P. Babu

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE 

TANUKU, WEST­GODAVARI DISTRICT

PRESENT: P.BABU

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TANUKU.

Tuesday, the 21st day of February, 2023

ORIGINAL SUIT. No.364 of 2015

Between:

1. Kamana Venkata Rama Rao, S/o.Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Male, Age 60 years, Retired Employee, Door No.3­88, K.Illindaraparru, Iragavaram Mandal, West­Godavari District.

2. Vasa Dane Krishna, S/o.Kotayya, Hindu, Male, Age 55 years, Employee, K.Illindaraparru, Iragavaram Mandal, West­Godavari District.

3. Annamareddy Bhaskara Rao, S/o Seshayya, Hindu, Male, Cultivation, K.Illindaraparru, Iragavaram Mandal, West­Godavari District.

4. Adapa Anjaneyulu, S/o.Suryanarayana, Hindu, Male, Age 55 years, Auto Owner, K.Illindaraparru, Iragavaram Mandal, West­Godavari District.

5. Pasala Mohan Tatajee Kameswara Rao, S/o Rama Rao, Hindu, Male, Age 52 years, Cultivation, K.Illindaraparru, Iragavaram Mandal, West­Godavari District.

(Plaintiff No.1 to No.5 for themselves and on behalf of other devotees of Sri Chodeswara Swami Vari Devasthanam, K.Illindaraparru in their representative capacity under Order­8, Rule­1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) … Plaintiffs

And

1. Sri Chodeswara Swami Vari Devasthanam, represented by its Executive Officer, K.Illindaraparru, Iragavaram Mandal, West­Godavari District.

2. Valluri Dhana Kanya Hanuma Kumari, W/o.Late Satti Raju, Hindu, Female, Age 60 years, Land Owner, Door No.3­79, K.Illindaraparru, Iragavaram Mandal, West­Godavari District.

3. Valluri Prakash, S/o.Late Satti Raju, Hindu, Male, Age 30 years, Door No.3­79, K.Illindaraparru, Iragavaram Mandal, West­Godavari District.

4. Valluri Bhanu Prakash, S/o.Late Satti Raju, Hindu, Male, Age 25 years, Door No.3­79, K.Illindaraparru, Iragavaram Mandal, West­Godavari District.

5. The Divisional Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Tanuku, West­Godavari District.

6. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by District Collector, West­ Godavari District, Eluru. … Defendants

OS. No.364 of 2015 2 IAJCJ Court, TNK

This Suit is coming on 21.12.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Ms D.Radha, Sri D.Ravi Kumar and D.Padmavathi, learned Counsels for the Plaintiffs and of Sri K.V.N.Kama Sastri and Sri K.Raveendra, learned Counsels for the Defendant No.1; Sri G.Bhaskara Murthy and Sri G.S.V.V.Prasad, learned Counsels for the defendant No.2 to No.4; and Sri P. Appa Rao, Assistant Government Pleader representing the Defendant No.5 and No.6; and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This Suit filed by the Plaintiff under Order VII Rule 1 and Section 26 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking the reliefs of

a) to Declare that ABCDEFG of the plaint plan which is an extent of 62½ square yards as per plan and schedule is the absolute property of the Defendant No.1 Temple and for consequential Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendant No.5 and No.6 to remove the road laid by them in the said area;

b) to grant Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant No.2 to No.4 from demolishing the compound wall of the Defendant No.1 in the South­ East corner of its property and thereby encroaching into the schedule property; 

c) For costs of the suit and 

d) For such further of other reliefs as the Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

02. The Brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

a) The Defendant No.1 Temple is an ancient Temple; that the properties of the Defendant No.2 to No.4 are adjacent to the South­East corner of the Defendant No.1 Temple; that the main doorway of the Defendant No.1­

Temple towards East and after the main building, there is a varanda on the

Eastern side with a width of 10 feet resting on wooden pillars with tiled roof alongside the Defendant No.1­Temple. Thereafter, there is a pathway and open space to reach the main road on the North; that the Defendant No.2 to No.4 also have been passing through the pathway and open space to reach the road on the

North through their doorway on the North­East corner of their properties with a width of 4 feet. The varanda was constructed during the year 1933 and the roof on the varanda is being repaired and re­tiled periodically. 

b) The plaintiffs further submits that as the Defendant No.1­Temple is an old one, the Temple Reconstruction Committee with an intention to remove and renovate the Defendant No.1­Temple, collected the donations of

OS. No.364 of 2015 3 IAJCJ Court, TNK

Rs.10,34,000/­ from the public and deposited the same in Andhra Bank, Vipparu.

The Department also sanctioned Rs.20,66,000/­ for construction. Besides that the devotees and Committee spent nearly Rs.2,00,000/­ for Bala Aalayam, Kalpa

Karashana (shifting of Idols), removal of Temple structures, laying basement, filling with sand etc; that when the matter stood thus, the Defendant No.2 to No.4 started setting up rights for the site where there used to varanda alongside the

Temple; that the plaintiffs came to know that in view of the said assertion by the

Defendant No.2 to No.4, the Temple Authorities revised the Plan so as to exclude the varanda portion as the Defendant No.2 to No.4 are wealthy and politically influenced persons. In the said context, some of the plaintiffs got issued Notice, dt.17.03.2015 to the Defendant No.1 and No.2 and also higher officials of the

Department and all of them are received the said notice and the Defendant No.1 only sent its reply dated 31.03.2015 admitting the ownership of Temple together with extent, renovation of Temple and also further stated that the Officers of

Temple would certainly protect the property etc; that after the notice, the

Defendant No.1 affixed cement pillars alongside the Eastern boundary of Temple leaving 2 feet space on the East.

c) The plaintiffs further submits that on 15.04.2015, the devotees got issued another notice to the Defendant No.1 and No.2 when the Defendant No.2 to No.4 removed the doorway on the North­East corner and attempted to put gateway of 10 feet width in the Wall which is parallel to the Southern side wall of

Temple. If the Wall of the Temple is removed, the Defendant No.2 to No.4 can straight away enter the previous varanda space for their ingress and egress and can take vehicles also. The said notice was received by the Defendant No.1 and

No.2 and the Defendant No.2 gave reply dated 28.04.2015 by denying all the averments in the earlier Notice dated 17.03.2015 and also 15.04.2015 and she also stated that the site in front of her house is R and B site and she got right of passage. According to her, the open space available between R and B Road and her Northern Wall, is 14 feet and that she used to park her four wheeler etc, there; that the Defendant No.2 further stated that on the West of the said space, there used to be a small varanda which is constructed in the road margin and she wanted the Department to take action and stop illegal construction by the Temple in the R and B Road site and she also stated that she had got document and gave it to the Defendant No.1 and she has no objection to demarcate of boundaries between her, Temple and R and B Department; that the Defendant No.1 also gave

OS. No.364 of 2015 4 IAJCJ Court, TNK

reply dated 12.05.2015 reiterating the averments in the earlier Reply Notice and denying entrustment of document by the Defendant No.2 and also denying the alleged encroachment of R and B site etc.

d) The plaintiffs further submits that during August, 2015, on the

North of the Temple, the Defendant No.5 and No.6 got laid cement road and the width of the road laid varies between 18 feet to 15 feet in the village but on the

North of the Temple, the width of the road is increased by 9 feet and there is a bend towards South and the new road is almost an encroachment into the Temple site and it is like a triangle indicated as ACX in the plaint Plan; that the defendants must have objected for such act in the normal course but for the reasons best known to them, there is no objection; that the Defendant No.1 is deprived of its property to the tune of 4 yards and apart from that having regard to the fact that the construction should be as per vastu and that being the North­East corner which should not be reduced, the defendant No.1 would construct the compound

Wall from A to G.

e) The plaintiffs further submits that the ABCDEFG portion of the site which is hitherto in the exclusive enjoyment of the Defendant No.1­Temple and which forms part of the Temple property since the last about eight decades in now being taken away and the Defendant No.1 is deprived of; that the plaintiffs also got issued Notice dated 17.03.2015 to the Defendants in that connection; that the plaintiffs reliably came to know that the defendant No.2 to No.4 are intends to install a gate by demolishing the compound wall which exclusively belongs to the

Defendant No.1­Temple to its South­East corner. Hence, the suit.

03. Appearance of the defendants

After registering the suit, the suit summons were issued to the

Defendants and they received the same and the Defendant No.1, No.2 filed their written statements. The Defendant No.3 and No.4 adopted the written statement of Defendant No.2.

04. The Brief contents of the written statement of the Defendant No.1

a) The Defendant No.1 filed written statement by denying the material allegations in the plaint and contended that the Defendant No.1­Temple is an ancient Temple; that there used to be a tile roofed construction all along the

OS. No.364 of 2015 5 IAJCJ Court, TNK

Eastern side of the Temple from North to South and the said construction was resting on a wall in the middle with varanda on the East and West all along; that those varanda were resting on wooden pillars on either ends; that the width of those varanda was 10 feet each. In the Western varanda, there used to be an

Office Room and a Store Room while the Eastern varanda was open; that there used to be an inscription of the date as 1933 on the top edge of the Eastern varanda also. Property of this defendant is thus inclusive of those varanda. On the further East of the Eastern Varanda , there is a vacant site belonging to R and B

Department which is being used by Defendant No.1 as a passage to reach the main road on the north; that all the devotees used to pass through that lane and enter the Temple and the said passage was being used by the Defendant No.2 to

No.4 also to enter their house through the doorway situated in the North­East of their site.

b) The Defendant No.1 further contended that as the Temple became very old, it was requiring repairs very frequently so also, the level of the road on the North was raised by the Government and as a result, the site of the Temple became very low in level and in those circumstances, the Temple Authorities wanted to renovate the Temple by raising the level of the site as well as the building and as such, the temple and tiled house were demolished and at that time, Defendant No.1 planted cement poles all along the Eastern boundary i.e., in the line of the old pillars on the East of the tiled construction; that the part of the compound wall was kept intact on the South­East corner and the remaining compound walls on all the four sides were removed; that previously, on the

North­East corner of the Temple, there was a cross in alignment on the road and it was advised by the Stapati at the item of new construction that such cross is to be avoided as per vastu as such while constructing the new compound wall,

Defendant No.1 left a space of nearly 11 feet width on the West of the cement pillars (erstwhile Eastern edge of the old varanda) and constructed the compound wall so as to enable the devotees to put their vehicles in that place and also due to vastu reasons as per the advice of Stapati.

c) The Defendant No.1 further contended that the Northern R and B road took a bend at the North­East of the Temple and while laying a cement road, the Government laid concrete on the North of the Temple leaving a margin of about 1½ feet all along however, when it came to the bend point, the concrete

OS. No.364 of 2015 6 IAJCJ Court, TNK

was laid up to the edge as there was bend to avoid accidents; that the allegations in the plant that while laying the concrete, the Government encroached into the property of the Temple shown as ACX is absolutely incorrect and untenable; that there was no encroachment at all by anybody into the property of the Temple; that the construction of compound wall on all four sides is completed and Defendant

No.1 will develop the site left on the Eastern side of the compound wall up to the pillars by making it fit for parking of devotees; Defendant No.1 will never allow the Defendant No.2 to No.4 to make use of that site for their use; that Defendant

No.1 also intends to construct an Office building in that site in due course and the

Defendant No.2 to No.4 are not allowed to demolish the wall of the temple on the

South­East as apprehended by the plaintiffs; that the plaint plan and the measurements shown therein are incorrect and the plaint or plaint plan do not give any description of ABCDEFG i.e. whether it represents the old constructions or a vacant site. Therefore, the Defendant No.1 prayed to dismiss the suit.

05. The Brief contents of the written statement of the Defendant No.2

a) The Defendant No.2 filed written statement and the Defendant

No.3 and No.4 adopted the same by denying the material allegations in the plaint and contended that after removal of old walls and traces etc, the plaintiffs filed the present suit with false allegations; that after visit of the Commissioner, on 07.01.2016, the plaintiffs, the Defendant No.1, other Villagers removed the compound wall situated on the South of the Temple highhandedly and un­ authorisedly and committing offences and by threatening the Defendant No.2 with dire consequences and now the existing wall on the South­East corner is in a very bad condition and endanger to the inmates of the Defendant No.2 to No.4 and persons moving adjacent to the wall and that there is every chance of collapse of such wall at any time. They further contended that for the purpose of declaration of property, and to decide the extent and rights of the parties, the documents belong to all the parties shall file before the Court; that as per the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule belonged to the Defendant No.1­Temple and Defendant No.6­

Government and the property on South belong to the Defendant No.2 to No.4.

Thus the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest in the property; that without filing documents relating to the properties, approvals, plans, revised plans, sanctions, estimates regarding the construction of Temple and Road by the

Defendant No1 and No.5, the present dispute cannot be resolved.

OS. No.364 of 2015 7 IAJCJ Court, TNK

b) The Defendant No.2 to 4 further contended that the plaintiffs falsely averred in affidavit in I.A.No.371/2015 that there is no record to show the extent and for the property of Defendant No.1­Temple and as such declaration of property to the Defendant No.1­Temple is to be done basing on the alleged traces and photos and such plea and claim is not sustainable under law; that the plaintiffs colluded with the Defendant No.1 and filed the present suit only with a view to cause loss to the Defendant No.2 to No.4; that there is another suit in

O.S.No.307/2008 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tanuku is

pending between the Defendant No.2 to No.4 herein and the Plaintiff No.1 herein who is Defendant No.2 therein and another and in that suit, an Advocate

Commissioner was appointed and he filed the Commissioner’s Report, dt.19.01.2009 in I.A.No.793/2008; that the plaintiffs are contending in the plaint that the width of the road on the north of property of the Defendant No.2 to No.4 is only of width of 4 feet, the Defendant No.1 alleged in the Notice dated 12.05.2015 (Page No.2) such is of a width of 6'6" and the Defendant No.2 to No.4 are contending that such is of a width of 14'; that as the Defendant No.2 to No.4 want to erect a gateway for their car and vehicles in their Northern compound wall by removing their Northern wall, then the plaintiffs filed the suit with altogether false and frivolous allegations only to stall the construction of car gate in the Northern wall of the Defendant No.2 to No.4; that the Defendant No.2 to

No.4 never intended to encroach the property of the Defendant No.1­Temple. The

Defendant No.2 to 4 further contended that the vacant site in front of their

Northern compound wall, more particularly shown as BCDE of the plaint plan do not belong to the Defendant No.1 and such cannot be declared as property of the

Defendant No.1, at the instance of plaintiffs; that the Northern side compound wall of the Defendant No.2 to No.4 on the North­East corner which is the site (way) to reach the road on north and such was already observed and measured by an Advocate Commissioner in O.S.No.307/2008 as 13'8" and 14'10" on outside side; that the Northern boundary for the said Item of property is ‘RAJA VEEDHI’ and described as such in the registered Sale Deed dated 20.12.1989 and also the

Partition Deed dated 16.09.1933.

c) The Defendants No.2 to 4 further contended that if the declaration is given, then the Defendant No.2 to No.4 will not have access to reach the main road on their North and hence, no declaration can be given and as the compound wall of the Temple on the North­East corner i.e., at A­point of the plaint plan is on

OS. No.364 of 2015 8 IAJCJ Court, TNK

the load laid by the Defendant No.5 and if the road is removed, the compound wall is also liable for removal thus, the said claim has no basis; they further contended that admittedly, the foundation wall for the CC compound wall of the

Defendant No.1­Temple was already constructed even by the date of visit of

Commissioner and as such, the site on the east of Eastern compound wall is to be left open and such cannot be occupied by anybody and If any such declaration sought by the plaintiffs is given, such will be occupied and misused which will restrict the Defendant No.2 to No.4 to reach the road on north from each point of their contact. 

d) The Defendants No.2 to 4 further contended that the Defendant

No.5 did not laying of road for about months but the plaintiffs and the Defendant

No.1 after demolition of all the existing old features and completion of construction of compound wall to major extent filed the suit with false allegations; that the Defendant No.2 to No.4 cannot encroach the property of the Temple as such is of their Northern compound wall; that in fact, the plaintiff in collusion with the Defendant No.1 with an intention to encroach the property situated in the North of the Defendant No.2 to No.4 i.e., ABCDEFG of plaint plan; that the

Defendant No.2 to No.4 has got right of access to the road from each point of contract (14'10" width) and that they have every right to put up a gateway at ED of the plaint plan and that the plaintiffs or the Defendant No.1 cannot object for the same; that the plaintiffs sought in the plaint that not to demolish the compound wall of the Defendant No.1 in the South­East corner i.e., GFE wall and thereby encroaching the schedule property but in fact, the said wall belonged to the Defendant No.2 to No.4; that the schedule or ABCDEFG do not belong to the

Defendant No.1­Temple and the Defendant No.2 to No.4 have no objection to keep the property i.e., ABCDEFG i.e., site situated on the East of the newly laid

Eastern C C compound wall of the Defendant No.1, which is on the North of the existing old northern compound wall of the Defendant No.2 to No.4, which is on the South of the existing R and B Road, intact as vacant, without Permanent or

Temporary Injunctions. Hence they prayed to dismiss the suit.

06.Basing on the above Pleadings, my learned predecessor had settled the following issues for Trial.

OS. No.364 of 2015 9 IAJCJ Court, TNK

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek declaration?

2. Whether the property is the absolute property of the Defendant No.1 shown as ABCDEFG?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendant No.5 and No.6 to remove the road laid by them in the Temple area?

4. Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to file the suit?

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant No.2 to No.4 for demolishing the

compound wall of the Defendant No.1­Temple as sought for?

6. To what relief?

07.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 himself examined as PW.1, also got examined one Nandula Srinivasa Ravi Kumar and Pasala Pardha Saradhi as PW.2 and PW.3 respectively and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A16. On behalf of the defendants, the Executive Officer of the Defendant

No.1 Temple by name Akundi Panchamukhi Hanuman was examined as DW.1.

The Defendant No.4 examined himself as DW.2 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B6.

08.Heard the learned Counsels for the Plaintiffs and Defendants. Perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs had filed written arguments in addition to the oral arguments. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs had relied upon the Judgment in the case of M.Siddiq (D) thr LRs Vs

Mahant Suresh Das and others reported in 2019 (5) ALT 383 (SC).

09. Issue No.1 and 2:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek Declaration ?

2. Whether the property is the absolute property of the Defendant No.1 shown as ABCDEFG?

9.1.Since the Issue No.1 and 2 are inter­related to each other, it is appropriate to answer the both issues together to avoid repetition.It is the case of the plaintiffs that the Defendant No.1 Temple is an ancient Temple; that the properties of the defendant No.2 to No.4 are adjacent to the South­East corner of the defendant No.1 Temple and the main doorway of the defendant No.1­Temple towards East and after the main building, there is a varanda on the Eastern side

OS. No.364 of 2015 10 IAJCJ Court, TNK

with a width of 10 feet resting on wooden pillars with tiled roof alongside the defendant No.1­Temple and thereafter, there is a pathway and open space to reach the main road on the North; that the defendant No.2 to No.4 also have been passing through the pathway and open space to reach the road on the North through their doorway on the North­East corner of their properties with a width of 4 feet; that the varanda was constructed during the year 1933 and the roof on the varanda is being repaired and re­tiled periodically. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that as the defendant No.1­Temple is an old one, the Temple

Reconstruction Committee collected the donations of Rs.10,34,000/­ from the public to remove and renovate the temple and the Endowment department also sanctioned Rs.20,66,000/­ for its construction and that the defendant No.2 to

No.4 claimed their rights for the site in the place of varanda alongside the Temple and the planatiffs came to know that the Temple Authorities revised the Plan so as to exclude the varanda portion as it was claimed by the defendants No.2 to 4; that later some of the plaintiffs got issued Notice, dt.17.03.2015 to the defendant No.1 and No.2 and also higher officials of the Endowment Department and defendant

No.1­ Temple only sent its reply on 31.03.2015 admitting the ownership of

Temple together with extent, renovation of Temple and also further stated that the Officers of Temple would certainly protect the property etc.

9.2.It is further case of the plaintiffs that after the notice, the defendant

No.1 affixed cement pillars alongside the Eastern boundary of Temple leaving 2 feet space on the East; that on 15.04.2015, the devotees of temple got issued another notice to the defendant No.1 and No.2 when the defendant No.2 to No.4 removed the doorway on the North­East corner and tried to put gateway of 10 feet width to the Southern side wall of Temple and the defendant No.2 gave reply

dated 28.04.2015 and the defendant No.1 also gave reply dated 12.05.2015 and

during August, 2015, on the North of the Temple, the defendant No.5 and No.6 got laid cement road by increasing the 9 feet with a bend towards South by encroaching into the Temple site; thatthe ABCDEFG portion of the site is in the exclusive enjoyment of the defendant No.1­Temple and it is part of the Temple property since the last about eight decades; that the plaintiffs also got issued

Notice dated 17.03.2015 to the defendants in that connection and they came to know that the defendant No.2 to No.4 are going to install a gate by demolishing the compound wall which exclusively belongs to the defendant No.1­Temple to its

South­East corner.

OS. No.364 of 2015 11 IAJCJ Court, TNK

9.3.To prove their case, the plaintiffs adduced oral and documentary evidence and the plaintiff No.1 himself examined as PW.1. To support the version of the plaintiffs, they also got examined one Nandula Srinivasa Ravi Kumar and

Pasala Pardha Saradhi as PW.2 and PW.3 respectively. The documents such as

Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 got marked through PW.1. The PW.1 filed his chief examination affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. The contents of the chief affidavit of PW1 are found to be the similar contents of plaint averments. As could be seen from the testimony of PW1 that was available in his cross­examination, it is found that there is no dispute among the parties in respect of the existence of D1 temple at the suit schedule property and it is further found that there was no Committee for

D1 temple and the removal of building structure and re­construction of temple was done by Endowment Department and there is no intervention of any individual. As could be seen from the testimony of PW1, it is further evident that he categorically deposed that the new gate placed by D2 to D4 by leaving 5 to 6 feet on their north and he has no objection for that gate. It is further evident from the testimony of PW1 that at first instance the compound wall was constructed and later the cement road was laid and it is further evident that the PW1 has no documentary proof to show that 62½ sq. yards of site belongs to D1 temple. PW1 further deposed that the compound wall of D1 temple at the south­east corner is not there and it was removed.

9.4As could be seen from the contentions of the plaintiffs and even from the testimony of PW1/the Plaintiff No.1, it is evident that except the photographs and exchange of notices between the plaintiffs and the defendants under Exs.A1 to

A16, the plaintiffs did not place any other documentary evidence in respect of the

D1 temple property. On the other hand, the DW1 who was the Executive Officer for the D1 temple at relevant point of time, deposed in his evidence that there is a record for the temple property. The plaintiffs filed the present suit against the defendants basing on photographs for seeking the relief of declaration against the defendants. Even the D1 temple did not place its record to show the correct measurements and also the exact extents of the temple in which, it was situated though DW1 admitted that there is a record with the temple. Hence, it can be said that merely basing on the photographs filed by the plaintiffs, it is very difficult to this Court to come to an conclusion that the Defendants No.2 to 4 encroached the temple property and placed the gate on its south.

OS. No.364 of 2015 12 IAJCJ Court, TNK

9.5PW2 deposed in his cross­examination that on the south of the temple, the houses of D2 to D4 situated and the site of 5 feet width in front of the gateway, is belongs to D2 to D4 and there are 5 steps to the east on the eastern compound wall of D1 temple. He further testified that the 12 feet site to the east of the temple is belongs to the temple and 4 feet belongs to D2 to D4. PW2, who got examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, testified that the passage towards east is belongs to the temple and on the north of the passage, the R and B Road is situated. Though PW3 deposed that the temple land was encroached on the north and south but either the plaintiffs or the D1 temple did not place any cogent documentary evidence. 

9.6As stated above, on behalf of D1 temple, the Executive Officer by name A. Pancha Mukhi Hanuman got examined DW1. He admitted about the contribution of amount more than Rs.10 lakhs by the villagers and also granting matching grant of Rs.20,00,000/­ and more by the temple. He further testified that he does not remember about the length and width of the temple site and he further deposed that towards west of varanda, there used to be one Store Room and one Office Room on either side from the door way appearing in Ex.A8 belongs to D2 to D4 and the site abutting to the door way is not belongs to the temple. He further testified that the present compound wall was left 10 feet on east for the construction of the office. He further testified that the present existing road is having bend near new compound wall and there was also bend at old compound wall. DW1 further testified in his cross­examination by D2 to D4 that D2 to D4 did not encroach the temple site and there is no objection from D2 to D4 for ingress and egress to the temple and the extent of property of the temple is mentioned in the Property Register. He further testified that he has no objection to remove the compound wall by D2 to D4, which is thereon south of D1 temple. He further testified that D2 to D4 has to pass in front of the temple and through the R and B site to reach their houses on eastern side.

9.7As could be seen from the testimonies of PW2, PW3 and DW1 it is evident that either PW2 or PW3 are not the Committee members for the temple and though they stated that the D2 to D4 encroached the site of the temple but as stated above, the plaintiffs did not place any proof to that effect, except the photographs. On the other hand, as stated above, though DW1 categorically testified in his testimony that the property details of the temple mentioned in the

OS. No.364 of 2015 13 IAJCJ Court, TNK

Property Register of the temple but either the plaintiffs or the D1 did not place the relevant Register of the temple to show about the extent and the boundaries and other things of D1 temple. The plaintiffs sought the relief of declaration to declare that ABCDEFG site shown in plaint plan is absolute property of the D1 temple and also the other consequences reliefs and though the plaintiffs got filed the photographs, which were marked as Exs.A7 to A16 besides to the notices exchanged between the parties such as Exs.A1 to A6 but those documents were not sufficient to believe the version of the plaintiffs that the ABCDEFG site shown in plaint plan is absolute property of the D1 temple in the absence of the other cogent and absolute documentary proof. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and D1 temple vehemently argued that the Ex.A7 to A16 i.e., photographs are reflecting correct and exact details of the D1 temple and its structure etcetera and also erection of new gate by the D2 to D4 with a width of 10 feet on the northern side of temple but it cannot be said that those are sufficient for the case of the plaintiffs to determine that ABCDEFG site shown in plant plan is belongs to the D1 temple and the D2 to D4 were occupied its site on its south and erected new gate with a width of 10 feet. It is the burden on part of the plaintiffs to prove their case that ABCDEFG site shown in plaint plan is belongs to the D1 temple but as stated above, except the oral testimonies of PW,1 to PW.3 and the photographs under Ex.A7 to A16, no other piece of proof filed despite of the fact that there is register at the D1 temple which shows the its property details etc as admitted by the DW.1 who got examined on behalf of the D1 temple itself, for the reasons best known to them. Hence, it can be said that the plaintiffs are failed to place the relevant proof for discharging their legal burden to get the appropriate relief in the matter as sought for.

9.8.Coming to the Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 i.e., notices issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants including the D1 temple and the replies given by the D1 temple and other defendants, as stated above, these notices were exchanged between the parties and others prior to filing of the present suit and as could be seen from the contents of Ex.A1 to Ex.A6, it is evident that those contents are found to be the similar to the pleadings of the plaintiffs and the defendants and hence, it can be said that the Exs.A1 to A6 documents can not comes to the rescue of the plaintiffs to state that ‘ABCDEFG’ site shown in plaint plan is the absolute property of the

D1 temple. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that though the plaintiffs are relied on Exs.A1 to A6 documents but it is of no use. 

OS. No.364 of 2015 14 IAJCJ Court, TNK

9.9As could be seen, it is further evident from the record that as per the orders in I.A.No.371/2015, dt.22.12.2015, Sri G. Veerreddy, Advocate, Tanuku was appointed as Commissioner to visit the suit schedule property for the purpose of note down the existing physical features of the schedule property and also for the purpose of taking the measurements of the same. In pursuant to the orders in

I.A.No.371/2015, the learned Advocate Commissioner had visited the schedule property on 28.12.2015 for execution of the warrant and accordingly, he noted down physical features of the schedule property, along with measurements and prepared his detailed report and filed the same into the Court. The learned

Commissioner also took the photographs of the schedule property at the time of his visit. But either the plaintiffs or the defendants did not choose to examine the learned Commissioner as witness or did not choose to exhibit the report of the

Commissioner. However, since the Commissioner is considered as replica of the

Court, his report is form part of the record. This Court carefully perused the report of the learned Commissioner. The Commissioner also prepared the plan at the time of his visit the schedule property and he filed the same along with his report.

Even according to the report of the learned Commissioner, there could be no dispute in respect of the existence of D1 temple at the schedule property but even the learned Commissioner also did not specifically shown the boundary of the D2 to D4 and D1 temple on its south and even the learned Commissioner did not observe that whether the gate erected by the D2 to D4 on the south­east of D1 temple, is within the ‘ABCDEFG’ site, or not as alleged by the plaintiffs. Admittedly the learned Commissioner also took the photographs and filed the same along with his report. But basing on the photographs filed by him, this Court cannot come to conclusion that the D2 to D4 erected the gate in the ‘ABCDEFG’ site of the

D1 temple as shown in the plaint plan. Through the learned Commissioner has mentioned in his report that there are plates (naparallu) to a depth of 1.10 feet with names towards north to south from the cement road to ‘ED’ wall of his plan and one name as ‘Penumarthi Chellayya, W/o Subbamma’ has written in one of the said plates, but it is not sufficient for the case of the plaintiffs to declare that the ABCDEFG site shown in plaint is absolute property of the D1 temple.

9.10Therefore, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that though the heavy burden is lies on the plaintiffs to prove their case since they sought relief of declaration that the ‘ABCDEFG’ site shown in the plaint plan is the absolute

OS. No.364 of 2015 15 IAJCJ Court, TNK

property of D1 temple but as discussed above, the plaintiffs are failed to discharge their legal burden by placing cogent and absolute and also sufficient evidence and the evidence adduced by them I.e, the oral evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and the documents such as Exs.A1 to A16 are not sufficient for their case to decreed suit as prayed by them and in view of these circumstances, the plaintiffs cannot entitled the relief of declaration.

Hence, the Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered against the plaintiffs accordingly. 

10. Issue No.3:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for Mandatory Injunction directing

the defendant No.5 and 6 to remove the road laid by them in the Temple

area?

10.1It is further contention of the plaintiffs that D5 and D6 laid cement road on the north of the D1 temple in the month of August, 2015 and the width of the said road, varies 18 feet to 15 feet in the village but on the north of the temple, the width of the said road is increased by 9 feet and there is bend towards south and as such, the said road is almost an encroachment into the D1 temple site but the D1 temple authorities or the defendants did not object D5 and D6 for laying the said cement road and the D1 temple is a deprived of its property to extent of 4 yards and as such, the D5 and D6 are liable to remove the cement road laid by them in the said area by way Mandatory Injunction.

10.2As could be seen from the record and even from the testimonies of the PW.1 to PW.3 and DW.1 and DW. 2, it is evident that admittedly D5 authorities laid cement road at the D1 temple and even the learned Commissioner also categorically observed in his report that there is a cement road at north­east corner of the temple which runs from its north and it is coming from east is extended 1.7 feet towards south of the compound wall and he also shown the same in his Plan. The learned Commissioner had observed in his Plan that the cement road situated on the north of the D1 temple is width about 18.4 feet at starting point and admittedly he shown that the said cement road is width about 18.1 feet on the north­east corner of D1 temple. For this, the D1 temple itself has averred in its pleadings that the D5 and D6 authorities did not encroach the site of the D1 temple and only to avoid the accidents at its north east corner, the said

OS. No.364 of 2015 16 IAJCJ Court, TNK

road laid at high level which took the bend. As could be seen from the plan filed by the Commissioner, admittedly the cement road situated on north of the D1 temple is appears to be take bend on its north­east corner. But the plaintiffs did not file any sufficient proof to show that the D5 and D6 authorities laid the said cement road by encroaching the site of D1 temple on its north­east corner.

Therefore, in view of the circumstances and in the absence of pivotal proof, it cannot be said that the D5 and D6 authorities laid the cement road on the north­ east corner of D1 temple by encroaching its site as alleged by the plaintiffs. It can be further said that the plaintiffs even did not shown any lineal measurements to show that up to what exact extent the D5 and D6 encroached the site of the D1 temple for the purpose of laying the cement road on its north­east corner and the plaintiffs also failed to give the such measurements in order to show that D1 temple property is diminished at its north­east corner on laying the cement road.

Though on mere fact that the cement road laid by the D5 and D6 at high level which took bend at north­east corner of D1 temple, it cannot be said that it is laid in the site of D1 temple.

10.3Hence, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case for the reasons stated above, this court is further opined that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the cement road laid by D5 and D6 at north­east corner of D1 temple, by encroaching the site of D1 temple to the extent of 4 yards as contended by them. Therefore, this issue also answered against the plaintiffs accordingly. 

11. Issue No.4:

Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to file the suit ?

11.1Since inception of filing of their written statements, the D2 to D4 have been contending and also their learned counsel argued that the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest in the ‘ABCDEFG’ site shown in plaint plan of D1 temple, the plaintiffs have no locus­standi to file the suit against the defendants and as such the plaintiffs cannot seek for any relief in the suit. The D2 to D4 further contended that the plaintiffs and D1 temple are colluded with each other and the plaintiffs filed the present suit only for the sake of wrongful gain to the D1 temple with a view to cause loss to D2 to D4 by harassing them and that since the plaintiffs are claiming relief and for the benefit of D1 temple by filing the present suit against the D1 temple and it is nothing but collusive suit between the

OS. No.364 of 2015 17 IAJCJ Court, TNK

plaintiffs and the D1 temple. They further contended that as the D2 to D4 herein filed a suit against the 1st plaintiff herein and another in O.S.No.307/2008 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tanuku, the 1st plaintiff herein bore grudged against the D2 to D4 herein and filed the present suit with altogether false and frivolous allegations and on this ground, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.

11.2Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that since the plaintiffs are having interest over the D1 temple being devotees, they have every right to file the present suit against the defendants for the protection of the D1 temple property as the D1 temple authorities are colluded with D2 to D4 in erection of the gate in the site of the temple. The learned counsel for plaintiffs relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in between “M.

Siddhik (D) through L.Rs. Vs Mahant Suresh Das and others­2019(6) ALT 383

(SC)” to support his arguments.

11.3.This Court had carefully perused the citation filed by the the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. The above said citation is relates to dispute over Babri

Masjid and Ram Janmasthan, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to held that “there is a public interest in protecting the properties endowed and ensuring that the original pious purpose of the dedicator is fulfilled and it is also further held that the beneficiaries of the Endowment are worship and the proper maintenance of the worship to the idol is to enable to worshipers to achieve the spiritual benefits of being in communion with the divine. The Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to further held that a worshiper can institute a suit to protect the interests of the deity against a stranger where a shebait is negligent duties or takes actions that are hostile to the deity and further was pleased to held that a suit by a worshiper in their personal capacity may be an appropriate remedy in certain cases”.

11.4Therefore, in view of the above judicial authority, and after considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, this Court is of considered opinion that though the plaintiffs filed the present suit in their personal capacity against the defendants including the temple as one of the defendants, but they being devotees of D1 Temple, they filed the present suit and as such, the contentions of the D1 to D4 and the arguments of the learned counsel

OS. No.364 of 2015 18 IAJCJ Court, TNK

for the D2 to D4 cannot be sustained to that effect. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

12. Issue No.5:­

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for Permanent Injunction

restraining the defendant No.2 to No.4 from demolishing the compound

wall of the defendant No.1­ Temple as sought for?

12.1Since the plaintiffs are failed to prove that the ‘ABCDEFG’ site as shown in the plaint plan is the absolute property of D1 temple and view of the findings in Issue Nos.1 and 2, the relief of the plaintiffs in respect of Permanent

Injunction restraining the defendant No.2 to No.4 from demolishing the compound wall of the defendant No.1­Temple in the south­east corner of its property and thereby encroaching into the schedule property, cannot be granted as prayed by them.

Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

13. Issue No.6: To what relief?

In view of the findings in the Issue Nos.1 to 3 and Issue No.5 and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that this suit is liable to be dismissed. 

14. In the result, the suit is the suit is dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, both parties do bear their own costs.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer Grade­III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21 st day of February, 2023

Sd/­ P.BABU 

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

 TANUKU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW.1 :K.V. Rama Rao DW.1 : A. Panchamukhi Hanuman

PW.2 :N. Srinivasa Ravi KumarDW.2 : V.Bhanu Pratap

PW.3 :P. Pardha Saradhi

OS. No.364 of 2015 19 IAJCJ Court, TNK

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A117.03.2015 Office copy of Legal Notice got issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants and others

Ex.A231.03.2015 Office copy of Reply Notice got issued by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiffs

Ex.A315.04.2015 Office copy of Legal Notice got issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.1 and No.2

Ex.A428.04.2015 Office copy of Reply Notice got issued by the defendant No.2 to the plaintiffs

Ex.A512.05.2015 Office copy of Legal Notice got issued by the defendant No.1 

Ex.A617.08.2015 Office copy of Legal Notice got issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.5 and others

Ex.A7­­Photograph showing the date of construction of the property

Ex.A8­­Photographs showing the four feet way of the property

Ex.A9­­Photographs showing the property left by the defendant No.1 Temple

Ex.A10­­Photographs showing the encroachment of the Temple site on the North­East corner

Ex.A11­­Photographs (5 in number) along with CD showing the encroachment

Ex.A12­­Positive Photograph 

Ex.A13­­Positive Photograph

Ex.A14­­Positive Photograph

Ex.A15­­Positive Photograph

Ex.A16­­Positive Photograph

For DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1­­Bunch of Photographs (18 in number) along with CD showing the demolition of compound wall on the North of the property of the defendant No.2 to No.4

Ex.B209.01.2009 Certified copy of the Report and Plan filed by the Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No.793/2008 in

O.S.No.307/2008 on the file of Principal Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Tanuku.

Ex.B331.07.2008 Certified copy of Work Memo given by Advocate Commissioner 

Ex.B420.12.1959 Certified copy of Ex.A1 in O.S.No.307/2008 i.e., Registered Sale Deed

Ex.B5­­Positive Photograph along with CD

Sd/­ P.BABU

IAJCJ, TNK.

OS. No.643/2021 II AJCJC,TNK.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TANUKU

PRESENT: P.BABU,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,TANUKU

FAC II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,TANUKU

Tuesday, this the 16h day of August, 2022.

Original Suit No.643/2021

Between Injeti Srinivasa Rao, S/o Lakshmayya, Aged 48 years, Male, Agriculture labour, R/o D.No.24-161, Mamuduru Village, Penumantra Mandal, West-Godavari District. …Plaintiff

And

Kankipati Sidhu, S/o Samuel, Aged 38 years, Male, Mason, R/o KPR Colony, D.No.4- 91/1, Polamuru, Penumantra Mandal West-Godavari District. …Defendant

This Suit was coming on 01.07.2022 for hearing before me in the presence of Smt. B.Saila Kumari, learned counsel for the Plaintiff and the defendant having been set Ex- parte, and upon hearing the Counsel for the Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This Suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant for the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is perfected his title by adverse possession with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men, servants, followers from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

02. The averments in the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

The plaintiff submits that the plaint schedule property is the property of one

Ponnamalli Mahalakshmi W/o Ramudu of Polamuru village; that her husband was predeceased and the said Ponnamalli Mahalakshmi died around about 18 years ago and that about twenty years back the suit schedule property was given to the plaintiff for running a carpentry karkhana and since the plaintiff has been running the carpentry karkhana in the plaint schedule property without any interruption; that further the plaintiff is given license from the Panchayat Polamuru for running wood works; that all the

OS. No.643/2021 II AJCJC,TNK.

villagers identified that the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the property without any interruption, as such, the Plaintiff has been perfected his title with adverse possession in respect of suit schedule property. He further submitted that Ponnamalli

Mahalakshmi died issue less and neither her parents side nor her in-laws side till date claimed any right over the Plaint Schedule Property. Hence, the Plaintiff is to be declared as absolute owner of the property as he is perfecting the title with adverse possession.

The Defendant styling himself as the successor of Mahalakshmi and trying evasively to disturb the possession of Plaintiff who has no right in the schedule property. Hence the suit.

3. The suit summons were issued to Defendant and same is served on him on 25.01.2022. But neither he made his appearance before this court to resist the claim of plaintiff nor filed his written statement by engaging his counsel and thereby he was set- exparte on 21.02.2022

4. On behalf of the Plaintiff, he himself examined as PW.1 and one Shaik Ramtullah is examined as PW.2 and got marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the Original Tax Receipts (4 in

Number).

5. Heard the Counsel for the Plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

06. The Point for consideration is “W hether the Plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for ?

07. POINT: It is the case of the plaintiff that he took the suit schedule property on lease about 20 years ago to run the carpentry work in it and since then he has been running the carpentry work therein and the owner of suit schedule land namely

Ponnamilli Mahalakshmi was died around 18 years ago and her husband predeceased her and that the Gram Panchayat, Polamuru also issued license to the plaintiff to run the carpentry works in the schedule property and that he has been paying the taxes to the

OS. No.643/2021 II AJCJC,TNK.

Gram Panchayat and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of schedule property since 20 years without any interruption as such his possession is became adverse possession and his title over the schedule property is perfected by adverse possession. It is further case of the plaintiff that no legal heirs of said Mahalakshmi to claim the property after her death but the defendant styling himself as the successor of

Mahalakshmi and trying evasively to disturb the possession of Plaintiff who has no right in the schedule property as such the plaintiff filed the suit for relief of declaration that he is perfected his title by adverse possession in respect of suit schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction for the same against the defendant.

8. Before touching the case of the plaintiff, it is need to discuss here about the concept of adverse possession and when one can claim the title over the property based on adverse possession. The adverse possession contemplates a hostile possession i.e., The possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner to the knowledge of the true owner and claiming the title as an owner in himself by the person claiming to be in adverse possession. In other words such hostile possession shall not be secret and person in adverse possession must not acknowledge the title of the true owner but has to deny the title of the true owner. The adverse possession must be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the former's hostile action. This shows that the possession must be nec vi, nec clam nec precario i.e., in continuity, in publicity and in extent. This shows that permissive possession is not hostile possession. So also mere long possession is not adverse possession. It is well settled law that before a party can succeed in establishing title on the basis of adverse possession, a plea to that effect must be specifically raised. It is observed by Hon'ble Apex court that, “ It would be imperative that one who claims possession must give all such details such as:-

OS. No.643/2021 II AJCJC,TNK.

a) who is or are the owner or owners of the property; b) title of the property; c) who is in possession of the title documents; d) identity of the claimant or claimants to possession; e) the date of entry into possession; f) how he came into possession - whether he purchased the property or inherited or got the same in gift or by any other method; g) in case he purchased the property, what is the consideration; if he has taken it on rent, how much is the rent, license fee or lease amount; h) if taken on rent, license fee or lease - then insist on rent deed, license deed or lease deed; i) who are the persons in possession/occupation or otherwise living with him, in what capacity; as family members, friends or servants etc.; j) subsequent conduct, i.e., any event which might have extinguished his entitlement to possession or caused shift therein; and k) basis of his claim that not to deliver possession but continue in possession.”

9. Coming to the present case in hand, it is the case of plaintiff that he has taken the schedule property on lease about 20 years back to run the carpentry works and since then he has been in possession of the same by running the carpentry work and license also issued by concerned authority to run the carpentry work in schedule property and all the villagers are well known the fact that the plaintiff is running the carpentry works in schedule property and the plaintiff has been saying that one Ponnamilli Mahalakshmi was the owner of schedule property who died 18 years ago and her husband also predeceased her and no legal heirs left over to claim the property on her behalf. But it is evident from the pleadings of the plaintiff itself that there are no details about that for how many years, he took the schedule property on lease and how much of lease amount and the said lease is oral or written. Further there are no iota of details in the pleadings of the plaintiff to show that to whom he has been paying the necessary rents for enjoying the schedule property on lease, after the death of its real and true owner i.e., Ponnamilli Mahalakshmi who died about 18 years ago according to the plaintiff. Even the pleadings of the plaintiff is silent about that how the said Ponnamilli Mahalakshmi got the property and in whose

OS. No.643/2021 II AJCJC,TNK.

possession, the documents in respect of schedule property existence. The plaintiff simply pleaded that he took the property on lease about 20 years back from Ponnamilli

Mahalakshmi and has been running the carpentry works after obtaining the license from the concerned authority and since no legal heir is there for said Ponnamilli Mahalakshmi after her death, he claims his rights in the schedule property based on his possession which adversely to its true and real owner i.e., Ponnamilli Mahalakshmi according to the plaintiff.

10.To prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and he filed Ex.A1/The

Original Tax Receipts (4 in Number) and on careful and keen perusal of the same, it is evident that though it was issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Polamuru Village of

Penumantra Mandal towards running the carpentry works but there are no iota of recitals in it to show that it were issued for the suit schedule property and it is further evident that those tax receipts were issued for the years 2018 and 2021 only. Though the plaintiff saying that he has been in possession and enjoyment of schedule property since 20 years but except, Ex.A1 he did not file any other piece of documents as such, Ex.A1 alone is not sufficient to prove his case. One Shaik Rahamtulla (who runs cycle shop near the schedule property according to his affidavit) was examined as PW.2 on behalf of the plaintiff and even he did not state that how the plaintiff can entitled to have title over the schedule property by way of adverse possession. Therefore, it can be said that though the plaintiff is claiming the title over the schedule property based on his adverse possession therein but he failed to show how he could get the title over it and failed to fulfill the requisite conditions to prove his title over the schedule property based on his alleged adverse possession. Mere alleged long possession of plaintiff for a period of more than 12 years without intention to possess the suit land adversely to the title of the true and real owner and to her knowledge cannot result in acquisition of title by the plaintiff though he took the same on lease. A possession is adverse only if in fact one holds

OS. No.643/2021 II AJCJC,TNK.

possession by denying title of the lessor or by showing hostility by act or words or in cases of trespassers as the case may be as against lessor or other owner of the property in question.

11. The legal position as regards the acquisition of title to land by adverse possession has been succinctly decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Perry vs.

Clissold (1907) AC 73 (PC)(AC p 79) wherein it was held that “It cannot be disputed that a person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by the process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of the statute of

Limitation applicable to the case, his right is for ever extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title.”

12. In the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf- Vs.- Government of India 2004 Law

Suit (SC) 469 it has been observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in para No. 11 that “In the eye of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won’t affect his title.

But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts rights over it”.

13. Further, in the case of Amrendra Pratap Singh vs. Tej Bahadur

Prajapati,(2004) 10 SCC 65, it has been held that, the process of acquisition of title by adverse possession springs into action essentially by default or inaction of the owner.

Thus, a method of gaining legal title to real property by the actual, open, hostile, and continuous possession of it to the exclusion of its true owner for the period prescribed by law is a adverse possession.

14.As to whether the plaintiff can claim title on the basis of adverse possession, the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors.(2019) 8

OS. No.643/2021 II AJCJC,TNK.

SCC 729 has held as under: “60. The adverse possession requires all the three classic requirements to co-exist at the same time, namely, nec vi i.e., adequate in continuity, nec clam i.e., adequate in publicity and nec precario i.e., adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge. Visible, notorious and peaceful so that if the owner does not take care to know notorious facts, knowledge is attributed to him on the basis that but for due diligence he would have known it. Adverse possession cannot be decreed on a title which is not pleaded. Animus possidendi under hostile colour of title is required. Trespasser's long possession is not synonymous with adverse possession. Trespasser's possession is construed to be on behalf of the owner, the casual user does not constitute adverse possession. The owner can take possession from a trespasser at any point in time.

Possessor looks after the property, protects it and in case of agricultural property by and large the concept is that actual tiller should own the land who works by dint of his hard labour and makes the land cultivable. The legislature in various States confers rights based on possession.”

15. Therefore, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the dictums of above authorities, this court if of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is failed to prove his case that his title is perfected by his alleged adverse possession of suit schedule property and in these circumstances, he cannot entitled for the relief of declaration of his title over the suit schedule property.

Hence the point is answered accordingly.

16. In the result, The Suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II directly on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 16 th day of August,2022.

Sd/- P.Babu

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,TANUKU

FAC II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TANUKU

OS. No.643/2021 II AJCJC,TNK.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW.1 : Injeti Srinivasa Rao Nil.

PW.2 Shaik Ramtullah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:The Original Tax Receipts (4 in Number) relating to the schedule property.

FOR DEFENDANT:

-Nil.

Id/- P.B

I AJCJ/TNK FAC II AJCJ/TNK

OS. No.643/2021 II AJCJC,TNK.

Presented on :12.02.2021 Plaint filed on : 30.12.2021

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TANUKU

PRESENT: P.BABU,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,TANUKU

FAC II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,TANUKU

Tuesday, this the 16h day of August, 2022.

Original Suit No.643/2021

Between Injeti Srinivasa Rao, S/o Lakshmayya, Aged 48 years, Male, Agriculture labour, R/o D.No.24-161, Mamuduru Village, Penumantra Mandal, West-Godavari District. …Plaintiff

And

Kankipati Sidhu, S/o Samuel, Aged 38 years, Male, Mason, R/o KPR Colony, D.No.4- 91/1, Polamuru, Penumantra Mandal West-Godavari District. …Defendant

This Suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant for the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is perfected his title by adverse possession with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men, servants, followers from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Value of the Suit for the purpose of Court fee and Jurisdiction:

Relief of declaration that the plaintiff perfected his title by adverse possession with a consequential permanent injunction is valued under Section 24(b) of A.P.C.F. and SV Act at ……… Rs.1,44,000-00

Half of the same comes to Rs.72,000/-

On which a Court fee of Rs.2866/- is paid under Sec. 24(b) of A.P.C.F. and SV Act , 1956.

Cause of Action for the suit arose on about twenty years back the property was given to the plaintiff for running a carpentry karkhana and on all dates the plaintiff has been running the carpentry karkhana in the plaint schedule property without any interruption and on the date when one Ponnamalli Mahalakshmi died issueless and on the date when Ponnamalli Ramudu died prior to the death of Mahalakshmi and on the date when the plaintiff has given license from Panchayat Polamuru, Penumantra Mandal for running wood works and on all subsequent dates when all the villagers identified that the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the property without any interruption, as such the plaintiff has been perfected his title with adverse possession within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court and on such date the defendant styling himself as the

OS. No.643/2021 II AJCJC,TNK.

successor of Mahalakshmi and trying to disturb the possession of the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.

This Suit was coming on 01.07.2022 for hearing before me in the presence of Smt. B.Saila Kumari, learned counsel for the Plaintiff and the defendant having been set Ex-parte, and upon hearing the Counsel for the Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

1.that the suit be and same is hereby dismissed without costs;

2.that the Defendant do bear his own costs.

(the copy of plaint schedule property is attached hereunder)

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 18th day of August, 2022.

Sd/- P.Babu

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TANUKU

FAC II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TANUKU

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

No costs memo filed on either side

Id/- P.B

IAJCJ/TNK

FAC II AJCJ/ TNK

CC. No:335 of 2016 1 PJCJ/JFMF Court, Tanuku

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: TANUKU.

Present: P.BABU

Principal Junior Civil Judge­cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku.

Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2023

Calendar Case No.335 of 2016

Between:

The State: Represented by it Sub Inspector of Police, Tanuku Town Police Station.

…Complainant

And

1. Vemireddy Rajesh, S/o.Venkata Rao, Age 36 years, Koppu Velama, R/o.Door No.30­165­1, Palangi Village, Undrajavaram Mandal, West­ Godavari District.

2. Kajuluri Veerabhadra Rao, S/o.Srinivasa Rao, Age 40 years, Padmasali, Resident of H.No.27­2­3, Balijepalli Vari Veedhi, Tanuku, West­Godavari District. … Accused

This case came up on 26.04.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri M.S.Mehar Baba, learned Counsel for the accused/A1 and A2, upon perusing the evidence and documents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of Police, Tanuku Town Police Station filed the charge sheet against the accused/A1 and A2 in Crime No.43/2015 for the offence under

Section 51 (a) r/w 63, 52­A (1) r/w 68­A and 65 of Copy Right Act, 1957.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:­

i)The complainant/LW.1/Runjala Victor John is a Investigator of

Indian Music Industry at Guntur came to Tanuku Town Police Station and presented a report against the accused/A1 and A2 stating that the accused/A1 and

A2 who are the Proprietors of Rajesh Musicals in Jambavathi Complex at Kappala

Venkanna Center in Tanuku and Sravanthi Musicals at Kappala Venkanna Center

CC. No:335 of 2016 2 PJCJ/JFMF Court, Tanuku

at Velpur road in Tanuku respectively, are indulged in illegal activities i.e., infringing the copyrights by copying the cinema songs without having any copy right and reselling the same at higher price and obtained wrongful gain and causing wrongful loss to ‘Aditya Musical Company’. 

ii) On receipt of the report from LW.1/Runjala Victor John, LW.5/A.Durga

Rao, Sub­Inspector of Police, Tanuku Town Police Station registered the same as a case in Crime No.43/2015 under Section 51 (a) r/w 63, 52­A (1) r/w 68­A and 65 of Copy Right Act, 1957.

iii) After registering the above said case, LW.5/A.Durga Rao along with the mediators i.e., LW.3/Peetha Satyanarayana and LW.4/Krovvidi Surya Venkata

Subba Rao and staff and LW.1/Runjala Victor John conducted raid over Rajesh

Musicals of A1 and found that A1 used to record the cinema songs in a Memory­

Chip and reselling the same to the customers at higher price. A1 has no copyright to make copy of songs and to resell the same and hence, LW.5/A.Durga Rao, Sub­

Inspector of Police seized the Memory Card of 2 GB containing the Telugu Film

Songs of IMI Member Companies; AOC LCD Colour Monitor

S.No.PE17HMBQ807354K; Cool Master CPU; Western Digital Hard Disc 1 TB

S.No.WCATRA929604; Prodat Key Board; HP Mouse P.No.7CH4110J33; Quantum

Card Reader in the presence of the mediators and packed the same and affixed the identity slips on it and obtained signatures of the mediators and arrested A1 on 11.02.2015 at 2:15 PM at his shop in the presence of mediators and got drafted a detailed Mediator Report through the mediators ( LW.3/Peetha Satyanarayana and LW.4/Krovvidi Surya Venkata Subba Rao) on 11.02.2015 iv) Subsequently, LW.5/A.Durga Rao along with the mediators i.e.,

LW.3/Peetha Satyanarayana and LW.4/Krovvidi Surya Venkata Subba Rao and staff and LW.1/Runjala Victor John conducted raid over Sravanthi Musicals of A2 and found that A2 used to record the cinema songs in a Memory­Chip and reselling the same to the customers at higher price. A2 has no copyright to make copy of songs and to resell the same and hence, LW.5/A.Durga Rao, Sub­Inspector of Police seized the Memory Card of 4 GB containing the Telugu Film Songs of IMI

Member Companies; DELL LED Colour Monitor S.No.CN­03H82872872­181­

CC. No:335 of 2016 3 PJCJ/JFMF Court, Tanuku

CM45; Cool Master CPU Sl.No.RCK 380KWN1113170131701382; WD Hard Disc

Sl.No.WCATRC221065; Logitech Key Board Sl.No.YU0011; Mouse Sl.No.810­ 002181; Card Reader in the presence of mediators and packed the same and affixed the identity slips on it and obtained signatures of the mediators and arrested A2 on 11.02.2015 at 3:45 PM at his shop in the presence of mediators and got drafted a detailed Mediator Report through the mediators ( LW.3/Peetha

Satyanarayana and LW.4/Krovvidi Surya Venkata Subba Rao) on 11.02.2015

v)Later, LW.5/A.Durga Rao, Sub­Inspector of Police examined

LW.1/Runjala Victor John and LW.2/Puppala Malleswara Rao and recorded their detailed 161 Cr.P.C. statements. Thereafter, LW.5/A.Durga Rao, Sub­Inspector of

Police produced the accused/A1 and A2 before the II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Court, Tanuku for Judicial Custody and after completion

of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused/A1 and A2. Hence the charge.

3.It is taken on file for the offences under Section 51 (a) r/w 63, 52­A (1) r/w 68­A and 65 of Copy Right Act, 1957 against the accused/A1 and A2 and summons were ordered. This case was received by transfer from II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Tanuku as per Proceedings of the Hon’ble

District Court, West­Godavari District, Eluru in Dis No.7281 dated 22.09.2016.

4.After appearing before Court, copies of documents were furnished to the accused/A1 and A2 as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C. A1 and A2 were examined under

Section 251 Cr.P.C. and the sum and substance of the accusation as alleged for the offence under Section 51 (a) r/w 63, 52­A (1) r/w 68­A and 65 of Copy Right Act, 1957 read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which, the accused/A1 and A2 denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.3 and the documents such as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and the Material Objects such as MO.1 to

MO.14 got marked. The evidence of LW.2/Puppala Malleswara Rao and

LW.5/A.Durg Rao were given up by the prosecution.

CC. No:335 of 2016 4 PJCJ/JFMF Court, Tanuku

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular language, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Accused. Perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point for consideration is: 

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of A1 and A2 beyond

all reasonable doubt ? 

POINT:

9.It is the case of prosecution that A1 and A.2 are running mobile shops and they are unauthorizedly downloading Cinema songs and they are engaged in sale of such down loaded songs to the customers for wrongful gain, without having any valid license from the concerned authorities and as such, when PW.1 conducted raids in their shops, they found in engaging the illegal downloading and sale of cinema songs into pen drivers through their electronic equipments i.e.

computers and they used to collect the amounts from the customers for sale of the said cinema songs. It is further case of prosecution that when PW.1 with the assistance of PW.2 to PW.3, the both accused were caught hold red handedly and as such, they seized the said electronic equipments and pen drives from them as they infringed the provisions of Copy Right Act since the said cinema songs are owned by Indian Music Industry, without having any valid license or other thing from the said industry and as such they both accused persons committed the offence under the provisions of Copy Right Act.

10.To prove the case against both accused persons, the prosecution as placed the oral testimonies of PWs.1 to 3 besides to placing the documentary evidence such as Exs.P1 to P5. The Prosecution also placed the material objects which seized from A1 and A.2 under Exs.P1 to P4 as MO.1 to MO.14. Coming to the evidence of PW.1, according to his testimony, he was working as Junior

CC. No:335 of 2016 5 PJCJ/JFMF Court, Tanuku

Investigator in Indian Music Industry at relevant point of time and that on 11.02.2015 he along with his colleague inspected the shops of A1 and A.2 under the name and style of Rajesh and Sravanthi Musicals Respectively , Tanuku and that they found as both accused persons were copying the cinema songs without having license or authority from the above said company and they used to sell the same to the customers by violating the provisions of Copy Right Act and as such, they seized the material objects from both accused persons and presented a report

before police for taking necessary action against the accused persons. As seen

from the testimony of PW.1, it is evident that though he deposed that he is working as Junior Investigator , Indian Music Industry, but either him or the prosecution did not place any prima facie material to show that he is working in the above said industry which authorized him to inspect and conduct raids at the shops of A.1 and A.2 in this case. That apart, either PW.1 or the prosecution did not place any iota of material or other thing to show that the company of PW.1 i.e.

Indian Music Industry was having license with Copy Rights about over the Cinema

Songs that were alleged to have down loaded by the both accused persons.

Therefore, it can be said that without there being any prima facie documentary proof or the other t5hing, the PW.1 alleged that the both accused persons infringed the provisions of Copy Right Act by downloading the cinema songs unauthorizedly and engaged in sale of such songs in a clandestine manner, to their customers to have wrongful gain from them. Though PW.1 stated that he and LW.2 and PW.3 went to the shops of A.1 and A.2 to conduct raids but either himself or the investigating officer or even the prosecution did not place any iota of evidence in way of documentary proof to show that the both accused persons were the owners of their shops or even they are working in it. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of

PW.1 is not having any trustworthiness to hold guilt of the accused persons for the charges levelled against them. As seen , it is evident that the sole testimony of

PW.1 is only available in the record to state that he conducted raids in the shops of A.1 and A.2. It is well settled law that basing on the sole testimony of witness, it is not safe to convict the accused persons for the charges levelled against them without there being any corroborative and supporting evidence.

11.Coming to the evidence of Pw.2, who said to have participated in preparation of Ex.P4 and P5 as mediator along with PW.3, he did not depose any

CC. No:335 of 2016 6 PJCJ/JFMF Court, Tanuku

incriminating material against both accused persons, except identifying his signatures in said reports. Though, he was cross examined by the prosecution at length but nothing was elicited from mouth against the accused persons.

Therefore, in view of the above said circumstances, the testimony of PW.2 is no way helpful to the case of prosecution to hold the guilt of accused persons.

12.Coming to the evidence of PW.3 who said to have another mediator participated in preparation of Ex.P4 and P5 under which PW.1 conducted raids at the shops of A.1 and A.2 and seized Mos.1 to 14 from their possession, though he supported the case of the prosecution in his chief­examination, but as seen his testimony that was available in his cross­examination, it is categorically admitted that he participated as many as 100 mediator reports. This is itself goes to roots of the prosecution that the PW.3 is readily available witness either to PW.1 or the police whenever his presence is required by them for preparation of mediator reports and as such he is nothing but stock witness for the investigating officer for preparation of mediator reports. Coming to the another aspect that the PW.3 categorically admitted that he does not know the contents therein Mos.1 to 14 though it were seized in his presence from the possession of accused persons.

Therefore in view of these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of Pw.3 also would not come for help to the case of prosecution to hold the guilt of the accused persons.

13.Coming to the another aspect that the investigating officer ie.. LW.5 not examined by the prosecution on account of his death, as such his evidence was closed by this Court for the above said reason. Though the LW.5 not examined, but it is for the prosecution to exhibit the documents prepared by him, before this

Court in respect of this case, by taking other steps, but the prosecution did not take steps for the reasons best known to it, and as such, the documents prepared by LW.5 is left unmarked.

14.Therefore, after careful and keen perusal of testimonies of PWs.1 to 3 and the documents placed by prosecution and after considering the facts and circumstances of this case and for the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case

CC. No:335 of 2016 7 PJCJ/JFMF Court, Tanuku

against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt to convict them for the charges levelled against them, and as such the accused A1 and A.2 certainly entitled for acquittal. 

15. In the Result, The Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 51(A) r/w 63, 52(A) (1) r/w 68 (A) and 65 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and thereby, they are acquitted for the same under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437­A of Cr.P.C.

16.The material Objects i.e. MO.1 to MO.14 already given to the petitioners namely Vemireddy Rajesh S/o Venkata Rao and Kajuluri Veerabhadra Rao, S/o

Srinivasa Rao respectively, towards interim custody as per the orders in

Crl.MP.862/2015 and Crl.Mp.No.863/2015 dt.24.03.2015, shall be holds good.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 27th day of April, 2023.

Sd/­ P.BABU 

Principal Junior Civil Judge­cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class 

Tanuku.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:­ FOR DEFENCE :

PW.1 – S.Naga Malleswara RaoNone PW.2 – K.S.V.Subba Rao PW.3 – P.Satyanarayana

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1­ Report Ex.P2­ Signature of PW.2 on Mediators Report dated 11.02.2015 at 1:30 PM Ex.P3­ Signature of PW.2 on Mediators Report dated 11.02.2015 at 3:00 PM Ex.P4­ Mediators Report dated 11.02.2015 at 1:30 PM Ex.P5­ Mediators Report dated 11.02.2015 at 3:00 PM

FOR DEFENCE : Nil

CC. No:335 of 2016 8 PJCJ/JFMF Court, Tanuku

Material Objects marked

MO.1: 2GB Memory Card MO.2: Samsung Company Monitor vide Serial No.PE17HMDQ807354K MO.3: Cool Master Company CPU MO.4: Western Digital Hard Disk of 1 TB vide Serial No. WCATRA929604 MO.5: Prode Key Board MO.6: HP Mouse 7CH4110J33 MO.7: Quantum Card Reader (MO.1 to MO.7 seized from A1 under Ex.P4) MO.8: 4GB Memory Card MO.9: DELL Company LED Monitor S.No.CH­0HB28­72872­189­CM4S MO.10: Cool Master CPU Sl.No.RCK 380KWN1113170131701382 MO.11: Western Digital Hard Disc Sl.No.WCATRC221065 MO.12: Logitech Key Board Sl.No.Y­U0011 MO.13: Mouse Sl.No.810­002181 MO.14: Card Reader Sd/­ PB PJCJ­cum­JFCM, Tanuku

CC. No:335 of 2016 9 PJCJ/JFMF Court, Tanuku

Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, TANUKU

C.C.No.335/2016

Date of OffenceComplaintApprehenReleasedCommenceClose ofSentence or or reportsion ofon bail ment oftrialOrder accusedtrial Prior to11.02.201511.02.201516.02.201511.01.202216.03.202327.04.2023 11.02.2015

Name of the Complainant

The State: Represented by it Sub Inspector of Police, Tanuku Town Police Station.

Description of the accused:

S.No Name of the Father’s name Religion Residence Mandal 

accused

1.Vemireddy Venkata RaoHinduPalangi Village Undrajavaram Rajesh

2.Kajuluri Srinivasa RaoHinduTanukuTanuku Veerabhadra Rao

Offence :Under Section 51 (a) r/w 63, 52­A (1) r/w 68­A and 65 of Copy Right Act, 1957 Plea of the :Not guilty. Accused Finding of :Not guilty. the Court Sentence or : In the Result, The Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for orderthe offence under Section 51(A) r/w 63, 52(A) (1) r/w 68 (A) and 65 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and thereby, they are acquitted for the same under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437­A of Cr.P.C. The material Objects i.e. MO.1 to MO.14 already given to the petitioners namely Vemireddy Rajesh S/o Venkata Rao and Kajuluri Veerabhadra Rao, S/o Srinivasa Rao respectively, towards interim custody as per the orders in Crl.MP.862/2015 and

Crl.Mp.No.863/2015 dt.24.03.2015, shall be holds good.

ExplanationThis c No such unavoidable delay.: for the delay Sd/­ P.BABU

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

TANUKU 

1

CC No. 742 of 2016

II AJFCM, Tanuku DD:24.04.2023

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS:: TANUKU

Present:- Sri P.Babu Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku

FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku

Monday, this the 24th day of April, 2023

C.C.No. 742/2016

(Crime No.130/2016 of Tanuku Town Police Station)

Between:

State: Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police Tanuku Town Police Station … Complainant

And

Chennuri Rakesh, S/o Sankar, aged 22 years, Padmasali, Painter, Chinthalapalli Village, Razole Mandal, East Godavari District. …. Accused

This case is coming before me on 12.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri E.Hanumantha Rao, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

Prosecution and Sri V.Sudhakara Rao, Learned Advocate for Accused

and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case arise out of Crime No. 130/2016 of Tanuku Town P.S,

Tanuku registered under Section 457, 380 and 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 initially registered against the unknown offenders.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that :

On 09.05.2016 LW.1/Karuturi Rama Krishna Paramahamsa with his family members went to the house of their relatives in Madras. After completion of works, LW.1 along with his family members returned to

Tanuku on 25.05.2016 and they reached their house. Then LW.1 opened 2

CC No. 742 of 2016

II AJFCM, Tanuku DD:24.04.2023 the locks and went into the house and found that all the house hold articles were in pell-mell condition. Further, the doors of the iron safe in the bed room are also found opened and it was Mangala Suthrams chain was not found in the iron safe. LW.1 verified inside of his house and observed that some unknown offenders entered into the house through the front door side window and opened the iron safe with the key available in the bed room and committed theft of Gold Nanu Thradu with two gold mangala suthrams wg. about 4 ½ sov. from the iron safe and committed theft of cash of Rs.2,000/- from under the clothes of iron safe and escaped with the stolen property. Hence, LW.1 lodged a report in Tanuku

Town P.S.

Basing on the report of LW.1, LW.8/G.Srinivasa Rao-SI of Police registered a case in Cr.No.130/2016 u/sec. 457, 380 of IPC and investigated into. During investigation, he examined LW.1 and recorded his detailed 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement. Later, he visited the scene of offence, drafted scene observation report, got photographed the same and prepared rough sketch. After completion of scene observation, LW.8 examined LWs.2 to 5 and recorded their detailed 161(3) Cr.P.C.

statements.

While the matter stood thus, on 9.9.2016 at 5.00 PM, LW.8 caught the accused near Peravali “Y” Junction at opposite to Women’s College,

Old Town, Tanuku in the presence of mediators while the accused was coming by Auto bearing No.AP37 X 1676 from Ravulapalem side and that police observed and confirmed that it is the stolen auto in

Cr.No.162/2016 u/sec. 379 IPC of Tanuku Town P.S. On questioning, 3

CC No. 742 of 2016

II AJFCM, Tanuku DD:24.04.2023 accused confessed that he committed theft of auto in Tanuku and also committed theft of gold and cash from the house near Rama Krishna

Matam in Sajjapuram, Tanuku and also committed theft of cash of

Rs.3,00,000/- from a house at Suryarao Peta in Kakinada and spent

Rs.2,000/- for his lavish expenses and retained cash of Rs.87,000/- out of total cash of Rs.3,00,000/- . In pursuant to his confession, LW.8/SI of

Police arrested the accused and seized the gold and cash from the possession of accused under the cover of mediators report and also seized

PIAGGIO APE auto bearing No.AP37 X 1676 from the accused . Later,

LW.8/G.Srinivasa Rao-SI of Police produced the accused before the Court for judicial custody. Subsequently, LW.6/Mohammad Mohidhin and

LW.7/Kattunga Posibabu conducted Test Identification Parade at rakes shed near Sub Registrar office, Tanuku Town on 11.9.2016 and drafted property identification report. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The Court took cognizance of the offence under sections 457, 380 and 411 of IPC.

4. On Production of Accused, copies of case documents along with relevant material, have been supplied to him, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation made against him and charges for the offences, under sections 457, 380 & 411 of IPC against Accused have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

4

CC No. 742 of 2016

II AJFCM, Tanuku DD:24.04.2023

6. In order to substantiate the allegations leveled by the prosecution, against the accused, it had examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.4 apart from M.O.1.

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt that, Accused has committed the offence punishable

U/Sec.457, 380 & 411 of IPC as alleged by the prosecution?

P O I N T ::

10. It is the case of prosecution that a theft was occurred in the house of PW.1 and some unknown offenders stolen gold ornaments along with cash from his house and escaped with booty and that when the PW.1 returned to his house from Madras on 25. 05.2016, he found that the things in his house placed in pell -mell condition and further he came to know that the said theft was occurred in his absence in his house and later, he presented a report before Tanuku Town P.S. for necessary action.

5

CC No. 742 of 2016

II AJFCM, Tanuku DD:24.04.2023

11. It is further case of prosecution that the accused herein committed the above said theft in the house of PW.1 and stolen gold articles and cash by gaining entry into the house of PW.1 in the wrongful manner. As such, the accused is liable for punishment for the offence under Section 457, 380 & 411 of IPC.

12. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution placed the oral t3stimonies of PWs.1 to 3, out of which, PW.1 is defacto complainant in this case, PW.2 is one of the mediators who prepared the scene conservation report at the behest, PW.3 is investigating officer who registered the case against the accused and based on the report given by

PW.1 and who conducted entire investigation in this case and filed charge sheet alleging that the accused committed theft of gold ornaments and cash from the house of PW.1. Apart from, the oral testimonies of PWs.1 to 3 the prosecution also placed the documents such as Exs.P1 to P4 besides to placing the material object which got marked as MO.1.

13. As seen the testimony of PW.1/K.Rama Krishna

Paramahamsa who is the defacto complainant in this case, he testified in his evidence that some unknown offenders committed theft in his house when he was absent on such day as he went to Chennai prior to 20.05.2016. He further testified that during the course of investigation, the concerned police informed him that the gold ornament i.e. Mangala sutram chain with sutram/MO.1 was recovered from the accused and as such, he received the same from the concerned police after conducting the identification parade over it. As seen, it is further evident from the testimony of PW.1 that he has not stated the accused herein as he 6

CC No. 742 of 2016

II AJFCM, Tanuku DD:24.04.2023 committed theft in his house. Further, there is no iota of evidence from him that he identified the accused in open court as that of same person who committed theft in his house. Except, the evidence of PW.1, the prosecution did not place any other supporting evidence to corroborate the testimony of Pw.1 and to show that the accused committed theft in the house of Pw.1 as alleged. Therefore, in view of the above said circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused for the offence u/sec. 457 & 380 IPC for which he charged, beyond all reasonable doubt, since either of the prosecution or Pw.3 did not place any iota of cogent and convince and also coherent material before this Court that the accused gained entry by breaking the locks of the house of PW.1.

14. Coming to the other allegations levelled against the accused for the offence u/sec.41 1 IPC, for this, the prosecution placed the evidence of PW.2 who was acted as one of the mediators for preparation of Ex.P2/mediator report under which the accused alleged to have given confession for the offence in this case. PW.3 also participated for pr eparation of Ex.P3, under which he conducted the test identification parade over the seized property such as MO.1 in order to give the same to PW.1 by PW.3. As seen from the testimony of PW.2, he categorically admitted in his cross -examination that he stood as mediator as many as in 70 to 80 cases and he prepared such police cases reports at the request of the concerned police person. He further testified that the 7

CC No. 742 of 2016

II AJFCM, Tanuku DD:24.04.2023 place of arrest of accused is situated at “Y junction ,

Tetali” which is a busy locality and h e further testified that PW.3 did not secure in the evidence of said place in his presence for making the preparation of Ex.P2 contents.

From the above, it could be elicited that PW.2 is nothing but stock witness for PW.3 who used to act for their necessities. It is also observed in his evidence that he could not served any written summons for his securance for participation of the proceedings under Ex.P2. It can be noted here that PW.3 did not follow the due procedure for search of the accused person s o also seizure of the material objects as alleged, from the possession of accused as contemplated under Section 100 of Cr.P.C. as does not secured the respectable evidence of inhabitants of place of Ex.P2, under which the accused alleged to have confessed the offence and PW.3 seized M O.1 from the possession of accused. It is a mandatory on part of PW.3 to follow the due procedure as contemplated in the above referred section, but even as seen from the testimony of

PW.3 he did not state anything to that eff ect. Therefore,

PW.2 deposed before this court that he was present when

PW.3 arrested the accused in his presence and seized

MO.1 from his possession under Ex.P2, but for the reasons stated above, and in view of his availability for every case as a referre d in his testimony, this court is not convincing to accept the sole testimony of PW.2 to convict 8

CC No. 742 of 2016

II AJFCM, Tanuku DD:24.04.2023 the accused for the charges levelled against him.

Therefore, this Court is opined that there is no trustworthiness in the evidence of PW.2 to hold the guilt of accused and apart from it the prosecution did not place any other supporting, cogent and coherent evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW.2 .

15. It can be noted here that PW.3 conducted identification of the property with MO.1 with the assistance of PW.2 under Ex.P3 under which

PW.1 identified his property as that of MO.1 herein . But, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in KORRAREDDY MOHAN VS. STATE OF

A.P:- 2019(2) ALD (Crl.) 135, the investigating officer has to follow the procedure laid down in Rule -35 of A.P. Criminal Rules of Practice and the Revenue officials as no role to conduct the identification parade over the property. Therefore, in view of the above judicial pronouncement, this proceedings tooks place Ex.P3 is hit by Rule 35 of A.P. Criminal Rules of

Practice.

16. Coming to the evidence of PW.3 who was the investigating officer in this case, as seen his testimony it is evident that he deposed in his chief- examination on par with the contents of charge sheet and in his cross- examination he categorically deposed that he had not secured the independent witnesses in this case so also the similar items of MO.1 to conduct the identification parade over it in the presence of PW.2. Though,

PW.3 supported the case of prosecution but in view of his testimony, since he did not support with the corroborative and convincing evidence much less from PW.2, it is not safe to conclude that the accused was found in 9

CC No. 742 of 2016

II AJFCM, Tanuku DD:24.04.2023 possession of stolen property to convict him for the offence u/sec. 411 IPC for which he charged. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that based on the sole testimony of PW.1 this Court cannot convict the accused for the above said offence.

17. Hence, after considering the facts and circumstances and after careful and keen perusal of the available evidence that was placed by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 457, 380 & 411 IPC for which he charged, beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the accused certainly entitled for acquittal for the same.

18. In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence under

Sections 457, 380 & 411 IPC and thereby, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

The accused is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases.

MO.1 was already given to PW.1/Karuturi Rama Krishna

Paramahamsa S/o Apparao towards interium custody as per the orders in

Crl.MP.No.1845/2017 dt. 12.07.2017 shall holds good.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- P.Babu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku FAC II Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class Tanuku 10

CC No. 742 of 2016

II AJFCM, Tanuku DD:24.04.2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW1: K.Rama Krishna Paramahamsa - None– PW2: Md. Mohiddin Pasha

PW3: G.Srinivasa Rao

EXHBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Report of PW.1 to the police --NIL-- Ex.P.2: Mediator report

Ex.P.3 : Property identification report dt. 11.09.2016 MO marked under CP No.82/2017:

Gold Nanu Thradu with two Gold Mangala Suthrams wg.about 4½ sov.

Id/- P.B PJCJ-CUM-JFCM/TNK

FAC II A.J.F.C.M/TNK 11

CC No. 742 of 2016

II AJFCM, Tanuku DD:24.04.2023

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF WEST GODAVARI

Calendar case No.742/2016 tried by the II Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Offence : 09.05.2016

Report : 25.05.2016

Taken on file : 07.10.2016

Apprehension : 10.09.2016, 02.02.2023 Release on bail : 08.05.2017

Now in jail Commencement of trial : 12.07.2017

Closure of trial : 31.03.2023

Sentence of Order date : 24.04.2023

Explanation for the delay : Nil

Name of the complainant

State: Sub-Inspector of Police Tanuku Town Police Station, Tanuku

NAME OF THE ACCUSED

Chennuri Rakesh, S/o Sankar, aged 22 years, Padmasali, Painter, Chinthalapalli Village, Razole Mandal, East Godavari District

Crime No. : 130/2016 Offence : U/Sections 457, 380 & 411 of IPC

Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence under Sections 457, 380 & 411 IPC and thereby, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

The accused is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases. MO.1 was already given to PW.1/Karuturi Rama Krishna 12

CC No. 742 of 2016

II AJFCM, Tanuku DD:24.04.2023

Paramahamsa S/o Apparao towards interium custody as per the orders in

Crl.MP.No.1845/2017 dt. 12.07.2017 shall holds good.

Sd/- P.Babu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku FAC II Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class Tanuku Copy submitted to:

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

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TANUKU.

PRESENT: SRI P.BABU

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDE-CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TANUKU

FAC II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TANUKU

Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2023

Calendar Case No.1540/2022

Between

The State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Tanuku Town P.S. … Complainant. AND

1.Karanam Srinivas S/o Late Lakshmi Narayana, 30 years, Turpu Kapu, Vevullamma Puntha, D.No.24-1-91, Sajjapuram Tanuku (A1)

2.Attili Lateef Kumar @ Lateef, S/o Srinivasa Rao, 30 years, Rajaka, Vasavi Nagar, Gopalapuram village, Iragavaram Mandal(A2)

3.Kandulapati Ayyappa, S/o Siva Rama Krishna, 30 years, Kapu, R/o D.No.24-15- 21, Machiraju vari street, Sajjapuram, Tanuku (A3)

4.Thirramsetti Ravi Kumar @ HBC Ramesh S/o Rambabu, 31 years, Kapu, House No.12-9-44, Housing Board colony, Tanuku Town (A8)

5.Kalisetti Srinivasu @ Vasu, S/o Satyanarayana, 28 years, Kapu, gold Business, Behind Boys High School, Tanuku(A9)

6.Tamiri Srinu, S/o Narasimha Rao, 52 years, Viswa Brahmin, Gold Work, D.No.32- 13-14, Mudugantik Vari street, Tanuku town (A11)

7.Sirigidi Srinivas @ Srinu, S/o Satyanarayana, 33 years, Kapu, D.No.6-21, Near Anjaneya Statue, Alampuram Village, Pentapadu Mandal (A12)

8.Kalisetti Dharma Rao @ Dharma S/o Pydiyya, 43 years, Kapu, Hojuse No.32-8- 17, Pullepu vari street, 24th ward, Tanuku Town (A17)

9.Chundru Sai Kishore @ Sai N, S/o Ranga Rao, 30 years, Kamma, D.No.7-114, Velpuru village, Tanuku Mandal. (A21)

10.Polisetti Tirupati Venkata Radha Krishna @ RK, S/o Srirama Murthy, 48 years, Kapu, Near Kapula Kalyana Mandapam, Pydiparru village, Tanuku Mandal (A26)

11.Manda Suresh @ D.Suresh, S/o Rambabu, 27 years, Kapu, R/o House No.1-16, Pallalamma Nagar, Old Town, Tanuku (A29) … A1 to A3, A8, A9, A11, A12, A17, A21, A26, & A29

This case is coming on today for hearing before me, in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri N.Harish Naidu Ld. Advocate for A1 to A3, A8, A9, A11, A12, A17, A21, A26, & A29, perusing the material available on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tanuku Town Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.125/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act, 1974.

2

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

a) On 11.5.2022 at 8.00 pm, LW.11/ S.Srinivasa Reddy, the then SI of Police

Tanuku Town received information about the illegal activities committed by A.1 & A.2 by playing the gambling i.e. cricket betting during IPL T-20 cricket matches between

Rajasthan Royals and Delhi Capitals with money by watching the match through TV,

Tab & Laptop at the scene of offence situated at D.No.24-1-91 belongs to Addagarla

Lakshmi situated at Vevullamma Puntha in Sajjapuram, Tanuku Town; on that

LW.12/M.Veera Babu-SI of Police along with staff and mediators proceeded to the scene of offence as per search proceedings obtained from SDPO of Narasapuram and caught the A.1 & A.2 and verified the Dell Company Lap top of A2 Attili Lateef Kumar (P-63F Model, made in china, manufacturing in 2017) having installed “avatar software install”. On verifying the laptop it was noticed that the remaining accused were betting over the T-20 cricket match; then A.2 verified his mobile number and then A2 disclosed the names and mobile numbers of accused/punters. Further, LW.12/SI of Police verified at the scene of offence and found MI company 32 inches TV, 8 cell phones, and also cash of Rs.47,560/-; Later, LW.11/SI of Police verified the dialed & received calls in the mobiles. Thus, A1 & A2 had been organizing cricket betting and running the gaming house in the house bearing D.No.24-1-91 belongs to Addagarla Lakshmi situated at Vevullamma Puntha in Sajjapuram of Tanuku Town. At the instance of A.1 & A.2, A3 to A5 had been giving assistance to run the gaming house by having regular phone contacts with A6 to A40 and conducting cricket bettering with money by contacting A.1 and A.2 over phone and used to collect betting amounts from A.6 to A40 and used to send collection amounts to Vannemreddi Nani/A4 and Teja/A5 through “PhonePe App” or such other “Apps”. Hence, LW.12/M.Veera Babu SI of Police arrested

A1 & A.2 and drafted mediators report in the presence of mediators.

On the strength of mediators report, LW.12/M.Veera Babu -SI of Police registered a case in Cr.No.125/2022 under Sections 3 & 4 of A.P. Gaming Act, 1974 and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, observed the same, prepared rough sketch, examined the prosecution witnesses and recorded their 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements . Later, he got served notices u/sec.41(A) (1) Cr.P.C. to A1 to A3 & A8, A9, A11, A12 A17, A21, A26 & A29 and released them on self bail after taking their assurance to appear before the Court as and when required. Thereafter, LW.13/V.Srinivasa Rao-SI of Police continued further investigation in this case.

The identity of remaining accused/A4 to A7, A10, A13 to A16, A18 to A20, A22 to

A25, A27, A28, A30 to A40 are not yet established. As per the names found in the cell 3 phone of A.2 in this case, the mere names of above said accused were only found and thus, the mere names were only noted in list of accused in this case. But their complete names are not known.

Further, the phone numbers given against A4 to A7, A10, A13 to A16, A18 to

A20, A22 to A25, A27, A28, A30 to A40 are not in working condition and those numbers and names of the accused are fake. All possible efforts made to trace them, but all efforts were in vain. There were no chances to trace the identities of afore mentioned accused whose names and mobile numbers are nothing but fake. Therefore, A1, A2,

A3, A8, A9, A11, A12, A17, A21, A26 & A29 jointly and severally rendered themselves the punishment u/sec. 3 & 4 of A.P. Gaming Act. After completion of investigation, the

SI of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. On receipt of the charge sheet, this Court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of A.P. Gaming Act, 1974 against A1, A2, A3, A8, A9,

A11, A12, A17, A21, A26 & A29.

4. On appearance of A1, A2, A3, A8, A9, A11, A12, A17, A21, A26 & A29, copies of case documents are furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter refer to as Cr.P.C for the sake of brevity).

5. A1, A2, A3, A8, A9, A11, A12, A17, A21, A26 & A29 examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C.

The substance of the accusation for the offence under Section 3 and Section 4 of

A.P.Gaming Act against A1 & A2 and Section 4 of A.P.Gaming Act against A3, A8, A9,

A11, A12, A17, A21, A26, A29 is read over and explained to them in Telugu for which,

A.1 & A2, A3, A8, A9, A11, A12, A17, A21, A26, A29 pleaded guilty for the offence

U/secs.3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act.

6. Hence, this Court warned the accused/A.1 & A2, A3, A8, A9, A11, A12, A17, A21,

A26, A29 that the guilty pleaded by them will be taken as evidence against them and despite the warning, A1 & A2 admitted their guilt for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act and A3, A8, A9, A11, A12, A17, A21, A26, A29 admitted their guilt for the offence under Section 4 of A.P. Gaming Act. Hence, this Court feels that the guilty pleaded by them are voluntarily for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P.

Gaming Act.

7. When questioned A.1 & A2, A3, A8,A9, A11, A12, A17, A21, A26, A29 stated that they are having children and they also further stated that they are not aware that playing cards is an offence and requested to take lenient view for the sentence to be imposed against them.

4

8. The nature of offence do not warrants the application of beneficial provisions of

P.O. Act. However, taking into consideration the submissions made by accused persons and their social status, reputation, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to impose less sentence of imprisonment less sentence of imprisonment against A1 & A2 for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of Gaming Act besides to imposition of Fine of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) for the offence under Section 3 of Gaming

Act and also imposition of Fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) for the offence under Section 4 of Gaming Act. The allegations levelled against A3, A8, A9,

A11, A12, A17, A21, A26, A29 is only for the offence under Section 4 of Gaming Act and according to Section 4 of the Gaming Act, it prescribes the punishment of imprisonment upto Six Months or Fine of Rs.3,000/. Therefore, this Court is further opined that instead of imposing the sentence of imprisonment against A3, A8, A9, A11, A12, A17,

A21, A26, A29, it is a fit case to impose Fine in view of the gravity of the offence to meet the ends of justice.

9. In the result, A1 & A2 is found guilty for the offences under Section 3 and 4 of

Gaming Act and accordingly, they are convicted U/sec.252 of Cr.P.C and sentenced to suffer imprisonment to be stand in Court Hall till raising of the Court and further sentenced to pay Fine of Rs.1000/- each (Total Rupees Two Thousand only) for the offence under Section 3 of Gaming Act and also imposition of Fine of Rs.1,000/- each (Total Rupees Two Thousand only) for the offence under Section 4 of Gaming Act, in default of payment of Fine, A1 & A2 are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of One (1) Month each.

Further A3, A8, A9, A11, A12, A17, A21, A26, A29 are found guilty for the offence U/sec.4 of A.P. Gaming Act, accordingly, they are convicted U/sec.252 of Cr.P.C and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each (Total Rupees Nine Thousand only), for the offence U/sec.4 of A.P. Gaming Act, in default of payment of fine amount, they shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of Thirty (30) Days each. The bail bonds of A1,

A2, A3, A8, A9, A11, A12, A17, A21, A26, A29, if any, shall stand cancelled forthwith.

The SHO, Tanuku Town P.S. is directed to return the unmarked case property i.e. MI Company 32 inches TV, 8 Cell phones i.e. i) Samsung Galaxy S-10, ii) Samsung

Galaxy S-12, iii)One Plus ATL Ocean mobile, iv) I Phone XR , v) Samsung MO-14 black mobile phone, vi) Samsung MO-14 Black mobile, vii) Redmi-6A Pink colour mobile, viii)

Redmi 6-A Black colour mobile , D Link wi-fi rooter, Dell Company Laptop of A.2, ,

Lenova Company Tab, Class mate company note book are returned to the concerned persons, on proper identification and acknowledgment and shall file the compliance report along with photos before this Court.

5

The seizure amount of Rs.47,560/- (Rupees Forty seven thousand five hundred and sixty Only) shall be confiscate to state..

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 21st day of April, 2023.

Sd/- P.Babu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku

FAC II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Tanuku.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on their side.

Id/- P.B PJCJ-CUM-JFCM/TNK FAC II AJMFC, Tanuku 6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF WEST GODAVARI

Calendar case No.1540/2022 tried by the II Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Offence: 11.05.2022 Report: 12.05.2022 Taken on file: 21.11.2023 Apprehension: 41(A) (i) Cr.P.C. Release on bail: -- Commencement of trial: -- Closure of trial: -- Sentence of Order date: 19.04.2023

Explanation for the delay : Nil

Name of the complainant

The Station House Officer, Tanuku Town Police Station

NAME OF THE ACCUSED

1.Karanam Srinivas S/o Late Lakshmi Narayana, 30 years, Turpu Kapu, Vevullamma Puntha, D.No.24-1-91, Sajjapuram Tanuku (A1)

2.Attili Lateef Kumar @ Lateef, S/o Srinivasa Rao, 30 years, Rajaka, Vasavi Nagar, Gopalapuram village, Iragavaram Mandal(A2)

3.Kandulapati Ayyappa, S/o Siva Rama Krishna, 30 years, Kapu, R/o D.No.24-15- 21, Machiraju vari street, Sajjapuram, Tanuku (A3)

4.Thirramsetti Ravi Kumar @ HBC Ramesh S/o Rambabu, 31 years, Kapu, House No.12-9-44, Housing Board colony, Tanuku Town (A8)

5.Kalisetti Srinivasu @ Vasu, S/o Satyanarayana, 28 years, Kapu, gold Business, Behind Boys High School, Tanuku(A9)

6.Tamiri Srinu, S/o Narasimha Rao, 52 years, Viswa Brahmin, Gold Work, D.No.32- 13-14, Mudugantik Vari street, Tanuku town (A11)

7.Sirigidi Srinivas @ Srinu, S/o Satyanarayana, 33 years, Kapu, D.No.6-21, Near Anjaneya Statue, Alampuram Village, Pentapadu Mandal (A12)

8.Kalisetti Dharma Rao @ Dharma S/o Pydiyya, 43 years, Kapu, Hojuse No.32-8- 17, Pullepu vari street, 24th ward, Tanuku Town (A17)

9.Chundru Sai Kishore @ Sai N, S/o Ranga Rao, 30 years, Kamma, D.No.7-114, Velpuru village, Tanuku Mandal. (A21)

10.Polisetti Tirupati Venkata Radha Krishna @ RK, S/o Srirama Murthy, 48 years, Kapu, Near Kapula Kalyana Mandapam, Pydiparru village, Tanuku Mandal (A26)

11.Manda Suresh @ D.Suresh, S/o Rambabu, 27 years, Kapu, R/o House No.1-16, Pallalamma Nagar, Old Town, Tanuku (A29)

Crime No. : 125/2022

Offence : Sections 3 & 4 of A.P. Gaming Act

Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :

A1 & A2 is found guilty for the offences under Section 3 and 4 of Gaming Act and accordingly, they are convicted U/sec.252 of Cr.P.C and sentenced to suffer imprisonment to be stand in Court Hall till raising of the Court and further sentenced to 7 pay Fine of Rs.1000/- each (Total Rupees Two Thousand only) for the offence

under Section 3 of Gaming Act and also imposition of Fine of Rs.1,000/- each

(Total Rupees Two Thousand only) for the offence under Section 4 of Gaming

Act, in default of payment of Fine, A1 & A2 are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of One (1) Month each.

Further A3, A8, A9, A11, A12, A17, A21, A26, A29 are found guilty for the offence U/sec.4 of A.P. Gaming Act, accordingly, they are convicted U/sec.252 of Cr.P.C and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each (Total Rupees Nine Thousand only), for the offence U/sec.4 of A.P. Gaming Act, in default of payment of fine amount, they shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of Thirty (30) Days each. The bail bonds of A1, A2, A3, A8, A9, A11, A12, A17, A21, A26, A29, if any, shall stand cancelled forthwith.

The SHO, Tanuku Town P.S. is directed to return the unmarked case property i.e. MI Company 32 inches TV, 8 Cell phones i.e. i) Samsung Galaxy S-10, ii) Samsung Galaxy S-12, iii)One Plus ATL Ocean mobile, iv) I Phone XR , v) Samsung MO-14 black mobile phone, vi) Samsung MO-14 Black mobile, vii) Redmi-6A Pink colour mobile, viii) Redmi 6-A Black colour mobile , D Link wi-fi rooter, Dell Company Laptop of A.2, , Lenova Company Tab, Class mate company note book are returned to the concerned persons, on proper identification and acknowledgment and shall file the compliance report along with photos before this Court.

The seizure amount of Rs.47,560/- (Rupees Forty seven thousand five hundred and sixty Only) shall be confiscate to state.

Sd/- P.Babu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku

FAC II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Tanuku.

Note: Accused paid fine amount of Rs.13,000/- before the Court.