P.bhaskara Rao

1

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SOMPETA

Present : Sri P.Bhaskar Rao,

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM

FAC: VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SOMPETA (FRIDAY, THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 )

SESSIONS CASE NO.06/2022

( Crime No.122/2019 of Meliaputti police station)

P.R.C.No.01/2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Tekkali

Between:State represented by the Inspector of Police, Pathapatnam ..Complainan t AndSavara Ramesh son of late Komati, 55 years, caste by ST/Kapu Savara, Vallakabhadra village, Rayagada block,Gajapathidistrict,Odishastate

..Accused

Prosecution was Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, conducted by:Additional Public Prosecutor Accused was defended Sri N.S.Vijaya Kumar, Legal Aid counsel by: Offences:Sec.302 and Sec.201 of Indian Penal Code

Date of offence:16.12.2019 Date of report or 28.12.2019 complaint Charge sheet filed on 26.04.2021 Date of appearance of 08.08.2023 on P.T. Warrant accused: Date of commencement 11.08.2023 of trial: Date of closure of trial 29.09.2023 Explanation for delay In this case charge sheet was filed on 26.04.2021. On 08.08.2023 the accused was produced on P.T.Warrant, copies were furnished and charges under Sec.302 and Sec.201 IPC have been framed against the accused. On 11.08.2023 PW1 was examined and Exs.P1 and Ex.P2 were marked. On 18.08.2023 PW2 to PW7 were examined and Exs.P3 and MO1 and MO2 were marked On 25.08.2023 PW8 to PW12 were examined and Exs.P4 was marked. On 01.09.2023 PW13 to PW16 were examined and Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 were marked. On 08.09.2023 PW17 was examined and Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 were marked. On 15.09.2023 PW18 was examined and Ex.P9 to Ex.P11 were marked. On 29.09.2023 PW19 was examined and Ex.P12 to Ex.P21 were marked and the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. and he reported no defence evidence on his behalf. On 04.10.2023 heard the Additional Public Prosecutor and posted to 10.10.2023 for hearing arguments of learned legal aid counsel. On 10.10.2023 heard the arguments of

S.C.6/2022 2 learned counsel for defence and posted to 13.10.2023. On that, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, the accused was sent on P.T.Warrant to the court at Parlakhemundi and requested to adjourn the matter to 16.10.2023. On 13.10.2023 this court addressed a letter to the

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi

and to the Superintendent, Sub Jail, Parlakhemundi for cause production of the accused on P.T. Warrant for pronouncing judgment on the accused on 16.10.2023. On 16.10.2023 the accused was not produced before this court. Again on 17.10.2023 this court addressed letter communicated in Dis No.346 dt.17.10.2023 to the

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi

and to the Superintendent, Sub Jail, Parlakhemundi stating that the case stands posted to 20.10.2023 for judgment and for cause production of accused on the said date. The accused is produced on 20.10.2023 on P.T. Warrant from Sub Jail, Parlakhemundi. Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.302 and Sec.201 of IPC and he is convicted under Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for LIFE and shall also pay a fine of Rs.2000/-( rupees two thousand only) for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months, for the said offence. The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable under Sec.201 of Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of One (1) month,

for the said offence.

The sentences of imprisonment for both the offences shall run concurrently. MO1/Samsung key paid mobile phone and Mo2/ China Tork company mobile shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time. The accused is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment and availability of legal aid. Free copy of judgment is furnished to the accused. The accused is in judicial custody from 06.06.2020 to 20.10.2023 i.e., 1232 days

Judge, Family Court-cum- III Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam (FAC)VI ADJ Court, Sompeta

S.C.6/2022 3

FORM- A

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SOMPETA

Present : Sri P.Bhaskar Rao,

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM

FAC: VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SOMPETA ( FRIDAY, THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 )

SESSIONS CASE NO.06/2022

( Crime No.122/2019 of Meliaputti police station) P.R.C.No.01/2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tekkali Complainant Inspector of police, Pathapatnam circle Represented by Sri K.Venkateswara Rao,

Additional Public Prosecutor

Accused Savara Ramesh son of late Komati, 55 years, caste by ST/Kapu Savara, Vallakabhadra village,Rayagadablock, Gajapathi district, Odisha state Represented by Sri N.S.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate

for the Accused

FORM B

Date of offence 16.12.2019 Date of first information report28.12.2019(under Sec.174 of Cr.P.C.) Date of charge sheet26.04.2021 Date of framing of charges08.08.2023 Date of commencement of11.08.2023 evidence Date of which judgment is06.10.2023 reserved Date of the judgment 13.10.2023 Date of the sentencing order, if20.10.2023 any

ACCUSED DETAILS

Rank of accused Sole Name of Accused Savara Ramesh Date of Arrest05.06.2020 produced on P.T.Warrant Date of Release on bailUnder Trial prisoner Offences charged with Sec.302 and 201 of IPC Whether acquitted or convicted CONVICTED Sentence imposed In the result, the accused is found

S.C.6/2022 4 guilty for the offence punishable under Sc.302 and Sec.201 of IPC and he is convicted under Sec.235 (2) Cr.P.C for the said offences.

The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

LIFE and shall also pay a fine of

Rs.2000/-( rupees two thousand only) for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months, for the said offence.

The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and shall pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/-fortheoffence punishable underSec.201 of

Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of One (1) month, for the said offence.

Thesentencesof imprisonment for both the offences shall run concurrently.

MO1/Samsungkeypaid mobile phone and Mo2/China Tork companymobileshallbe confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time.

The accused is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment and availability of legal aid.

Free copy of judgment is

S.C.6/2022 5 furnished to the accused on 20.10.2023

This Sessions Case coming on 10.10.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and of Sri N.S.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for Accused (Legal Aid counsel) and the matter is having been stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Inspector of

Police, Pathapatnam Circle, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code in Crime

No.122/2019 of Meliaputti police station, alleging that,

a) the accused by name Savara Ramesh went to PW1/Jaddu

Neelakanta Rao, Village of Meliaputti II, and gave extra judicial confession statement before PW1 and stated that, one Dandu Jayanthi ( herein after referred as “deceased”) is a resident of Aludu village of Saravakota mandal and belongs to SC-Relli community. The deceased went to

Gokinapadu village of Guntur district, where the younger sister of deceased by name Bommali Laxmi (LW14) was residing and she undergone stomach surgery. In the meantime the accused who was working as daily labour in the Aqua farming works, came to know that the deceased is a widow, the accused intended to develop intimacy with the deceased and moved close with the deceased to fulfill his sexual lust.

Initially the deceased denied, but later the accused trapped the deceased by spending his saving money to the deceased. Later, on several occasions they have participated in sexual course at Gokinakonda. After their relationship has been cropped up, they started sharing their family problems with each other.

b) On one occasion the deceased informed to the accused that she wants to construct a house which was allotted to her under NTR Housing

S.C.6/2022 6 scheme and asked the accused to help her financially and further informed that she will return the amount when she got the money from the government. On that the accused promised and gave his old unused

Samsung key pad mobile phone with SIM No.7997448173. Since then the accused started conversation with the deceased over phone.

c) Later the deceased went to Aludu village as her younger sister got recovered from the stomach surgery, the deceased requested the accused for money. The accused gave Rs.8000/- as initial payment and promised the deceased to send some amount later. After coming down to Aludu village, the deceased contacted the accused and requested him to send money. As the deceased has no bank account, she has given the accountdetailsofPW7/KalingapatnamSandhyaand

PW11/Kalingapatnam Ramu. Thereafter the accused sent Rs.10,000/- each on two occasions to the account number of PW7 and Rs.1000/- each to the account number of PW11. In total the accused gave an amount ofRS.30,000/- to the deceased for her house construction purpose.

d) After getting the amount from the accused, the deceased started neglecting the accused and also ignored the phone calls of accused.

When the accused asked money, the deceased started scolding him by abusive language in a rash manner. In the meantime, the accused came to know that, the deceased is having illegal affair with one auto driver.

On that the accused deeply offended and thought that he was betrayed in the hands of deceased. When she paid deaf ear to the warnings of the accused, the accused decided to eliminate the deceased, as the deceased did not show interest to repay the amount to him

e) The accused in order to complete the plan of action, called the deceased over phone and asked the deceased to come to Guntur and

S.C.6/2022 7 further informed that he won’t ask her for repayment of the amount from ever, when she refused to come to Guntur, the accused decided to come to Aludu village for meeting her. According to his prior plan, the accused

before starting from Guntur made a phone call from his phone

No.8341863076 to the deceased phone No.7997448173 and asked her that they will meet at Pattupuram junction on 16.12.2019 morning.

f) On 16.12.2019 around 8 hours as per his request the deceased started from Aludu to Pattupuram and reached Pattupuram village. The accused welcomed the deceased and started saying how much he missed her and slowly taken the deceased to the scene of offence. There the accused forced the deceased to fulfill his sexual desire, but the deceased denied for the same. Then the accused asked the deceased to return his amount of Rs.30,000/- as earlier taken from him. Then the deceased picked up a quarrel with him, during which, the deceased abused the accused as “కొజ్జా� ” and in un-parliamentary words.

g) The accused forcibly took the Samsung cell phone of the deceased and beat the deceased with hands and when the deceased started retaliating him and beat the accused too with hands. Then the accused kicked the deceased with legs and on that the deceased fell down, accused sat on her and chocked her neck and pushed her head in the ground resulting the deceased went into unconscious state. Later the deceased pushed the deceased into the canal water in semi-conscious state and the deceased was completely drowned into the water and died.

The accused waited there for some time and confirmed the death of deceased.

h) Later the accused went to Venkatapuram village of

Vajrapukotturu mandal and engaged as daily labour under PW6/Lodagala

S.C.6/2022 8

Ravi. From there the accused went to Ananthagiri village of V.Kotturu mandal and engaged as cattle labour works under the ownership of

PW13/Badakala Prakash. In the meantime, the accused came to know about the registration of case and arrival of some police personnel to

Ananthagiri for enquiry and apprehended danger in the hands of police.

i) The accused further confessed before the PW1 that he committed similar kind of murders at one Boda Hamsa village of Odisha state and another at Aswaraopeta village of Telangana state. He further voluntarily revealed that in the year 2016 the accused murdered one innocent woman namely Desetti Damayanthi wife of late Deenabandu of Odisha state which is the subject matter of Crime No.45/2020 registered under

Sec.302 of Indian Penal Code. The accused went to Aswaraopeta of

Telangana state and worked as daily labour at Sri Laxmithulasi Agro papers, Aswaraopeta and committed brutal murder by strangulating one woman Muchika Kosamma wife of Devayya, which is the subject matter of Crime No.174/2017 registered under Sec.302 of Indian Penal Code of

Aswaraopeta police station.

j) Basing on the report of PW2, PW18/Tempa Vasudeva Rao, the then Head constable of Meliaputti police station, initially registered a case in Cr.No.122/2019 under Sec.174 of Cr.P.C (suspicious death).

k) During course of investigation, PW18, examined witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, collected water from well for diatoms test, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, got photographed the scene of offence and sent the dead body of deceased to PW17/Dr.Ch.Chandana, Medical Officer,

Pathapatnam community health center for autopsy. Basing on the report of PW16/Dandu Ravi Kumar, son of deceased lodged a report about

S.C.6/2022 9 missing of deceased on 19.12.2019. On 16.07.2019 LW34-P.Sidhardha

Kumar Sub Inspector of police, Pathapatnam circle verified the investigation done by PW18 and prepared letter of advice and forwarded the seized material objects to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (herein after referred as “RFSL”) for analysis.

l) On 5.6.2020 at 10.45 hours basing on the report of PW1 coupled with the statement of accused, PW19/R.Ravi Prasad, Inspector of police,

Pathapatnam circle altered the section of law from Sec.174

Cr.P.C(suspicious death) to Section 302 and Sec.201 of Indian Penal

Code. PW19 examined PW1 and recorded his statement under Sec.161(3)

Cr.P.C. and interrogated the accused in the presence of PW14-Botchu

Annajirao, Village Revenue Officer, Saravakota mandal and LW24/Kota

Kailasa Rao on 5.6.2020 at 12.00 hours and recorded the confessional statement of accused under the cover of mediators report duly attested by above mediators.

j) In pursuance of the confession of the accused, the accused lead the PW19 and above mediators to the scene of offence. PW19 inspected the crime scene, got drafted scene observation report and examined the witnesses at the scene of offence and recorded their statements.

Further, the accused lead PW19 to the house of PW6/Lodagala Ravi and on his confession, PW19 seized two key pad mobiles i.e., Samsung DUOS black key pad phone and 2) T. 19 shine & Tork black colour key pad phone used by the accused for his conversation, under the cover of mediators report at 18.15 hours on 05.06.2020. PW14 examined and recorded the statements of PW6 and PW13. PW14 examined the remaining witnesses in this case and recorded their statements under

Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

S.C.6/2022 10

k) The analysts in RFSL, Visakhapatnam analyzed the material objects and opined that, similar type of diatoms are detected in item

Nos.1 and 2. LW28/G.Srilatha, Scientific Officer, Visakhapatnam analyzed the material objects and opined that item Nos.1 to 4 are analyzed but no poisonous substance is found in them. On 09.06.2020 PW16/Dandu Ravi

Kumar and PW9/Pothala Adilaxmi, son and daughter of the deceased were produced before the Director, FSL, Mangalagiri for comparison of their D.N.A. profile with the viscera of the deceased.

LW30/Dr.J.Vanajakshi, Assistant Director, A.P.F.S.L., Tech Tower,

Mangalagiri obtained the D.N.A. profile from the deceased and compared with the DNA profile of PW16 and PW9 and issued opinion that “ the source of item No.3 ( four teeth) and the source of item No.4 ( A Femur bone) are biologically related to PW16 and PW9 through source of item

No.6. PW17 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased issued opinion that “cardio respiratory failure, secondary to asphyxia caused by drowning”

After completion of entire investigation, PW19/Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused.

02.This case was taken on file under Sections 302 and 201 of

Indian Penal Code against the accused. After the accused made his presence, copies of case documents were furnished to him. The learned

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tekkali committed the P.R.C.No.01/2021 to

the Hon’ble Court of Sessions under Sec.209(a) of Cr.P.C.

03. Having heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused and on considering the material on

S.C.6/2022 11 record, Charge under Sections 302 and Sec.201 of Indian Penal Code have been framed against Accused, the said charges was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04. During trial, in order to prove its case on prosecution side,

PWs.1 to 19 are examined and Exs.P.1 to P.21 documents got marked

M.Os.1 and 2 are exhibited.

05.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined as per Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against him, but he denied the same.

The plea of accused is of total denial. However, he did not choose to adduce any evidence.

06.Heard both sides.

07.Now, the point that arose for determination are;

1) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sec.302, 201 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the prosecution proved that the accused had prior acquaintance with the deceased and proved the chain of circumstances, beyond all reasonable doubt?

3) To what result?

08.POINT:

To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined Jaddu Neelakanta Rao, Village Revenue Officer of Meliaputti mandal as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1/Signature containing on the confession statement of accused and Ex.P2/Complaint lodged by PW1 to the police. Padi Appalanaidu was examined as PW2, who deposed about receiving of information from Village Revenue Officer PW3/Vadama

Ramayya, about the dead body floating in the offshore canal near Joduru village and marked scene observation report dt.28.12.2019 at about 11.30 a.m. as Ex.P3. Vadama Ramayya was examined as PW3, deposed

S.C.6/2022 12 about receiving of information about floating of dead body in the offshore canal who inturn informed to PW2. Yenni Ashok Kumar and Dasari Ravi were examined as PW4 and PW5, deposed about finding of dead body in the offshore canal. PW6/Lodagala Ravi was examined and deposed about pledging of two key pad mobiles which are marked as MO1 and 2 by the accused. PW7/Kalingapatnam Sandhya and PW8/Kalingapatnam Ramu deposed about the accused deposited money into their bank accounts, who in turn with drawn the same and gave it to the deceased. Pothala

Adilaxmi, daughter of deceased deposed about the accused developed intimacy with her mother/deceased and she further deposed about missing of deceased on 16.12.2019 and also lodging of report by her brother/PW16 with Saravakota police station. PW10/B.Suryanarayana, deposed about the non-payment of cooli by the deceased to the labourers of house construction work and about contacting the mobile number of the deceased and answering the mobile by the accused and also deposed about demand of cooli payment by the labourers and his attempts to contact the deceased over phone.

a) PW11/Adapa Satyam who last seen, both deceased and accused at Pattupuram junction. The prosecution examined PW11 to prove the last seen theory and to connect the accused with the commission of offence. PW12/Lavunupalli Bhulaxmi, Village Revenue Assistant deposed about acting as inquestdar at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased and she identified her signature on the inquest report dt.28.12.2019(Ex.P4). PW13/Batakala Prakash deposed about the accused worked under him for a period of twenty days after commission of offence. PW14/Batchu Annaji Rao, the then Village

Revenue Assistant

S.C.6/2022 13 was examined by the prosecution to prove that the accused made extra- judicial confession statement before him and another mediator. PW14 further deposed that he accompanied along with the investigation officer to visit the scene of offence and prepared scene observation report (Ex.P5) and also seizure of two mobile phones (MO1 and MO2) under the cover of seizure report(Ex.P6). PW15/S.Adinarayana police constable,

Meliaputti police station deposed about shifting of dead body to the community health center, Pathapatnam for autopsy. Dandu Ravi Kumar, son of deceased was examined as PW16 and deposed about accused having acquaintance with his mother/deceased and later Meliaputti police examined him and deposed about giving report by him and himself and his sister/PW9 went to the D.N.A. test to identify the dead body of the deceased. Dr.Ch.Chandana was examined as PW17, who deposed about conducting post mortem examination over the dead body of deceased and issuance of Post mortem certificate(Ex.P8) basing on RFSL report(Ex.P7). Tempa Vasudeva Rao, the then Head constable in

Meliaputti police station was examined as PW18, deposed about lodging written report(Ex.P9) and registration of First Information report (Ex.P10), prepared rough sketch(Ex.P11) dt.28.12.2019. R.Ravi Prasad, Inspector of police, Pathapatnam circle was examined as PW19, who conducted investigation about alteration of first information report(Ex.P12), visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch (Ex.P13) and got photographed the scene of offence, 4 photos along with C.D.(Ex.P14), received F.S.L. report on19.11.2020(Ex.P15), letter issued by the Nodal

Officer (Ex.P16) and obtained call data particulars of accused and deceased (Ex.P17) and obtained account details of PW7 under Ex.P8 and

S.C.6/2022 14 account details of PW8(Ex.P9) and received D.N.A. report (Ex.P21) on 19.11.2020 and about filing of charge sheet against the accused.

09.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, the deceased/Dandu Jayanthi went to her sister’s house situated at

Gonakapadu village of Gunturu district, to assist her sister. During the period of her stay, accused developed extra-marital relationship with the deceased and the accused gave a mobile phone to the deceased to facilitate to talk with the deceased. The deceased informed to the accused about sanction of NTR housing colony by the government and requested the accused to help her financially. The accused initially gave cash to the deceased and also deposited amounts into the bank accounts of PW7 and PW8 who in turn withdrew the money and handed over the said deposited amounts in total Rs.30,000/- to the deceased. When the deceased returned to her native place/Aludu, the accused used to talk with her over phone. The accused came to the native place of deceased and both of them went to Pattupuram junction and from there the accused taken her to off shore canal, with an intention to commit murder of the deceased. The accused beat the deceased indiscriminately and sat on her and pushed her head to the ground and when she became unconscious, pushed her into the off shore canal and thereby accused committed the murder of the deceased. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor further argued that, the evidence of PW1 to PW19 coupled with Exs.P1 to Ex.P21 and MO1 and MO2 clearly proves that the accused committed the murder of deceased and also tried to screen the evidence to escape from the commission of murder. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor prays the court to convict the accused as per law.Hence, the

S.C.6/2022 15 prosecution proved the case against the accused under Sec.302 and

Sec.201 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.

10.The learned legal Aid counsel submits that, accused never committed the alleged offences under Secs.302 and 201 of Indian Penal

Code. There was no possibility of the accused to approach the PW1 to made confession statement without prior acquaintance and out of office hours. PW6 had no prior acquaintance with the accused to approach the

PW6 to pledge MO1 and Mo2/Mobile phones. There was no direct evidence to fix the responsibility on the accused for the alleged charges.

There was a delay of altering the first information report after registering the Sec.174 Cr.P.C. The defence counsel further submits that prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Sec.302 and Sec.201 of Indian

Penal Code against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

11. Initially basing on the complaint lodged by PW2, the police registered a case in Cr.No.122/2019 under Sec.174 Cr.P.C,.dt.

28.12.2019. Prior to registering the above F.I.R., the son of deceased i.e.,

PW16 lodged a complaint for missing of his mother/Dandu Jayanthi with

Saravakota police station. During the course of investigation, the Sub

Inspector of police, Meliaputti altered the section of law from Sec.174

Cr.P.C. to Sec.302 and Sec.201 of Indian Penal Code.

12.The case of the defence is of total denial. The learned counsel for the accused argued that, the section Sec.302 of Indian Penal

Code is not attracted to the present case, as there is no direct evidence to show that the accused has committed murder of accused and also the ingredients of Sec.201 of Indian Penal Code. He further argued that the prosecution failed to prove that the mobile phone was given by the

S.C.6/2022 16 accused to the deceased and also failed to prove about deposit of money to the accounts of PW7 and PW8 and in turn they withdrawn hand over the same to deceased . He further argued that, none of the prosecution witnesses stated in their evidence that they have seen the accused while committing the murder of the deceased and also screening of evidence i.e., pushed the deceased into the off shore canal by the accused, therefore, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and accused may be acquitted in this case.

13.Admittedly, there is no direct evidence about the accused committing the murder of deceased/Jayanthi at the scene of offence. As per Sec.3 of the Indian Evidence Act, last seen theory circumstantial evidence. Allegation that, accused taken the deceased to the off—shore canal which is an isolated place and at that time PW11 found both deceased and accused at Pattupuram junction, prior to the commission of offence. PW11 is the material witness to connect the accused with the alleged commission of offence under Sec.302 and Sec.201 of Indian Penal

Code. There are no other suspicious circumstances about the cause of death of deceased, except that she died at the off-shore canal and noticed her dead body was floating in off shore canal after two weeks of said incident. Prior to that the son of the deceased/PW16 lodged complaint about the missing of his mother. So, during the relevant period son of the deceased lodged complaint for missing of his mother and at the same time PW11 found the deceased and accused are nearby the scene of offence. During course of investigation, it came to light accused had developed extra marital relationship with the deceased in

Guntur district and thereafter accused came to the native place of deceased and

S.C.6/2022 17 requested her to come out side of the house with an evil intention to commit murder of deceased. The deceased/Jayanthi believed the words of the accused, with a fond hope that accused may financially help her as promised by the accused. The circumstances clearly shows deceased is in dire necessity of money to complete the construction of house and also deceased had acquaintance with the accused during the relevant time.

Sole witness of last seen circumstance expressed suspicion accused involvement in the present crime. The medical evidence reveals that, deceased died prior to two weeks from the date of post mortem examination conducted by PW17/Medical officer. The cause of death is mentioned as fresh water drowning. The defence counsel did not suggest to the investigation officer or any other prosecution witnesses that the deceased Jayanthi accidentally slipped into the off shore canal and died. The said plea taken by the defence at the stage of arguments cannot be accepted, without taking the said plea, during the course of examination of witnesses. Merely long gap between the suspicious death registered under Sec.174 Cr.P.C. and altered the First information report, does not mean, the entire case is false. There is no other evidence available on record about the cause of death of deceased/Dandu

Jayanthi. It is not the case of the defence that some other person committed the offence to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

14. The only contention of the counsel for accused that, the accused is innocent and he has not committed the offence of murder.

Therefore, it is for the prosecution to prove “the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved..... it must

S.C.6/2022 18 be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.". The circumstantial evidence is evidence and tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue or otherwise. Prosecution case solely based on the circumstantial evidence. Principles of appreciation of circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt can be drawn in Padala Veerareddy Vs. State of A.P ( 1989- SUPP (2) Supreme 706) the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the principle that,

When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests;

I) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; ii) though circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused ; iii) The circumstances taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

S.C.6/2022 19

2) In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of

Maharashtra ( equivalent citations 1973 AIR 2622, 1974 SCR (1) 489) where the following observations were made:

"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panch-sheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.

15.In order to prove the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution examined PW1/Padi Appalanaidu, Village Revenue Officer, Joduru who presented Ex.P9 written complaint to the Station House Officer, Meliaputti police station. Basing on Ex.P9/complaint, PW18, registered a case in Cr.

No.122/2019 under Sec.174 Cr.P.C. PW18 forwarded the first information

S.C.6/2022 20 report to the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate, Meliaputti. The con- tents of Ex.P9 report is that, PW2 received phone message from PW3 about floating of women dead body in the off-shore canal. The age of women dead body is 40 years approximately. Ex.P10 is the First Informa- tion report registered basing on Ex.P9. PW9 is the daughter of deceased deposed that since 16.12.2019 her mother/deceased found missing and her brother/PW16 lodged report with Saravakota police station. PW16 who is the son of deceased deposed that he lodged a report with Sar- avakota police station for missing of his mother. PW16 further deposed that his mother had acquaintance with one person and said person gave

Samsung mobile to his mother and the said person and his mother used to talk with each other. When he enquired with his mother, his mother did not give any reply. PW16 further deposed that, PW7/Sandhya in- formed that one Savara Ramesh deposited amount into her account and the same was withdrawn by her and handed over the cash to deceased.

So also PW8 informed him that, one Savara Ramesh deposited amount into his account, he had hand over the said amount to the deceased after withdrawing the said amount. PW7 and PW8 deposed in their evidence that, one Savara Ramesh/accused herein had deposited amounts into their accounts and requested them to hand over the said amount to the deceased. Accordingly, they have withdrawn the amounts and in turn handed over the same to the deceased. PW9 and PW16 further deposed they have attended for D.N.A.Test to identify the dead body of their mother. As per the D.N.A. test report the dead body is identified as

Dandu Jayanthi, who is mother of PW9 and PW16. The circumstantial evi- dence clearly shows accused and deceased/Dandu Jayanthi had acquaintance with the accused and helped her financially. The accused

S.C.6/2022 21 did not elicit anything in the cross examination of PW9, PW16, PW7 and

PW8 to deny the bank transactions.

16.The prosecution further relied on the oral evidence of PW1 to

PW3 to prove that before whom the accused gave extra-judicial confession. Extra Judicial confession, though a weak piece of evidence, if voluntarily it can be relied upon (2009(9) SCC 383) Law though does not require extra judicial confession should in all be corroborative. Usually, courts require some material corroboration. Extra judicial can be accepted and can be basis of conviction if it passes tests of credibility (AIR 2011 – SC 2283). PW1 to PW3 who are discharging the duties of

Village Revenue Officer and Village Revenue Assistant. It is the primary duty of the PW1 to PW3 to inform to the police officials to identify the dead body found in the off-shore canal. They have no personal interest to attribute anything against the accused. At least no suggestion put to

PW1 to PW3 to disbelieve the evidence of official witnesses and lodged reports with the police.

PW1, is the then village Revenue Officer of Meliaputti deposed that on 5.6.2020 while he was in the panchayat office, the accused approached him and narrated the entire incident and admitted his guilt.

The accused further sought help of PW1 to rescue from the hands of police. PW1 drafted the confessional statement of accused and handed over the accused and confessional statement to LW34/P.Siddhardh

Kumar, Sub Inspector of police. Basing on the complaint of PW1 and confessional statement of accused, the Sub Inspector of police altered the section of law from Sec.174 Cr.P.C. to Sec.302 and 201 of Indian

Penal Code. PW19, Inspector of police, identified the signature of

LW34/P.Siddardh Kumar, Sub Inspector of police. The altered first

S.C.6/2022 22 information report is marked as Ex.P12. Due to non-availability of LW34/

P.Siddardh Kumar, the prosecution got marked Ex.P12/Altered first information report through PW19. The further case of the prosecution is that basing on the confessional statement of accused, the accused lead the investigation officer and mediators to the house of PW6 and there they seized MO1 and MO2/two mobile phones under the cover of

Ex.P6/Mediators report in the presence of mediators i.e., PW14 and another. The PW6 and PW14 identified the accused in the public court to prove the accused pledged MO1 and MO2 with PW6 and PW14 deposed about the seizure of MO1 and 2 from the possession of PW6.

17. PW6/Lodagala Ravi deposed that, he is a shepherd by profession. About three years ago, the accused approached him and pledged two mobile phones i.e., MO1 and MO2 with him for an amount of

Rs.800/-. Subsequently, he had handed over MO1 and MO2 to the police in the presence of elders. PW6 identified the two mobiles. In the cross examination PW6 admitted that, due to lack of knowledge he accepted the pledge of two mobiles. PW6 further deposed that accused is not resident of his village. So, PW6 has no necessity to speak falsehood against the accused.

After recovery of MO1 and MO2, the police collected call data particulars pertaining to the mobile No.8341863076 and 7997448173.

The call data record is marked as Ex.P16 and Ex.P17. During the course of arguments, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that, as per the evidence of PW9 and PW16, the accused handed over one mobile phone to the deceased, but the SIM card stands in the name of third parties. Since the accused pledged Mo1 and MO2 with PW6, clearly

S.C.6/2022 23 deposed in his evidence that the accused is the person who pledged the

MO1 and MO2 with him and it can be safely come to a conclusion accused approached the PW6 and pledged MO.1 and 2 for money, after commission of the alleged offence.

18.PW10/B.Suryanrayana, resident of Aludu deposed that he tried to contact the deceased over phone about the demanding of cooli amount by the house construction labourers of the deceased. When he telephoned to the mobile of deceased, the accused lifted the mobile and informed that he would hand over the phone to the deceased in the evening time. When PW10 again contacted to the said mobile number of the deceased, it was not answered. The evidence of PW10 clearly proves that, when he made a call to the deceased, the accused answered the call of the deceased mobile, it shows the mobile is within the custody of the accused and later it was not answered, which clearly shows there is a conversation in between accused and deceased through the said phone numbers.

19.Further, the prosecution to prove the last seen theory, got examined PW11, who allegedly witnessed the accused and deceased at

Pattupuram junction. PW11 deposed in his evidence that, he is a painter and he used to go for painting works from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in and around

Narasannapeta villages. He is residing in neighbouring street of deceased. So, there is every possibility of PW11, got acquaintance with the deceased. PW11 further deposed in his evidence that in the month of December, 2019 he stopped his motor cycle at Pattupuram junction for breakfast. Where he found the deceased and accused. On noticing PW11, the accused and deceased proceeded towards reservoir. On the next day he came to know that the deceased was found missing. After 15 days he

S.C.6/2022 24 came to know that deceased died. In his cross examination PW11 deposed that, when he last seen the deceased, she wore red colour saree and the accused wore blue and white colour shirt and he witnessed them at 11.15 a.m.

20.It is a settled law that, once the prosecution produced cogent evidence to prove the entire chain of circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that the accused only committed the alleged offence of murder of deceased, the burden shifts on the accused to prove that he has not committed the said offence under Sec.106 of Indian Evidence

Act. The accused failed to explain that he has nothing to do with the alleged crime and he never moved along with the deceased/Jayanthi 21.The charges under Secs.302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code are framed against the accused, for committing murder of the deceased with hands and kicked the deceased with legs and when she fallen down, the accused sat on her and choked her neck and pushed her in the ground and thrown her into the off-shore canal in a semi-conscious state, due to which she died(Sec.302), and the accused having reason to believe that an offence has been committed by him, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment(Sec.201).

22.Sec.8 of the Indian Evidence Act. Facts relating to motive, preparation, previous or subsequent conduct are relevant. When direct evidence is available in criminal case motive becomes insignificant. In state of Haryana vs. Sharesingh ( AIR 1981- SC 1021) the Hon’ble Apex

Court held that ;

S.C.6/2022 25

Prosecutor is not required to prove motive in criminal case but the court has to consider and see whether it is adequate or not. The prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the conduct and motive of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased in a isolated place. It is not in dispute the place of death of deceased/Dandu

Jayanthi at the scene of offence and found the dead body in off shore canal. It is also not in dispute that son of deceased lodged a complaint for missing of his mother, just prior to commission of offence. It is also not in dispute, basing on the complaint of PW2 Sec.174 CrP.C. FIR was registered and basing on the PW1 complaint and confessional statement of accused section of law altered from Sec.174 Cr.P.C. to Sec.302 and 201 of IPC. The conduct of accused clearly shows that he pushed the deceased into the off shore canal, while she was in unconscious state, with a view to disappear the evidence.

23.As per Sec.24 of the Indian Evidence Act, extra-judicial confessional statement of accused is weak piece of evidence. PW1 presented the extra-judicial confession statement of accused along with the accused which requires corroboration of the other evidence to accept the confessional statement of accused. The plea of accused is total denial. PW1 clearly admitted that he had no prior acquaintance with the accused which creates doubt how the accused approached PW1 to admit his guilt before him. It is evidently clear on record about the phone conversation between the deceased and accused and also mobile seized from the PW6 under the cover of seizure report. The other evidence also available on record, the accused deposited amounts into the bank account of PW7 and PW8 and they have clearly deposed in their evidence

S.C.6/2022 26 that those amounts were deposited by the accused and after withdrawal of the same, they handed over the said amount to the deceased.

24. The defence counsel submits that, the SIM cards does not stands in the name of accused or deceased to connect the crime. Merely the sim card stand in the name of some other person, it does not mean, the accused did not hand over the mobile to the deceased.

25.It is the case of prosecution that, prior to the alleged commission of offence, both accused and deceased moved closely in and around the place of offence. The prosecution has adduced cogent piece of evidence against accused that he moved along with the deceased.

Then the burden shifts on to the accused under Sec.106 of the Indian

Evidence Act, to prove that the accused never had acquaintance with the deceased and never visited the place of scene of offence.

26.The Ex.P1 contains the thumb impression of accused. Mere obtaining thumb impression on the confession statement, it does not mean, accused admitted the guilt of the offence. It is for the prosecution to prove the contents of Ex.P1 beyond reasonable doubt. The investigating officer visited the scene of offence and drafted scene observation report Ex.P3 at 11.30 a.m. in the presence of independent mediators and Village revenue officer. Ex.P3 further contains the police obtained photographs of the scene of offence and also collected the water from the off-shore canal. Ex.P5 is the scene observation report drafted at 3.15 p.m. in the presence of Thota Kailsam and B.Annaji Rao.

Ex.P5 contains the manner of committing murder of deceased by the accused and entire incident was videographed and the said video is not filed into the court. Ex.P6 is the seizure report drafted on 05.06.2020 at

S.C.6/2022 27 6.50 p.m. at Ananthagiri village i.e., at the house of PW6 and seizure of mobiles i.e., MO1 and MO2. Ex.P6 is corroborating the seizure of MO1 and MO2 from the possession of PW6. The evidence of PW6 further discloses the accused approached him and pledged MO1 and MO2 for a sum of Rs.800/-. PW6 identified the accused to connect MO1 and 2 .

Ex.P11 is rough sketch prepared by head constable showing the scene of offence is situated at off-shore canal. Ex.P13 is another rough sketch prepared by the Inspector of police, showing the physical features of the scene of offence Ex.P14 are photographs.

27.PW17/Dr.Ch.Chandana who conducted post mortem examination on an unidentified woman dead body and found the external injuries and internal injuries i.e., No malformations found natural orifices putrefied maggots present. Position of limbs: stiffness present in both upper and lower limbs. Hands open rigidity present. Bones and joints and muscles no abnormalities found. Peeling of skin present. Post Mortem findings: Rigor mortis present. Petrification present. Head and Neck:

Skull and scalp no abnormalities found. Brain meninges and cerebral vessels, mouth, teeth, tongue, pharynix intact. Maggots present. Chest:

Ribs, Chest wall breast, diaphragm mediastinum and thymus, esophagus trachea, plural cavities congested maggots present. Heart and Pericardia sac: putrefied. Abdomen: Intestine and all other organs putrefied maggots present.

PW17 further deposed that she opined that the cause of death is due to fresh water drowning. According to her, the approximate cause of death is two weeks prior to her post mortem examination. Accordingly, she had issued post mortem certificate. It is not the case of defence that

S.C.6/2022 28 the deceased accidentally fallen into the off-shore canal. The case of prosecution is that the accused committed the murder of deceased by pushing her into the off-shore canal. The medical evidence coupled with

Ex.P8/Post mortem report and Ex.P7/RFSL report clearly shows that the deceased died, two weeks prior to conducting of post mortem examination by PW17/Medical Officer. According to the PW16 son of deceased lodged complaint for missing of his mother, prior to two weeks of post mortem examination.

28.The investigation officer forwarded the son and daughter of deceased who are PW16 and PW9 for the biological test and collected the

D.N.A. Profile and the Scientific Officer opined that the source of item

NO.3 and 4 are biologically related to Dandu Yerrayya @ Ravi, son of deceased and source of item No.5 relates to daughter ( Pothala Adilaxmi) of deceased. Ex.P22 report issued by A.P.F.S.L, Mangalagiri. They opined that, the dead body of deceased belong to mother of PW9 and PW16.

29.In a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court of India in between Trimukh Maroti vs. Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra dt.11.10.2006 in Criminal No.1341 of 2005 it was held that ;

Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly on the prosecution and thereafter the burden shifts on the accused. Sec.106 of the Indian Evidence Act postulates which are within the special knowledge of individual is on that individual. Although the section is way exonerates the prosecution from discharging its burden of proof beyond all reasonable doubt, it merely prescribes that an individual has done an act with in intention other than it is the circumstances indicate the onus

S.C.6/2022 29 of proving the specific intention falls on to the individual and not on the prosecution. If the accused had a different intention then the facts are specifically within his knowledge which he must prove.

30. As per Ex.P1, police registered the suspicious death of the deceased under Sec.174 Cr.P.C. and prior to that son of the deceased lodged complaint about missing of his mother and the villagers found the dead body of a woman floating in the off-shore canal and informed the same to PW2, who in turn informed to the Sub-Inspector of police. The police altered the section of law from Sec.174 Cr.P.C. to Sec.302 and

S.201 of Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation police collected the material evidence and examined the witnesses i.e., PW7 and PW8 and marked their bank statements to prove that the accused deposited amounts into their account and they have withdrawn the same and handed over to the deceased. PW7 and PW8 has no necessity to speak falsehood against the accused. PW6 deposed in his evidence that the accused approached him and pledged MO1 and MO2 and PW6 identified the accused. PW6 has no necessity to speak falsehood against the accused. The children of deceased deposed that deceased used to talk with the accused and also corroborated about the financial help done by the accused to the deceased.

The above circumstances clearly shows that the deceased went to her sisters house where the accused had acquaintance with the deceased. The RFSL report clearly confirmed the deceased as Dandu

Jayanthi. The Doctor who conducted post mortem examination opined that the cause of death is due to drowning in the fresh water. The

S.C.6/2022 30 medical evidence clearly corroborated with the circumstantial evidence.

The prosecution has satisfactorily proved each link of the case.

In a case of circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to complete the chain of events which show undoubtedly to prove the case against the accused. The principle of basing conviction on the basis is that each and every incriminating circumstance must be and clinching evidence and the circumstances so prove which is only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. The entire prosecution relied upon the material witnesses and proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

The prosecution further satisfactorily proved the motive of the accused for committing the murder, as he has taken the deceased to an isolated place i.e., scene of offence and committed murder of the deceased by throwing her into the off-shore canal in a semi-conscious state and later confirmed that the deceased died due to drowning in the fresh water. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under

Sec.302 and Sec.201 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

31.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.302 and Sec.201 of IPC and he is convicted under Sec.235 (2) Cr.P.C for the said offences.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I( VI ADJ Court), transcribed

by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of October, 2023.

Judge, Family Court-cum-

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam FAC: VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Sompeta

S.C.6/2022 31

Heard the accused with regard to the quantum of sentence, the accused stated that, “his wife is no more. He got one male child who is dumb person. He is working as coolie. He is hale and healthy”

Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the legal aid counsel for the accused.

After hearing of the accused, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that, this case does not fall under rarest of rare cases to award death sentence to the accused.

Therefore, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for LIFE and shall also pay a fine of Rs.2000/-( rupees two thousand only) for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of

I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months, for the said offence.

The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and shall pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable under Sec.201 of Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of One (1) month, for the said offence.

Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

MO1/Samsung key paid mobile phone and Mo2/China Tork company mobile shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time.

The accused is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment and availability of legal aid.

S.C.6/2022 32

Free copy of judgment is furnished to the accused.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of October, 2023.

Judge, Family Court-cum-

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam FAC: VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Sompeta

FORM C

WITNESSES EXAMINED

A- Prosecution:

Rank Name NATURE OF EVIDENCE Pw1 :Jaddu Neelakanta RaoVillage Revenue Officer PW2:Padi AppalanaiduVillage Revenue Officer PW3:Vadama RamayyaVillage Revenue Officer PW4 : Yenni Ashok KumarEye witness PW5:Dasari RaviEye witness PW6:Lodagala RaviOther witness PW7: Kalingapatnam SandhyaOther witness PW8:Kalingapatnam RamuOther witness PW9:Pothala AdilaxmiDaughter of deceased PW10:B.SuryanarayanaOther witness PW11:Adapa SatyamEye witness PW12: Lavunupalli BhulaxmiInquestdar PW13:Batakala PrakashOther witness PW14:Batchu Annaji RaoVillage Revenue Officer/Official witness PW15: S.Adianrayana Constable, Official witness PW16: Dandu Ravi KumarSon of deceased PW17:Dr.Ch.Chandana Medical Officer PW18:Tempa Vasudeva RaoHead Constable, Official witness PW19: R.Ravi Prasad, Inspector of police

For Defence:

-NONE –

S.C.6/2022 33

DOCUMENTS MARKED

A-Prosecution

Sl.No.Description of document

Ex.P1 :Signature of PW1 on the confession statement of accused Ex.P2 : Complaint given by PW1 to police Ex.P3:Scene observation report dt.28.12.2019 at about 11.30 a.m. Ex.P4 :Inquest report dt.28.12.2019 Ex.P5:Scene observation report dt.05.06.2020 Ex.P6:Mediators cum seizure report Ex.P7:Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Report Ex.P8:Post report of deceased Ex.P9: Report submitted by PW2 to police dt.28.12.2019 Ex.P10:First Information Report registered under Sec.174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P11: Rough sketch dt.28.12.2019 Ex.P12:Altered first information report Ex.P13:Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P14:Four photos along with compact Disc Ex.P15: ForensicScienceLaboratoryreport dt.19.11.2020 Ex.P16: Letter issued by the Nodal Officer Ex.P17:Call data particulars Ex.P18: Savings Bank details of PW7 Ex.P19:Savings Bank account details of PW8 Ex.P20:R.F.S.L. report Visakhapatnam Ex.P21:D.N.A. report For Defence: -NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: Samsung keypad mobile: MO2: China Tork Company mobile

Judge, Family Court-cum- III Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam

(FAC) VI ADDL. DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, SOMPETA

S.C.6/2022 34

1 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT – CUM – III ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, SRIKAKULAM.

PRESENT: Sri P.Bhaskara Rao,

Judge, Family court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

MONDAY, THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

Original Suit No.18/2017

Between:

1. Baratam Savitri, w/o.late Rajagopalarao, aged about 65 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Krishna park, near Sairam temple, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.

2. Baratam Jagadeeswararao, s/o.Rajagopalarao, aged about 43 years, Hindu, Business, residing rest-do-.

3. Baratam Ramesh, s/o.Rajagopalarao, aged about 41 years, Hindu, cultivation, Modeti veedhi, near Venkateswara temple, Srikakulam.

4. Baratam Suresh, s/o.Rajagopalarao, aged about 38 years, Hindu, Etcherla veedhi, Srikakulam.

5. Baratam Rambabu, s/o.Rajagopalarao, aged about 36 years, Modeti veedhi, near Venkateswara temple, Srikakulam.

..PLAINTIFFS.

And :

1. Baratam Satyanarayana, s/o.late Ramamurty, aged about 88 years, Hindu, retd.VRO, r/o.Door No.12-27-19, Kaki street, Srikakulam(died).

2. Baratam Venkataramana Murty, s/o.Satyanarayana, aged about 62 years, Hindu, Retd.Employee, r/o.D.No.3-11-9, Gajula veedhi, Batchayyapeta, Srikakulam.

3. Baratam Nageswararao, s/o.Satyanarayana, aged about 48 years, Hindu, V.R.O, r/o.D.No.12-25-19, Kaki veedhi, Srikakulam.

4. Killamsetti Lakshmikanth, s/o.late Venkatarao, aged about 32 years, Hindu, Medical representatives, r/o.c/o.K.Lakshmanarao, Fazulbegpeta, Srikakulam.

5. Vysyaraju Krishnaveni, w/o.V.Venkateswarlu, aged about 46 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o.Govrnment Hospital road, Near Registrar Office, Balaga, Srikakulam.

6. Baratam Sulochana @Sudharani, d/o.Satyanarayana, aged about 40 years, Hindu, r/o.12-25-19, Kaki veedhi, Srikakulam.

7. Baki Asirivadu, s/o.late Guruvulu, aged about 70 years, Hindu, r/o.Akhinkhanpeta village, Kothapeta post, Etcherla mandal, Srikakulam(died).

8. Tamara Venkatarao, s/o.Koteswararao, aged about 32 years, Hindu, cultivation, rest-do-.

9. Tangi Malleswararao, s/o.Kothayya, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Ex-sarpanch of Jarajam village, r/o.Tangivanipeta, Etcherla post and mandal, Srikakulam District.

2 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024

10.Reddi Suryanrayana,s/o.late Appalasuri, aged about 70 years, Hindu, cultivation, rest-do-.

11.Jarugulla Ammanna, s/o.late Appalasuri, aged about 70 years, Hindu, cultivation, r/o.Jarajam village, Etcherla post and mandal, Srikakulam District.

12.Bodduru Ugadamma, w/o.late Kannayya, aged about 60 years, Hindu, rest-do-

13.Tiyyana Govindarao, s/o.late Ramamurty, aged about 40 years, Hindu, cultivation, rest-do-.

14.Potnuru Kumari, w/o.Anandarao, aged about 52 years, Hindu, Household duties, resident of Tamminaidupeta village, Etcherla mandal, Srikakulam District. (D.14 is added as per orders in I.A.365/2018, dated 18.02.2020). …DEFENDANTS.

This suit is coming on 22.10.2024 before me in the presence of Sri G.S.Krishna Prasad, Advocate for plaintiffs and of defendants 1 and 7 died, Sri C.Narasimhamurty, Advocate for defendants 2 to 6, Sri Ch.Suryanarayana, Advocate for Defendant NO.8, Sri A.Bhuvaneswararao, Advocate for defendants 9, 11 and 13, Sri G.Chandramohan, Advocate for defendant NO.12, and defendants 10 and 14 were set exparte, and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

01.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition of plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and for allotment of one such half share to the plaintiffs after converting their joint right into several, direct the defendants 1ot 6 to render true and proper account of profits derived from suit properties for the last three years, and for costs of the suit.

02.The brief facts of the plaint allegations are as follows:-

The 1st plaintiff is the mother of other plaintiffs and class-I heirs of

Baratam Rajagopalarao. The said Rajagopalarao and 1st defendant’s father

Baratam Ramamurty got the plaint schedule properties and other properties in various villages in and around Srikakulam town in partition with his brothers and they are ancestral properties. The said Ramamurty got six daughters besides sons viz. Rajagopalarao and 1st defendant.

3 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 Ramamurty died in the year 1975 while in joint status with his sons. The 1st defendant got two sons ie., defendants 2 and 3 and four daughters, of whom mother of 4th defendant died leaving 4th defendant as only legal heir, Potnuru Kumari, whose marriage was performed in the year 1980 or 1981 and 5th defendant whose marriage was performed in the year 1989 and the unmarried daughter is shown as 6th defendant. While so, the husband of 1st plaintiff, Rajagopalarao died on 14.06.2014 in joint status with plaintiffs 2 to 5 and 1st defendant. Thus, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 are members of joint Hindu family, governed by Mithakshara school of Hindu law.

a). The plaintiffs further submit that both the brothers and their families lived under one roof till 1983 and in 1983 they separated in mess, but continued to possess and enjoyed the properties jointly, and there was no partition by metes and bounds between them. The defendants 9 to 13 are the tenants of the lands of joint family situated in Jarajam village whereas 7th defendant is tenant of some part of the land of joint family situated at Akhinkhanpeta village in favour of 8th defendant in respect of item No.16 of A schedule belongs to joint family of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 as if he is owner thereof. The plaintiffs learnt that 7th defendant some underhand dealing with 1st defendant in that regard.

Defendants 7 to 13 being necessary parties though no relief is prayed for, are added as parties to the suit.

b)The plaintiffs further submit that the sisters of 1st defendant, out of love and affection towards them orally relinquished their share for the benefit of families of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6, and they are being honoured by these brothers, according to the family tradition, 4 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 custom and might. All these years, they or their heirs ever claimed any right, title and interest over any part of the joint family properties.

c)It is further submitted that 1st defendant has been acting as manager-kartha of joint family from the time of death of father late

Ramamurty. The 1stdefendant started working as village

Headman(munsiff) of Jarajam village, upto 1978 or so, subsequently got appointed as V.A.O of Thotapalem in the year 1984, h/o.Akhinkhanpeta.

The 1st defendant got his 2nd son Nageswararao appointed as V.R.O of

Balaga village. While acting as manager-Kartha of the family, at his instance some joint family properties were sold and performed the marriage of his 2nd daughter Kumari. The 1st defendant, in such capacity clutched at cash, gold and silver of the joint family. The 1st defendant for pretty long time made the husband of 1st plaintiff to act as puppet at his hands, made him to execute sale deeds along with him, realize the proceeds and was using for his personal needs and later the said

Rajagopalarao realizing that his children(plaintiffs 2 to 5) are being put to starvation and 1st defendant is not doing out any joint family funds, raised several mediations, for partition of the joint family properties. For some time, 1st defendant was pleading that since he got four daughters and whereas the 1st plaintiff has only sons, till the marriages of all his daughters are performed, he cannot affect partition of joint family properties. The said Rajagopalarao did not agreed for such proposal and finally raised mediation through Potnuru Appalanarasayya, Potnuru

Vishnumurthy and Potnuru Sanyasirao, all residents of Lolugu village of

Ponduru mandal, in the year 1989 or so, and those mediators insisted both the brothers to deposit with them some good amounts, and when the 1st plaintiff represented that he is penniless and he cannot deposit money, 5 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 thereupon the said mediators suggested to deposit with them gold and silver of the joint family and that one among the two brothers, who does not accept their decision regarding partition, such brother’s share of gold and silver would be delivered to the brother, who accepts their verdict.

The 1st defendant dragged his feet, and refused to deliver gold on some flimsy grounds and at last agreed to deposit eight kgs of silver items like dinning plates; tumblers; etc., One of the mediators by name

Appalanarasayya mentioned above coaxed the husband of 1st plaintiff to agree for such deposit. There upon Rajagopalarao fondly believing that those mediators would finally settle the issue between them, accepted for deposit of such silver with the said Appalanarasayya, and accordingly deposited. Those mediators dragged on the matter for about a year, and then suggested 1st defendant to give to 1st plaintiff about Ac.5.00 of lands at Akhinkhanpeta village, tentatively as an adhoc arrangement, till they finally partition all the properties by metes and bounds. The 1st defendant dodged the issue for some time and apparently not to court displeasure of such mediators, though not interested, unwillingly delivered only Ac.3.00 cents of land, according to his choice and ask the plaintiff’s family to enjoy them, till a regular partition is affected. These three acres of land is also included in the plaint A schedule.

d)It is further averred that after 1st defendant assumed post of

V.A.O of Akhinkhanpeta, he managed the revenue officials and got ROR pass book and title deeds issued for equal extents in his favour and in favour of husband of 1st plaintiff, in respect of lands at Akhinkhanpeta, though such lands were originally recorded in the name of husband of 1st plaintiff and further he managed the revenue officials from issuing any

ROR pass book in respect of the lands at Akhinkhanpeta, though such 6 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 lands were originally recorded in the name of husband of 1st plaintiff and further he managed the revenue officials from issuing any ROR pass books in respect of Jarajam village. Whenever the plaintiffs tried to contact the revenue officials, in this regard, they were informing them that the 1st defendant got his objection recorded for issuing such books to the said

Rajagopalarao and that they are helpless. When these brothers were need of money, both of them, for the purpose of disposing of about Ac.14.00 cents of land at Jarajam village, and upon the influence of 1st defendant and the said purchasers, pass books were issued for such limited extent of land only and did not issue such books for the other lands, situated in that village. The 1st defendant represented during that time, that a demand was raised by Srikakulam municipality for payment of property tax, for about Rs.67,000/- for the house property of joint family and demanded the husband of 1st plaintiff to pay half of the same. The said Rajagopalarao, since not having any money, had to follow the 1st defendant and disposed of some extent of the land under registered sale deed, which was jointly executed.

e)The plaintiffs further submit that 2nd defendant, elder son of 1st defendant got employment in revenue department, developed close friendship with the son of said Potnuru Appalanarasayya by name

Satyanarayana, and made use of his rapport and silence the said

Appalanarasayya and other two mediators, from settling the dispute of partition between the brothers, all the while. The said Appalanarasayya is stated to have died in the year 2003. Since then, the plaintiffs have been taking rounds to the said surviving mediators and the said Satyanarayana, requesting them that since they failed to mediate and settle the dispute, between the brothers, to return the deposit of silver. Keeping the plaintiffs’ 7 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 claim pending, the said Satyanarayana is stated to have colluded with 1st defendant, through 2nd defendant and delivered the silver to them. This fact came to the notice of plaintiffs on 20.09.2012. When the plaintiffs posted this information to other two mediators, they pleaded their inability and asked the plaintiffs to workout their remedies. The deposited silver was secreted by 1st defendant with the connivance of his 2nd son and also secreted cash of about five lakhs in item No.3 of C schedule and whereas, the 1st defendant to silence 2nd defendant kept joint family gold ornaments weighing about 40 tolas of 22 carats in item NO.2 of C schedule, which is in his occupation. The cash, gold and silver are mentioned in E schedule.

f)The plaintiffs further submit that the 1st defendant filed suit in

O.S.182/2007 for declaration and eviction on the file of Senior Civil Judge,

Srikakulam, against the 1st plaintiff and occupants of one of the houses of the joint family situated at Kaki veedhi, which is described in schedule C schedule, and the same is deemed pending, since the plaintiffs have no notice of the result of that suit. The 1st defendant is not the absolute owner of that house property. The plaintiffs are entitled to half share and the other share to the defendants 1 to 6, being the members of joint Hindu family. Hence, the suit.

03.The 2nd defendant filed written statement, and defendants 1, 3 to 6 filed memo adopting the written statement of 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant denied the plaint allegations, admitting the relationship and submitted that on 03.11.1999 the husband of 1st plaintiff and their sons separately executed registered sale deed in favour of HNR constructions represented by Tangi Musalinaidu by selling away their land of extent of 8 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 Ac.7.52 cents in their possession and enjoyment. So also, 1st defendant and his sons executed separate registered sale deed on the same day ie., on 03.11.1999 in favour of HNR constructions represented by Tangi

Musalinaidu by selling away their land of Ac.7.22 cents in their possession and enjoyment. The respective sale deeds contain and describe the boundaries of respective lots indicating the separate lands in possession of the families of 1st plaintiff’s husband Rajagopalarao and of 1st defendant respectively.

a)The 2nd defendant further submits that O.S.182/2007 was filed by 1st defendant before Senior Civil Judge Court, Srikakulam. The 2nd defendant is the head of family of himself and his sons and daughters ie., defendants 2 to 6, whereas 1st plaintiff’s husband Rajagopalarao while he was alive was the head f family of plaintiffs. The two brothers ie., 1st defendant and 1st plaintiff’s husband Rajagopalarao separated and partitioned the then existed joint family properties, succeeded by them after the death of their father Ramamurty in or about 1990, except Ac.1.63 cents of Jarajam village which is in possession of tenants. In the partition, 1st plaintiff’s husband got about Ac.3.25 cents whereas 1st defendant got

Ac.3.14 cents of Akhinkhanpeta village. The plaintiffs intentionally shown the separate properties of 1st defendant’s family in plaint A schedule by showing wrong extents and boundaries by claiming partition. There are two separate portions bearing door numbers 4-108 and 4-109 belongs to plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 separately whereas the western portion belongs to the defendants 1 to 6 family.

b)The 2nd defendant further submits that the plaint C schedule item No.2 house property consists of three portions with back yard and out of it, the middle portion and southern portion fell to the share of 1st 9 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 defendant and so they belongs to defendants 1 to 6 exclusively got by 1st defendant in partition with that of 1st plaintiff’s husband and he got the western portion, so also item No.3 house property belongs to the 1st defendant’s family and plaint D schedule Ac.0.15 cents of land belongs to 1st defendant’s family.

c)The 2nd defendant further submits that plaint E schedule described gold, silver and cash is in possession of plaintiffs which was in possession of 1st plaintiff’s husband while he was alive and as the said property was not partitioned among the 1st defendant his brother

Rajagopalarao and as the defendants 1 to 6 are demanding their equal half share during the time of Rajagopalarao and after his death with that of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed the suit with false claim for partition of plaint A to D schedule properties and also included E schedule movables.

There is no cause of action for plaintiffs to file the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

04.The 8th defendant filed written statement denying the material allegations in the plaint and submitted that the plaintiffs themselves mentioned that defendants 7 to 13 are shown as proforma defendants and no relief is sought against the defendants. The suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. The suit is not maintainable against defendants and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

05The 9th defendant filed written statement denying the material allegations in the plaint and submitted that all the properties derived from their ancestors and 9th defendant got absolute right, title and enjoyment over the properties belongs to 9th defendant. The 9th defendant during the life time of his father and at present cultivating his lands without interruption. He never happened to cultivate tenants from the ancestors of 10 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 plaintiffs. He got absolute right over the same and got ample revenue record. At this belated stage in the lame pretext of partition among the shareholders adding is not tenable under law and prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

06.The 12th defendant filed written statement denying the material allegations in the plaint and submitted that the item NO.3 in B schedule is not joint family property of plaintiffs and it is the absolute property of 12th defendant acquired through his ancestors, for which, revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour.

The plaintiffs have no right to claim partition. The suit is not maintainable under law and prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

07.The 13th defendant filed written statement denying the material allegations in the plaint and submitted that he got the properties through his ancestors with absolute right, title and enjoyment. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 are no way concerned with the landed properties belongs to 13th defendant. He is cultivating during the life time of his father and at present he is cultivating the land without interruption from anybody. In the year 1993, his father purchased the landed property from the husband of 1st plaintiff and plaintiffs 2 to 4 and immediately he took delivery of possession and cultivating the same without any interruption or interference in S.No.136/16. The suit is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

07. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed by my predecessor, for trial.

1) Whether the properties mentioned in plaint A to D schedules are joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants?

2)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of suit schedule properties as prayed for?

11 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024

3)To what relief?

Again the following additional issues are settled.

1) Whether the partition took place between 1st defendant and his brother Rajagopalarao in the year 1990 as pleaded by the defendants?

2)Whether the plaint A schedule property is exclusive property of 1st defendant as contended by D2?

3)Whether the plaint E schedule properties movables are liable for partition?

4)To what relief?

08.To substantiate the case of plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked. On behalf of defendants, the 2nd defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B41 were marked.

09.Heard the arguments of learned plaintiffs’ counsel and learned defendants’ counsel. Written arguments filed by defendants 1 to 3.

10.ISSUES 1 & 2 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1 to 3:

The 2nd plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the plaint averments in his chief examination affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to

A17. P.W.2/Kinthali Mohanarao, co-brother-in-law of deceased Savitri filed his chief examination affidavit and cross-examination recorded by the learned advocate-commissioner. One Ippili Vasayya filed his chief examination affidavit as P.W.3 and on 01.02.2022 at the request of plaintiffs his evidence was closed. One Ippili Mohanarao was examined as

P.W.4 to support the case of plaintiffs.

11.The learned plaintiffs’ counsel submits that 1st plaintiff is the mother of plaintiffs 2 to 5, who are class-I heirs of late Baratam

Rajagopalarao and 1st defendant’s father namely Baratam Ramamurty, 12 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 who got the plaint schedule properties and other properties in and around

Srikakulam town. During the partition of ancestral properties, the said

Ramamurty got six daughters besides sons ie., Rajagopalarao and 1st defendant. The said Rajagopalarao died in the year 1975 in joint status.

The 1st defendant got four daughters ie., mother of 4th defendant, the 5th defendant marriage was performed in 1989 and 6th defendant was unmarried. The 1st defendant Rajagopalarao died in joint status. The plaintiffs 2 to 5 and defendants 1 to 6 are members of joint family in Hindu

Mitakshara. The defendants 9 to 13 are the tenants of joint family. The 7th defendant also tenant for some part of the joint family properties. The sisters of 1st defendant relinquished their share out of love and affection for the benefit of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6. The 1st defendant acted as manager of joint family after the death of late Ramamurty. The 1st defendant worked as Village Headman of Jarajam village and subsequently appointed as V.R.O. The plaintiffs raised dispute before the elders and they agreed to allot share to the plaintiff and on condition depositing the silver with the elders, but subsequently 1st defendant failed to divide the plaint schedule properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties and prays the court to pass preliminary decree.

12.The plaintiffs contended that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 and they got examined P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and marked Exs.A1 to A17. It is settled principle of law that the plea taken by the plaintiffs that plaint schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove jointness of the plaint schedule property.

Ex.A1 is the adangal pahanies issued by Tahsildar stands in the name of 13 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 Baratam Rajagopalarao and Baratam Satyanarayana to an extent of

Ac.0.04 cents situated in Thotapalem village for the years 2011-2012 and also adangal pahani shows extent of Ac.0.80 cents, Ac.0.47 cents, Ac.0.15 cents, Ac.0.09 cents and some adangal extents shown extents of Jarajam village. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of plaint filed by Baratam

Satyanarayana and Baratam Rajagopalarao and others on the file of Senior

Civil Judge, Srikakulam in O.S.No.182/2007 in respect of house bearing

D.No.12-11-12 situated in Kaki street. Ex.A3 is the original ROR pass book issued in favour of Baratam Rajagopalarao issued by revenue authorities and it covered S.Nos.35-13B, 35-24B, 36-4B, 36-RP, 36-7P, 36-9P, 36-11P, 38-3P, 30-14P, 30-35P, 25-23, 33-6_ and some other land situated at

Thotapalem as pattadar. Ex.A4 is the original ROR title deed issued in the name of Baratam Rajagopalarao for similar extents situated in

Thotapalem. Exs.A3 and A4 does not contain the issuance date. Ex.A5 is the old ryotwari original ROR pass book issued in the name of husband of plaintiff, Baratam Rajagopalarao. Ex.A6 is the registration extract of sale deed dated 20.12.1964 in respect of vacant site stands in the name of

Baratam Satyanarayana and Baratam Rajagopalarao. Ex.A7 is the registration extract of sale deed dated 22.09.1965 stands in the name of

Suryanarayana and another. Ex.A8 is the registration extract of sale deed

dated 22.09.1965 stands in the name of Appanna. Ex.A9 is the registration

extract of sale deed dated 26.03.1980 stands in the name of Panchireddi

Ramayya. Ex.A10 is the registration extract of sale deed dated 19.08.1989 executed in favour of Korada Adinarayana. Ex.A11 is the registration extract of sale deed dated 03.11.1999 issued in the name of Baratam

Suryanarayana. Ex.A12 is the registration extract of sale deed dated 29.05.2009 stands in the name of Boddepalli Srinivasarao. Ex.A13 is the 14 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 certified copy of order of land revenue tribunal, Srikakulam in LCC

No.1585/CPT/75 dated 30.12.1976 pertaining to plaintiffs’ family. The total holding of declaration of family united is Ac.21.90 cents. Ex.A14 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 03.11.1999 executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of H.N.R constructions. Ex.A15 is the certified copy of sale deed

dated 06.06.2009 executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of Tangi

Ramanamurty. Ex.A16 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 27.12.2011 executed by plaintiffs’ family in favour of 4th defendant. Ex.A17 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 03.11.1999 executed by plaintiffs 1 to 4 in favour of HNR constructions.

13.The learned defendants 1 to 3 counsel submits that the suit schedule properties shown as A to D schedule properties are not the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs are not entitled to seek partition of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs further fails to discharge legal burden to prove that the suit schedule properties are belongs to plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. There is no evidence on record to show that the suit schedule properties belongs to plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. The gold property shown in the schedule are in the custody of plaintiff. The documents marked through P.W.1 are no way relates to the suit schedule property and the suit properties divided long back among the plaintiffs’ family and defendants’ family. The learned defendants 1 to 3 further submits that the revenue authorities recognized their exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and issued separate pattadar pass book and title deeds to the respective families.

D.W.1 marked Exs.B1 to B41 and adduced rebuttal evidence. P.W.1 got marked Exs.A1 to A17 documents are no way concerned to show the joint family.

15 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 14.P.W.1 clearly admitted in his cross-examination that ‘it is true

P.W.1, father and brother never partitioned the properties and the same was referred in the recitals in document dated 03.11.1999. P.W.1 further admitted that they have jointly sold the property to HNR constructions.

P.W.1 further admitted that on 03.11.1999 the sons of defendants 1 and 2 and their family members sold the property HNR constructions on the same day under document No.1940/1999. So, P.W.1 admission is made it clear that plaintiffs’ family and defendants 1 to 6 family sold the properties to the HNR constructions by way of separate sale deeds. The 2nd defendant filed written statement and same was adopted by defendants 1, 3 to 6. In para No.12, they claimed that on 03.11.1999 the husband of 1st plaintiff and their sons separately executed registered sale deeds in favour of HNR constructions and so also 1st defendant and his sons executed separate sale deeds on the same day ie., on 03.11.1999. The plea of the defendants in the written sstatement is accepted by P.W.1 during the course of his cross-examination. In para No.14 of the same written statement, the defendants further contended that the two brothers ie., 1st defendant and 1st plaintiff’s husband Rajagopalarao separated and partitioned the then existed joint family properties succeeded by them after the death of their father Ramamurty in or about 1990 except Ac.1.63 cents of Jarajam village which is in possession of tenants. During the said partition, 1st plaintiff’s husband got about Ac.3.25 cents whereas 1st defendant got Ac.3.14 cents.

P.W.1 further admitted that P.W.1 and plaintiffs 3 to 5 are joint in properties, but residing separately and P.W.1’s father died in the year 2014. He know the contest of defendants 1 to 6 in their written statement.

P.W.1 further admitted that during the life time of his father, he did not issue legal notice to the defendants demanding partition of plaint schedule 16 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 property, so also during the life time of his mother. P.W.1 further admitted that he did not issue legal notice to the defendants prior to the filing of the suit seeking partition of the plaint schedule property. P.W.1 further admitted that his father’s sister never executed any relinquishment deed in respect of plaint schedule property. P.W.1 further admitted that his father or mother did not submit any petition before the revenue authorities for cancellation of Exs.A3 to A5. There is no documentary proof to show that elders advised his father and 1st defendant to deposit gold, silver and cash for settlement of dispute as security. P.W.1 further admitted that as per the advise of elders, Ac.3.00 of land allotted to his father out of

Ac.5.00 at the initial terms of compromise. P.W.1 further admitted that pattadar pass book and title deed issued to 1st defendant in respect of similar survey numbers shown in the pattadar pass book and title deed issued in the name of P.W.1’s father. P.W.1 admission is made it clear that revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of

P.W.1’s father and 1st defendant separately in respect of same survey numbers and it can be safely presumed that the partition affected between Baratam Rajagopalarao and Baratam Satyanarayana.

15.The learned plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the court marked the certified copy of order of Land Revenue Tribunal, Srikakulam in LCC

No.1110/CPT/75, dated 07.04.1976. The defendants counsel took objection for marking the said copy as Ex.A4 on the ground that the same is

Photostat copy. The plaintiffs’ counsel submitted that once document is marked, it cannot rejected. As per the proviso under Order 13 Rule 3 C.P.C, the court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection. The court observed the said document is Photostat and the 17 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 same is rejected. P.W.1 further admitted that in Exs.A14 and A17 boundaries, there are no mentioned that Baratam Rajagopalarao and

Baratam Satyanarayana got lands jointly.

16.The 2nd defendant filed separate written statement and denied the plaint averments. The memo filed by defendants 1 to 3 and 6 adopted written statement of 2nd defendant. The 8th and 9th defendants filed separate written statements and defendants 12 and 13 filed separate written statements. The plaintiffs have shown defendants 7 to 13 as proforma defendants.

17.The learned Advocate-commissioner recorded the cross- examination of P.W.2, who is the co-brother-in-law of deceased Savitri. He deposed that the plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties of both parties and he is elder of plaint schedule properties dispute. P.W.2 clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the 2nd plaintiff did not show plaint schedule properties to him prior to filing of his chief examination affidavit. He cannot say the lands are situated in which village and he cannot say the plaint schedule items. The plaintiffs have filed the suit in respect of lands and houses. P.W.2 further admitted that plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the land in their cultivation. P.W.2 name was not mentioned in the plaint averments to show that he acted as elder and demanded partition. P.W.2 clearly admitted that he do not know where the lands situated and how many items it contains. P.W.3 filed his chief examination affidavit, but he did not turn up for cross-examination and plaintiffs filed memo to close his evidence and accordingly P.W.3 evidence is closed. So, P.W.3 chief examination affidavit cannot be looked into as the same is not tested for cross-examination. P.W.4, who is the son-in-law of late Baratam Rajagopalarao and brother-in-law of 2nd plaintiff. He deposed 18 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 that plaint schedule properties are joint family properties of both parties.

He know that the plaintiffs demands their share and P.W.2 participated along with other elders at the time of dispute. P.W.4 clearly admitted in his cross-examination that at the request of 2nd plaintiff, he came to court and 2nd plaintiff gave instructions to prepare his chief examination affidavit.

P.W.4 further deposed that he has not seen the revenue record and the 2nd plaintiff did not shown record to him. P.W.4 further admitted that after the death of Rajagopalarao, his sons are residing separately ie., plaintiffs 2 to

5. P.W.4 further admitted that after the death of Satyanarayana, his sons are residing separately ie., defendants 2 to 6. P.W.4 further admitted that revenue authorities issued separate pattadar pass books and title deeds to

Satyanarayana and Rajagopalarao. Satyanarayana owns three house properties in Kaki veedhi and three house properties in Gaju veedhi. P.Ws.2 and 4 evidence is no way helpful to prove that suit properties are joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6. P.W.4 clearly admitted that 2nd plaintiff gave instructions and got prepared his chief examination affidavit and he has no personal knowledge.

18.The defendants filed their separate written statements and defendants 1 to 6 contended that the suit schedule properties are not the joint family property and orally separated in the year 1990. On behalf of the defendants, 2nd defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and he reiterated the written statement allegations and marked Exs.B1 to B41 to support their contentions. Exs.B1 to B3 are the water tax receipts issued by Srikakulam municipality stands in the name of Baratam

Satyanarayana(D.1) for the years 2006 to 2009. Ex.B1 receipt dated 01.04.2008, Ex.B2 receipt dated 01.10.2008 and Ex.B3 receipt dated 16.07.2016. Ex.B4 is the certified copy of caveat petition No.72/2006 19 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 along with schedule filed by 1st defendant on the file of Prl.Senior Civil

Judge, Srikakulam against Rajagopalarao wherein it was mentioned that

the petitioner is having house property and landed property and enjoying the same independently. The schedule shows item No.1 house situated in

Butchayyapeta and Items 2 to 4 lands situated in Jarajam village. Ex.B5 is the land revenue receipts 5 in number stands in the name of 1st defendant for the years 07.8.1987, 02.04.1997, 02.02.1994, 21.02.1990 and 20.03.2080. The 1st defendant paid the land revenue to the Government exclusively prior to filing of the suit. Ex.B6 is the title deed issued in favour of 1st defendant and M.R.O issued it in respect of lands in different survey numbers. Ex.B7 is the property tax demand notice issued in favour of 1st defendant in respect of house situated in Kaki veedhi dated 05.02.2004.

Ex.B8 is the house tax receipts two in number in favour of 1st defendant for the period of 01.04.2021 and 31.03.2021 and 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2020.

Exs.B9 to B20 are the payment of property tax, house tax and water tax receipts issued in favour of 1st defendant for different periods. Exs.B21 to

B35 are the representation submitted by 1st defendant to the municipal commissioner showing the payment of house tax by way of cheque.

Ex.B36 is the original registered sale deed dated 30.04.1960 executed by

Jarugulla Rajappadu and his sons in favour of 1st defendant in respect of

Ac.2.00 situated in Jarajam village. Ex.B37 is the original registered sale deed dated 15.11.1966 executed by Thotapalli Ramarao and others in favour of 1st defendant in respect of Ac.1.00 of land situated in Jarajam village. Ex.B38 is the original registered sale deed dated 06.01.1979 executed by Gudivada Apparao and others in favour of 1st defendant in respect of 18 cents of Jarajam village. Exs.B39 to B41 are the property tax receipts and water tax receipts issued in the name of 1st defendant.

20 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 19.The original registered sale deeds, water tax receipts and property tax receipts obtained in the name of 1st defendant. The documentary evidence clinchingly shows that 1st defendant is enjoying the property exclusively. The contention of defendants 1 to 6 that there is no joint status in between both parties and oral partition effected in the year 1990 itself. The revenue authorities recognized their possession and enjoyment and issued separate pattadar pass books and title deeds and the same is admitted by P.Ws.1,2 and 4. The documentary evidence clearly shows the plaintiff’s family executed separate registered sale deeds in favour of HNR constructions, so also the defendants’ family executed separate registered sale deeds in favour of HNR constructions.

D.W.1 clearly deposed in the cross-examination that he do not remember whether his father submitted in writing about the partition effected in between them or not. D.W.1 further admitted that his father was alive as on the date of filing of his written statement. It is true D.W.1’s family members executed a document No.1940/99. It is true his father received cheque for Rs.67,800/- towards sale consideration mentioned in the document No.1938/99. He do not remember document No.1938 whether the property was kept joint and executed document. It is trued on 29.05.2009 they have jointly executed a sale deed in favour of Boddepalli

Srinivasarao. D.W.1 further admitted that his father and husband of 1st plaintiff lived together in the same roof till 1983. So, the contest of the defendants both families separated in the year 1990. They have not taken any steps for partition of movables ie., gold and cash. The defendants 1 to 6 contended that the movables are not in joint possession and there is no documentary proof to show that both families kept the movables in joint.

The defendants cannot demand the partition of movables. The plaintiff’s 21 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 counsel suggested to D.W.1 that defendants 1 to 6 and defendants 9 to 13 are colluded and same was denied. The other defendants have not chosen to adduce oral or documentary evidence.

20. As per the decision reported in 2020(2) ALD at page

183(SC) in between Sri Pratap Singh (dead) through LRs and

others vs. Shivaram (dead) through LRs, the Hon’ble Apex court held that “Presumption of revenue records. Presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted if such entry was made fraudulently and surreptitiously.”

The above principle of law is clearly applicable to the present suit facts on hand. The defendants 1 to 6 pleaded specifically through written statement that oral partition effected in 1990 and got marked revenue record, municipal corporation record to show that 1st defendant is in exclusive possession of the respective properties. P.W.1 also clearly admitted in his cross-examination that separate pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of Baratam Rajagopalarao and Baratam

Satyanarayana. There is no rebuttal evidence accused by the plaintiffs to prove that the documents marked through D.W.1 are crated or fabricated.

21As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court reported in AIR

1954(SC) at page 379 in between Srinivas Krishnarao Kango vs.

Narayan Devji Kango and others, “It is settled law that proof of existence of a joint family does not lead to a presumption that property held by any member of the family is joint.”

The above principle of law is clearly applicable to the present suit facts on hand. The burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove that suit 22 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 schedule properties are the joint family properties of Baratam

Satyanarayana and Baratam Rajagopalarao. In the absence of satisfactory evidence on record, court cannot presume suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6.

22.On careful scrutiny of P.Ws.1,2 and 4 oral evidence and documentary evidence of Exs.A1 to A17 and D.W.1 oral evidence and documentary evidence of Exs.B1 to B41, plaintiffs have failed to discharge their burden to prove the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of Baratam Satyanarayana and Baratam Rajagopalarao and they are entitled for partition of the plaint schedule properties as prayed for.

23.D.W.1 oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence clinchingly shows oral partition took place in the year 1990 and satisfactorily proved that plaint A schedule land exclusive property of 1st defendant. The defendants are not entitled to divide the plaint E schedule movables as contended by them and there is no evidence adduced by plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further fails to prove that plaint A to D schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants.

Therefore, these issues are answered accordingly.

24.In view of my answers to issues 1 and 2 and additional issues 1 to 3 the suit is liable to be dismissed.

25.In the result, the suit is dismissed. But in the circumstances, no costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-P.Bhaskararao

Judge, Family Court­cum­

III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

23 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024

Appendix of evidence

 Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW1 : Baratam Jagadeswararao. DW1: B.Venkata Ramanamurty.

PW2 : K.Mohanarao.

PW3 : I.Vasayya.

PW4 : Ippili Mohanarao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 : True copies of pahanies (26 in number).

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of plaint in O.S.182/2007.

Ex.A3: Original ROR book issued by MRO, Etcherla in favour of husband of 1st plaintiff.

Ex.A4 : Original ROR title deed issued by MRO, Etcherla.

Ex.A5: Original ROR old pass book issued in favour of husband of 1st plaintiff.

Ex.A6:Registration extract of sale deed dated 20.12.1964.

Ex.A7:Registration extract of sale deed dated 22.09.1965.

Ex.A8:Registration extract of sale deed dated 22.09.1965.

Ex.A9: Registration extract of sale deed dated 26.03.1980.

Ex.A10:Registration extract of sale deed dated 19.08.1989.

Ex.A11:Registration extract of sale deed dated 03.11.1999.

Ex.A12:Registration extract of sale deed dated 29.05.2009.

Ex.A13: Certified copy of order of Land Revenue Tribunal, Srikakulam in LCC No.1585/CPT/75, dt.30.12.1976 pertaining to plaintiffs’ family.

Ex.A14: Certified copy of sale deed dt.03.11.1999 executed by defendants 1 to 7 in favour of HNR constructions.

Ex.A15:Certified copy of sale deed dated 06.06.2009 executed by D.1 to D.3 in favour of Tangi Ramanamurty.

Ex.A16:Certified copy of sale deed dated 27.12.2011 executed by plaintiffs’ family in favour of D.4.

Ex.A17:Certified copy of sale deed dated 03.11.1999 executed by plaintiffs 1 to 4 in favour of HNR constructions.

24 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 For Defendants:

Ex.B1: Water charges demand notice dt.01.04.2008 issued by Srikakulam municipality to D.1 for the first half of 2008-09.

Ex.B2: Water charges demand notice dt.01.10.2008 issued by Srikakulam municipality to D.1 for the second half of 2008-09.

Ex.B3:Water charges demand notice dt.16.07.2016 issued by Srikakulam municipality to D.1.

Ex.B4: Certified copy of COP.72/2006 along with schedules filed by 1st defendant before Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

Ex.B5:Land revenue receipts(5 in number) dt.07.08.1987, 02.04.1997 for faslies 1394&1406, 02.02.1994 for Faslies 1396&1400, 21.02.1990 for fasli 1395, 1996& 1997, 20.03.1980 for faslies 1388 & 1389 issued by VRO, Thotapalem in favour of 1st defendant for Thotapalem lands.

Ex.B6:Title deed pass book bearing patta No.263 issued by MRO, Etcherla, countersigned by RDO, Srikakulam in favourof 1st defendant of Thotapalem lands.

Ex.B7: Property tax demand notice dt.05.07.2004 issued by Srikakulam municipality in favour of 1st defendant for assessment No.1085006172 of Kaki veedhi.

Ex.B8:House tax payment receipts (2 in number) dt.28.04.2020 & 22.04.2019 issued by Srikakulam municipal corporation in respect of assessment No.1085006172 paid for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 and 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2020 respectively.

Ex.B9:Property tax payment receipts (6 in number) dt.24.02.2015, 07.07.2014, 27.12.2023, 24.08.2011, 31.12.2004 & 31.12.2004 paid by 1stdefendant for assessment Nos.10850000400662, 10850000381675, 10850000364095, 3085367909, 1085006172 & 1085006172 respectively relating to houses at Kaki street.

Ex.B10:Water charges payment receipt dt.28.04.2020 issued by Srikakulam municipal corporation in favour of 1st defendant for the house situated at Kaki veedhi.

Ex.B11:Water charges payment receipt dt.17.01.1997 (2 in number) issued by Srikakulam municipal corporation in favour of 1st defendant for the house assessment No.1044 bearing Door No.12-11-14.

Ex.B12:Property tax demand notices (15 in number) dt.11.11.2024, 03.05.2014, 06.11.2013, 27.05.2013, 05.11.2012, 07.07.2012, 14.01.2012, 11.07.2012, 09.10.2010, 28.05.2010, 13.10.2009, 15.04.2009, 14.05.2008, 15.10.2006 & 09.11.2007 issued by Srikakulam municipal corporation in favour of 1st defendant with respect to house situated at Kaki veedhi.

25 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 Ex.B13:Tax payment receipt dt.14.04.2023 for assessment No.1085000358 & on the reverse side dt.14.04.2023 for assessment No.1085005288 issued by Srikakulam municipal corporation in favour of 1st defendant.

Ex.B14:Tax payment receipt dt.12.04.2022 for assessment No.1085000358 & on the reverse side dt.12.04.2022 for assessment No.1085005288 issued by Srikakulam municipal corporation in favour of 1st defendant.

Ex.B15:Tax payment receipt dt.18.04.2020 for assessment No.1085005288 & on the reverse side dt.18.04.2020 for assessment No.1085000358 issued by Srikakulam municipal corporation in favour of 1st defendant.

Ex.B16:Tax payment receipt dt.26.03.2022 for assessment No.1085005288 issued by Srikakulam municipal corporation in favour of 1st defendant.

Ex.B17:Tax payment receipt dt.19.04.2021 for assessment No.1085005288 issued by Srikakulam municipal corporation in favour of 1st defendant.

Ex.B18:Property tax payment receipts (15 in number) relating to assessment No.1085005288 dt.25.06.2020, 10.06.2019, 12.06.2017 date illegible bearing No.OPRD714/0/1, date illegible bearing No.OPRD461/6/1, 31.12.2016, 25.06.2015, 30.12.2014, 07.07.2014, 27.12.2013, 30.07.2013, 11.01.2013, 28.09.2007, 29.03.2007 and 31.03.2006 for assessment No. 1085005288 of Batchayyapeta house issued by Srikakulam municipal corporation in favour of 1st defendant.

Ex.B19:Property tax payment receipts (20 in number) relating to assessment No.1085005288 dt.26.04.2016, 17.10.2015, 20.05.2015, 30.11.2014, 03.05.2014, 27.05.2013, 05.11.2012, 07.07.2012, 14.01.2012, 11.07.2011, 09.10.2010, 28.05.2010, 13.10.2009, 15.04.2009,15.10.2008, 14.05.2008, 09.11.2007, 10.07.2007, 23.10.2006 & 03.06.2006 for assessment No. 1085005288 of Batchayyapeta house issued by Srikakulam municipal corporation in favour of 1st defendant.

Ex.B20:Property tax payment receipts (5 in number) relating to assessment No.1085005288 dt.13.04.2022, 09.04.2021, 03.04.2020, 13.04.2019 and 23.04.2017 for assessment No. 1085005288 of Batchayyapeta house issued by Srikakulam municipal corporation in favour of 1st defendant.

Ex.B21:Representation dt.26.12.2012 by 1st defendant to Srikakulam municipal corporation for payment of house tax for assessment No.1085005288 of Batchayyapeta house, received

dated 27.12.2012 along with Photostat copy of cheque bearing

No.292499 issued by 1stdefendant in his A/c No.356022026822.

Ex.B22:Representation dt.25.08.2011 by 1st defendant to Srikakulam municipal corporation for payment of house tax for 26 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 assessment No.1085005288 of Batchayyapeta house, received

dated 27.12.2012 along with Photostat copy of cheque bearing

No.287260 issued by 1stdefendant in his A/c No.356022026822.

Ex.B23:Office copy of representation dt.24.12.2014 by 1st defendant regarding payment of house taxes remittance for assessment No.1085005288 of Batchayyapeta and assessment No.1085006172 of Kaki veedhi houses through cheque bearig NOs.472099 and 472100 received dt.24.12.2014 by Srikakulam municipality.

Ex.B24:Office copy of representation dt.Nil by 1st defendant regarding payment of house taxes remittance for assessment No.1085005288 of Batchayyapeta and assessment No.1085006172 of Kaki veedhi houses through cheque bearing NOs.472097 and 472098 received dt.24.07.2014 by Srikakulam municipality.

Ex.B25:Office copy of representation dt.18.12.2013 by 1st defendant regarding payment of house taxes remittance for assessment No.1085005288 of Batchayyapeta and assessment No.1085006172 of Kaki veedhi houses through cheque bearig NOs.472095 and 472093 received dt.18.12.2013 by Srikakulam municipality.

Ex.B26:Office copy of representation dt.25.07.2013 by 1st defendant regarding payment of house taxes remittance for assessment No.1085005288 of Batchayyapeta and assessment No.1085006172 of Kaki veedhi houses through cheque bearig NOs.472091 and credit voucher dt.25.07.2013 received dt.25.07.2013 by Srikakulam municipality.

Ex.B27:Office copy of representation dt.Nil by 1st defendant regarding payment of house taxes remittance for assessment No.1085005288 of Batchayyapeta and assessment No.1085006172 of Kaki veedhi houses through cheque bearing NOs.292496 and 292497 received dt.30.08.2012 by Srikakulam municipality.

Ex.B28:Office copy of representation dt.Nil by 1st defendant regarding payment of house taxes remittance for assessment No.1085005288 of Batchayyapeta and assessment No.1085006172 of Kaki veedhi houses through cheque bearing NOs.292494 and 292493 received dt.27.02.2012 by Srikakulam municipality.

Ex.B29:Office copy of representation dt.Nil by 1st defendant regarding payment of house taxes remittance for assessment No.1085005288 of Batchayyapeta and assessment No.1085006172 of Kaki veedhi houses through cheque bearing NOs.287258 and 287257 received dt.23.11.2010 by Srikakulam municipality.

Ex.B30:Office copy of representation dt.Nil by 1st defendant regarding payment of house taxes remittance for assessment 27 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 No.1085005288 of Batchayyapeta and assessment No.1085006172 of Kaki veedhi houses through cheque bearing NOs.287253 and 287252 received dt.20.07.2010 by Srikakulam municipality.

Ex.B31:Office copy of representation dt.Nil by 1st defendant regarding payment of house taxes remittance for assessment No.1085005288 of Batchayyapeta and assessment No.1085006172 of Kaki veedhi houses through cheque bearing NOs.757266 and 757265 received dt.30.11.2009 by Srikakulam municipality.

Ex.B32:Office copy of representation dt.Nil by 1st defendant regarding payment of house taxes remittance for assessment No.1085005288 of Batchayyapeta and assessment No.1085006172 of Kaki veedhi houses through cheque bearing NOs.757263 and 757262 received dt.25.05.2009 by Srikakulam municipality.

Ex.B33:Office copy of representation dt.Nil by 1st defendant regarding payment of house taxes remittance for assessment No.1085005288 of Batchayyapeta and assessment No.1085006172 of Kaki veedhi houses through cheque bearing NOs.041543 and 041544, received dt.24.11.2008 by Srikakulam municipality.

Ex.B34:Office copy of representation sent by registered post dt.26.06.2008 by the 1st defendant regarding payment of house taxes remittance for assessment No.1085005288 of Batchayyapeta and assessment No.1085006172 of Kaki veedhi houses through cheque bearing NOs.038936 and 038937 to Srikakulam municipality.

Ex.B35:Office copy of representation sent by registered post dt.24.12.2007 by the 1st defendant regarding payment of house taxes remittance for assessment No.1085005288 of Batchayyapeta and assessment No.1085006172 of Kaki veedhi houses through pay order bearing Nos.890749 and 890748 to Srikakulam municipality.

Ex.B36:Original registered sale deed dt.30.04.1960 executed by Jarugulla Rajappadu and his minor son in favour of 1st defendant in respect of Ac.2.00 of land situated in Jarajam village.

Ex.B37:Original registered sale deed dt.15.11.1966 executed by Thotapalli Ramayya and others in favour of 1st defendant in respect of Ac.1.00 of land in old S.No.145 situated in Jarajam village.

Ex.B38:Original registered sale deed dt.06.01.1979 executed by Gudivada Appayya and others in favour of 1st defendant in respect of Ac.0.18 of land bearing old S.No.134/11p of Jarajam village.

28 Family Court O.S. No.18/2017 dt.28.10.2024 Ex.B39:Property tax payment receipts (3 in number) relating to assessment No.1566 of Batchayyapeta house dt.31.03.2003, 30.09.2002 and 29.11.2003 issued by Srikakulam municipal corporation in favour of 1st defendant.

Ex.B40:Property tax payment receipts (2 in number) relating to assessment No.7309 of Batchayyapeta house dt.07.03.1977 and 31.03.1977 issued by Srikakulam municipal corporation in favour of 1st defendant.

Ex.B41:Water tax payment receipts (14 in number) dated 19.04.2021, 10.06.2019, 12.06.2017, 10.12.2016, 22.01.2009, 25.09.2008, 31.03.2007, 30.09.2005, 31.03.2006, 01.04.2006, 01.10.2004, dt. Nil OPRD 776/6/1, 31.03.2003, 06.04.2002 of Batchayyapeta house, relating to house assessment No.1085000358 issued by Srikakulam municipal corporation in favour of 1st defendant.

Sd/-P.Bhaskararao

Judge, Family Court­cum­

III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

IN THE COURT VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE-AT, SOMPETA

FAC : JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM

Present: SRI P.BHASKAR RAO,

Judge, Family Court-cum- III Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Srikakulam (FAC) VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam

FRIDAY, THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF MAY, 2024

SESSIONS CASE No.13/2022

(Crime No.226/2020 of Hiramandalam Police Station)

Between: -

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Sub Divisional Police Officer,Palakonda .

... Complainant.

And:

01. Boyiti Tirupathi Rao, son of late Pothayya, aged about 24 years, Tampa village, Hiramandalam mandal (A1)

02. Boyiti Minamma wife of late Pothayya, 56 years, Tampa village, Hiramandalam mandal (A2) Srikakulam district. …Accused Prosecution conducted by: Sri K.Venkateswara Rao,

Additional Public Prosecutor,

Srikakulam.

Accused are defended by: Sri K.Govardhana Rao Advocate for Accused, Srikakulam.

Offence: U/Sections 304-B, 498A read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of JudgeNOT GUILTY : For the offences punishable under Secs.3 and 4 of

D.P. Act.

GUILTY : for the offences punishable under Secs.304-B, 498A read with Sec.34 of IPC.

Sentence/order:

IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Secs 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 2 Dt. 17.05.2024

and that accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

But the accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offences punishable under secs.498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code and hence they are convicted under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

The accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo

imprisonment seven (7) years each for the offence punishable

under Sec.304-B of Indian Penal Code.

The accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one (1) year each and shall also pay

a fine of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred only) each in default of

payment of fine, accused Nos.1 and 2 shall suffer simple

imprisonment for a period of seven (07) days each for the offence

punishable under Sec.498A of Indian Penal Code.

Both sentences shall run concurrently.

The remand period undergone by accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e.,

for the period from 28.06.2020 to 18.07.2020 i.e., 21 days shall be

given set off under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

MO1 to MO6 ( non-valuable items) shall be destroyed after

expiry of appeal time.

Accused No.1 and 2 are informed that they have right to prefer appeal

before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi and also

further informed that they are entitled for legal aid to prefer the appeal under provisions of A.P. State Legal Authority Act.

Free copy of Judgment is furnished to accused No.1and 2.

This Sessions Case coming on 14.05.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the complainant/State and of Sri K.Govardhana Rao,

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 3 Dt. 17.05.2024

Advocate for Accused Nos.1 and 2, and the matter is having been stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub Divisional Police officer, Palakonda, filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.226/2020 under sections 304(B), 498A read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act against the accused, alleging that ;

PW1/Pentla Raju is the defacto complainant herein and father of Arthi @ Harathi (herein after referred as “deceased”), lodged a report with the police stating that, the marriage of deceased was performed with

A1 on 05.10.2019 in the presence of caste elders and at that time, they have given an amount of Rs.80,000/- as dowry and other sare samanulu and the said marriage is a love marriage. The accused No.2 is mother of

A1, did not accept the said marriage. Due to which, A2 instigated the A1 to harass the deceased from the date of marriage. Accordingly, A1 and A2 harassed the deceased both mentally and physically by demanding

additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. When the deceased informed the same to

PW1, PW2/Pentla Chinnammi, mother of deceased, on that PW1 and PW2 informed the same to the village elders, who in turn convened a meeting, in the said meeting the elders admonished the deceased and pacified the matter. A1 lead conjugal life with deceased for few days amicably, and later A1 and A2 both started harassing the deceased physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry for Rs.50,000/-.

a) On 25.06.2020 at morning hours, A1 heard the words of A2 and raised a dispute with the deceased, on that A1 abused the deceased in foul and filthy language and knocked her to ground, meanwhile, A2 joined with A1 and abused the deceased in foul and filthy language. On 25.06.2020 at about 8 a.m. due to the continuous harassment of the

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 4 Dt. 17.05.2024

accused, the deceased decided to put an end to her life and poured kerosene over her body and lit fire and burned, but neither A1 nor A2 did not rescue the deceased, due to flames. Subsequently, the deceased was shifted to Community health Center, Pathapatnam and later she was referred to RIMS hospital, Srikakulam and from there to K.G.H.,

Visakhapatnam and meanwhile, she died with burn injuries.

b)PW14/Dr.P.Eswara Rao, Medical officer, Community Health Center,

Pathapatnam rendered treatment to the deceased and he informed the said fact to Pathapatnam police station. On receipt of medical intimation,

PW18/K.Govinda Rao, the then Sub Inspector of police, Hiramandalam police station rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of deceased and the PW14 endorsed on the statement that the patient is coherent and conscious at the time of recording her statement. Basing on the said statement of deceased, PW18/Sub Inspector of police, registered a case in Cr.No.226/2020 under Secs.498A, 306 read with Sec.511, and

Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A1 and A2. PW18 later submitted a requisition to the learned

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kotabommali who was placed in charge of

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Pathapatnam to record the dying declaration.

PW18 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

c) PW16/K.Prakash Babu, Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kotabommali visited the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of declarant/deceased and the Doctor/PW14 endorsed on the dying declaration that, the patient is conscious and coherent at the time of recording her dying declaration.

d) Basing on the report of PW1, PW18 altered the section of law into

Sec.498A, 304B read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and Secs.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act against both the accused and issued altered first

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 5 Dt. 17.05.2024

information report. PW17/ G.Suresh, the then Mandal Executive

Magistrate conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the

presence of inquestdars. PW11/Padala Rajababu, the then Village

Revenue Officer, present at the time of scene observation report and recording of confessional statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 and seizure of material objects. PW19/P.Raraja Prasad, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, arrested the A1 and A2 and sent them to court for remand. After completion of investigation, PW19 filed charge sheet against the accused

Nos.1 and 2.

02.The learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Pathapatnam assigned P.R.C.No.02/2021 and taken cognizance of the offences 304B read with Sec.302 read with 34 and Sec.3 and 4 of Indian Penal Code against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 and after following the due procedure laid down under Sec.209 Cr.P.C. he has submitted the entire committal record to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, at Srikakulam. The Hon’ble

Sessions Court, Srikakulam after assigning Sessions case No.13/2022

made over to this court for disposal according to law. After appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2 before this court, copies of case documents were furnished to them.

03. Having heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 and 2 and on considering the material on record, Charge under Sections 304-B, 498A read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against both the accused Nos.1 and 2, the said charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and Exs.P1 to P22 and MOs 1 to 6 marked.

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 6 Dt. 17.05.2024

05.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined as per Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against them, but they denied the same. Accused filed memo reporting no defence on their behalf.

06.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel.

07.Now, the point that arose for determination is;

1) Whether the prosecution proved the ingredients under sections 304-B, 498A read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused Nos.1 and 2, beyond reasonable doubt?

08.POINTs 1 & 2:

The defacto-complainant/Pentla Raju is no other than the father and Pentla Chinnammi, mother of deceased were examined as PW1 and PW2 and got marked Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 as Ex.P1.

Gantya Shiva, brother by courtesy was examined as PW3 and got marked

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P2. Boyiti Jyothi, elder sister of deceased/

Arthi was examined as PW4 and got marked her Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statement as Ex.P3. Gantyada Praveen, cousin brother of deceased was examined as PW5 and got marked his Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P4.

Boyitha Murali, Dandasi Anand, Dola Appalanaidu, Pentla Appadu, Mamidi

Chinnababu were examined as PW6 to PW10 and got marked their

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements as Ex.P5 to Ex.P9.

Padala Rajubabu, the then Village Revenue Officer and one of the mediators for the scene observation report and seizure mahazarnama was examined as PW11 and got marked Ex.P10, Ex.P11 and MO1 to MO6.

Guluvindala Adinarayana and Yabaji Ramesh, inquestdars were examined as PW12 and PW13. The Doctor Pradaga Eswara Rao, Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Community health Center, Pathapatnam, who gave treatment to the deceased was examined as PW14 and got marked Ex.P12 to Ex.P14.

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 7 Dt. 17.05.2024

Dr. P.Ramakrishna, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased was examined as PW15 and got marked Ex.P15. K.Prakash, the then learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kotabommali – full additional charge of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Pathapatnam who recorded the dying declaration of deceased was examined as PW16 and got marked

Ex.P16. Gara Suresh, the then Tahsildar who conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased was examined as PW17. K.Govinda Rao, the then

Sub Inspector of police, Hiramandalam is the investigation officer who recorded the statement of deceased and registered the first information report and later altered the section of law and issued another first information report basing on the report of PW1 was examined as PW18 and got marked Ex.P18 to Ex.P21. P. Raraju Prasad, the then Deputy

Superintendent of Police, who conducted further investigation in this case was examined as PW19 and marked Ex.P22.

09.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, Accused

No.1 is the husband and Accused No.2 is the mother-in-law of deceased/Arthi @ Harathi. The marriage of the deceased was performed with A1 on 05.10.2019. Both the accused used to harass the deceased both mentally and physically for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-, though the parents of deceased gave an amount of Rs.80,000/- to the accused towards dowry at the time of her marriage with A1.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that, due to the unbearable harassment, the deceased poured kerosene over her body and lit fire and died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and that the accused No.1 and 2 thereby committed the offences punishable under Sec.304-B, 498A read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and Secs.3 and 4of Dowry Prohibition Act

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 8 Dt. 17.05.2024

and hence, both the accused are liable to be punished for the charges levelled against them.

10.Per contra, the learned defence counsel submits that, PW1 to

PW10 did not state anything about the involvement of accused, except marked their Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements. The prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Sec.498A and Sec.304-B read with Sec.34 of

Indian Penal Code and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kotabommali did not follow the procedure while recording the dying declaration of the deceased. There is no direct evidence on record, to prove the charges against the accused. The investigation officers failed to examine the material witnesses and hence it is not safe to rely upon the official witnesses and that the accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt and thereby they are entitled for acquittal.

11. On receipt of medical intimation from the community health center, PW18/Sub Inspector of police rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of deceased/Arthi. The deceased stated in her statement that, her marriage was performed with A1. At the time of marriage, her parents gave dowry of Rs.80,000/- and other sare samans to accused. She further stated that her mother-in-law/A2 and A1 used to demand

additional dowry. On 24.06.2020 her husband/A1 came to the house, by

that time, she was sleeping. Her husband/A1 served food for himself and had his meal and later she placed all the utensils in the kitchen sink. In the evening hours, A2 picked up a quarrel with her stating that the deceased treated her as servant maid and that A2 cleaned the vessels which were kept in the kitchen. A2 argued with the deceased stating that as she cleaned the vessels inspite of deceased. Both the accused abused the deceased in foul and filthy language. A1 beat her in the present of her

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 9 Dt. 17.05.2024

father and her father pacified the issue. Accused demanded her to get

additional dowry and harassed her both mentally and physically.

The deceased further stated that, due to the unbearable harassment, she poured kerosene over her body and lit fire, by that time,

A1 and A2 were present there, but they did not even try to prevent her from flames. She further stated that, A1 and A2 instigated her to commit suicide.

Basing on the said statement of deceased which was marked as

Ex.P17, PW18/Sub Inspector of police, registered a case in Cr.No.226/2020 under Secs.498A, 306 read with Sec.511 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and

Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 25.06.2020 at 11 a.m. The

Doctor/PW14, endorsed on Ex.P17/statement that, the patient/deceased is conscious and coherent at the time of recording her statement.

Endorsement of Doctor on Ex.P17 is marked as Ex.P12. PW14/Doctor put his signature and affixed his seal on Ex.P17. The statement of deceased contains the signature of deceased. Ex.P18/First information report contains the names of A1 and A2 and the altered first information report is marked as Ex.P21.

12.Ex.P17/statement of deceased clearly show that both the accused harassed her both physically and mentally and demanded her to bring additional dowry. PW1 is no other than the father of deceased witnessed the accused No.1 beating the deceased in his presence, but

PW1 did not state anything against A1 and A2 for the alleged demand of dowry.

13.Before going to discuss the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is just and proper to extract the provision of law for better adjudication of the case

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 10 Dt. 17.05.2024

Sec. 498-A of IPC: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the

husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be

punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three

(3) years and shall also be liable to fine.

Sec.304-B of IPC: Dowry death:

(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or

bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal

circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown

that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or

harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or

in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be

called “dowry death” and such husband or relative shall be

deemed to have caused her death.

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years

but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

14.PW1/Pentla Raju deposed that, deceased/Arthi is his daughter.

A1 is his son in law and A2 is mother of A1. The marriage of deceased was performed with A1 in the year 2019 and he gave dowry of Rs.80,000/-, ¼ tula gold and sare samans. PW1 further deposed that, disputes arose between the deceased and A1 and he do not know the reasons for the disputes between them. PW1 further deposed that, deceased died seven months after her marriage with the A1 at her in laws house due to burn injuries. Initially she was shifted to community health center, with burn injuries and thereafter to RIMS hospital for better treatment. As per the

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 11 Dt. 17.05.2024

advice of Doctors at RIMS hospital, Srikakulam, the deceased was shifted to KGH, Visakhapatnam, where she died.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross examined PW1 and got marked his Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P1. PW1 deposed that, both accused and himself compromised the matter out of the court.

PW1’s evidence is made it clear that disputes arose between the deceased and the Accused and he got knowledge about their matrimonial disputes.

PW1 further clearly deposed that he gave dowry of Rs.80,000/- and sare samans to the accused at the time of marriage. PW1’s evidence clearly proves that the deceased died seven months after her marriage with A1 at her in laws house. The evidence of PW1 is made it clear that, the cause of death of deceased is due to disputes between accused and the deceased, for the alleged demand of additional dowry. The statement given by deceased to PW18 under Ex.P17 clearly show that both the accused demanded the deceased to bring additional dowry and abused her in filthy language and harassed her. A1 and A2 did not try to prevent her from flames while she was committing suicide by pouring kerosene over her body.

15.PW2/Pentla Chinnammi, mother of deceased deposed that at the time of marriage, they have given dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and other sare samans to the accused. PW2 further deposed that, her daughter/deceased died due to burn injuries at her in laws house. PW2 further deposed that, learned Magistrate recorded dying declaration of deceased. At first instance they shifted the deceased to the community health center, Pathapatnam and at that time deceased was conscious and talked with them.

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 12 Dt. 17.05.2024

Learned counsel for the defence cross examined PW2 and she admitted that there is no documentary evidence to prove that she has given dowry and sare samans to the accused.

16.PW3/Gantyada Shiva, cousin brother of deceased deposed that, deceased died about 3 years back and she committed suicide by pouring kerosene at the house of A1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor got marked his Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P2.

17.PW4/Boyity Jyothi, sister of deceased deposed that her parents gave dowry and other presentations to A1. PW4 further deposed that her sister/deceased committed suicide at her in laws house by pouring kerosene over her body about 3 years back. Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor got marked her Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P3.

18.PW5/Gantyada Praveen, cousin brother of deceased deposed that, he saw the deceased at Srikakulam hospital and thereafter she died, while she was proceeding to K.G.H., Visakhaptnam. Learned Additional

Public Prosecutor got marked his Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P4.

19.PW6/Boyitha Murali, PW7/Dandasi Anand, PW8/Dola

Appalanaidu, PW9/Pentla Appadu, PW10/Mamidi Chinnababu deposed in their evidence that they do not know anything about this case. Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor got marked their Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements

as Ex.P5 to Ex.P9.

20.PW11/Padala Rajubabu, the then Village Revenue Officer of

Tampa village deposed that as per the instructions of Deputy

Superintendent of Police, he went to Tampa village and visited the house of Boitha Tirupathi and seized the material objects MO1 to MO6 i..e, Plastic bottle, burnt match sticks, matchbox, burnt hair, bangle pieces and partly burnt nighty pieces under the cover of Ex.P10/seizure report on 25.06.2020. PW11 also acted as one of the inquestdars at the time of

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 13 Dt. 17.05.2024

conducting inquest over the dead body of deceased and inquest report is marked asEx.P11. He identified the signature on the inquest report.

Learned defence counsel elicited in the cross examination of PW11, he signed on the confessional statement and seizure report at the police station.

Merely because PW11 stated that he signed on the seizure report and confessional statement at the police station, it does not mean, police drafted the seizure report at the police station. The investigation officer deposed that, he seized the material objects at the scene of offence and the contents of the seizure report discloses the same was drafted at the scene of offence.

21.PW12/Gulivindala Adinarayana and PW13/Yabaji Ramesh also acted as inquestdars, they have identified their signatures on the inquest report.

22.PW14/Dr.Pragada Eswara Rao, the then Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Community Health Center, Pathapatnam deposed that on 25.6.2020 patient/Arthi/deceased was brought to the hospital with burn injuries of 95 per cent. PW14 immediately intimated to the Pathapatnam police station and treated the same as medico-legal-case. He found the injured was conscious. Police came to the hospital and recorded her statement. He certified that the patient was conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind. Relevant portion is marked as Ex.P12. PW14 further stated that he intimated to the learned Magistrate for recording dying declaration. Ex.P13 is the intimation sent to the Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Pathapatnam. He made an endorsement on the dying declaration as patient is conscious and coherent and is in a fit state of mind to record the dying declaration. Ex.P14 is the endorsement on the dying declaration.

Later he referred the patient to RIMS hospital for better treatment.

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 14 Dt. 17.05.2024

PW14 deposed in the cross examination that at about 9 a.m.

he forwarded the intimation to the learned Magistrate for recording dying declaration. At about 10 a.m. the learned Magistrate came to the hospital to record the dying declaration.

23.Dr.P.Ramakrishna, the then Assistant Professor, Department of

Forensic medicine, Andhra medical college, Visakhapatnam deposed that, on 26.6.2020 he received intimation from the police to conduct post mortem examination over the dead body of deceased. Accordingly, he conducted post mortem examination and found the following anti-mortem injuries:

1. Anti-mortem dermo epidermal burns present all over the body spanning inner aspect of right forearm, right palm, external genitalia and soles.

Both sides are showing anti mortem blebs, peeling of skin, vital reaction line of redness, blackening in areas and white ointment stains, total burns are about 95% of body surface area. Accordingly, he issued Ex.P15/Post mortem certificate with an opinion that the cause of death is due to shock due to burns.

The evidence of PW15 is clearly corroborating with the ocular evidence of PW1 to PW5 that the deceased died due to burn injuries. The evidence of prosecution witnesses made it clear that the cause of death is unnatural and she died at the house of her in-laws. It is also made clear that the deceased died within seven months of her marriage, which establishes that she was subjected to cruelty both mentally and physically in the hands of accused, to attract the presumption under Sec.113 (a) of

Indian Evidence Act.

24. PW16/K.Prakash Babu, the then Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kotabommali, Full Additional Charge of Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Pathapatnam deposed that on 25.06.2020 at 9.15 a.m. he received a

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 15 Dt. 17.05.2024

phone call from community health center, Pathapatnam for recording dying declaration of Arthi,. Immediately he rushed to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration. He further deposed that the Doctor/PW14 certified that the patient was conscious and coherent. PW16 put some preliminary questions and after satisfying himself that the patient was conscious and coherent, he recorded the dying declaration. The Doctors finding that the deceased suffered from 95 per cent of burn injuries.

PW16 deposed that, the declaration stated to him that her mother in law picked up quarrels regularly and her husband used to abuse her and beat her regularly. On that day also in the early morning and in the night time, disputes arose between them. Yesterday i.e., on 24.06.2020 after noon hours, her husband came to the house, by that time she was sleeping and he served food and had his meal. Thereafter her husband woke up her and she put the utensils in the kitchen sink, thereafter she slept as she was suffering from severe head ache. When she woke up, her mother in law/A2 cleaning the vessels and at 8.30 p.m. A2 abused her as if she is discharging duties as servant-maid in her own house, but she did not even eat food. On the next day, early morning, A2 went for taking bath, her husband told her that she does not know how to work and there is no obstruction to eat food. Her husband/A1 pushed her on the floor and beat her indiscriminately. Her husband abused her stating that there is no use even after getting married. Both accused harassed her. Her father came to her house and asked the accused whey they were harassing her. Both accused kept quiet and her husband in the presence of her father, beat her. Thereafter she poured kerosene over her body and went to the upstairs and lit fire to herself, even then her husband present there but he has not prevented her from doing so.

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 16 Dt. 17.05.2024

The deceased further stated that matrimonial disputes were placed before the police on three occasions, inspite of that, her mother in law/A2 did not like her as less dowry was brought by her. The dying declaration is marked as Ex.P16.

The statement of the deceased clearly show that both the accused harassed the deceased both physically and mentally and also A1 beat her in the presence of her father/Pw1. She further stated that, the disputes were placed before the police on three occasions and it clearly shows that there were disputes between the deceased and the accused.

25.PW17/Gara Suresh, the then Tahsildar, deposed that he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased. He admitted his signature on the inquest report. He further deposed that, inquestdars opined that the deceased died due to the alleged harassment of her in laws and her husband as such she poured kerosene over her body and committed suicide.

26.PW18/K.Govinda Rao, the then Sub Inspector of police,

Hiramandalam police station deposed that on 25.06.2020 he received medical intimation from Community Health Center, Pathapatnam and recorded the statement of deceased. The declarant has signed on the statement under Ex.P17. Basing on Ex.P17, he registered a case in

Cr.No.226/2020. The statement of deceased recorded under Sec.161

Cr.P.C. by police prior to her death, would become relevant statement under Sec.32 of Indian Evidence Act, when it relates to cause of death.

Statement made by a person, in a state of apprehension of death on account of his physical condition, endorse as to his cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. In the event of that person waiting his death is called dying

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 17 Dt. 17.05.2024

declaration and is made admissible under Sec.32(1) of Indian Evidence Act as an exception ( AIR 2006-SC -14) 27.Ex.P17 statement of the Arthi/deceased recorded while she sustained burn injuries and she was admitted in community health center,

Pathapatnam and she explained the reasons for committing suicide. The declarant statement is made admissible in evidence under Sec.32 of

Indian Evidence Act. In this case, the learned Magistrate also recorded the dying declaration and the same is marked as Ex.P16. The declarant stated about the ill-treatment faced by her in the hands of accused at her in laws house and the reasons forced her to commit suicide, is clearly stated by the deceased in her statement. The declarant further stated that while she poured kerosene over her body and lit fire, A1 did not made any attempt to prevent flames. A1 and A2 were present at the time of her committing suicide. The evidence of learned Magistrate/PW16 is clearly corroborating with the statement under Ex.P17 recorded by PW18 in

Community health Center, Pathapatnam.

28.PW18 further deposed that the learned Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of deceased and he visited the scene of offence situated in RCC slabbed house of accused. Ex.P19 is rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P20 is the report given by father/PW1 of deceased. Basing on which, PW18 altered the Section of law into Sec.304B of IPC. Ex.P21 is the altered first information report. PW18 seized the material objects i.e,

MO1 to MO6 in the presence of PW11. Merely mediator stated that he signed at the police station, it does not mean, evidence of PW18 is not trustworthy.

29.PW19/P.Raraju Prasad, Deputy Superintendent of police, deposed that he took up investigation from PW18 and PW1 stated before him as in Ex.P1. PW19 visited the scene of offence and verified the rough

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 18 Dt. 17.05.2024

sketch and he found it on correct lines. He recorded the statement of witnesses. PW2 to PW5 stated before him as in Ex.P2 to Ex.P5. The mandal

Revenue Officer conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased.

He then forwarded the dead body of deceased for conducting post mortem examination. As part of investigation, he visited the Tempa village and secured the presence of PW4, he examined and recorded their statements and they stated before him as in Ex.P5 to Ex.P8. On 28.06.2020 at about 6.30 hours, he arrested both the accused in the presence of mediators and sent them to the court for judicial custody. PW10 stated before him as in

Ex.P9. He filed a memo before the learned Magistrate for recording

Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW12 and LW3/Pentla Keerthi. He forwarded the material objects to the RFSL for analysis and he received the analysis report/Ex.P22.

The learned defence counsel suggested to PW18 and PW19 that they conducted perfunctory investigation and the same was denied.

30.The learned defence counsel argued that, PW1 and PW2 are residents of Vijayawada and they do not have any personal knowledge about the alleged ill-treatment meted out by the deceased at her in laws house. PW1 and PW2 are no other than the parents of deceased did not state anything against the accused. He further argued that, the family members of deceased tutored the declarant before recording the dying declaration and as such she stated before the learned Magistrate. There is no evidence on record to show that deceased family members tutored the deceased before recording dying declaration. Ex.P17 statement of deceased got recorded by PW18 clearly corroborates Ex.P16/Dying declaration.

31.The learned defence counsel further submits that PW1 to

PW10 did not state anything about the accused and some of the

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 19 Dt. 17.05.2024

prosecution witnesses were turned hostile and hence the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused.

The evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded as a whole or rejected intoto, merely because prosecution chose to treat him as a hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether, but the same can be accepted to the extent its version is found to be dependable or inspire confidence and careful scrutiny thereof. ( 2011-1-ALD-Crl. 162)

Merely because PW1 to PW10 did not support the case of the prosecution, it does not mean, the entire evidence of PW1 to PW10 cannot be discarded. The court carefully scrutinize the evidence of PW1 to PW10 and accept some extent and also corroborated the evidence of PW11 to

PW18. So, the cause of death of deceased is un-natural which occurred at her in laws house and the statement of deceased is cogent, credible and trustworthy and it can be safely accepted the statement of deceased and the sole testimony of declarant in her dying declaration.

32.The learned defence counsel further argued that, the deceased was badly sustained extensive burn injuries of 95 per cent and died and that she might not be in a proper and fit condition to make a statement either to PW18/Sub Inspector or PW16/Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Kotabommlai and no reliance could not be placed on such a dying declaration to hold the accused guilty of dowry death. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision in between Ram Bihari Yadav vs.

State of Bihar and others decided on 21 st April, 1998 wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court held that ;

“ The maker of declaration died within 15 minutes of the recording the statement, as such the High Court took a view that she

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 20 Dt. 17.05.2024

might not be in a proper and fit condition to make a statement as regards her cause of death”.

Here in this case, PW14 mentioned in Ex.P13/Medical intimation that the patient sustained burn injuries at 7 a.m. at her residence and he informed the same under Ex.P13 at 9 a.m. and the investigating Officer/PW18 at first instance after recording the statement of deceased registered Ex.P21/First Information report at 8 a.m. The learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kotabommali recorded the dying declaration at 11.20 a.m. and it was completed by 11.55 a.m. As per the report of PW1, the deceased died at 6.40 p.m. The above referred facts are not applicable to the present facts of the case on hand.

2) The learned defence counsel relied on another decision reported in 2010(1)ALT ( Crl.) 378( SC) in between Sharda vs. State of

Rajasthan, wherein it was held that :

Third dying declaration (Ex.P18) cannot be treated as wholly trustworthy and it is shrouded by many doubts”

The above referred facts of the case are different from that of the present case on hand. Here in this case, PW16/learned Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Kotabommali has recorded only one dying

declaration.

3) In another decision reported in 2016(2) ALD ( Crl.) 331 in between

Narasapuram Balaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon’ble

High Court of Judicature for the state of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad, wherein the Hon‘ble High Court has held that ; “ Ante-dating of- and delay in dispatching to local Magistrate – ante dated, leaving scope of embellishment an false implications in preparing report.

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 21 Dt. 17.05.2024

In this case, the alleged incident occurred at 7 a.m. at the house of A1 and A2, and the deceased was shifted to community health center, Pathapatnam. PW14/Doctor immediately informed about the admission of medico legal case to PW18 and PW16/learned Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Kotabommali. PW18 immediately rushed to the

hospital and recorded the statement of deceased and registered it as a case. Therefore, there is no delay in lodging first information report and there is no scope of embellishment in false implications in preparing report. The above citation is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

33. As per the decision reported in 2024(2) ALT ( Crl.) 29 (SC) in between Naeem vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein the Hon’ble Apex

Court held that :

When the dying declaration is coherent and consistent and as such, there should be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction without there being any independent corroboration. The dying declarations cogent, trustworthy and reliable to base the conviction on the same.

The above principle of law is clearly applicable to the

Ex.P16/Dying declaration recorded by PW16/Learned Magistrate and the statement of deceased recorded by PW18/Sub Inspector of police. The learned defence counsel did not elicit anything in the cross examination that the declarant was tutored by the prosecution witnesses, before giving her statement and dying declaration.

34.As per the proviso to Sec.154 of the Indian Evidence Act, statement of hostile witness supporting the case of the prosecution can always be taken into consideration ( AIR 2012 SC 1292). The plea of accused that they have not committed any offence and the prosecution

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 22 Dt. 17.05.2024

failed to prove the ingredients under Secs.498A, 304-B read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code cannot be accepted.

35.PW18/Sub Inspector on receipt of medical intimation, rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of declarant as in Ex.P17, which clearly shows the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused and the death of a woman is caused by burns otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven months of her marriage at her in laws house and ti shows that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and by her mother-in-law/A2 in connection with any demand for dowry. Therefore, a presumption under Sec.113A.1 of

Indian Evidence Act comes into play with regard to presumption as to dowry death.

Sec.113A.1: When question is as to whether commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of 7 years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume that such suicide that had been abetted by her husband or any such relative of her husband ( AIR 2009 SC 1928).

The statement of declarant clearly show that, both the accused harassed her both mentally and physically for additional dowry, due to the unbearable and continuous harassment meted out by her in the hands of accused, she had committed suicide within seven months from the date of her marriage. Therefore, the prosecution has satisfactorily proved the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 that both the accused with a common intention subjected the married woman/deceased to cruelty both physically and mentally which forced her to commit suicide by pouring kerosene over her body within seven months of her marriage at her in-

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 23 Dt. 17.05.2024

laws house/A2, for the offences punishable under Sec.498A and 304B read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt. But the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, the point is answered.

36.IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Secs 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and that accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

But the accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offences punishable under secs.498A and 304B read with Sec.34 of Indian

Penal Code and hence they are convicted under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th day of May, 2024.

Sd/- P.Bhaskar Rao

Judge, Family Court-cum- III Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam (FAC)VI Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

A1 and A2 called present. When questioned the accused No.1 and 2 with regard to quantum of sentence,

A1 stated that he has studied upto B.A., and he is doing cooli works.

A2 stated that she is attending cooli work and she is suffering from illness.

The learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 also submitted that there is no previous criminal antecedents to accused No.1 and 2 and on considering the submissions of A.1 and A2 and his counsel and other facts and circumstances, the court may take lenient view in awarding sentence to accused No.1 and 2 .

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that accused

No.1 and 2 involved in heinous crime against a married woman which

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 24 Dt. 17.05.2024

resulted the death of a woman, as such, accused No.1 and 2 may be punished with maximum sentence provided in the section 498A and 304 B

IPC.

On considering the submissions made by the learned defence counsel for A.1 and 2 , and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this court is inclined to take lenient view because accused No.1 and 2 while awarding sentence.

Theaccused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo

imprisonment seven (7) years each for the offence punishable

under Sec.304-B read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.

The accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one (1) year each and shall also pay

a fine of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred only) each in default of

payment of fine, accused Nos.1 and 2 shall suffer simple

imprisonment for a period of seven (07) days each for the offence

punishable under Sec.498A of Indian Penal Code.

Both sentences shall run concurrently.

The remand period undergone by accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e., for the period from 28.06.2020 to 18.07.2020 i.e., 21 days shall be given set off under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

MO1 to MO6 (non-valuable items) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Accused No.1 and 2 are informed that they have right to prefer appeal

before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi and also

further informed that they are entitled for legal aid to prefer the appeal under provisions of A.P. State Legal Authority Act.

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 25 Dt. 17.05.2024

Free copy of Judgment is furnished to accused No.1and 2.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th day of May, 2024.

Sd/- P.Bhaskar Rao

Judge, Family Court-um- III Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam (FAC)VI Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution:

P.W.1: Pentla Raju (father of deceased)

PW2: Pentla Chinnammi (mother of deceased)

PW3: Gantyada Shiva (brother of deceased)

PW4: Boyity Jyothi (sister of deceased)

PW5: Gantyada Praveen (cousin brother)

PW6: Boyitha Murali.

PW7: Dandasi Anand

PW8: Dola Appalanaidu.

PW9: Pentla Appadu

PW10: Mamidi Chinnababu

PW11: Padala Rajubabu, Village Revenue Officer, Tempa village

PW12: Gulivindala Adinarayan (Inquestdar)

PW13: Yabaji Ramesh (Inquestdar)

PW14: Dr.Pragada Eswara Rao, Medical officer, C.H.C., Pathapatnam

PW15: Dr.P.Ramakrishna, Assistant Professor,RIMS hospital,Srikakulam2

PW16: K.Prakash Babu, learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kotabommali

PW17: Gara Suresh, the then Tahsildar.

PW18: K.Govinda Rao, Sub Inspector of police, Hiramandalam

PW19: P.Raraju Prasad, Deputy Superintendent of police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.

Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4.

Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5

Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6 Ex.P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW7

Ex.P7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW8.

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 26 Dt. 17.05.2024

Ex.P8: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW9

Ex.P9: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW10

Ex.P10: Seizure report dt. 25.06.2020.

Ex.P11: Inquest report of deceased

Ex.P12: Endorsement of PW14 on statement recorded by police.

Ex.P13: Intimation submitted to Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Pathapatnam.

Ex.P14: Relevant portion of endorsement of PW14 on dying declaration

Ex.P15: Post mortem certificate of deceased.

Ex.P16: Dying declaration of deceased recorded by PW16.

Ex.P17: Statement of Arthi/deceased

Ex.P18: First Information report in Cr.No.226/2020.

Ex.P19: Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P20: Report given by PW1 to police dt.25.6.2020 at 8 p.m.

Ex.P21: altered first information report

Ex.P22: Regional Forensic Science Laboratory report.

For Defence:-Nil-.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO1: Plastic bottle. MO2: Burned match sticks MO3: match box MO4: Burned hair MO5: Bangle pieces MO6: Partly burnt nighty pieces

Sd/- P.Bhaskar Rao

Judge, Family Court-cum- III Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam (FAC) VI Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Sompeta

//true copy//

Judge, Family Court-cum- III Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam (FAC) VI Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Sompeta

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 27 Dt. 17.05.2024

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE-AT, SOMPETA

FAC : JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM

Present: SRI P.BHASKAR RAO,

Judge, Family Court-cum- III Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Srikakulam (FAC) VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam

FRIDAY, THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF MAY, 2024

SESSIONS CASE No.13/2022

(Crime No.226/2020 of Hiramandalam Police Station)

Between:The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Sub Divisional Police officer, Palakonda … Complainant And01. Boyiti Tirupathi Rao, son of late Pothayya, aged about 24 years, Tampa village, Hiramandalam mandal (A1)

02. Boyiti Minamma wife of late Pothayya, 56 years, Tampa village, Hiramandalam mandal (A2) Srikakulam district. … Accused. Prosecution was Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor, conducted by:Sompeta. Accused was Sri K.Govardhana Rao, Advocate for the accused. defended by: Offences:U/Sections 304-B, 498A read with Sec.34 of IPC and Secs. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Date of offence:25.06.2020 at 7 a.m. Date of report or 25.06.2020 at 8 a.m. complaint Charge sheet filed on 06.04.2021 Date of appearance of 12.09.2022 accused: Date of 27.10.2023 commencement of trial: Date of closure of trial19.04.2024 Explanation for delay No delay Sentence or Order IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Secs 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and that accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. But the accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offences punishable under secs.498A and 304B read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and hence

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 29 Dt. 17.05.2024

they are convicted under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Theaccused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment seven (7) years each for the offence punishable under Sec.304-B of Indian Penal Code. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) year each and shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred only) each in default of payment of fine, accused Nos.1 and 2 shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of seven (07) days each for the offence punishable under Sec.498A of Indian Penal Code. Both sentences shall run concurrently.

The remand period undergone by accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e., for the period from 28.06.2020 to 18.07.2020 i.e., 21 days shall be given set off under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. MO1 to MO6 ( non-valuable items) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Accused No.1 and 2 are informed that they have right to prefer appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi and also further informed that they are entitled for legal aid to prefer the appeal under provisions of A.P. State Legal Authority Act. Free copy of Judgment is furnished to accused

No.1and 2.

Sd/- P.Bhaskar Rao

Judge, Family Court-cum- III Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam (FAC) VI Additional District & Sessions Court, Sompeta.

FREE COPY OF JUDGMENT GIVEN TO

THE ACCUSED Nos.1 and 2 on 17.05.2024.

Accused No.1 and 2 paid fine amount of Rs.500/- each on 17.05.2024 //true copy//

Judge, Family Court-cum- III Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam (FAC) VI Additional District & Sessions Court, Sompeta.

SC 13/2022 of VI ADJ Court, Sompeta 30 Dt. 17.05.2024

SESSIONS CASE NO.13/2022

When questioned the accused No.1 and 2 with regard to the quantum of sentence,

A1 stated that ;

A2 stated that ;

Judge, Family Court-cum- III Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam (FAC) VI Additional District & Sessions Court, Sompeta.

Signature /L.T.M. of accused

A1 :

A2 :

APSR000020042023

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM

Present: Sri P.Bhaskara Rao,

I Additional District Judge

Monday, This The 9th Day Of February, 2026

O.S. No.46/2023

Between: Sarlana Jeevan S/o Sankara Rao. Aged 30 years, Hindu, Un Employee, House No 1-323, New Colony, Ravivalasa Village and Post. Tekkali Mandalam in Srikakularn Distinct.

...Plaintiff.

And:

1. Sarlana Sankara Rao S/o late Seetanna, Aged 65 years, Hindu, Retd Employee, R/o Plot No.21, Flat No 5 1st Floor, Vijaya Vihar Apartments, DCCB Colony, Srikakulam Town, Mandalam and District.

2. Battula Laxmi Nageswari W/o Not known, aged 37 years, Hindu, Household duties, Styling herself Sarlana Laxmi Nageswari, W/o Sankara Rao, Rest-do

3. Mandala Mohana Rao S/o Laxminarayana, aged about 55 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, Door No 1-60, Ravivalasa Village and Post, Tekkali Mandalam, in Srikakulam District 4 Mandala Veeraiah S/o Laxminarayana, aged about 50 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, Door No. 1-59, Ravivalasa Village and Post, Tekkali Mandalam in Srikakulam District

5. Mandala Chandrayya s/o. Laxminarayana, aged about 45 years, Hindu, cultivation, door no.1-62, Ravivalasa village and post , Tekkali mandal, Srikakulam district.

6. Datti Chandrayya, s/o.late Simhadri, aged about 40 years, Hindu, cultivation, door no.1-282, Ravivalasa village, post, Tekkali mandal, Srikakulam District.

...Defendants.

This suit coming on 28-1-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Paidi VisweswaraRao, learned Advocate for the plaintiff 2OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

and Sri G.SrikrishnaPrasad, learned Advocate for defendants 1 and 2; and defendants No.3 to 6 called absent and set exparte and having heard both sides and stood over till this day for consideration, this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

01. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants by directing the 1st defendant for division of plaint A to D schedule properties into two equal shares by metes and bounds and to put the plaintiff in separate possession of one such share after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for subsequent mesne profits from the date of suit and for costs of the suit.

02. The brief averments of the plaint are that; the 1 st defendant married one Sarlana Nirmala in the year 1981. The plaintiff was born on 11.01.

1986 to them. The maternal grandfather of the plaintiff, by name Arangi

Veeranna, brought up the 1st defendant and performed the marriage with his 3rd daughter namely Nirmala. Arangi Veeranna died on 06 12 1990, one year thereafter the 1st defendant developed extra marital relations and used to ill-treat his wife and as such there were disputes between the 1st defendant and his wife Nirmala. Due to the differences between the 1st defendant and his wife Nirmala, the 1st defendant kept them at Ravivalasa

Village in Tekkali Mandalam in the year 1995 and not properly looked after them. Later the caste elders intervened and settled the matter. During the discussion of the said settlement the defendant No. 1 got some documents executed by his wife fraudulently taking advantage of her innocence, 3OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

without revealing the contents therein by misrepresenting that they are required for the settlement and got some properties transferred in his name in the year 2000. The documents executed by the mother of plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant are void being outcome of misrepresentation and fraudulent.

3. The plaint A & B Suit Schedule Properties are devolved upon the 1st defendant during partition between him and his father /Sarlana Seetanna and three brothers in the year 1977. As such they are ancestral properties of 1st defendant. His name included in the revenue records. The mother of the plaintiff purchased a site extending 18 X 90 Sq. feet and merged with the property of the 1st defendant in the year 1987 and constructed a house in the year 1993 or thereafter which is described as item 1 of the plaint B

Schedule with the money of her father, late Veeranna. The plaintiff reiterates that plaint A & B schedule properties. The plaintiff further submits that plaint A schedule properties are fertile lands having water resources through Vamsadhara Chanel, as such the farmers of the area used to raise 2 paddy crops and one commercial crop in the lands and 1st defendant used to derive good income from the said 3 crops in the plaint A

Schedule lands. the 1 st defendant, as a Kartha of the family maintaining the purchased plaint C & 'D' schedule properly in his name and also in the name of mistress who is 2nd defendant herein. Thus the plaint C & 'D' schedule properties are also ancestral properties. As the 1st defendant 4OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

who works as clerk in Vysya Bank and used to get meagre salary and it is not sufficient for his lavish maintenance with vices. As 1st defendant got divorce with plaintiff's mother the plaintiff used to reside with his mother and 1st defendant never provide any maintenance or educational expenses of plaintiff and was totally neglected by the defendant. The plaintiff being the only son of the 1st defendant entitled to half share in the plaint schedule properties. As the plaintiff grown-up and being an un- employee, intended to do cultivation to lead his life, demanded the 1st defendant to allot his share in the suit schedule properties, for which the 1 st defendant is procrastinating the matter and trying to alienate and/or create some encumbrances to the properties to defraud the plaintiff.

Hence the suit is filed.

4. Defendants no.3 to 6 were called absent. Service held sufficient on

Defendants no.3 to 6 and set exparte. The defendant no.1 filed his written statement which was adopted by defendant no.2 by denying the material allegations of the plaint and contended that, the plaintiff is the son of defendant no.1 through his first wife by name Nirmala whose marriage took place to the year 1981. Both the 1st defendant and Nirmala lead their conjugal life till 2001, after marriage there were disputes arose between them. Therefore this defendant disliked to lead conjugal life with her. Apart from that during their martial life, the Nirmala had an illegal contact with the

Brother's son of 1st defendant by name S. Madhusudana Rao, S/o 5OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

Ramanna and lead an adulterous life with him. Therefore the 1st defendant being Bank Employee in Vysya-Bank Limited by that time revealed all these things and before the Srikakulam Lok Adalat. Finally on 10.4.2001 in M.S.A. 11/2001, 1st defendant took divorce from his first wife by name Nirmala and accordingly divorce was granted between them on terms. Apart from that the 1 st defendant also provided a house in B schedule property in the suit for her permanent alimony and the 1st wife should live and enjoy the said house without absolute rights, and after her demise the property should be devolved upon the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff should be under the care and control of 1st defendant. By virtue of the terms of the award, this defendant give education to the plaintiff upon his choice and should bear all the maintenance expenses, education, expenses and other expenses to the plaintiff . Later the plaintiff went and glove with the hands of his mother and her near relative and got the suit is filed against this defendant with a bad intention only to grab the plaint- schedule properties. While the plaintiff and defendant living in joint status for some time during that period, both of them together sold some of the properties by way of registered documents to the third parties and are in possession and enjoyment over it. The consideration amount derived out of the sale deeds the amounts are distributed between the plaintiff and 1st defendant . Those purchasers as well as then properties are not added in the suit. Therefore the suit is bad for partial partition as well as non-joinder 6OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

of necessary parties and not maintainable in-law. After got divorce with his 1st wife, this defendant again married the 2nd defendant herein in the year

before the village elders of Tadepalligudem. This defendant worked as

Bank Officer in Vysya Bank Ltd. in various places and finally settled at

Srikakulam. The name of the 2nd defendant is Sarlana Lakshmi

Nageswari.

5. The name of the 2nd defendant is wrongly impleaded only to grab the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff intentionally put name of 2nd defendant in the plaint and got filed suit. Since there are no issues between them,both defendants 1 and 2 got adopted the daughter of one

Battula Murali mohan under registered adoption deed dt.28-11-2018 and her name is Charishma and she was born on 15-4-2018. The said

Charishma is also proper and necessary party to suit. Therefore the suit is bad for non joinder of Sarlana Charishma. A schedule properties Items 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are ancestral properties of 1st defendant. In Item No. 11: The property out of 0.47 cents through the sale deed dated 22-01-2001 for an extent of 0.28 cents was purchased by this defendant and the remaining 0.19 cents are ancestral property of 1st defendant and this defendant executed settlement deed dated 21-04-2018 in favor of the 2nd defendant herein and possession is also delivered there under and from that day onwards the 2nd defendant is in possession and enjoyment over it. The defendant sold away Item No. 12 of property to 7OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

one Mandala Lakshminarayana under registered sale deed dated 19-07- 2000 and possession is also delivered there under to him and he is in possession and enjoyment over it. In item no.13, the property also is the ancestral property of 1st defendant and he sold away the property to Datti

Simhadri under a registered sale deed dt.19-7-2000 and possession is also delivered thereunder to him. item No. 14 is sold away by 1st defendant in favour of Datti Simhadri ünder a registered sale deed dated 19-07-2000 possession is also delivered thereunder to him. Item No.17 is the self acquired property of this defendant being it purchased under sale deed dated 31-01-1987 later on, on 21-04-2018 the is defendant executed a registered settlement deed dated 21-04-2018 in favour of 2nd defendant herein and defendant-.2 accepted the said settlement deed, thereafter property is also delivered thereunder by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant. Item No.9 it is self acquired property of the 1st defendant having it purchased under registered sale deed dated 22-01-2001 Later on 1st defendant executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the 2nd defendant herein and is also delivered thereunder. The 2nd defendant is in possession and enjoyment over it. In item no.2 it is only 0-64 cents, but not 0-75 cents. It is ancestral property. out of which 0-09 cents was purchased from S.Urvasi under registered sale deed dt.22-1-2001. For Ac.0-09 cents, the 1st defendant executed registered settlement deed dt.21-4-2018 in favour of 2nd defendant herein and she is now in possession and 8OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

enjoyment over it. So far as B schedule items are concerned, item no.1 is self acquired property of 1st defendant and later on 1st defendant executed a registered settlement deed dt.21-4-2018 in favour of 2nd defendant herein and 2ndhas accepted the said settlement deed and 2nddefendant is now in possession and enjoyment over it. In Item no.2 of B schedule , it is self acquired property and given to 1st defendant’s first wife by him at the time of passing of award of divorce and she took possession of said house and she was in possession and enjoyment over it. After her it should be devolve on plaintiff. In Item no.3 of B schedule, it is self acquired property of 1st defendant and the 1st defendant now in exclusive possession and enjoyment over it with absolute rights.

6. Item No. 1 of C –schedule property is self acquired property of 1st defendant having the land acquired from Panchayat Registration and he is in possession over it. In item No.2- It is also self required property of the 1st defendant having it purchased from Bada Vaikunta Rao Naidu, and 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment over it. In Item No.3- It is an extent of 0.06 cents but not 0.13 cents having it purchased by the 1 st defendant under registered sale deed dated 22-01-2001 later on the 1st defendant executed a registered settlement deed dated 21-04-2018 in favor of 2nd defendant and 2nd defendant accepted the said settlement deed and possession is also delivered. In Item No. 4 to 6, these are self acquired properties of 1st defendant and having purchased under 9OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

registered sale deeds from third parties and defendant-.1 is in possession and enjoyment over it. The D-Schedule properties are the self acquired property of this 1st -defendant herein later on defendant-.1 executed a gift deed dated 17-11-2014 in favor of the 2nd defendant later on after due to approval of bank loan, she constructed the said house and resided there.

the plaintiff and 1st defendant never in joint possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties at any point of time. Therefore the court fee paid is not correct and plaintiff has to pay Ad valorem court fee. The plaintiff colluded with enemies of 1st defendant got filed this suit at this fag end of age only to cause mental and physical harassment to defendants.

This suit is not maintainable in law and therefore prayed to dismiss the same.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of plaint schedule property?

2. Whether item Nos.9,11,17 in “A” schedule, item nos.1,2,3 of “B” schedule; item Nos.1 to 6 in “C” schedule and “D” schedule properties are self acquired properties of 1st defendant?

3. Whether the gift deed dt.17.11.2014 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant is valid and binding on plaintiff?

4. To what relief?

8. To substantiate their respective contentions, on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself examined as PW.1, and also examined Sarlana

Madhusudanarao as PW2 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 and on 10OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

behalf of the defendants, 1st defendant himself examined as D.W.1, and examined one Sarlana Laxminageswari as DW2 and got marked Ex.B.1 to

Ex.B.16.

9. Heard both sides.

10. ISSUES NO. 1 TO 3:

To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, on behalf of plaintiff Pws 1 and 2 were examined and Ex,A1 to A3 marked. On behalf of defendants, defendant nos. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B16 marked. Heard the learned plaintiff’s counsel and learned defendants counsel.

11. The case of plaintiff is that, the defendant no.1 is the father of plaintiff born through first wife i.e., Sarlana Nirmala. Due to matrimonial disputes the mother of plaintiff and defendant no.1 took divorce under PLC award. The plaint A and B schedule properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiff. The 1st defendant had purchased the plaint C and D- schedule properties with the agricultural income of A and B schedule properties.

Plaint A to D schedule properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiff and 1st defendant and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff’s counsel further submits that the 1st defendant developed intimacy with 2nd defendant and completely neglected the plaintiff and created false documents in favour of 2nd defendant. The 11OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

plaintiff adduced both oral and documentary evidence to grant preliminary decree in favour of plaintiff and allotting ½ such share to the plaintiff

12. The defendants counsel submit that, in the year 1981, the marriage of 1st defendant performed with mother of plaintiff byname Sarlana

Nirmala. Theplaintiff was born on 11-1-1986. Due to matrimonial disputes between mother of plaintiff and 1st defendant, they took divorce before Lok

Adalat in PLC. 11/2001. At the time of divorce, the 1st defendant deposited an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs in Vysya Bank Limited, Srikakualm in FDRs and

principal amount with interest accrued therein taken away by Sarlana

Nirmala towards her permanent alimony. The 1st defendant also settled a house property under B schedule towards her permanent alimony of first wife Sarlana Nirmala. Therefore the said Sirlaana Nirmala is the absolute owner of plaint B schedule house property and received permanent alimony. The 1st defendant counsel further submit that the plaint A to D schedule properties are the self acquired properties of 1st defendant and some of the properties are sold away by 1st defendant. Some of items of plaint schedule properties purchased by defendant no.2 and defendant no.1 executed a gift settlement deed in favour of 2nd defendant. 2nd defendant is the legally wedded wife of 1st defendant and they had no issues. 1st defendant ,and 2nd defendant adopted a daughter by name

Charishma. The school records of Charishma showed the parents name

as 1st defendant and 2nd defendant. Item no.1,3,4,7,8,10,12,13,14,15 and

12OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

16 are the ancestral properties of 1st defendant. In item no.11, Ac.0-47 cents are purchased by 1st defendant under a registered sale deed and the defendant executed the settlement deed dated 21.4.2018 in favour fo 2nd defendant. 1st defendant sold away to one Mandala Laxminarayana under registered sale deed dt. 19-7-2000. In item no.-13, the 1st defendant sold away property to Datti Simhadri under registered sale deed dt. 19.7.2000.

Item no.17 is the self acquired property of 1st defendant being it purchased under registered sale deed dt.31-1-1987 and in turn 1st defendant executed a registered settlement deed dt.21-4-2018 in favour of 2nd defendant.

13. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.3-00 acres of land in his possession and the same was not shown in plaint schedule. The plaintiff cannot seek partial partition of suit properties. The plaintiff never in joint possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties along with 1st defendant at any point of time. The defendants 1 and 2 counsel prays to dismiss the suit.

14. It is not in dispute the plaintiff is the son of 1st defendant born through Sarlana Nirmala. It is also not in dispute, the plaintiff was born on 11-1-1986 through Sarlana Nirmala. It is also not in dispute 1st defendant and mother of plaintiff / Sarlana Nirmala marriage was dissolved before

Lok Adalat. Since then the mother of plaintiff / Sarlana Nirmala and 1st defendant have been residing separately. Subsequently defendants 1 and 13OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

2 married and living together as wife and husband. The marriage of defendant 1 and 2 registered under Registration of Marriage certificate as per Ex.B16.

15. It is settled principal of law, the plaintiff contended that plaint

A,B,C,D schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant no.1. paint A schedule item nos.1 to 17 are situated in

Ravivalasa village of Tekkali mandal. Plaint B schedule properties item no.1 and 2 are house properties situated in Ravivalasa village, Tekkali mandal. Plaint C-schedule property is a wet land situated in Ravivalasa village. Plaint D-schedule properties shown as Flat-5 situated in DCCB colony, Srikakulam. The identity of plaint A,B,C,D schedule properties are not in dispute. The relationship between plaintiff and defendant no.1 is not in dispute. The burden heavily lies on plaintiff to prove plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendant no.1 and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. It is evidently clear, PW1 got marked Ex.A1 to A3 i.e., Ex.A1 is 1-B register dated 12-6- 2018; Ex.A2 is adangal for sy.no.36-14 and 36-15; Ex.A3 is adangal for sy.no. 131-3.

16. PW1/ S.Jeevan deposed that plaint A and B schedule properties are devolved upon defendant no.1 during partition between defendant no.1 and his father and three brothers in the year 1977 , as such they were the ancestral properties of defendant no.1 PW1 further deposed his mother 14OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

purchased a site with measurement of 18x 19 sq.ft merged with property of defendant no.1 in the year 1987 and constructed a house in the year 1993 with the money of her father late Veeranna. Defendant no.1 acted as kartha of family managing plaint A and B schedule properties and derived income out of plaint A and B schedule properties purchased plaint C and

D schedule properties. The plaintiff did not choose to issue legal notice to defendants to show plaintiff demanded defendant no.1 for division of plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff did not file any document to show that plaint A,B,C,D schedule properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of plaintiff and defendant no.1. PW1 clearly admitted in the cross examination as per advise of village elders 3 ½ acres of land situated at

Ravivalasa village, Tekkali mandal is in his possession under a settlement document and remaining lands are in the possession of defendant noi.1.

PW1 did not file the document into court. PW1 did not submitted any application before revenue authorities for cancellation of settlement deeds and pass books, title deeds stands in the name of defendant no.2. PW1 did not file any suit for cancellation of gift deeds stands in the name of defendant no.2. The defendants’ counsel suggested to PW1 that plaint A to D schedule properties are not the ancestral properties which are self acquired properties of defendant no.1 and some of properties are devolved during partition and the same was denied. PW1 further admitted that his father age is 80 years. Defendant counsel confronted the marriage 15OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

certificate of defendant no.1 showing marriage certificate was registered in between defendants no.1 and 2 dt.13-4-2022 issued by Marriage

Registrar, Srikakulam. Ex.B16 is the certified copy of marriage certificate of defendants no.1 and 2 dt.13-4-2022.

17. Pw1 admission made it clear, the said 3 ½ acres was not shown in the paint schedule and not pleaded in the plaint. The plaintiff suppressed the facts and filed the suit against the defendants for partition of plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff did not choose to include all the family properties for partition of plaint schedule properties. It is settled law a piecemeal partition is not maintainable under law even if the plaintiff’s case is accepted.

18. PW2 Sarlana Madhusudanarao deposed that plaint schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant no.1. PW2 clearly admitted that defendant no.1 who is his junior paternal uncle and plaintiff is the cousin brother of PW1. It is true, defendant no.1 is residing in DCCB colony, Srikakulam, which is shown in paint D-schedule property. PW2 further admitted that during the family partition, plaint A and

B schedule properties are devolved upon defendant no.1. As per Ex.B15, the marriage of defendant no.1 with Sarlana Nirmala was dissolved through court of law under Ex.B15. It is true, defendant no.1 given house property to Sarlana Nirmala in which she is residing at Ravivalasa village,

Tekkali mandal towards her permanent alimony under Ex.B15. It is true, 16OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

defendant no.1 provided education and look after welfare of plaintiff. PW2 further admitted that he did not mentioned in his chief affidavit, how much income was derived out of agriculture lands situated in Ravivalasa by defendant no.1 to improve the suit properties. PW2 further admitted that plaintiff is in occupation of Ac.3-60 cents in Ravivalasa village.

19. PW1 got marked Ex.A1 to A3 to prove the plaint schedule properties are the joint properties of plaintiff and defendant no.1. Ex.A1 is the Form- 1B obtained through mee-seva and the pattadar name shown as Sarlana

Sankararao/D1 and in colmn no.-8 shows some of the items were acquired through ancestors and some of items purchased through a registered sale deed. Ex.A1 obtained through me-seva on 12-6-2018. Ex.A2 is the adangal pahani for the sy.no.36-14 for an extent of 45 cents stands in the name of Datti Chandrayya i.e. defendant no.6 and defendant no.6 acquired property through his ancestors. Ex.A2 is another adangal pahani stands in the name of Datti Chandrayya in sy.no.36-15 for an extent of 0- 64 cents and katha number shown as Sarlana Ramanna and Dikkala

Malleswarara. Ex.A2 obtained through me-seva dt.29-8-2018. Ex.A2 adangal pahani stands in the name of Peesa Pasupathirao and Sarlana

Madhusudanarao covered with sy.no.131-3 for an extent of 0-76 cents and

Peesa Pasupathirao acquired the property by way of registered sale deed and Sarlana Madhusudanarao acquired the properties through his ancestors. Plaintiff claims the suit properties are the ancestral properties of 17OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

plaintiff and defendant no.1 basing on Ex.A1 and A2 adangal pahani.

Ex.A2 and A3 are no way helpful to prove the suit properties are the joint properties of plaintiff and defendants. Ex.A1 is the Form-1B stands in the name of Sarlana Sankararao/ defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 denied the suit properties are the joint properties of plaintiff and defendant no.1.

The plaintiff further contended that plaint A and B schedule properties are the ancestral properties of defendant no.1 and defendant no.1 acted as karta of joint family and purchased the plaint C and D -schedule properties with the income derived out of plaint A and B schedule properties.

Defendant no.1 contended that the suit properties are the exclusive properties of defendant no.1 and the mother of plaintiff took divorce during the child hood of plaintiff and he spent amount towards his educational expenses and also paid permanent alimony to mother of plaintiff. There is no evidence on record to prove that plaintiff is in joint possession and enjoyment of suit properties along with defendant no.1. PW1 clearly admitted in the cross examination that, it is true his mother’s marriage was dissolved with defendant no.1 under PLC 11/2001 dt.10-4-2001. PW1 further admitted that his father joined in service in ING Vysya Bank in the year 1977. Defendant no.1 worked in different places as bank employee like Karimnagar, Rajamahendravaram, Visakhapatnam, Rajam,

Tadepalligudem etc. PW1 further admitted that the house property situated in Ravivalasa village of Tekkal mandal given to his mother towards full and 18OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

final settlement at the time of divorce i.e., plaint B-schedule item no.2 shown in the paint. The plaintiff did not choose to add plaintiff’s mother as a party in the suit. Due to non joinder of plaintiff’s mother as a party, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party. PW1 further admitted that his father purchased house property from Gali Suryarao under a registered sale deed dt. 14-5-2013 which is marked as Ex.B6. Ex.B6 covered the paint-D schedule property. The paint D-schedule property is the exclusive property of defendant no.1. PW1 further admitted that as per the recitals of

Ex.B8 his father executed gift settlement deed in favour of defendant no.2 in respect of plaint D-schedule property on 12-11-2014. The plaintiff did not choose to cancel Ex.B8 gift settlement deed. the plaintiff sought relief for division of plaint schedule property. The defendant counsel suggested

PW1 that plaint schedule properties are not the ancestral properties and the same are the self acquired properties of defendant no.1 and some of the properties are devolved through partition and same was denied. PW1 further admitted that as per the advice of village elders, 3 ½ acres of land allotted to him situated at Ravivalasa village is in possession under a settlement document and remaining lands are in possession of defendant no.1.

19. PWs 1 and 2 evidence made it clear that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.3-50 or Ac.3-60 cents situated in Ravivalasa which is 19OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

in exclusive possession and enjoyment of plaintiff. The plaintiff suppressed the said fact and not shown that Ac.3-50 or Ac.3-60 in the plaint schedule.

20. DW1 Sarlana Sankararao deposed that his marriage was performed with Sarlana Nirmala in the year 1981 and they lead conjugal life till 2001.

Their marriage dissolved under PLC 11/2001 dated 10-4-2001. The marriage cannot be dissolved in PLC 11/2001 and they can seek dissolution of marriage through court of law. DW1 got marked marriage registration certificate in between defendants 1 and 2. The same was not challenged by the mother of plaintiff and PW1 clearly accepted the marriage between mother of plaintiff and defendant no.1 was dissolved.

DW1 further deposed that he purchased the plaint A- schedule properties under registered sale deed dt.2-5-1998 for an item no.2,8 of the plaint schedule properties and he also purchased itemno.11 of plaint A-schedule property under registered sale deed dt.22-1-2001 for an extent of Ac.0-28 cents. He also purchased plaint A-schedule property item no.17 under registered sale deed t.31-1-1987. The plaint A schedule properties fell to the share of defendant no.1 during partition in between himself , father and brothers in the year 1988. DW1 further deposed that plaint B-schedule property item no.1 purchased by DW1 on 22-1-2001 through registered sale deed and the same was gifted to defendant no.2 dated 21-4-2018.

Plaint B-schedule property item no.2 which was allotted by DW1 to his first wife i.e., Sarlana Nirmala . at presentshe is residing in that house. Item 20OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

no.3 of plaint B-schedule is the self acquired of DW1 and he is the exclusive owner of the same. Plaint C-schedule property item no.2 and plaint A-schedule of item no.6 which was purchased by DW1 through registered sale deed dt.9-5-1979. Item no.3 of plaint C-schedule purchased on 22-1-2001 under registered sale deed from the plaintiff’s mother. Item no.6 of plaint C- schedule purchased by Dw1 through registered sale deed dt.20-3-1978. Plaint D-schedule property is the self acquired property of DW1 which was purchased on 14-5-2013 under registered sale deed and in turn he executed a gift settlement deed dt.17- 11-2014 in favour of defendant no.2.

21. DW2 Sarlana Laxminageswari/ defendant no.2 deposed that first defendant is her husband and they got married on 4-5-2001 at

Tadepalligudem. Their marriage was registered in SRO, Srikakulam on 13- 4-2022. Item no.1 of plaint B schedule property and other schedule properties are gifted to her by first defendant under gift settlement deed dt.21-4-2018. Plaint B-schedule property gifted to her on 17-11-2014 under settlement deed. DW2 deposed in the cross examination that, house property situated in DCCB colony gifted in her name. House and landed property situated at Ravivalasa executed by a gift deed in her favour.

22. As can be seen from record, the defendants 1 and 2 contended that the suit properties are the exclusive properties of DWs1 and 2 and got marked Ex.B1 to B16. The plaintiff contended that the suit properties are 21OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

the ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendant no.1. The plaintiff did not choose to examine the revenue officials or summoning any of revenue record to prove plaintiff is in joint possession and enjoyment of suit property along with defendant no.1. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 2-5-1998 executed by Sarlana Mohanarao and Vykuntarao in favour of Sankararao and it covered sy.no.159-1 of item no.1 an extent of

Ac.0-11 cents and sy.no. 31-8 of item no.2 an extent of Ac.0-12 cents.

Ex.B2 is the certified copy of sale deed dt.22-1-2001 stands in the name of defendant no.1 executed by Sarlana Nirmala and it covered the property i.e., Ac.3-76 cents and item no.1 an extent of Ac.0-28 cents in sy.no.28-4; item no.2 an extent of Ac.0-06 cents in sy.no.34-10; item no.3 an extent of

Ac.0-17 cents in sy.no.35-18; item no.4 an extent of Ac.0-09 cents in sy.no.159-1. Ex.B3 is the certified copy of sale deed stands in the name of

Sarlana Sankararao/ D1 and executed by Sarlanana Ramanna and others on 31-1-1987 and it covered with sy.no.76-8 an extent of Ac.0-75 cents.

Ex.B4 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dt. 9-5-1979 executed by Bade Vykuntarao naidu in favour of defendant no.1 and it covered with sy.no.191-11 an extent of Ac.0-43 cents and item no.2 an extent of Ac.0- 10 cents in sy.no.203-7. Ex.B5 is the certified copy of sale deed dt.20-3- 1978 executed by Polaki Satyannarayana and others in favour of defendant no.1 and it covered sy.no.137-5 an extent of Ac.0-03 cents.

Ex.B6 is the certified copy of registered settlement deed dated 14-5-2013 22OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

executed by Gali Suryarao in favour of defendant no.1 in respect of Flat no.5, 1st floor situated at Balaga village, Srikakulam (A-schedule is Flat no.21 and B schedule is Flat no.5). Ex.B7 is certified copy of settlement deed dt.21-4-2018 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 and it covered schedule items 1 to 4 in sy.no28-4 an extent of Ac.0- 28 cents; sy.no.34-10 an extent of Ac.0-06 cents; sy.no.36-18 an extent of

Ac.0-17 cents; sy.no.76-8D an extent of Ac.0-37 cents. Ex.B8 is the certified copy of settlement deed executed by Sarlana Sankararao/ D1 in favour of defendant no.2 and it covered old sy.no.92 and new sy.no.274 (

Flat no.21) situated at Balaga, Srikakulam . Ex.B9 is the certified copy of sale deed of adoption deed dt.26-11-2018 entered between first party and 2nd party about adoption of one Charishma. Ex.B10 is the community, nativity and date of birth certificate of Sarlana Charishma and it shown as defendant no.1 name as her father. Ex.B11 is the Aadhar card of Sarlana

Charishma C/o.Sarlana Sankararao. Ex.B12 is the certified copy of Form-

B 199/22. Ex.B13 is the Muncipal House tax receipt dt.11-3-2022. Ex.B14 is house tax receipts. Ex.B15 is notarized copy of PLC. Ex.B16 is the marriage certificate.

23. DW1 got marked Ex.B1 to B16 to prove suit properties are the self acquired properties of DW1 and executed gift settlement deed in favour of defendant no.2. The plaint B-schedule property in item no.2 was allotted to

Sarlana Nirmala. DW1 deposed that plaintiff was studying 7th class at the 23OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

time of divorce effected between himself and his first wife. He agreed to looked after the welfare of plaintiff as per the terms of compromise in PLC.

11/2001. He married defendantno.2. The plaintiff’s counsel denied the plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of defendant no.1 and further denied the execution of gift settlement deed in favour of defendant no.2. Admitted DW1 is a retired bank employee and he got financial capacity to acquire the properties with his self earnings.

24. As per the decision reported in 2024(2) ALT 246 AP in between

Guvvala Ramakrishna Reddy vs. Guvvala Satyannarayana Reddy,

wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that, “burden lies upon the person who alleges the existence of Hindu undivided family to prove the same and if he proves then, there would be a presumption of property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleolus.”

25. The above principle of law, clearly applicable to the present suit facts on hand. The plaintiff claims the suit properties are the joint properties of plaintiff and defendant no.1. The plaintiff did not file any document to show that plaintiff is in joint possession and enjoyment of suit properties along with defendant no.1. The plaintiff has fails to discharge legal burden to prove the jointness of suit properties along with defendant no.1.

24OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

26. It is evidently clear, the defendant no.1 adopted one Charishma and executed a registered gift deed to prove the adoption. The plaintiff did not choose to add Charishma as a party in the suit. The plaintiff further fails to add the mother of plaintiff as necessary party because item no.2 of plaint B schedule property allotted to mother of plaintiff i.e., Sarlana Nirmala and she is also the necessary party. The plaintiff further fails to include Ac.3- 50 cents or Ac.3-60 cents, the same in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff cannot seek partial partition of plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff fails to add the necessary parties in the suit. It is an obligation on the part of plaintiff to prove the suit properties are the joint properties of plaintiff and defendant no.1. But however, the plaintiff fails to prove, defendant no.1 has no right to execute gift settlement deed dt.17-4-2014 in favour of defendant no.2.

27. This court relied upon a judgment reported in 2024(4) ALT

660 A.P., in between Murasetti Subbarao (died) for LRs vs. Murasetti

Rama Kotiah and ors; has held, “the documentary evidence produced by the defendants goes to show that the parties in the suit are purchased the self acquired properties independently and there is no jointness.”

28. From the above judgment facts, it is clearly applicable to the present facts of the case on hand. Here in the case, DWs 1 and 2 oral evidence and Ex.B1 to B16 documentary evidence which were produced 25OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

by defendants, goes to show that defendant no.1 had purchased self acquired properties independently.

29. On a careful reading and scrutiny of evidence of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1 to A3 and as well as both oral and documentary evidence of Dws 1 and 2, Ex.B1 to B16, which clinchingly shows that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the legal burden to prove that plaint A,B,C,D schedule properties are the joint properties of plaintiff and defendant no.1 and to show prima-facie in order to grant preliminary decree in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A1 to A3 which are revenue records are no way helpful to prove the joint property between the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff. Oral evidence of Pws 1 and 2 are no way helpful to prove the case of plaintiff. The plaintiff suppressed the allotment of share Ac.3-50 cents or Ac.3-60 cents, in his favour to include the same in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff further fails to examine his mother as a witness on his behalf and as well as failed to examine the revenue officials to prove the suit properties are the joint properties of both plaintiff and defendant no.1.

30. Therefore, in view of my above foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that, plaintiff is not entitled for partition of plaint schedule properties into equal shares and thereafter to allot him one such share to the plaintiff as prayed for. The plaintiff has failed to prove the gift deeds executed by defendant no.1 in favour of 26OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

defendant no.2 are not binding on him. The plaintiff further fails to prove plaint A,B,C,D schedule properties are joint properties of plaintiff and defendant no.1. Accordingly issues no.1 to 3 are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

31. ISSUE No.4:

In view of my findings, in issue No.1 to 3, the suit filed by plaintiff for partition of A to D suit properties, is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly issue is answered.

In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, this the 9th day of February, 2026.

BHASKARA Digitally signed by

BHASKARA RAVU

RAVU

PEDDINTI

Date: 2026.02.12

PEDDINTI

10:57:13 +05'30' I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDECE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants :

PW.1: Sarlana Jeevan DW.1: Sarlana Sankararao PW.2: Sarlana Madhusudanarao DW2: Sarlana Laxminageswari

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: 1B register dt.12-6-2018

Ex.A2 : Adangal for sy.no.36/14 and 36/15

Ex.A3: Adangal for sy.no.131/3 27OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

For Defendants:

Ex.B1: Certified copy of sale deed dt.2-5-1998 executed by S.Mohanarao in favour of DW1.

Ex.B2: Certified copy of sale deed dt.22-1-2001 executed by S.Nirmala in favour of DW1.

Ex.B3: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.31-1-1987 executed by S.

Ramana in favour of DW1.

Ex.B4: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.9-5-1979 executed by

Vykuntareddy naidu in favour of DW1.

Ex.B5: Certified copy of sale deed dt.20-3-1978 executed by Polaki

Satyanarayana in favour of DW1.

Ex.B6: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.14-5-2013 executed by

Gali Suryarao in favour of DW1.

Ex.B7: settlement deed dt.21-4-2018 executed DW1 in favour of defendant no.2

Ex.B8: Certified copy of registered settlement deed dt.17-11-2014 executed by DW1 in favour of defendant no.2

Ex.B9: Registered adoption deed dt.26-11-2018

Ex.B10: Community, nativity and date of birth certificate issued by MRO,

Srikakulam dt.11-3-2025.

Ex.B11: Aadhar card of adopted daughter by name Sarlana Charishma.

Ex.B12: Certified copy of form-B 199/2022 of Hindu Marriage Registrar, issued by Joint Sub Registrar, Srikakulam.

Ex.B13: Municipal house tax receipts dt.11-3-2025 of Srikakulam Muncipal

Corporation.

Ex.B14: House tax receipt for the year 2018-19 issued by Gram

Panchayat,Ravivalasa, Takkali.

28OS No. 46/2023. Dt. 9-2-2026 IADJ Court, Srikakulam.

Ex.B15: Notarised copy of award in PLC.11/2011 on the file of DLSA,

Srikakulam dt.10-4-2001.

Ex.B16: Certified copy of marriage certificate of defendants no.1 and 2 dt.13-4-2022. BHASKARA Digitally signed by

BHASKARA RAVU

RAVU

PEDDINTI

Date: 2026.02.12

PEDDINTI

10:57:29 +05'30' I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

VI ADJ Court 1 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SOMPETA.

PRESENT: Sri P.Bhaskar Rao,

Judge, Family court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

FAC: VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sompeta

FRIDAY, THIS THE 20 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

Appeal Suit. No.02/2016

& I.A.323/2016(CROSS OBJECTIONS)

Between: State Bank of India, Ichapuram represented by its Branch Manager, represented by its Branch Manager, Ichapuram, Ichapuram mandal, Srikakulam district.

..Appellant/Plaintiff

And : Bonela Sankaram son of late Yellayya, aged about 567 years, Hindu, Ex- Employee of State Bank of India, residing at N.H.5 road, Ichapuram, Ichapuram mandal, Srikakulam district. [

..Respondent/defendant

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE 02.06.2014 MADE

IN O.S.50/2014 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SOMPETA

Between: State Bank of India, Ichapuram represented by its Branch Manager, represented by its Branch Manager, Ichapuram, Ichapuram mandal, Srikakulam district.

..Plaintiff

And:

Bonela Sankaram son of late Yellayya, aged about 567 years, Hindu, Ex- Employee of State Bank of India, residing at N.H.5 road, Ichapuram, Ichapuram mandal, Srikakulam district. [

.. Defendant

This appeal and Cross Appeal are coming on 22.09.2023 before me in the presence of Sri V.C.Patnaik, Advocate for the Appellant/Plaintiff and of Sri G.S.Sailendara, Advocate for the respondent/defendant, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

01. The appellant herein is the plaintiff filed the O.S.50/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta against the Respondent/defendant for

VI ADJ Court 2 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023 recovery of Rs.1,15,222-82Ps which is the balance of loan amount as on 22.8.2004, Rs.81,237-63Ps which is the balance amount as on 22.8.2004 and Rs.37,957/- which is the amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff bank, with subsequent interest at contract rate of 10% per annum and for costs of the suit. During course of trial, the respondent/defendant herein filed counter claim claiming that he is entitled an amount of

Rs.95,902/- from the plaintiff bank. After full-fledged trial, the trial court dismissed the suit claim of the plaintiff bank so also the counter claim of the defendant.

Against the said judgment of the trial court, both the plaintiff bank and the defendant preferred Appeal and counter claim.

02. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court and for comprehension of their brief contentions are mentioned hereunder:

03. The brief averments of the plaint are that;

The defendant worked as an employee in the State Bank of

India till he was dismissed from the service on 13.10.2003. While he was working as Assistant (Records and Cash) in the State Bank of India Branch at Silagam, approached the plaintiff-bank for sanction of loan of

Rs.1,00,000/- for the construction of a house. On considering the said application of the defendant, the plaintiff-bank sanctioned loan of

Rs.1,00,000/- vide sanction letter dt.04.11.1993. The defendant executed term loan agreement for clerical and sub ordinate staff in favour of the plaintiff bank on 11.11.1993, on which day the amount was paid. The

VI ADJ Court 3 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023 defendant also executed a letter in favour of Trustee, State Bank of India, provident fund and gratuity authorizing the trustees to appropriate the provident fund towards the discharge of the loan in the event of his failure, neglect, omission and inability in repayment of loan. The wife of the defendant who is a nominee also executed a similar letter in favour of the

Trustee, S.B.I., on 11.11.1993.

a) As per the terms and conditions of the loan, the defendant has to repay the loan amount in 240 installments with interest at 10% per annum. The defendant also deposited his title deeds i.e., registered sale deed dt.5.3.1993 executed by Peddini Janakamma and her son Dharmaraju in favour of the defendant in respect of a vacant site and the defendant also sent a letter to the plaintiff bank confirming the deposit of title deed on 11.11.1993 by creating an equitable mortgage by way of collateral security for the amount due to the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank paid the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- into the account of the defendant. After receipt of the loan, the defendant invested the said amount for construction of house. The defendant executed revival letter dt.6.10.1996 in favour of the plaintiff bank reviving the debt and also executed revival letters dt.30.8.1999, 25.8.2003 respectively .Thus the defendant has to pay an amount of Rs.1,15,222-82Ps as per the account filed along with the plaint.

b) Again the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for sanction of

additional amount of Rs.60,000/- for completion of construction of the

house and the plaintiff sanctioned the amount as per sanction letter dt.19.4.1995 and paid the amount on 21.3.1995. So the limit was

VI ADJ Court 4 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023 enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,60,000/- and executed a memorandum of agreement dt.21.3.1995. The defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff bank confirming the continuation of deposit of his title deed with the bank.

c) Again the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for sanction of a sum of Rs.90,000/- as additional loan for the completion of construction of building and executed agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank on 10.09.1997 and also executed a demand promissory note on 10.9.1997 and the defendant was paid the said loan amount. The defendant executed revival letters dt.12.04.2000, 5.4.2003 in favour of the plaintiff.

d) While the defendant was working as an employee in State Bank of

India, Chittivalasa played fraud on a borrower by name Smt. N.Bala Tripura

Sundari and misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and she approached the consumer forum for payment of Rs.1,33,859/- and the consumer directed the plaintiff bank to pay the amount of Rs.1,33,859/- to the borrower. Basing on the award, the plaintiff bank Regional Office deducted an amount of Rs.95,902/- from the G.P.F. Account of the defendant which was only amount available in his account and hence the defendant is still liable to pay an amount ofRs.37,957/- and later the defendant was dismissed from the service. Hence, this suit.

04.The defendant filed his written statement-cum-counter claim and denied the material averments of the plaint. He further contended that, while he was working at Silagam, he had executed loan agreement on 11.11.1993 in favour of the plaintiff bank at Ichapuram, thereafter the plaintiff bank opened an account MTR 1/110 and he paid the loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in four installments with different dates and sums.

Thereafter the plaintiff bank obtained the signatures of the defendant and

VI ADJ Court 5 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023 his wife on some blank papers without putting the date under their signatures. He and his wife neither executed the letter dt.11.11.1993 in favour of the Trustee, S.B.I, Provident Fund and Gratuity and it is a forged and concocted one. The account sheet and its corresponding ledges filed do not relate to the account MTL bearing No.1/110 and some payments made by the defendants are not reflected in the account and the same are not calculated correctly. The interest collected from the defendant is excessive.

a) The defendant never executed revival letters dt.5.4.2003, 30.8.1999, 12.04.2000 and 25.08.2002 in favour of the plaintiff and they are rank forged and by the dates on which it was executed, the defendant was not resided at Ichapuram. The account copy filed by the plaintiff bank is not correct.

b) After clearing the first loan under MTL 1/110, the defendant applied 2nd loan and the same was sanctioned vide letter dt.14.3.1995 to the defendant for an amount of Rs.60,000/-. There are over writings in the account sheet and tampering of dates. The defendant paid the entire loan amount to the plaintiff bank through his salaries, but with a malafide intention, the plaintiff bank did not file the original H.L.7/4 account sheet related to the additional loan amount of the defendant. The account sheet filed by the plaintiff bank relates to H.L.5/11 but not the account of H.L.7/4 and it is not maintainable under law. As per the account sheet filed by the plaintiff bank clearly indicates that the defendant paid the entire loan amount on 13.9.1997.

c) Thereafter the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for sanction of housing loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and the zonal officer sanctioned

VI ADJ Court 6 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023 an amount of Rs.90,000/- to the defendant vide account No.H.L.2/14 ( housing loan for staff) on 19.09.1997. The defendant has not executed the agreement for the third loan. Thereafter the defendant paid the entire loan amount to the plaintiff bank. But the plaintiff has suppressed the payments made by the defendant and the original supplementary memorandum of agreement in respect of clerical and subordinate staff dt.10.9.1997 is not filed into the court. The defendant further submits that the plaintiff bank officials with a view to cause wrongful loss to the defendant filed the present to save limitation by creating false cause of action against this defendant.

d) The defendant further submits that, the plaintiff bank officials got colluded with one borrower and got obtained Award from the consumer

Forum in favour of Bala Tripura Sundari and got deducted an amount of

Rs.95,902/- from the G.P.F. account of the defendant which is irregular and the defendant is not liable to pay any amount to her and further there is no specific direction in the award that the said amount is to be recovered from the defendant and hence the defendant is claiming Rs.95,902/- from the plaintiff bank with interest under the counter claim filed under Order 8

Rule 6 of C.P.C.

e)There is no cause of action to file the suit. The suit is barred by limitation. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

05.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled by the court below for trial:

VI ADJ Court 7 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023

I S S U E S

01. Whether the revival letters dt.30.08.1999, 12.4.2000, 25.8.2002 and 5.4.2003 are forged one?

02. Whether account filed by the plaintiff is in correct?

03. Whether the defendant paid entire loan amount on 13.09.1997?

04. Whether the plaintiff bank has suppressed the payments made by the defendants?

05. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

06. Whether the court has primary jurisdiction to try the suit or not?

07. Whether there is cause of action for filing the suit by plaintiff against the defendant?

08. Whether the court fee paid by plaintiff is correct?

09. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amounts of Rs.1,15,222./82, Rs.81,237.63 as on 22.8.2004 against the Defendant as prayed for?

10. Whether the defendant is liable for payment of Rs.37,957/- to the plaintiff bank?

11. Whether the defendant is entitled for Rs.95,902/- towards Counter claim from plaintiff bank as prayed for?

12. Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for preliminary decree against the defendant as prayed for?

13. To what relief?

06. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 and 2 examined and Exs.A1 to Ex.A22 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, defendant himself examined as DW1 and Exs.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked.

07. After conducting trial, the trial court gave finding that both plaintiff and defendant failed to prove their respective claims and hence dismissed the suit and so also the counter claim of the defendant 08.Aggrieved by the above said finding of the trail court, the appellants/plaintiff preferred the present appeal and the

VI ADJ Court 8 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023 respondent/defendant preferred cross objections, with the following grounds:

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

i) the decree and judgment of the trial court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

ii) the trial court should have seen that the suit is filed for redemption of mortgage deed for which the limitation is 12 years from the date of borrowal of amount and the suit is filed within time.

iii) The trial court should have seen that the defendant as DW1 admitted the borrowal of suit debt and deposit of title deeds Ex.A5 and confirmation letter/Ex.A7 and also about the execution of documents i.e.,

Ex.A1 to Ex.A22 in favour of the plaintiff bank and Ex.A21 transaction and his liability to pay the amount under the consumer court order.

iv) The trial court should have seen that the revival letters Ex.A8 to

Ex.A10, Ex.A19 and Ex.A20 which were sent to the hand writing expert by the defendant and the opinion of the expert that they are singed and executed by the defendant, should have decreed the suit.

v) The trial court erred in holding that, Ex.A6 and Ex.A14 and Ex.A18 accounts sheets are not correct ; vi) the trial court failed to consider the admissions made by the defendants that he borrowed the amount from the bank,should have decreed the suit ;

VI ADJ Court 9 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023 vii) The trial court should have seen that as per the orders of the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at A.P. vide its orders in CRP 4465/2006

and C.M.P.6193/2006 the defendant deposited Rs.2,36,417/- and the said amount is also paid to the bank through a cheque and should have been decreed the suit ;

With those and other grounds, the plaintiff prays to set aside the decree and judgment of the trial court and to allow the appeal with costs.

09.CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE DEFENDANT

i) the decree and judgment of the trial court so far as the counter claim of the defendant is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case ; ii) the trial court went wrong in appreciating the fat that the employer/plaintiff has no right or authority to deduct/attach the amount from the provident fund account of the defendants when there is no written instructions from the defendant ; iii) The trial court should have observed that the deductions having been admitted by the plaintiff, no further proof of deduction is required and it is the obligation of plaintiff to show the deductions are made as per the law.

iv) The trial court has not properly answered the issue Nos.3 and 11 in its proper perspective and the discussion thereon is contrary to the observations mentioned in other issues. Mere discrepancy in Ex.B1 with regard to amount cannot be a ground, to disallow the counter claim.

VI ADJ Court 10 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023

Therefore, the counter claim of the defendant is liable to be allowed on the above grounds.

10.No witnesses examined and no documents marked in this appeal on either side.

11.Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.

12.Now, the points for consideration are...

1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.1,15,222-82Ps, Rs.81,237-63Ps and Rs.37,957/- with subsequent interest from the defendant, as prayed for?

2. Whetehr the plaintiff bank is entitled for preliminary decree against the defendant, as prayed for?

3. Whether the plaintiff bank filed the suit within the prescribed period of limitation?

4. Whether the defendant is entitled to claim counter claim amount of Rs.95, 902/- from the plaintiff bank, as prayed for?

5. Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to include all the claims in a single suit?

6. Whether the decree and judgment dt. 02.06.2014 in O.S.50/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta requires any interference of this court?

7. To what relief?

13.POINT No.1 to 5 :

In order to substantiate the claim of plaintiff, one K.Seshagiri,

Branch Manager was examined as PW1 and he reiterated the plaint averments in his chief affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A22.

T.V.Ramana, Chief Manager was examined as PW2 to support the case of the plaintiff bank.

On the other hand the defendant himself examined as DW1 and Exs.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked on his behalf.

VI ADJ Court 11 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023

14.The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that, the plaintiff bank sanctioned loan of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.60,000/- and

Rs.90,000/- to the defendant on different dates and the defendant executed revival letters in favour of the plaintiff bank respectively, agreeing to repay the loan amount to the plaintiff. The defendant executed loan agreement in favour of the plaintiff and also executed revival letters on different dates. The defendant has failed to discharge the loan amount inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank.

The defendant worked as an employee in State Bank of India and availed loan and subsequently he was dismissed from service. The defendant cannot claim the counter claim amount as prayed in the written statement. The defendant further failed to prove that he discharged the loan amount as contended in the written statement.

He further argued that, the trial court failed to appreciate both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff bank and dismissed the suit instead of decreeing the suit. The suit was filed within the limitation period. The hand writing expert opined that the signatures on revival letters and the admitted signatures of the defendant are similar.

The appellant/plaintiff prays the court to allow the appeal by decreeing the suit and further prays the court to dismiss the counter claim of the defendant. The plaintiff relied upon the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and documentary evidence of Exs.A1 to Ex.A22 to prove its case.

15. The learned counsel for the defendant submits that, the trial court rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff bank, as the plaintiff bank filed the suit by including all the amounts. The suit is barred by limitation

VI ADJ Court 12 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023 and the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit including the consumer forum award. The trial court failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence of defendant as DW1 and Exs.B1 to Ex.B3 to grant counter claim amount against the plaintiff. The defendant counsel further prays the counter claim is liable to be allowed against the plaintiff and the suit of the plaintiff bank is liable to be dismissed.

16.PW1 and PW2 clearly deposed in their evidence that the defendant availed the loan from the plaintiff by executing loan agreement dt.11.11.1993 under Ex.A2 and also deposited title deeds under Ex.A5 and confirmed the deposit of title deeds under Ex.A7 at the time of sanction of loan. The defendant opened an account under Ex.A6, supplementary agreement under Ex.A16 and executed demand promissory note under

Ex.A17 dt.10.09.1997. Subsequently the defendant executed revival letters under Ex.A8 to Ex.A10 and Ex.A19 and Ex.A20 for the debt in favour of the plaintiff bank. The defendant contended that PW1 is not the

Manager of the plaintiff bank at the time of sanction of loan or at the time of filing of the suit. It is a settled principle of law that a successor of the bank employee can depose evidence on behalf of the bank.

17.PW2, who is the chief manager of the plaintiff bank clearly deposed that during his period the present suit was filed before the court against the defendant and he signed in the loan in the capacity of

Manager and he knows the suit facts. PW2 further deposed that the defendant availed three loans i.e., Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.60,000/- and

Rs.90,000/- from the plaintiff on different dates respectively. PW2 further deposed that on 5.4.2003 the defendant executed revival letters in his

VI ADJ Court 13 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023 presence in respect of three loans. PW2 further deposed that for the fraud played by him, the consumer forum awarded amount and directed the plaintiff bank to pay the award amount to the consumer and directed to deduct the same from the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff bank deducted an amount of Rs.95902/- from the G.P.F. Funds of the defendant and still the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.37957/- to the plaintiff bank. PW2 further deposed that, the plaintiff bank has no necessity to forge the signature of the defendant on revival letters.

a) The defendant counsel further contended that the plaintiff bank did not issue legal notice to the defendant prior to the filing of the suit. PW2 clearly deposed that the bank officials orally demanded the defendant to discharge the loan amount. Mere non issuance of legal notice to the defendant does not mean the suit is false one.

b) The defendant counsel further argued that the plaintiff bank has failed to file the rejoinder after filing of the counter claim by the defendant. The plaintiff bank has failed to file the rejoinder the same was denied in the chief affidavit of PW1 and PW2. Mere non filing of rejoinder by the plaintiff bank does not mean, the counter claim is admitted by the plaintiff bank. PW2 further deposed they have received letter from regional office about the money debt at consumer court. The defendant availed house loan and the name of his wife is shown as nominee. The defendant was shown as second respondent in the consumer forum award and the Branch manager of Chittivalasa was shown as first respondent.

PW2 further deposed that the consumer forum passed the award is as follows:-

VI ADJ Court 14 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023 “ the opposite parties No.1 and 3 are directed to pay

Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 10.5% per annum from the date of deposit till date of realisation to the complainant. The opposite parties Nos.1 and 3 are directed to collect the above awarded amount from the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony, tension and financial loss caused to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

18.The learned plaintiff counsel contended that the bank has deducted some amount from the G.P.F. Account of the defendant. The defendant cannot deny the consumer forum award passed against him.

The defendant did not chose to challenge the said order passed by the consumer forum. The authorities of the plaintiff bank deducted some part of the award amount from the G.P.F. account of the defendant in respect of the liability of the defendant to honour the award amount.

19.The defendant counsel further argued that the plaintiff bank is entitled to file a petition under SARFAC Act for recovery of the loan amount. The plaintiff bank is entitled to file civil suit as well as to file a petition under SARFAC Act for recovery of the loan amount. The plaintiff bank did not avail the provisions of SARFAC Act and filed the suit for recovery of money basing on the Ex.A1 to Ex.A22. The loan transaction relates to the housing loan and defendant was a bank employee and the suit transaction took place within the jurisdiction of this court. The defendant ought to have file a petition under Sec.21 of the C.P.C. to frame the preliminary issue to determine about the jurisdiction of the court and

VI ADJ Court 15 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023 the defendant failed to raise the objection at the earliest point of time in the trial court.

20.The plaintiff filed a petition under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. to seek permission to adduce additional evidence. The defendant filed counter and opposed to allow the petition. At the stage of hearing of the main appeal the court can look into the said petition filed by the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff filed the said petition seeking permission to examine the handwriting expert to confront the opinion of the expert. It appears the trial court received the expert opinion as per the Receive No.886 dt.20.8.2011 i.e., prior to disposal of the suit i.e.,, in the year 2014. The expert opinion is part of the record. The plaintiff bank has failed to take necessary steps to summon the expert to mark the opinion of the hand writing expert. It is not in dispute the admitted and disputed signatures of the defendant were forwarded to the Central Forensic Laboratory for handwriting opinion to ascertain the genuineness of the signatures on the revival letters. The hand writing expert opined that the standard signatures and questioned signatures are similar. As per Sec.45 of the

Indian Evidence Act, opinion of the expert is only in aid to the court to determine the issue. The expert opinion is not a conclusive proof. However court can compare the disputed signatures of the defendant with that of the available signatures. The defendant got knowledge about the opinion of the expert. The defendant did not take necessary steps to summon expert to disprove the same. The defendant mainly contended that he never executed revival letters in favour of the plaintiff bank. The burden

VI ADJ Court 16 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023 lies on the defendant to prove that the plaintiff bank forged the signatures of the defendant.

21.Ex.A1 is the sanction letter dt.4.10.1993 in favour of the defendant who worked as Manager at Silagam for an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.A2 is the term loan agreement executed by defendant on 11.11.1993 in favour of the plaintiff bank and it contains the signature of the defendant on each page. The defendant agreed the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and it is binding on the defendant. Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 are authorization letters of the defendant and his wife stating that he signed on the application and they agreed to discharge the loan.

Ex.A5 is the deposit of original sale deed dt.5.3.1993 stands in the name of defendant. Ex.A6 is the account copy showing the balance as

Rs.81,237/- as on 22.8.2004. E.A7 is the confirmation letter confirming the deposit of sale deeds by the defendant. Ex.A8 to Ex.A10 are revival letters

dt. 6.10.1996, 30.08.199 and dt.25.8.2002. The defendant signed in Ex.A8

to Ex.A10. Ex.A11 is the sanction letter dt.14.3.1995 for the second loan availed by defendant for Rs.60,000/-. Ex.A12 is the memorandum of agreement executed by the defendant dt.11.11.1993. Ex.A13 is the letter of the defendant dt.22.3.1995. Ex.A14 is the account copy wherein the balance amount shown as Rs.85,740/- as on 13.09.1997. Ex.A15 is the sanction letter for Rs.1,00,000/- for the loan amount. Ex.A16 is the supplementary agreement dt.10.9.1997 and the defendant signed on each page. Ex.A17 is the demand promissory note for Rs.90,000/- executed by the defendant. Ex.A18 is the account copy showing the balance as on 22.8.2004 is Rs.1,15,222/-. Ex.A19 and Ex.A20 are revival letters

VI ADJ Court 17 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023 dt.12.4.2000 and 5.4.2003 and the borrower/defendant signed across the revenue stamp admitting his liability. Ex.A21 is the FA 160/2003. The defendant preferred appeal before the learned State Consumer Forum against the bank, wherein it was observed that the appeals are dismissed.

It was observed that the bank is at liberty to recover the amount from the second opposite party i.e., defendant depending upon the result of the enquiry. The said observation of the learned State Consumer Forum is made it clear that the plaintiff bank is at liberty to deduct the amount from the defendant subject to result of enquiry. The defendant cannot contend that the plaintiff bank has no right to deduct the amount from his

G.P.F.Account. Ex.A22 is the proceedings issued by the Chief General

Manager dt.178.3.2004 about the suspension of defendant from the State

Bank of India.

22.The defendant as DW1 clearly admitted the borrowal of loans from the plaintiff bank, deposit of title deeds and execution of agreements and demand promissory note. The defendant further admitted about preferring the appeal before the learned State consumer forum. Ex.B1 is the Settlement of terminal benefits dt.17.5.2005 issued by the State Bank of India Branch at Saluru. Ex.B2 is the possession notice issued by the

Ichapuram branch and Ex.B3 is the notice.

23.PW2 in his cross examination deposed that, “ it is true that the

Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saluru had issued a letter dt.17.05.2005 to the defendant stating that they have issued bankers cheque for Rs.97,122/- towards balance of G.P.F. Amount after adjusting the bank loan.

VI ADJ Court 18 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023

The above admission of PW2 is made it clear that, after adjusting the loan amounts, the plaintiff bank had issued bankers cheque for Rs.97,122/-. From the evidence of PW2, it is clear that the defendant has paid all the loan amounts to the plaintiff bank. Therefore, the plaintiff bank is not entitled to claim the suit claim from the defendant.

24.Coming to the counter claim of the defendant, it is admitted by

DW1 in his cross examination that, an award was passed by the learned

Consumer Court directing the bank to pay the amount nearly

Rs.1,40,000/-. He further admitted that, an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was paid to Balatripura Sundari as per the award of State Consumer forum.

It is the contention of the plaintiff bank that, an amount of

Rs.97,122/- was deducted from the G.P. F. Account of the defendant towards compensation to be payable to the claimant/Balatripura Sundari and the defendant is still liable to pay the remaining amount of

Rs.37,000/-. PW1 and PW2 admitted in their evidence that an amount of

Rs.97,122/- was deducted from the GPF Account of the defendant and paid towards compensation amount, so no amount was lying in the account of the defendant. Therefore, the counter claim of the defendant that the defendant is entitled an amount of Rs.97,122/- cannot be accepted in view of the admissions made by DW1 and the observations made by the learned State consumer forum that the plaintiff bank is at liberty to deduct the said amount from the opposite party/defendant and accordingly, the plaintiff bank deducted an amount of Rs.97,122/- from the G.P. F. Account of the defendant.

VI ADJ Court 19 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023 25.The defendant further contended that the suit is barred by limitation and defendant never executed revival letters . The suit was filed in the year 2014. The plaintiff filed the suit for passing of preliminary decree basing on the deposit of title deeds and the limitation for filing of the suit is 12 years. Therefore, the suit is filed within the period of limitation. The defendant's contention that the suit is barred by limitation, cannot be accepted.

26.The further contention of the defendant is that, the plaintiff bank filed the suit for recovery of three loans and the single suit is not maintainable under law. The plaintiff bank sanctioned all the three loans for the purpose of construction of house, so the nature of the loan is one and the same and due to non-completion construction of house, the defendant employee applied for additional loans. So, the plaintiff bank considered the loan application and sanctioned loans. The plaintiff bank has obtained demand promissory note and also executed letter of undertaking in favour of the plaintiff bank and they agreed to deduct the amounts from the benefits of the defendant,. So, the plaintiff bank has filed the suit for recovery of amount due under the loans and the revival letters obtained subsequently. Basing on the opinion of the expert and also the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, clearly shows the defendant executed revival letters in favour of the plaintiff bank. There is no evidence on record to prove that the plaintiff bank forged the signatures of the defendant. PW2 clearly deposed that the plaintiff bank has no necessity to forge the signatures of the defendant.

VI ADJ Court 20 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023 27.The defendant further contended that the plaintiff bank has no right to deduct the GPF Amounts and he is entitled to the counter claim amount under Order 8 Rule 6(a) of C.P.C. The defendant relied upon the oral evidence of DW1 and documentary evidence of Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 for the purpose of claiming counter claim. PW2 clearly admitted Saluru branch issued Ex.B1 stating that after adjusting the loan amounts, they have issued a bankers cheque. The defendant clearly admitted that the State consumer forum passed an award and fixed the liability on the defendant, therefore, the defendant is personally liable to pay the amount to the claimant in State Consumer Forum case. DW1 clearly admitted that the state consumer forum passed award and it is binding on the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff bank is entitled to deduct the amount from the benefits of the defendant to adjust the same to honour the award. The defendant is not entitled to claim the counter claim amount under O.8

R.6(a) of C.P.C.

28.In view of my above discussion, I hold that, the plaintiff filed the suit within the period of limitation. The plaintiff bank has satisfactorily proved the defendant executed revival in favour of the plaintiff bank and the plaintiff bank included all the three loans relates to housing loan and filed a single suit and the defendant deposited the title deeds as security for all the three loans. Accordingly, the point Nos.1 to 5 are answered.

29. POINT No.6:

In view of my answer to the point No.1 to 3 the trial court rightly dismissed the suit in O.S. 50/2004 dt. 02.06.2014 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, so also the counter claim of the defendant.

VI ADJ Court 21 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023

Therefore, I am of the opinion that, there is no need to interfere into the findings given in the judgment of the trial court. Accordingly, this point is answered.

30. POINT No.7:

In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the decree and judgment dated 02.06.2014 in O.S.50/2004 passed by the

Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta. The counter claim/Cross appeal filed by the

defendant is dismissed. Both parties do bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I( VI ADJ Court, Sompeta) , transcribed

by him, corrected and pronounced by me, in open court, this the 20th day of October, 2023.

Judge, Family Court-cum-

III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

FAC: VI Addl. District Judge,

Sompeta

.APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

&

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Appellant: For Respondents:

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Judge, Family Court-cum-

III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

FAC: VI Addl. District Judge,

Sompeta

VI ADJ Court 22 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023

O/o the VI Addl. District Court, Sompeta Dt. 20.10.2023

NOTICE

Please take notice that the judgment in A.S.No.02/2016 and Cross

Objections on the file of this court will be pronounced during the course of this day i.e., on 20.10.2023 //By Order//

Chief Admn. Officer

Sri V.C.Patnaik, Advocate for the Appellant /Plaintiff

Sri G.S.Sailendra, Advocate for the Respondent/defendant

O/o the VI Addl. District Court, Sompeta Dt. 20.10.2023

NOTICE

Please take notice that the judgment in A.S.No.02/2016 and Cross

Objections on the file of this court will be pronounced during the course of this day i.e., on 20.10.2023 //By Order//

Chief Admn. Officer

Sri V.C.Patnaik, Advocate for the Appellant /Plaintiff

Sri G.S.Sailendra, Advocate for the Respondent/defendant

VI ADJ Court 23 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and Jurisdiction: Rs.55,826/-

Date of presentation of Appeal: 15.11.2017 Date of filing: 19.02.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SOMPETA.

PRESENT: Sri P.Bhaskar Rao,

Judge, Family court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

FAC: VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sompeta

FRIDAY, THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

Appeal Suit. No.18/2018

Between:

1.Nartu Balamma wife of late Madayya, 48 years, resident of Savasanaputtua village, Kaviti mandal, Srikakulam district.

2.Nartu Sankara Rao son of late Madayya, 25 years, resident of Savasanaputtua village, Kaviti mandal, Srikakulam district

3.Nartu Papa Rao so of late Madayya, 22 years, resident of Savasanaputtua village, Kaviti mandal, Srikakulam district

4.Korikana Tulasi wife of Ramarao & D/of late Madayya, 30years, resident of Mutyalapeta village, Kaviti mandal, Srikakulam district.

..Appellants/Defendants

And :

Karagana Ramarao son of Balaji 50 years, resident of Savasanaputtuga village, Kaviti mandal, Srikakulam district.

..Respondent/Plaintiff

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE 14.09.2017 MADE IN

O.S.02/2007 ON THE FILE OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ICHAPURAM

Between : Karagana Ramarao son of Balaji 50 years, resident of Savasanaputtuga village, Kaviti mandal, Srikakulam district.

..Plaintiff

And :

1.Nartu Balamma wife of late Madayya, 48 years, resident of Savasanaputtua village, Kaviti mandal, Srikakulam district.

2.Nartu Sankara Rao son of late Madayya, 25 years, resident of Savasanaputtua village, Kaviti mandal, Srikakulam district

3.Nartu Papa Rao so of late Madayya, 22 years, resident of Savasanaputtua village, Kaviti mandal, Srikakulam district

4.Korikana Tulasi wife of Ramarao & D/of late Madayya, 30years, resident of Mutyalapeta village, Kaviti mandal, Srikakulam district.

..Defendants

The appellant pray the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to order to set aside the decree and judgment dt.14.09.2017 in O.S.52/2007

VI ADJ Court 24 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Ichapuram and to allow the appeal with costs throughout.

Value of the appeal is Rs.55,826/-, for which a court fee of Rs.2546/- is paid under Sec.10 read with Schedule 49 of the A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act

This appeal is coming on 18.08.2023 before me in the presence of Sri G.S.Sailendra, Advocate for the Appellants/Defendants and of Sri V.C.Patnaik Advocate for the respondent/plaintiff, and after hearing both sides, this court’s doth order and Decree as follows:

i) that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed, with costs throughout by confirming the decree and judgment dt.14.08.2017 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Ichapuram in O.S.02/2007 ;

2) that the appellants/defendants do pay to the respondent/plaintiff a sum of NIL- towards costs of the suit ( no costs memo filed by respondent/plaintiff)

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 22nd day of September, 2023.

Judge, Family Court-cum-

III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. FAC: VI Addl. District Judge, Sompeta

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Appellants for Respondent

Vakalat : Rs. 02-00 Court fee : Rs.2546-00 Advocate fee: Rs.3000-00 No costs memo filed Process: 75-00 -------------------- Costs incurred :Rs. 5623-00

Decree is properly prepared Judge, Family Court-cum- III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. Chief Ministerial Officer FAC: VI Addl. District Judge, Sompeta

VI ADJ Court 25 A. S No.02 of 2016, Dt. 20.10.2023