P Chandana

1 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

ADDL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: AT SIDDIPET

Present: SMT. P. CHANDANA, Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge Siddipet

This the 17 th day of April, 2025

SESSIONS CASE NO. 272 of 2022

Name of the Kethireddy Devendar Reddy, S/o. Bal Reddy, Age: 28 years, ComplainantCaste: Reddy, R/o. Kurella village of Koheda mandal of siddipet district.

Name of the A1. Kethireddy Ramchandra Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, Age: Accused 70 years, Caste: Reddy, R/o. Kurella village of Koheda mandal of Siddipet district. A2. Gaddam Lachavva, W/o. Kanukaiah, Age: 53 years, Caste: Tenugu, R/o. Kurella village of Koheda Mandal of Siddipet District. A3. Gaddam Kanukaiah, S/o. Aillaiah, Age: 57 years, Caste: Tenugu, R/o. Kurella village of Koheda mandal of Siddipet District.

Charges U/Sec. 306 of Indian Penal Code

Crime No.46/2018

Plea of the Not guilty accused

Finding of the Not guilty Court

Sentence or IN THE RESULT, Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty Orderfor the offence U/sec. 306of IPC. Accordingly Accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted U/Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Prosecution Husnabad Police Station represented by state Learned Addl.

17.04.2025 2 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

conducted byPublic Prosecutor Sri. B. Narsaiah

Defence Sri Tunga Kanakaiah, Advocate conducted by

This case is coming up for final Judgment before me in the presence of Sri. B. Narsaiah, Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Tunga Kanakaiah,Learned Counsel for accused and upon hearing and perusal of the record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

This is a case committed by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Husnabad.

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

Brief facts of the case of prosecution are:

1.On 26-03-2018 at 09:15 hours, the complainant Kethireddy Devendar

Reddy, a resident of Kurella village, lodged a written complaint at the

Husnabad police station. PW1 is the son of the deceased and PW4, deceased is wife of PW4, accused No.1 to accused No.3 are residents of Kurella village of Koheda mandal, deceased and PW4 are having land of Ac.01-20gts in Sy.

No.550 at Kurella village, accused No.1 also has Ac.01-20gts of land in the same Survey number, accused No.1 sold out his land to accused No.2 and accused No.3 but accused No.1 to accused No.3 got manipulated the pahani records and land of PW4 was changed into the names of accused persons, on that PW4 approached Tahsildar office Koheda and asked Tahsildar, Tahsildar responded in a negligent manner as such PW4 filed appeal before the 17.04.2025 3 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

Karimnagar Revenue Divisional Officer, for about Two years case proceedings were conducted, at the time of conclusion Revenue Divisional office was changed to Husnabad, during these Two years accused No.1 to accused No.3 abused the PW4 in filthy language by selling the vegetables in

Kurella village roaming in each and every lane. PW4 being worked as

Sarpanch for Twenty years and single window president for about Five years having good reputation felt insulted. PW4 approached the Husnabad Revenue

Divisional Officer office for obtaining the order copy but he did not get the same in time, the land dispute was not resolved by the Tahsildar in the meanwhile the government issuing new pattedar passbooks and listed the undisputed lands in Group-A and disputed lands in Group-B, PW4 requested the Tahsildar to mention his land in Group-B but the concerned Tahsildar refused for the same and threatened the PW4 to go to hell. In the mean while list was affixed at gram panchayat office by mentioning the Sy. No.550 land to an extent of Ac.03-00gts in Group-A, on that PW4 went to Husnabad

Revenue Divisional Officer office on 17-03-2018 along with the deceased and at that time the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer was not present in the office, deceased and PW4 vexed with all these circumstances and consumed pesticide. While undergoing treatment deceased passed away on 25-03-2018 17.04.2025 4 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

at Hyderabad. PW4 survived after getting the treatment hence PW1 requested for legal action.

2.Basing on the complaint of PW1, PW11 registered this case in Cr. No.

46/2018, U/Sec. 306 R/w 34 of IPC against the accused No.1 to accused No.3 and took up investigation, Issued FIR. During the course of investigation

PW11 examined and recorded the statements of PWs1 to PW4, PW6, LW2/K.

Ram Reddy, LW3/G. Raghunath Reddy visited the scene of offence situated at

Tahsildar office Husnabad, conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW7 and PW8 later conducted inquest panchanama at Gandhi hospital Secunderabad in the presence of PW5 and PW9 and obtained the photographs of the deceased through PW6. Autopsy was conducted by the

PW10, later PW12 examined the PW4 and collected the discharge summary,

PW10 forwarded the viscera of the deceased to the Forensic Science

Laboratory for analysis. Accused No.1 to accused No.3 was granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Telangana High Court and released on furnishing the sureties. PW12 collected the final opinion report from the

PW10 as per which the cause of death of the deceased was due to unknown poison. After completion of investigation PW12 filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to accused No.3 for the offence U/Sec.306 R/w 34 of IPC.

17.04.2025 5 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

3.After this case was committed to this Court on hearing of the accused persons this Court framed the charges for the offences U/Sec. 306 of IPC against the accused persons. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons for which they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore summons were issued to the witnesses for trial.

4.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined PWs1 to PW13 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. There is no evidence adduced on behalf of the accused persons.

5.After closure of trial, the accused person were examined U/Sec. 313

Cr.P.C by explaining and reading over incriminating evidence in the prosecution evidence, accused persons denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides arguments. Perused the record.

* Point for determination:

Whether prosecution proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond

all reasonable doubts for the offence U/Sec. 306 of IPC ?

7.To prove the guilt of the accused persons prosecution examined PWs1 to PW13 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. PW1 is the defacto complainant 17.04.2025 6 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

and son of the PW4 and deceased, PW2 and PW3 are the relatives of the deceased and circumstantial witnesses, PW4 is the victim and husband of the deceased, PW6 is the photographer, PW5 and PW9 are the panchas for the inquest panchanama, PW7 and PW8 are the panchas for scene of offence panchanama, PW10 is the medical officer, PW11 is relative of the deceased,

PW12 and PW13 are the investigation officers.

8.The case of the prosecution is that PW4 and deceased who are the husband and wife are having land to an extent of Ac.01-20gts in Sy. No.550 of Kurella village, accused No.1 also having land to an extent of Ac.01-20gts in the same survey number, accused No.1 sold out his land to accused No.2 and accused No.3 but accused No.1 to accused No.3 colluded and manipulated the revenue records and got entered the Ac.01-20gts of land of the PW4 on their names, on coming to know the same PW4 approached the

Tahsildar Koheda, the Tahsildar responded negligently as such PW4 filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer Karimnagar, for about Two years case proceedings were conducted, due to bifurcation of the districts the case was transferred to Husnabad Revenue Divisional Officer during these

Two years period accused No.1 to accused No.3 defamed the PW4 by abusing him in filthy language in each and every lane of the Kurella village by selling 17.04.2025 7 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

the vegetables, PW4 approached the Husnabad Revenue Divisional Officer for order copy but he could not get the order copy on time neither his land dispute was resolved by the Tahsildar concerned moreover his land was listed in the notice board in group-A list of undisputed lands, the Tahsildar did not care the request of the PW4 and threatened him stating that go to hell, on that

PW4 along with deceased on 17-03-2018 went to Revenue Divisional Officer

Husnabad at that time Revenue Divisional Officer was not present in the office, feeling insulted with the acts of the accused No.1 to accused No.3 vexed with life they both attempted to commit suicide by consuming pesticide, while undergoing treatment deceased passed away on 25-03-2018,

PW4 survived after taking the treatment.

9.Coming to the evidence of the PW1 who is the son of the PW4 and material witness in this case he deposed before the court that LW2/K. Ram reddy is his paternal uncle, PW11 is his relative, PW2, PW3 are his relatives,

PW4 is his father, deceased is his mother. PW1 further deposed that he knows accused No.1 to accused No.3, about Five years back accused No.1 sold away his property to accused No.2 and accused No.3 by clubbing the land to an extent of Ac.01-20gts which belongs to his parents, on that deceased and PW4 approached the Tahsildar, did not respond properly, on that his parents 17.04.2025 8 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

approached the Revenue Divisional Officer Karimnagar, due to bifurcation of districts case file was transferred to Revenue Divisional Officer Husnabad, his parents approached the Revenue Divisional Officer Husnabad wherein his parents property was shown in A-category but whereas actually due to the dispute it should reflect in B-category.

10.PW1 further deposed that his parents again approached the Revenue

Divisional Officer Husnabad on 17-03-2018 at that time Revenue Divisional

Officer did not respondent properly as such his parents made suicide attempt at the Revenue Divisional Officer office Husnabad, at that time he was at

Hyderabad on coming to know this he rushed to Warangal as his parents were admitted at MGM hospital, for better treatment his parents were shifted to

Max care hospital Warangal and again shifted to NIMS hospital Hyderabad, while undergoing treatment his mother died, he gave report to the police, the reason for the death of his mother is that the accused has sold away his parents property.

11.During the cross-examination PW1 admitted that he does not know personally about the dispute of the land as claimed by his parents and he came to know about the dispute through PW4 who is his paternal uncle who has adopted the PW1 when he was child. During the cross-examination PW1 17.04.2025 9 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

stated that accused No.1 is son of his grand father who was born to second wife of his grand father. PW1 further deposed that he personally did not take any action against the accused when he came to know about the dispute of the land and personally he has no knowledge about the land particulars which is in dispute.

12.On careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 deposed before the court, he did not state anything about the alleged insult or defaming the PW4 by way of abusing in filthy language by accused No.1 to accused No.3 by roaming in each and every lane of the Kurella village by selling the vegetables. The allegations of the prosecution is that accused No.1 sold away his Ac.01-20gts of land to accused No.2 and accused No.3 but manipulated the revenue records and got entered their names in respect Ac.01-20gts of land belongs to

PW4 and deceased whereas in contrary PW1 deposed that accused No.1 sold away his property to accused No.2 and accused No.3 by clubbing the land to an extent of Ac.01-20gts belong to his parents. So also PW1 did not depose anything about the affixing the list of A-category and B-category of the undisputed and disputed lands in gram panchayat Kurella village. To the contrary PW1 deposed that his parents approached the Revenue Divisional

Officer wherein his parents property was shown in A-category instead of 17.04.2025 10 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

showing in B-category. The case of the prosecution is that due to the manipulation of the revenue record and also defaming of the PW4 by the accused No.1 to accused No.3 in the village the PW4 and deceased attempted to commit suicide but PW1 stated before the court that when his parents approached the Revenue Divisional Officer Husnabad on 17-03-2018 at that time Revenue Divisional Officer did not respond properly as such his parents made suicide attempt at the Revenue Divisional office Husnabad. PW1 further stated that the reason for the death of deceased is that accused has sold away his parents property, whereas as per the case of prosecution when the parents of the PW1 approached the Revenue Divisional Officer Husnabad, the

Revenue Divisional Officer was not present in the office at that time.

13.The evidence of PW1 during the cross-examination clearly shows that he has no knowledge about the dispute of the land of his parents and the land particulars, in view of the above findings, evidence of the PW1 is not going to help the case of the prosecution to show that the accused No.1 to accused

No.3 have abetted the deceased and PW4 to commit suicide. The evidence of

PW1 does not show that accused No.1 to accused No.3 insulted or defamed the PW4 in the village by using filthy language while selling the vegetables in the village immediately preceding the alleged incident. PW1 evidence does 17.04.2025 11 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

not show on which date at what time accused No.1 to accused No.3 insulted the PW4, in which manner accused No.1 to accused No.3 insulted the PW4, further, the evidence of PW1 is not corroborating with the contents of the police report.

14.PW2 and PW3 are the relatives of deceased and circumstantial witnesses. On careful perusal of evidence of PW2 he merely stated before the court that there was land dispute between accused No.1 and PW4, in view of the same in the year 2018 there was a panchayat in which PW2 participated, regarding the issue PW4 approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, who did not take his case in serious manner as such approached Revenue Divisional

Officer however due to bifurcation of districts file was transferred to Revenue

Divisional Officer Husnabad in this regard PW4 again visited Mandal

Revenue Officer office Koheda and questioned him that they have correct title in respect of their property but however delay is caused in entering their name in the revenue records. PW2 further deposed that Mandal Revenue Officer did not respond properly to PW4 due to which PW4 and his wife consumed pesticides, while undergoing treatment deceased died.

15.PW3 deposed that in the year 2018 on 17th March both PW4 and deceased consumed poison, prior to it there was land dispute between accused 17.04.2025 12 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

and PW4, on request of brother-in-law of PW3 namely Bhagavan Reddy,

PW3 visited Kurella village and asked PW4 as to why they were quarreling with each other then when he asked PW4, PW4 stated that they are the original owners but accused got their names entered in the revenue records then PW4 suggested both of them to settle the issue amicably. PW3 further deposed that PW4 first visited MRO office Koheda and verified the record, found that there was some material alteration in the reveneu records then PW4 and his wife Venkatamma both of them went to Revenue Divisional Officer office and consumed pesticide, this was informed to the PW3 by Kethireddy

Bhagvan Reddy.

16.On careful perusal of the evidence of PW2 and PW3 their evidence do not show any material to believe that accused No.1 to accused No.3 have insulted the PW4 by defaming him in the village. Evidence of PW2 and PW3 does not indicate what is the nature of the dispute was existing between the accused persons and PW4, in which manner accused persons insulted the

PW4. PW2 evidence indicates that PW4 and his wife consumed pesticides as

Mandal Revenue Officer did not respond properly. Further the evidence of

PW3 does not indicate any reason for consuming the poison by the PW4 and 17.04.2025 13 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

the deceased. During the cross-examination of PW2 and PW3 they stated that they are the relatives of PW1 and PW4.

17.PW4 who is the material witness on careful scrutiny of his evidence

before the Court, he entirely stated different version before this court stating

that his father originally owned Ac.12-01gts of land during his life time he partitioned the said land and PW4 got share of AC.08-31gts of land however accused No.1 manipulated the revenue record and sold it to accused No.2 and accused No.3. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 sold his

AC.01-20gts of land in the Sy. No.550 and manipulated the revenue record by entering the names of accused No.1 to accused No.3 for the land of the PW4.

PW4 further deposed that on suggestion made by the revenue authorities he made application before the Revenue Divisional Officer and many a times he was made to run from pillar to post due to which PW4 and deceased got vexed, unable to bear the continuous harassment of the accused, on 17-03- 2018 PW4 and deceased consumed pesticide. The evidence of PW4 also not containing any material to show whether the accused No.1 to accused No.3 insulted the PW4 at any point of time or immediately preceding the alleged incident, if so in which manner the accused No.1 to accused No.3 insulted the

PW4. Further evidence of PW4 shows that PW4 and his wife were made to 17.04.2025 14 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

running from pillar and post before the revenue authorities. Evidence of PW4 is silent what is the role of the accused No.2 and accused No.3 in causing the harassment to the PW4 and his wife. On careful perusal of the evidence of

PW4 it does not corroborate with contents of Ex.P1 in material particulars.

18.PW5 is one of the panch witness for inquest pachanama did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile by deposing that at the request of elders he signed on the blank paper. PW9 also another panch witness for inquest, did not support the inquest panchanama and turned hostile. PW6 who is the photographer also stated that he does not know anything about this case police never summoned him to take photographs of the deceased. PW7 one of the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama also turned hostile stating that no panchanama was conducted in his presence. PW8 supported the case of the prosecution and stated that police conducted scene of offence panchanama.

19.PW10 who is the medial officer, supported the case of the prosecution stating that he conducted autopsy of the deceased and issued final opinion report stating that cause of death was due to consumption of unknown poison.

PW11 who is one of the relatives of PW1 also turned hostile stating that he does not know the reasons why PW4 and deceased consumed pesticide.

17.04.2025 15 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

20.PW12 and PW13 who are the investigation officers, their evidence indicates that on receiving the report from PW1 this case was registered

U/Sec. 306 R/w 34 of IPC, witnesses were examined, scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama was conducted, after completion of investigation filed charge sheet, the cause of death of the deceased was due to consumption of unknown poison.

21.During the cross-examination PW12 stated that there is 50 square yards distance from Revenue Divisional office to police station, he has not examined any officials of Revenue Divisional office, he did not examine the villagers of Kurella vilalge, the witness i.e., LW2/Kethi Reddy Ram Reddy,

PW11, PW2 and PW3 are not natives of Kurella village. During the cross- examination PW13 stated that he has not collected the documentary material from the revenue department to show that accused No.1 entered his name in 1B Namuna and other revenue records of Sy. No.550 of an extent of Ac.01- 20gts situated at Kurella village which belongs to PW4. PW13 further stated that he has not examined concerned Tahsildar Koheda to verify the relevant revenue records of Sy. No.550 neither he filed any requisition calling for the relevant documents, not examined the jurisdictional village revenue officer or neighbouring land owners of Sy. No.550. Evidence of PW13 during the cross- 17.04.2025 16 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

examination further shows that PW13 has not visited the land pertaining to

Sy. No. 550 of Kurella village neither PW13 examined any independent witnesses of Kurella village so also the Revenue Divisional Officer

Husnabad.

22.PW13 admitted that Husnabad police station, Revenue Divisional office are situated adjcent to each other, he has not examined any employee of the

Mandal Revenue office and Revenue Divisional office officials with regard to the alleged incident. PW13 admitted that there is delay of 9 days from the date of alleged incident to the date of lodging police report and PW13 not caused any enquiry as to who provided the deceased in getting the pesticide and he has not registered any case against the PW4.

23.The evidence of PW12 and PW13 is going to show that they did not choose to examine any independent witnesses of Kurella village to show that accused No.1 to accused No.3 were having land disputes with the PW4 with regard to the Ac.01-20gts of land in Sy. No.550 of Kurella village belonging to PW4 and to show that with regard to the land dispute accused No.1 to accused No.3 have defamed or insulted PW4 by using abusive language by roaming in the each and every lane of the Kurella village by selling vegetables so also the investigation officer did not examine any officials of 17.04.2025 17 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

Tahsildar office concerned or Revenue Divisional office concerned to show that whether the land of PW4 was listed in the undisputed land list “A” and whether it is affixed in the gram panchayat office. The evidence of PW1, PW4 is not at all corroborating with each others evidence before this Court so also both of their evidence is not corroborative with the material contents of

Ex.P1. The evidence on record does not establish that whether accused No.1 to accused No.3 have direct or indirect access with the PW4 and the deceased immediately prior to the attempting of suicide by PW4 and deceased. Through the evidence of PWs1 to PW13 prosecution could not succeed in showing the involvement of accused No.1 to accused No.3 directly or indirectly in abetting the suicide of the deceased and the PW4.

24.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on case laws i.e.,

Dhanaj Singh @ Shera And Ors Vs State of Punjab AIR 2004 SUPREME

COURT 1920, para No.5 “In the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective”.

17.04.2025 18 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

25.In the present case on hand though the investigation officers conducted defective or improper investigation, but the material witnesses PW1 and PW4 they did not even speak the material allegations or facts mentioned in the

Ex.P1 to show that accused No.1 to accused No.3 directly or indirectly abetted the suicide of the deceased and the PW4. The evidence of PW1 and

PW4 is not inspiring the confidence of this Court to believe the allegations against the accused No.1 to accused No.3 as discussed in detailed herein

before in the above paragraphs. The evidence of other witnesses i.e.,

circumstantial witnesses PW2, PW3, PW11 are also failed to speak facts of the case and their evidence is contrary with the evidence of PW1 and PW4.

Therefore the evidence produced by the prosecution is not cogent and reliable.

Therefore in view of the above findings, this court cannot come to the conclusion that accused No.1 to accused No.3 have committed the offence of abetment of suicide of the deceased and PW4 as alleged by the prosecution.

The prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 to accused No.3 for the offence U/Sec. 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore the point is answered against the prosecution.

26.IN THE RESULT, Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 306of IPC. Accordingly Accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted 17.04.2025 19 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

U/Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

D ictated to stenographer Grade-III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 17 th day of April, 2025.

Addl. Assistant Session Judge, Siddipet

Appendix of Evidence

witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1: K. Devandar Reddy -None- PW-2: P. Mahipal Reddy PW-3: M. Thirupathi Reddy PW-4: K. Bal Reddy PW-5: E. Thirupathi Reddy PW-6: Binni Yadagiri PW-7: Pogula Ravindar PW-8: Ch. Sampath PW-9: M. Laxmi PW-10: Ch. Laxman Rao/Medical Officer PW-11: G. Ragunath Reddy PW-12: Md. Mazaruddin/Investigation Officer PW-13: B. Sudhakar/Investigation Officer

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex. P1: Police Report Ex. P2: Signature of PW5 on inquest panchanama Ex. P3: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex. P4: Signature of PW7 on Scene of offence panchanama 17.04.2025 20 of 20 SC No. 272 of 2022

AASJ SDPT

Ex. P5: Signature of PW8 on crime detail form Ex. P6: Post Mortem examination report Ex. P7: Telangana Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex. P8: Final opinion report Ex. P9: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW11 Ex.P10: First Information Report Ex.P11: Crime detail form Ex.P12: Inquest panchanama Ex.P13: Discharge Summary of PW4

For Defence:

- Nil -

Material objects Marked

-Nil-

Addl. Assistant Session Judge, Siddipet 17.04.2025

1/16 O.S. No.119/2018 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT :: SMT P. CHANDANA,

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIDDIPET

This the 11th day of April, 2025

O. S. No. 119 of 2018

Between:-

Ch. Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, Age: 49 years, Occ: Agriculture & Business, R/o. H.No. 6-73/2, Gajwel, Siddipet District. . . .Plaintiff

And

1. Chella Venkatesh, S/o. Kistaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture & Business, R/o. Laxmapur village, H/o. Kothapally village, Revenue Mandal Gummadidala, Sangareddy District.

2.Chella Madhavi, W/o. Venkatesh, Age: 35 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. Laxmapur village, H/o. Kothapally village, Revenue Mandal Gummadidala, Sangareddy District. …Defendants

This suit coming before me for Judgment, in the presence of Sri A. Kiran Sagar Rao, Learned counsel for Plaintiff and Sri. B. Shivaswaroop, Learned counsel for defendants, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) with future interest at 18 % per annum from the date of the suit till the payment of the decretal amount.

11-04-2025 2/16 O.S. No.119/2018 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

Brief facts of the plaint:

2.Defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 are husband and wife, plaintiff is resident of Gajwel has been running an agency of fertilizer supply in the name and style of “Gurudatta Agro Agencies Private Limited” Gajwel, defendants are residents of Laxmapur village and distant relatives to the plaintiff.

3.Plaintiff used to supply fertilizers, seeds and pesticides to the farmers within the jurisdiction of Kothapalli, Suraram, Laxmapur and other villages of

Gummadidala mandal, defendants used to purchase fertilizers, seeds, pesticides from the plaintiff shop since 2015, defendants used to supply same to the farmers at the above mentioned villages, used to collect bill amounts from the farmers and in turn used to pay the same to the plaintiff along with defendants' bill amount.

4.Though the defendants used to collect the full amount from the farmers but they used to pay the deficit amount to the plaintiff out of the bill amount, plaintiff used to receive the amount paid by the defendants by waiving the deficit amount in view of the relationship on humanitarian grounds, the plaintiff used to issue the cash receipts in favour of the defendants and business transaction further continued.

5.In the second week of February 2018, due to acquaintance and relationship with the plaintiff, defendants requested the plaintiff to lend an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) for the 11-04-2025 3/16 O.S. No.119/2018 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, family and legal necessity, on 18-02-2018 plaintiff has lent a sum of

Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) to the defendants at the residence of the plaintiff at Gajwel, after receiving the amount in cash the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 executed a promissory note cum bond on

Rs.50/- non-judicial stamp paper purchased by the defendant No.1 in the presence of witnesses by agreeing to repay the same to the plaintiff within Two months Fifteen days from the date of the promissory note, Two persons namely

C. Devendar and P. Prabhu both are residents of village of the defendants brought by the defendants stood as witnesses and M. Pullaiah resident of Kolgur who is brother-in-law of the defendant No.1 and one Kondal Reddy resident of

Gajwel stood as witnesses to the document, promissory note was scribed by one

Erram Somaiah resident of Gajwel at the house of the plaintiff, the defendants have affixed their left thumb impression and also signed at the bottom of the stamp papers, plaintiff has paid the loan amount out of his savings account, the amount borrowed by the defendants is no way concerned or related to the business transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants.

6.On 31-03-2018 the plaintiff has received a notice from the defendant

No.1 with false contents and averments to avoid payment of the loan amount, plaintiff has sent suitable reply notice on 06-04-2018 and also demanded to repay the loan amount within Seven days from the date of the receipt of the notice and the defendants have received the notice and neither paid nor given any reply. Defendants are liable to pay the Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs 11-04-2025 4/16 O.S. No.119/2018 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

Fifty Thousand Only) towards the principal amount to the plaintiff but the defendants failed to discharge the loan amount under the promissory note dated 18-02-2018, as there is no other remedy to recover the loan amount the plaintiff approached this Court by filing the present suit, prayed to decree the suit.

7.Defendants filed written statement admitting that defendants No.1 and defendant No.2 are husband and wife, residents of Laxmapur village, plaintiff is resident of Gajwel and running agency of fertilizer as pleaded by the plaintiff.

Defendants admitted that there is business transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 for distribution of fertilizer to the villages commenced from the year, 2015. Defendants submitted that defendant No.1 works under the plaintiff on 5% commission within the jurisdiction of Kothapalli, Suraram,

Laxmapur villages the business ended in the year 2017, plaintiff used to send the invoice to the defendant No.1, defendant No.1 used to collect the amount from the villages as per the invoice bill, in turn plaintiff used to issue cash receipts in favour of the defendant No.1. Defendants submitted that defendant

No.1 never paid deficit amount, defendant No.1 did not hide any amount.

8.Defendants denied that defendants requested the plaintiff to lend sum of

Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) on 18-02-2018, plaintiff lending the said amount to the defendants at the residence of the plaintiff in cash and executing the promissory note on bond of Rs.50/- non- judicial stamp paper in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses agreeing to repay the same to the plaintiff within Two months Fifteen days.

11-04-2025 5/16 O.S. No.119/2018 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

Defendants also denied that defendants brought C. Devendar and P. Prabhu residents of Laxmapur village to the alleged money transaction and plaintiff paying the loan amount out of his savings account. Defendants submitted that defendant No.1 studied up to 8th class and defendant No.2 studied up to 10th class.

9.Defendants submitted that in the year 2015 plaintiff supplied fertilizer to the defendant No.1 for selling the same to the farmers at a tune of Rs. 8,35,819/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninteen Only) out of which defendant No.1 paid an amount of Rs. 7,36,660/- (Rupees Seven

Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Six Sixty Only), the plaintiff also issued cash receipt, as per the invoice the deficit amount is Rs. 99,219/- (Rupees Ninety

Nine Thousand Two Ninteen Only) for the failure of seeds which was supplied to the farmers the said amount was not paid, in the same way for the year 2016 to March 2017 plaintiff supplied fertilizer to a tune of Rs. 8,00,400/- (Rupees

Eight Lakhs Four Hundred Only) to the defendant No.1, out of it a sum of

Rs. 7,28,980/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Nine Eighty Only) paid as invoice there is deficit of amount of Rs. 71,420/- (Rupees Seventy One

Thousand Four Twenty Only) due to failure of seeds, same was informed to the plaintiff, plaintiff stopped the business with defendant No.1 for the reasons best known to him only. Defendants submitted that the amount paid by the defendants was acknowledged by the plaintiff by issuing the cash receipts. On 18-02-2018 at 08:00 AM plaintiff and some other members came to the house 11-04-2025 6/16 O.S. No.119/2018 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, of defendants at Laxmapur in a car, at that time defendant No.1 was suffering with fever taking rest, plaintiff and his henchmen created panic and nuisance for settlement of accounts of supply of fertilizer and payments, on hue and cry neighbours of the defendants P. Prabakar, Challa Devendar came there and enquired the matter, plaintiff started shouting on the defendants and forcibly obtained the signatures of the defendants on blank promissory notes and non- judicial bond papers assuring that same will not be used for filing any case against the defendants and it is used in settlement of business, P. Prabakar and

Ch. Devendar also signed on blank papers as witness.

10.Defendants denied that one Erram Somaiah resident of Gajwel scribed the promissory note cum bond paper. Defendants submitted that since 2015 defendant No.1 was working under plaintiff as commission agent and used to sell the fertilizers, pesticides to the farmers, due to failure of seeds farmers did not pay the amount and deficit amount will arose, misunderstandings cropped up, plaintiff stopped the supply of seeds and pesticides to the defendant No.1, defendants never obtained any hand loan from the plaintiff, plaintiff has to prove that what legal and family necessity defendants had and how they pay such huge amount within Two months Fifteen days.

11.Defendants submitted that for settlement of business plaintiff and his henchmen forcefully obtained signatures of the defendants on blank stamp papers, on coming to know the malafide intention of the plaintiff, defendant

No.1 got issued legal notice through his counsel plaintiff received the same and 11-04-2025 7/16 O.S. No.119/2018 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, sent a reply notice with created story, differences cropped up between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 in the year 2017 and plaintiff stopped the business dealings with the defendant No.1 as such how the plaintiff advanced the hand loan to the defendants as there are no good terms between them since 2017. Defendants demanding to submit the bank statement and business cash receipts, other vouchers of the plaintiff before the Court and prayed to dismiss the suit.

12.Heard both sides arguments. Perused the record.

13.Basing on the pleadings of both parties the following issues were framed.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of an amount of

Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) with interest from defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

ISSUE NO.1:

14.In support of claim of the plaintiff he himself examined as PW1 by filing chief-affidavit in lieu of chief-examination and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents. Plaintiff also got examined one Erram Somaiah/Scribe as PW2,

PW2 supported the version of plaintiff.

11-04-2025 8/16 O.S. No.119/2018 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

15.Coming to the documentary evidence on record i.e., Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents, Ex.A1 is the original promissory note dated 18-02-2018 shows that defendant No.1 borrowed an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty

Thousand Only) from the plaintiff, defendant No.1 agreed to repay the hand loan amount within Two months and Fifteen days. Ex.A1 contains signature of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 and also contains signatures of Four witnesses, scribe name was mentioned as Erram Somaiah.

16.Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 31-03-2018 issued by defendant No.1 through his counsel to the plaintiff stating about the fertilizer business transactions, plaintiff approaching the defendants along with supporters to the house of defendants at Laxmapur and obtaining signatures of the defendant No.1 on blank promissory note and on non-judicial bond paper.

Through Ex.A2 defendant No.1 demanded the plaintiff to return the blank promissory note along with bond paper otherwise legal action will be taken against the plaintiff. Ex.A3 is the reply notice dated 06-04-2018 sent to the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 by the plaintiff through his counsel demanding to pay the hand loan amount within Seven days.

17.Ex.A4 is the postal receipts of reply notice, Ex.A5 is the acknowledgment cards showing that reply notice was received by the defendant

No.1 and defendant No.2, to their counsel also.

11-04-2025 9/16 O.S. No.119/2018 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

18.On the other hand to disprove the claim of the plaintiff defendants got examined defendant No.1 as DW1 by filing chief-affidavit, defendants also got examined Challa Devendar who is one of the attesting witnesses to the Ex.A1.

DW1 in his chief-affidavit reiterated the contents of the written statement. DW2 also supported the version of the defendants.

19.The case of the plaintiff is that he used to run “Gurudatta Agro Agencies

Private Limited” at Gajwel supplying the fertilizers, seeds and pesticides to the farmers within the villages of Kothapalli, Suraram, Laxmapur and other villages of Gummadidala mandal, defendants who are distant relatives to the plaintiff used to purchase the said material from the plaintiff since 2015, defendants used to supply the same to the farmers of the above mentioned villages and used to collect the bill amount from the farmers in turn used to pay to the plaintiff, defendants used to collect the full amount from the farmers but used to pay the deficit amount to the plaintiff, plaintiff used to accept the amount because of the relationship by waiving the deficit amount, the plaintiff used to issue cash receipts, the business was continued. Out of acquaintance defendants requested the plaintiff in the second week of February, 2018 to lend a sum of

Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) to the defendants at the residence of plaintiff at Gajwel, defendants executed Ex.A1 in the presence of the witnesses by receiving the amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs

Fifty Thousand Only) in cash from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same to 11-04-2025 10/16 O.S. No.119/2018 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, the plaintiff within Two months Fifteen days, the Two witnesses namely

C. Devendar/DW2 and P. Prabhu residents of the Laxmapur brought by the defendants and M. Pullaiah is the brother-in-law of the defendant No.1 and

Kondal Reddy resident of Gajwel stood as witnesses, one Erram Somaiah/PW2 scribed the Ex.A1, plaintiff paid the loan amount out of his savings account, the hand loan amount is no way concerned or related to the business transaction but surprisingly plaintiff received a notice under Ex.A2 with false contents as such the plaintiff sent reply notice under Ex.A3 to the defendants.

20.On the other hand the contention of the defendants is that they never took any hand loan amount much less the suit amount from the plaintiff. Both the parties admitted about the business transaction between them. Defendants contended that the business was continued up to March, 2017 only thereafter the plaintiff stopped the supply of the material to the defendants for the best reasons known to him only. Defendants denied that the plaintiff lending the suit amount to the defendants as hand loan. Defendants contended that defendant No.1 never paid deficit amount out of the bill amount, defendants denied that plaintiff has paid the loan amount out of his savings account. Defendants contented that in the year 2015 plaintiff supplied fertilizer to the defendant No.1 for selling to the farmers with a tune of Rs. 8,35,819/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Thirty Five

Thousand Eight One Nine Only) out of which defendant No.1 paid an amount of Rs. 7,36,660/- (Seven Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Six Sixty Only) to 11-04-2025 11/16 O.S. No.119/2018 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, plaintiff, the plaintiff also issued cash receipt to the same as per invoice the deficit amount is Rs. 99,219/- (Rupees Ninty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and

Nineteen Only) the failure of seeds which was supplied to farmers the said amount was not paid, the same was intimated to plaintiff and from the year 2016 to March 2017 the plaintiff has as usual supplied fertilizer to defendant

No.1 to sell the same to farmers. The plaintiff have supplied at a tune of Rs.

8,00,400/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Four Hundred Only) to defendant No.1, out of it defendant No.1 paid a sum of Rs. 7,28,980/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty

Eight Thousand Nine Eighty Only) as invoice, that there is different amount of

Rs. 71,420/- (Rupees Seventy One Thousand Four Twenty Only) it is failure of seeds. The same was informed to plaintiff. Defendants further contended that on 18-02-2018 at about 08:00 AM plaintiff and other persons came to the house of defendants at Laxmapur village in a car, the plaintiff and his henchmen created nuisance for settlement of accounts of supply of fertilizers and payments, on hues and cries neighbours of the defendants P. Prabhu and DW2 came there and enquired the matter, the plaintiff started shouting on the defendants and forcibly obtained signatures of the defendants on blank promissory notes and non- judicial bond papers assuring that the same will not be used for filing any case against defendants and it is used for settlement of business, P. Prabhu and DW2 also signed on blank paper.

21.Defendants denied that PW2 scribed the promissory note. Defendants contended that after stopping the supply of seeds and pesticides to the defendant 11-04-2025 12/16 O.S. No.119/2018 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

No.1 in the year 2017 misunderstandings cropped up, plaintiff by obtaining the signatures of the defendants forcibly on blank bond paper created a story and filed this case, defendants never obtained single rupee as hand loan from the plaintiff for family and legal necessities, the plaintiff is misusing the document filed in this case. Defendants demanded the plaintiff to submit his bank statement and business cash receipts, other vochures before this Hon’ble Court to prove his case.

22.On perusal of the oral evidence of PW1 he reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief-affidavit. During the cross-examination of PW1, PW1 admitted that selling and collecting the amount transaction between PW1 and defendant No.1 was till the year 2017, from the year 2016-17 PW1 supplied material worth Rs. 8,00,400/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Four Hundred Only) to the defendant No.1 and he paid to the PW1 an amount of Rs. 7,28,980/- (Rupees

Seven Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Nine Eighty Only). PW1 admitted that he did not cause any legal notice to the defendant No.1 demanding him to pay the due amount. PW1 stated that both the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 are illiterate, PW1 purchased the Ex.A1 stamp paper in the name of defendant No.1 on 17-02-2018. PW1 admitted that Two attesting witnesses of the Ex.A1 i.e.,

DW2 and P. Prabhu resident of Laxmapur village and neighbours to the defendant No.1. PW1 further stated that he has not filed any documentary proof in this proceeding to show that he has paid the loan amount from his savings 11-04-2025 13/16 O.S. No.119/2018 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, account. PW1 added that he paid the amount to the defendants from the amount collected in the business on daily basis. PW1 admitted that PW2 and one of the attesting witnesses by name Kondal Reddy are his friends. PW1 denied that he obtained signatures and thumb impressions of defendant No.1 and defendant

No.2 on blank bond paper, many a times defendant No.1 questioned the PW1 about the document, when PW1 did not give proper reply defendant No.1 caused legal notice under Ex.A2.

23.PW2 during the cross-examination admitted that PW1 is his friend since past 17 years. PW2 stated that he does not know that there was a business transaction of supplying of seeds and fertilizers to the defendant No.1. PW2 stated that defendant No.1 brought the stamp paper under Ex.A1. PW2 denied that he along with the plaintiff, Kondal Reddy and some other persons visited the house of defendant No.1 and obtained the signatures of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 on Ex.A1 and thereafter PW2 filled up the blank Ex.A1 on the instructions of the plaintiff.

24.PW1 during the cross-examination admitted that business transactions were stopped from the year 2017 between him and plaintiff. DW1 admitted the signatures of him and defendant No.2 on Ex.A1. DW2 during the cross- examination admitted his signature on Ex.A1. DW2 admitted that only after writing Ex.A1 defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, the witnesses signed on

Ex.A1.

11-04-2025 14/16 O.S. No.119/2018 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

25.Evidence of DW1 shows that the signatures of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 on Ex.A1 are acknowledged by the DW1 during the evidence

before this Court. Defendants' contention is that plaintiff obtained their

signatures and thumb impressions on blank promissory note and non-judicial stamp papers. But evidence of DW2 during the cross-examination indicates that only after writing Ex.A1 witnesses and defendants signed on the Ex.A1. Once the execution of promissory note is admitted, the presumption would arise that it is supported by a consideration, but such a presumption is rebuttable. In the present case the defendants are denying the hand loan amount stating that plaintiff did not pay any hand loan amount to the defendants, without passing any consideration plaintiff forcibly obtained the signatures and thumb impressions of the defendants on the blank Ex.A1, later got it filled with PW2.

26.The defendants can prove the non existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. Defendants in the written statement demanded the plaintiff to submit his bank statement to prove that the plaintiff has paid hand loan amount to the defendants through his savings account. Plaintiff's plea is that he has paid hand loan amount to the defendants out of his savings account. To the contrary, the PW1 during the cross-examination stated that he paid the amount to the defendants from the amount collected by him in the business on daily basis. Thereby the defendants discharged the initial onus to prove the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful. Then the onus would shift to the plaintiff who has to prove it as a matter of fact. In the present case the plaintiff 11-04-2025 15/16 O.S. No.119/2018 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet, though pleaded he has paid hand loan amount to the defendants out of his savings account but except Ex.A1, the plaintiff did not file or produce his savings account statement to show that he has drawn any amount in order to pay the hand loan amount to the defendants. During the cross-examination of PW1,

PW1 stated that he was an income tax assessee till the year 2018, but the plaintiff did not file income tax statements for the year 2017-18 to show that he gave hand loan amount to the defendants in the February month 2018. The plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove both the Ex.A1's authenticity and the truth of its contents. Thereby the plaintiff failed to prove that he has paid the hand loan amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty

Thousand Only) on 18-02-2018 to the defendants under Ex.A1. The defendants though acknowledged their signatures on Ex.A1, they have proved through

DW2 who is direct witness to the Ex.A1 transaction that there is no existence of consideration i.e., hand loan amount. Therefore the plaintiff failed to prove that the hand loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) lent to the defendants on 18-02-2018. Therefore in view of the above findings this

Court is of the considered opinion that suit promissory note has not been supported by the passing of the consideration as how it was shown in the promissory note under Ex.A1 by the plaintiff to the defendants on 18-02-2018.

Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the recovery suit amount prayed by him.

Accordingly issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiff.

11-04-2025 16/16 O.S. No.119/2018 Addl. SCJ Court, Siddipet,

ISSUE NO.2:

27.IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-III, Transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 11 th day of April, 2025.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIDDIPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

PW1 : Ch. Prabhakar ReddyDW1: Chella Venkatesh PW2: Yerram SomaiahDW2: Chella Devendar PW3: A. Kondal Reddy (Eschiewed)

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Promissory note dated: 18-02-2018

Ex.A2Office copy of legal notice dated: 31-03-2018

Ex.A3Original reply notice dated: 06-04-2018

Ex.A4Postal receipts

Ex.A5Postal acknowledgments

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

- Nil -

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

11-04-2025

1 Of 7 O.S.No.24 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT: SMT. PEDDI CHANDANA,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Siddipet.

Friday, the 18th day of October, 2024

O.S.NO. 24 of 2024

Between:

Kesireddy Hanmantha Reddy S/o Late Ram Reddy, aged about 73 years, Occu:Agriculture R/o H.No.LIG-B139, AS Rao Nagar, Kapra, near E-seva AS Rao Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad.

…PLAINTIFF

AND

Mogulla Bhoopal Reddy S/o Bal Reddy, aged 50 yrs, Occu:Govt., Teacher, R/o. Flat No.205, Mayukha’s Green Homes, Siddiept Town and District. …DEFENDANT

This suit is coming on 18-10-2024 for judgment before me in the presence of Smt. B. Aruna, Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendant remained ex parte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following.

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

1. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff herein filed the present suit against the defendant for declaration of title to declare him as absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property i.e., land bearing Sy.No.8/A to an extent of Ac.0- 17 gts., situated at Khanapur village, Nagnoor Mandal, Siddipet District and perpetual injunction and rectification of revenue record.

2 Of 7 O.S.No.24 of 2024

2.The plaintiff further submitted that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said Ac.0-17 gts., of land in Sy.No.8/A of Khanapur village as absolute owner and possessor/pattedar and occupation of the said land by raising the crops in it.

3.The plaintiff further submitted that the total extent of Sy.No.8 of

Khanapur village is Ac.0-34 gts., only. Out of it the plaintiff is the pattedar and occupant for Ac.0-17 gts., with Sy.No.8/A and his brother

K. Bhoopathi Reddy is the pattedar and occupant for the remaining

Ac.0-17 gts., with Sy.No.8/AA.

4.The plaintiff further submitted that during the dharani upgradation out of the said Ac.0-17 gts., in Sy.No.8 of Khanapur village Ac.0-04 gts., of the plaintiff is mistakenly entered in the name of the defendant with

Sy.No.8A3 in the dharnai pahanies and hereinafter called as the suit schedule property. The remaining Ac.0-13 gts., of land is correctly recorded in the name of the plaintiff with Sy.No.8/A1 of Khanapur village. The other Ac.0-17 gts., also correctly recorded in the name of his brother K. Bhoopathi Reddy as patteda and occupant in the dharani pahanies with Sy.No.8/AA.

3 Of 7 O.S.No.24 of 2024

5.Plaintiff further submitted that having come to know about the mistake, the plaintiff made an application on 13-03-2023 for correction and approached the Tahsildar for correction of the same. Then the

Tahsildar informed the plaintiff that, after enquiry he has forwarded a letter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet vide

Lr.No./12345/2019 dt.25-11-2019 stating that “the Updation of Land records during the LRUP some mistakes found at the time of updation in

LRUP by oversight. In this regard he has conducted detailed enquiry in this matter with concerned VRO’s and Mandal Girdawar it reveals that the following Khatas/Survey numbers may be required Khata Unsign to solve the application problems” with regard to suit land of the plaintiff along with other lands.

6.The plaintiff further submitted that the Tahsildar asked the plaintiff to get the consent of the defendant to re-enter the name of the plaintiff for the said land. As such the plaintiff approached the defendant and asked him to give his consent before the Tahsildar,

Nangunoor Mandal to re-enter the said Ac.0-04 gts., suit land in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant orally agreed for the same, but later the defendant dragged the matter on one or other pretext to give his consent and finally he refused for the same.

4 Of 7 O.S.No.24 of 2024

7. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant is not having any right, title, possession or any kind of interest over the suit schedule property at any point of time. But he has not come forward to give his consent to extract the money from the plaintiff. Hence this suit.

8.Summons served to the defendant, he is called absent no representation and remained exparte on 31-07-2024.

9.Now the points for consideration are :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title to declare him as absolute owner of the suit schedule property as prayed for ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant in respect of suit schedule property?

3. To what relief?

10.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW1 and Exs.A1 to Exs.A12 got marked.

11.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

POINT NO . 1 & 2:

12.The plaintiff examined as PW1 by filing chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination. On perusal of chief affidavit, he reiterated the contents of the plaint and got marked Exs.A1 to Exs.A12. Ex.A1 is the Original E-

Pattedar pass book cum title deed, dated 20-04-2018 showing that the 5 Of 7 O.S.No.24 of 2024 plaintiff acquired the Ac.0-13 gts., in Sy.No.8/A/1 along with other properties by way of succession. Ex.A2 to Ex.A8 are the certified copies of pahanies from the year 2004 to 2014 showing that plaintiff is the pattedar of Ac.0-17 gts., land in Sy.No.8A situated at Kahanapur since long back by way of succession. Ex.A9 is the dharani details showing

Ac.0-13 gts., of land of Sy.No.8/A/1 in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A10

Dharnai details is showing that Ac.0-04 gts., land of the plaintiff in

Sy.No.8 is recorded in the name of the defendant. Ex.A11 is showing that brother of plaintiff name is recorded for Ac.0-17 gts., of land in

Sy.No.8/AA. Ex.A12 is the 1-B Namoona specimen copy showing the same information as Ex.A9. All the documents filed by the plaintiff is showing that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of Ac.0-17 gts., in suit

Survey Number but only Ac.0.13 gts., recorded in the name of the plaintiff due to dharani mistake.

13. On the other hand, the Defendant even though received summons did not appear before this Court to contest the case. The oral as well as documentary evidence on record is remained unchallenged. All the documents filed by the plaintiff are showing that the plaintiff is in legal, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owner as on the date of filing of the suit. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff is supporting the title of the plaintiff and also 6 Of 7 O.S.No.24 of 2024 possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land. Hence the court is of the considered opinion that plaintiff shall be declared as absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, for rectification of revenue entries and also entitled for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the point No.1 & 2 are answered.

POINT NO. 3:

14.In the result, the suit is decreed, by declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule land, restraining the defendants, his heirs, agents, servants or anybody on his behalf etc., perpetually from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property i.e., land bearing

Sy.No.8/A to an extent of Ac.0-17 gts., situated at Khanapur village of

Nangunoor mandal, Siddipet District, and the Revenue authorities are directed to enter the remaining Ac.0-04 gts., in Sy.No. 8/A3 in the name of the plaintiff in addition to the Ac.0-13 gts. However, in the said circumstances there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Sr.Asst., corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18 th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

7 Of 7 O.S.No.24 of 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For PLAINTIFF: For DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Kesireddy Hanmantha Reddy -NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1Original pattedar pass book of plaintiff.

Ex.A2C.C of pahani of Khanapur village for the year 2004-05.

Ex.A3C.C of pahani of Khanapur village for the year 2005-06.

Ex.A4C.C of pahani of Khanapur village for the year 2006-07.

Ex.A5C.C of pahani of Khanapur village for the year 2007-08.

Ex.A6C.C of pahani of Khanapur village for the year 2008-09.

Ex.A7C.C of pahani of Khanapur village for the year 2010-11.

Ex.A8C.C of pahani of Khanapur village for the year 2014-15.

Ex.A9Copy of dharani portal pahani of Kesireddy Hanmantha Reddy.

Ex.A10Copy of dharani portal pahani of Mogulla Bhoopal Reddy.

Ex.A11Copy of dharani portal pahani of Kesireddy Bhoopathi Reddy.

Ex.A12 Specimen copy of ROR 1-B Namoona of Kesireddy Hanmantha Reddy dt. 25-01-2022.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:

-NIL-

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

Page 1 of 8 HMOP No.24/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

SIDDIPET

Present: SMT. P. CHANDANA, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet

This the 9 th day of April, 2025

H.M.O.P No. 24 of 2024

BETWEEN:

Dasari Srikanth, S/o. Dasari Srinivas, Age: 28 years, Occ: Driver, H.No.

10-3-190, Nasarpura, Siddipet mandal and District.

… Petitioner

And

Dasari @ Ponnam Radika, W/o. Dasari Srikanth, D/o. Ponnam Ramesh, Age: 27 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 25-84/7, Sri Ram nagar, Mondichintala Colony, Cherial mandal, Siddipet District.

… Respondent

This petition coming before me for orders in the presence of Sri S. Janardhan Reddy, Learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri. T. Rohini Reddy, Legal Aid counsel for the Respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner U/Sec. 13 (i) (ia) of the

Hindu Marriage Act-1955 with a prayer to grant the decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage dated 14-12-2022.

2.In the petition the petitioner submitted that his marriage with respondent solemnized on 14-12-2022 at the house of respondent i.e.,

Page 2 of 8 HMOP No.24/2024

Mondi Chinta Colony, Cherial village and mandal, Siddipet District as per Hindu Rites and Customs prevailed in their community, and the marriage between the parties is arranged marriage. The petitioner stated that his father and the respondent’s fathers were friends from the same caste. The respondent’s father, being poor and having four daughters, could not offer any dowry. This was the petitioner’s second marriage, his first marriage ended in divorce due to his former wife’s affair. This was disclosed to the respondent before marriage. His parents gifted the respondent three tulas of gold.

3. The marriage subsisted, but the respondent had a miscarriage, which her family did not inform the petitioner about. They lived peacefully for two months. Thereafter, the respondent demanded the petitioner to settle in Hyderabad as a chauffeur. Upon refusal, she began abusing petitioners parents, threatened to commit suicide. She visited her parents frequently and later began harassing the petitioner. When she became pregnant, the petitioner’s family provided care and medical support. However, in May 2023, she again threatened to commit suicide by swallowing some unknown tablets. Her parents took her away, promising to convince her,

Page 3 of 8 HMOP No.24/2024 but later avoided the petitioner and they moved to Hyderabad. The petitioner sought help from caste elders, but they were unsuccessful. On 27-08-2023, the petitioner visited Nizampet with elders but was not allowed to meet the respondent. Her father abused and attempted to manhandle him, later stating that respondent was living at Cherial.

4.The next day, the petitioner visited Cherial but could not meet the respondent. Her mother also abused the petitioner and his father.

Although he tried to file a police complaint, it was not accepted, as it was a family issue. The respondent’s father allegedly stated publicly that he had aborted his daughter's pregnancy using the gold given by the petitioner at the time of marriage. Despite all efforts made by the petitioner to bring back the respondent, all attempts were failed. The petitioner concluded that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, leaving no scope for reunion. In this way respondent became cruel and ruined the marital life of petitioner. As such there is no hope of reunion, the petitioner filed this petition.

5.Counter filed by the respondent admitting the marriage with the petitioner. In the counter respondent denied all the allegations made

Page 4 of 8 HMOP No.24/2024 against the respondent and submitted that at the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner presented Three Tulas of Gold ornaments, Rs.

3,00,000/- dowry, house hold articles and spend Rs.15,00,000/- for marriage expenses. Respondent admitted that marriage is consummated and denied the allegations made against the respondent that demanded to settle in Hyderabad and live separately.

6.Respondent further denied all the allegations that the respondent ill-treated, harassed, and humiliated the parents of the petitioner to pressure him into meet her demands, despite multiple panchayats, respondent did not change. Respondent submitted that petitioner along with parents of the petitioner used to harass the respondent for additional dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- otherwise petitioner will give divorce to the respondent, after conceiving the petitioner indiscriminately used to beat the respondent, petitioner used to sit over the stomach of the respondent and used to beat the respondent on her face, parents and sister of the petitioner used to instigate the petitioner to kick on the stomach of the respondent, on 06-04-2024 petitioner hold the head and hair of the

Page 5 of 8 HMOP No.24/2024 respondent and kicked on the stomach of the respondent as a result respondent got miscarriage of pregnancy.

7.Respondent further submitted that every time petitioner used to threat the respondent that if the respondent did not bring additional dowry he will give divorce and marry another girl, hence prayed to dismiss this petition.

8. Though this Court made efforts for reunion of the both parties, reconciliation is failed.

9.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

Point for consideration.

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief prayed for ?

10.Petitioner himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P3. Ex.P1 is wedding card, Ex.P2 is Wedding Photo and Ex.P3 is

Xerox copy of Aadhar card of petitioner and respondent. They show that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent soleminzed on 14-12-2022 at the house of respondent i.e., Mondi Chinta Colony, Cherial village and mandal, Siddipet District as per Hindu Rites and Customs prevailed

Page 6 of 8 HMOP No.24/2024 in their community. In the chief-examination affidavit of PW1 he reiterated the contents of petition.

11.PW1 stated in the affidavit that the respondent ill treated him, respondent used to left his matrimonial home without informing him and used to reside with her parents and threatened him that she will commit suicide, and demanded him to settle at Hyderabad, the petitioner used to humiliate the parents of the petitioner, the respondent got aborted the pregnancy without informing the petitioner and his family members, when the petitioner approached the parents of the respondent, the father of the respondent tried to manhandle the petitioner, the parents of the respondent did not allow the petitioner to meet the respondent, in the month of May, 2023 respondent was taken away by her parents but the respondent did not return back, the elders expressed their inability after consulting the respondent and her parents, as such due to unbearable harassment petitioner filed this petition under cruelty ground as there is no hope for reunion.

12.On the other hand the respondent though filed counter did not come forward to cross-examine PW1. Respondent simply denied the

Page 7 of 8 HMOP No.24/2024 allegations made against her but respondent did not stand in the witness box to depose the same before this Court, respondent did not produce any evidence to disprove the allegations of petitioner. petitioner in his chief-affidavit stated that inspite of all his efforts the respondent bluntly refused to come and join the conjugal society of the petitioner, respondent is not interested to join with the petitioner as such there is no hope to the petitioner that respondent will join his society.

13.On perusal of the both sides pleadings, on careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 it shows that the evidence of petitioner is unchallenged and unrebutted. There is no other material on record to disprove the allegations of the petitioner. The facts and circumstances deposed by the

PW1 in his chief-affidavit amounts to mental cruelty by the respondent.

Therefore this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for the relief of dissolution of marriage against the respondent as prayed for under the ground of cruelty. Accordingly point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

14.IN THE RESULT, this petition is allowed and the marriage of petitioner and respondent solemnized on 14-12-2022 at the house of respondent i.e., Mondi Chinta Colony, Cherial village and mandal,

Page 8 of 8 HMOP No.24/2024

Siddipet District is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce with effect from 09-04-2025.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 9 th day of April, 2025.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Petitioners:

P.W.1: Dasari Srikanth

For the Respondent:

- None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the Petitioners:

Ex.P1: Wedding card Ex.P2: Wedding Photo Ex.P3: Xerox copy of Aadhar card of petitioner and respondent

For the Respondent

- Nil -

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet

Page 1 of 7 HMOP No.56/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

SIDDIPET

Present: SMT. P. CHANDANA, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet

This the 7 th day of April, 2025

H.M.O.P No. 56 of 2024

BETWEEN:

Kaithi Chandra Shekar, S/o. Srinu, Age: 30 years, Occ: Private

Employee, R/o. H.No. 10-71/A, Jagadevpur Village and Mandal,

Siddipet District.

… Petitioner

And

Smt. Kaithi Mounika @ Lavanya, W/o. Chandra Shekar, Age: 27 years, Occ: Maggam Works and Tailoring, R/o. H.No. 10-71/A, Jagdevpur village and mandal, Siddipet District. Now residing at her parent’s house i.e., C/o. Neela Mallesham, R/o. Balijagudem Village, Revenue Mandal: Jagadevpur, Siddipet District.

… Respondent

This petition coming before me for orders in the presence of Sri K. Gnanadeep, Learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri. S. Athma Ramulu, Learned counsel for the Respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner U/Sec. 13 (i) (ia) of the

Hindu Marriage Act-1955 with a prayer to grant the decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage dated 22-05-2021.

2.In the petition the petitioner submitted that his marriage with respondent solemnized on 22-05-2021 at house of parents respondent i.e., Balijagudem Venkatapur village, Jagadevpur mandal, Siddipet

Page 2 of 7 HMOP No.56/2024

District as per Hindu Rites and Customs prevailed in their community, and the marriage between the parties is arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner presented Twenty Tulas of Gold ornaments to the respondent, out of their love and affection and petitioner also presented Five tulas of Gold ornaments to the respondent on different occasions.

3.The petitioner stated that a month after marriage, he realized the respondent did not like him, calling him innocent and inactive. Despite this, their marriage was consummated, and out of wedlock they blessed with a son named Riyansh, on 22-02-2022.

4.Three months after marriage, the respondent demanded to buy a house in Hyderabad and live separately. The petitioner is responsible for his aged parents and petitioner tried to convince respondent, but she remained adamant and frequently created disputes. Respondent often left for her parental home without informing petitioner, staying for months.

When questioned, respondent threatened to implicate him in police cases.

5.The respondent ill-treated, harassed, and humiliated petitioner in front of relatives to pressure him into meet her demands. Despite multiple panchayats advising her to live peacefully in Jagadevpur, respondent did not change. Respondent often refused to cook, serve food, or cooperate in married life.

Page 3 of 7 HMOP No.56/2024

6.In November 2021, respondent left for her parental home for delivery and never returned, and earning Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Thousand Only) per month through tailoring and maggam works.

Despite repeated requests, respondent refused to rejoin petitioner, under her parents' influence. Respondent deliberately created disputes and ruined their marital life by insisting on a separate residence in

Hyderabad. In this way respondent became cruel and ruined the marital life of petitioner. As such there is no hope of reunion, the petitioner filed this petition.

7.Counter filed by the respondent admitting the marriage with the petitioner. In the counter respondent denied all the allegations made against the respondent and submitted that at the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner presented Twenty Tulas of Gold ornaments to the respondent, out of their love and affection and petitioner also presented Five tulas of Gold ornaments to the respondent on different occasions. Respondent admitted that marriage is consummated and out of their wedlock the respondent blessed with one son Riyansh on 22-02- 2022 and denied the allegations made against the respondent that demanded to buy a house in Hyderabad and live separately, the petitioner is responsible for his aged parents and petitioner tried to convince respondent, but she remained adamant and frequently created disputes, respondent often left for her parental home without informing petitioner, staying for months, when questioned, respondent threatened to implicate him in police cases.

Page 4 of 7 HMOP No.56/2024

8.Respondent further denied all the allegations that the respondent ill-treated, harassed, and humiliated petitioner in front of relatives to pressure him into meet her demands, despite multiple panchayats advising her to live peacefully in Jagadevpur, respondent did not change.

Respondent often refused to cook, serve food, or cooperate in married life and in November 2021, respondent left for her parental home for delivery and never returned, and earning Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Thousand Only) per month through tailoring and maggam works, despite repeated requests, respondent refused to rejoin petitioner, under her parents' influence, the respondent deliberately created disputes and ruined their marital life by insisting on a separate residence in

Hyderabad, hence prayed to dismiss this petition.

9. Though this Court made efforts for reunion of the both parties, reconciliation is failed.

10.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

Point for consideration.

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief prayed for ?

11.Petitioner himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P5. Ex.P1 is wedding card, Ex.P2 is Marriage Photographs, Ex.P3 is

Photograph with son, Ex.P4 is Xerox copy of Aadhar card of petitioner and Ex.P5 is Xerox copy of Aadhar card of Respondent. They show that

Page 5 of 7 HMOP No.56/2024 the marriage of the petitioner and respondent soleminzed on 22-05-2021 at the house of parents of respondent i.e., Balijagudem Venkatapur village, Jagadevpur mandal, Siddipet District as per Hindu Rites and

Customs. In the chief-examination affidavit of PW1 he reiterated the contents of petition.

12.PW1 stated in the affidavit that the respondent ill treated him, respondent used to left his matrimonial home without informing him and used to reside with her parents months together and threatened him to implicate in police cases to meet her demands for separate residence at

Hyderabad, the petitioner never used to prepare food and not cooperated in marital life, etc. as such due to unbearable harassment petitioner filed this petition under cruelty ground as there is no hope for reunion.

13.On the other hand the respondent though filed counter did not come forward to cross-examine PW1. Respondent simply denied the allegations made against her but respondent did not stand in the witness box to depose the same before this Court, respondent did not produce any evidence to disprove the allegations of petitioner. petitoner in his chief-affidavit stated that inspite of all his efforts the respondent bluntly refused to come and join the conjugal society of the petitioner, respondent is not interested to join with the petitioner as such there is no hope to the petitioner that respondent will join his society.

14.On perusal of the both sides pleadings, on careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 it shows that the evidence of petitioner is unchallenged

Page 6 of 7 HMOP No.56/2024 and unrebutted. There is no other material on record to disprove the allegations of the petitioner. The facts and circumstances deposed by the

PW1 in his chief-affidavit amounts to mental cruelty by the respondent.

Therefore this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for the relief of dissolution of marriage against the respondent as prayed for under the ground of cruelty. Accordingly point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

15.IN THE RESULT, this petition is allowed and the marriage of petitioner and respondent solemnized on 22-05-2021 at the house of respondent i.e., Balijagudem Venkatapur village, Jagadevpur mandal,

Siddipet District is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce with effect from 07-04-2025.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 7 th day of April, 2025.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Petitioners:

P.W.1: Kaithi Chandra Shekar

Page 7 of 7 HMOP No.56/2024

For the Respondent:

- None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the Petitioners:

Ex.P1: Wedding card Ex.P2: Wedding Photographs (Five) Ex.P3: Photograph with son Ex.P4: Xerox copy of Aadhar card of petitioner Ex.P5: Xerox copy of Aadhar card of Respondent

For the Respondent

- Nil -

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet