk. As per Pws.1 and 2 the sand was being transported illegally, but as per Pw.5 the tractors were loaded with soil, but as per the Exs.P7 to P10, the accused were transporting the sand.
13.In the cross examination, the Investigation Officer stated that he did not conduct scene of offence panchanama at Ghanpur village. He also stated that he has not examined the owner of Satya Sai Petrol 5
CC No.55 of 2016
Bunk, where the vehicles were found. He further stated that in the seizure report, he has not mentioned about the seizure of soil or sand along with the vehicles. It is the defence of the accused that only due to traffic jam, the vehicles were brought to police station and foisted a false case against the accused. Even as seen from the seizure report and Form No.60, only tractors were deposited into the court, but not the sand or soil.
14.When according to Pws.1 and 5, the tractors were brought to police station by the Revenue officials on the very same day of complaint. Nothing is mentioned about the same in the charge sheet, but on the other hand, it is mentioned that the tractors were seized on 05.03.2015 on voluntary surrender of the accused. As per the separate confessional statements of accused recorded on 01.03.2015 and joint confessional statement of accused on 05.03.2015, when the evidence of Pw.5 is considered along with Exs.P7 to P10, P.11 and P.12 and unmarked seizure report dtd 05.03.2015, it appears that the
Investigation Officer has not done investigation in proper way and he is very callous in conducting investigation that to when loss is caused to the exchequer of the State and when the Revenue officials have brought the accused to police station on the very same day of incident.
15.From the above circumstances, it appears that only to let off the accused on 01.03.2015, he showed their arrest as voluntary surrender on 05.03.2015 in the charge sheet. Further he has also released the accused on the very same day on furnishing sureties; apart from that there is no proper evidence on record to connect the accused with the guilt for transporting either sand or soil said to have seized and deposited into the Court. If the soil or sand was seized, the investigation officer ought to have taken steps for sale of the same by auction and deposit the sale proceeds into the Court, but he has not done so. When the very ingredients of theft of soil or sand is not established, due to the serious lapses and callousness of the investigation officer and further the mediators for confession and seizure have also turned hostile, I find that the prosecution has utterly 6
CC No.55 of 2016
failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences leveled against them beyond all reasonable doubt.
16.In the result, A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty for the Offence U/s 379 IPC and Sec.35(ii) of AP WALTA Act, 2002. Accordingly they are acquitted U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months as required U/s.437-A Cr.P.C.
The unmarked case property tractors given to its owners towards interim custody shall be retained by them till expiry of appeal period.
Dictated to Stenographer; transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in Open court on this the 28th day of August, 2019.
XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution Pw.1G. Anjaneyulu, Defacto complainant Pw.2J. Bharat Kumar, Eye witness Pw.3Kola Venkatesh, mediator for confessional panchanama of accused and seizure of tractors Pw.4Singareni Pochaiah, mediator for confessional panchanama of accused and seizure of tractors Pw.5Ch. Gopa Raju, IO
For DefenceNone Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution
Ex.P1 Complaint dated 01.03.2015 Ex.P2 Signature of Pw.3 on confessional cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3 Signature of Pw.3 on seizure report Ex.P4 Signature of Pw.4 on confessional cum seizure panchanama Ex.P5 Signature of Pw.4 on seizure report Ex.P6 FIR dated Ex.P7 Confessional panchanama of A.1 Ex.P8 Confessional panchanama of A.2 Ex.P9 Confessional panchanama of A.3 Ex.P10 Confessional panchanama of A.4 Ex.P11 Confessional cum seizure panchanama Ex.P12 Seizure report For DefenceNil
Material Objects marked Nil
XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal
C.C.No.300 of 2020
IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-VII ADDITIONAL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT
MEDCHAL
PRESENT:- P.B.KIRAN KUMAR
VII ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MEDCHAL
MONDAY, THIS THE 5th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
C.C.NO.300 OF 2020
Between :
The State represented through PS Shamirpet ….Complainant.
// A n d //
Mohammed Dawood S/o. Noor Mohammed aged about 38 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ:Driver R/o. Lalgadimalakpet village, Shamirpet Mandal Medchal District.
....Accused
This case came before me for final hearing on 02.9.2022 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri B.Venkat Reddy, Counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following :-
J U D G M E N T
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police station, Shamirpet filed a charge sheet against the accused person for the offence under section 380 IPC.
Page No.1 of 8
C.C.No.300 of 2020
2.Briefly, the case of the prosecution, is as follows :-
On 20.2.2020 at 1600 hours, LW7/S.Santhosham, Inspector of Police,
Shamirpetreceivedawrittenreportfromthe defacto-complainant/D.Bhadradri Srimannarayana Murthy in which he stated that he has been working as supervisor in Bricket Company named Vamshi Green Energy Industries, which is siuated at
Lalgadimalakpet and on 11.2.2020 at about 1000 hours he went to
Visakhapatnam to attend marriage and on 12.2.2020 at 1200 hours, the worker informed him that the spare part of Bricket machine namely
Diholder was not found, then on 14.2.2020 the complainant returned and after verification of missing spare part, he informed the same to his owner and later requested to take necessary action.
Basing on which, LW7/S.Santhosham, Inspector of police registered a case in crime No.98/2020 under section 380 IPC and issued FIR.
Immediately he examined and recorded the statement of PW1, visited the scene of offence, examined other witnesses and secured two mediators and drawn Crime Details Form in their presence. On 10.3.2020 at 1030 hours, the accused was arrested by LW8/M.Bhaskara Rao,
Sub-Inspector of Police and produced him before the court for judicial custody. After collecting relevant documents and also after completion of
Page No.2 of 8
C.C.No.300 of 2020 entire investigation, LW8/ M.Bhaskara Rao, Sub-Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused.
3.Considering the material available on record, cognizance was taken on file for the offence under section 380 IPC against the accused. After appearance of the accused, the copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207
Cr.P.C., and examined the accused under section 239 Cr.P.C., for which, he denied the offence. A Charge under section 380 IPC is framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P8 and MO1.
5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating evidence available against the accused, for which accused denied the same.
None were examined on behalf of the accused.
6.After hearing both sides, now the point that arose for determination in this case is:-
Page No.3 of 8
C.C.No.300 of 2020 “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts”?
7. POINT: To substantiate its case, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of Pws.1 along with Pw4 coupled with the evidence of PW5.
A perusal of evidence of PW1 shows that on 11.2.2020 he went to Vizag to attend the marriage and on 12.2.2020 he received telephone call from
B.Ray stating that one of the equipment of their company was missing and on 13.2.2020 he returned to the company and on verification he informed the same to the Management and later, on their instructions, he lodged a written report before the police under Ex.P1. In the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he has not handed over his ID card along with his report to the police and no written authorisation was given to him by the company to lodge Ex.P1. Though the evidence of
PW1 shows that there was a delay of 8 days in lodging Ex.P1 but it discloses about the missing of Diholder machine from his company.
8. Another witness to which the prosecution mainly relied upon is the evidence of PW4, who is said to be one of the panch witnesses for confessional cum seizure panchanama of accused. A perusal of evidence of PW4 shows that at about two years back one day at 2.00 PM, he visited the police station on his personal work and at that time the
Page No.4 of 8
C.C.No.300 of 2020 accused was present in the police station and he was informed by the police officials that the accused is involved in a theft case and later police officials prepared some documents and thereafter, police took him and accused to a company situated at Aliyabad village and accused brought a rod from the bushes and he identified MO1 as the rod which was brought by the accused and later some documents were prepared at the company and obtained his signature on it. In the cross examination,
PW4 admitted that he visited the police station several times and no notice was issued to him to act as mediators and he do not know the details of the accused and he do not know the contents of panchanama.
He also admitted that he do not know weight and dimensions of MO1 and he has affixed only one signature.
9.After detailed evaluation and scanning the evidence of Pw4, it shows that the police officials in the police station informed Pw4 that the accused committed theft and that he do not know the details of the accused and he do not know the contents of panchanama. Further, the evidence of PW4 also shows that the police themselves took PW4 and accused to a company situated at Aliyabad and there seized the material object. It is noted that when the police themselves took Pw4 and accused to a company and seized MO1, such seizure creates a doubt in
Page No.5 of 8
C.C.No.300 of 2020 the mind of the court to believe the same. Moreover, it is well settled principle of law that any statement made by any person while he was in the custody of the police is inadmissible in evidence as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. Thus, viewed from any angle, the evidence of Pw4 cannot be given much importance.
10. Prosecution also examined Pws.2 and 3, who are said to be panch witnesses for the Crime Details Form to support its case, but a perusal of evidence of Pws.2 and 3 shows that they failed to support the case of the prosecution and as such, their evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case.
11.Now the left over evidence is PW5 who is the investigating officer, who deposed about the investigation done by him. He also deposed that on interrogation, accused confessed about the commission of this offence and that after completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet. Thus the evidence of PW5 only shows about the investigation done by him. When the evidence of Pw4 is disbelieved by this court, the evidence of Pw5 is also not much helpful to the prosecution case.
12. Thus, after careful scrutiny of Pws.1 to 5, it can be said that the evidence of Pw1 along with the evidence of Pws.4 and 5 only shows that
Page No.6 of 8
C.C.No.300 of 2020 some unknown offenders committed theft of MO1 from the company of
PW1. But the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the above said MO1 as this court disbelieved the evidence of Pw4, who is important and crucial witness in this case and who was said to be panch witness for confessional cum seizure panchanama. Hence, in view of foregoing discussion, it can be safely held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 380 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.
13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section under section 380 IPC and he is accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of
Criminal Procedure Code. The case property vide in CPR No.49 of 2020 i.e MO1 shall be returned to its owner on proper identification after expiry of appeal time.
Typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 5th day of September, 2022
Sd/-
VII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
AT MEDCHAL.
Page No.7 of 8
C.C.No.300 of 2020
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
PW1: D.Bhadradri Srimannarayana Murthy/Complainant NIL
PW2: Rapol Kumar / Panch witness for scene of offence
PW3: Chandupatla Rajireddy/Panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama
PW4: Mainaboina Rajender/Panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama PW5: M.Bhaskara Rao, S.I of police/Investigation officer
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1 : Complaint of PW1 NIL
Ex.P2 : Photograph of MO1
Ex.P3: Signature of witness on crime detail form
Ex.P4: Signature of PW-3 on confession cum seizure panchanama
Ex.P5: Crime Detail Form
Ex.P6: First Information Report
Ex.P7: Seizure report excluding confession statement of accused
Ex.P8: Relevant portion of confession statement of accused
MATERIAL OBJECTS IF ANY:
MO1 is diholder machine
Sd/-
VII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
AT MEDCHAL
Page No.8 of 8
C.C.No.300 of 2020
IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-VII ADDITIONAL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT : AT MEDCHAL
C.C.No.300/2020
DATE OF :- Offence: 11.02.2020 Complaint: 20.02.2020 Apprehension of accused : 41A Cr.P.C., notice issued Released on bail: 11.03.2020 Commencement of trial : 06.05.2022 Close of trial: 01.09.2022 Sentence or order: 05.09.2022 Explanation for delay: This case was transferred from XXIII AMM Medchal on 23.03.2022 due to non functioning of physical courts. Name of the Complainant: State:Telangana, P.S.Shameerpet Crime no.98 of 2020 Name of the accused : Mohammed Dawood S/o. Noor Mohammed, aged about 38 years Caste:Muslim,Occ:Driver, R/o. Lalgadimalakpet village, Shamirpet Mandal Medchal District. Offence: U/sec. 380 of IPC Finding: Found not guilty. Sentence or Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section under section 380 of IPC and he is accordingly acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The case property vide in CPR No.49 of 2020 i.e MO1 shall be returned to its owner on proper identification after expiry of appeal time.
Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- VII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Medchal, Malkajgiri District Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Metropolitan Session Judge, at Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
Page No.9 of 8
C.C.No.300 of 2020
Page No.10 of 8
Order Record 8 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CC/200300/2020 | PS SHAMIRPET vs MOHAMMOD DAWOOD | 05 Sep 2022 | judgement | Acquitted |
| OS/140/2013 | Kasarla Annapurna vs Battu Kamalamma | 30 Aug 2019 | judgement | — |
| OS/155/2013 | Cherukuri Ratna Kumari vs Meesala Bala Ram | 30 Aug 2019 | judgement | — |
| CC/608/2016 | PS.Medchal vs Nagini Nagaraju | 29 Aug 2019 | judgement | Acquitted |
| CC.APT/200473/2014 | PS Medchal vs Gottam Kailasam | 29 Aug 2019 | judgement | Acquitted |
| CC/193/2017 | Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, vs I.Bala Lingam Goud | 28 Aug 2019 | judgement | Acquitted |
| CC/200055/2016 | P.S Medchal vs Mukundamagari Srinivas Reddy | 28 Aug 2019 | judgement | Acquitted |
| CC/200390/2015 | P.S.Medchal vs Surender Babu | 28 Aug 2019 | judgement | Acquitted |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Sri.P.B.Kiran Kumar handled?
Sri.P.B.Kiran Kumar has handled 8 court orders since 2019 at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex.
What types of cases does Sri.P.B.Kiran Kumar hear?
Based on available records, Sri.P.B.Kiran Kumar primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex.
Where is Sri.P.B.Kiran Kumar currently posted?
Sri.P.B.Kiran Kumar is posted as Prl Junior Civil Judge-cum-VII Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medchal at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex, Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana.
Are judgments by Sri.P.B.Kiran Kumar available online?
Yes. 8 judgments by Sri.P.B.Kiran Kumar are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
Since when is Sri.P.B.Kiran Kumar serving?
Sri.P.B.Kiran Kumar has been serving at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex since 2019.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Sep 2022 — May 2023Prl Junior Civil Judge-cum-VII Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medchal · 1 orders
-
Aug 2019 — Aug 2019II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,Cyberabad at Medchal · 2 orders
-
Aug 2019 — Aug 2019Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Medchal · 5 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court