Smt.P.Devi Manasa

1 O.S.No.08 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE:CHEVELLA:RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Smt. P. Devi Manasa Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

Dated this 27th day of April, 2023

O.S. 08 of 2017

Between Smt. Thaheera Begum W/o Mohammad Saleem, Age about 50 Years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.8-8-19, Dilkushnagar, Beside IDPL Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad – 500037. AND

1. Smt. Zaheera Bee W/o Late Mohammad Yousuf Miya, (died) Age 68 Yrs, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No.3-77, Singappaguda H/o Nayalata Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Smt. Tajunnissa W/o Khaja Miya, Aged about 55 Years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No.17-24, 3rd Floor, Gurumurthy Nagar, Near IDPL Colony, Quthubullapur, Hyderabad.

3. Kum. Nazeemunnissa D/o Late Yousuf Miya, Aged about 50, Years, Occ. Household, Singappaguda H/o Nayalata Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

4. Smt. Ameerunnissa W/o Babu Miya, Aged about 48 Yrs, Occ. Household R/o Peddaummenthyal Village, Poodur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. Smt. Haleema Begum D/o Mohd. Yousuf Miya Age.43 Yrs, Occ.Agriculture, R/o H.No.3-77, Singappaguda H/o Nayalata Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

6. Kum. Shamshunnissa D/o Mohd. Yousuf Miya Age about 31 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.3-77, Singappaguda H/o Nayalata Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

.......Defendants

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned counsel for the plaintiffs Sri. P. Sampurna Anand, Advocate and defendants are set exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record and after having stood over this matter till date this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff praying to pass preliminary decree by dividing the suit schedule property into 6 equal parts and allot 7/48th share and one part of 1/8th 2 O.S.No.08 of 2017 share to the Defendant No.1 and 1/8th share allotted to the plaintiff and defendant no.2 to 6 and 7/48th such equal shares with metes and bounds and to award the costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint in nutshell are that the plaintiff is the 4th daughter of defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 to 6 are the daughters of defendant no.1.

originally the father of defendant no.1 namely Maroof Ali is the owner of land in Sy.No.

6, admeasuring Accused No.7-22gts, Sy.No.12, admeasuring Ac.0-29gts, Sy.No.13, admeasuring Ac.1-21gts situated at Husainpur village of Shankarpally Mandal and land in Sy.No.26 admeasuring Ac.1-03gts situated at Nalayata village Chevella

Mandal (herein after referred as suit schedule property) and the husband of defendant no.1 namely Mohd. Yousuf during his life time purchased the suit schedule property from his father in law i.e father of his wife/Defendant No.1 Maroof Ali. The said Maroof

Ali worked as Patwary of the Hussainpur village. It is further submitted that the husband of Defendant No.1 died in the year 1972 in road accident and subsequently the maternal grandfather of plaintiff and Defendant no.2 to 6 and father of Defendant no.1 have mutated the land in the name of Defendant no.1 after the death of her husband by using his good office and influence and since the date of death of Md.

Yousuf Ali the name of the Defendant no.1 is recorded though it is purchased by her husband who is the father of the plaintiff and Defendant No.2 to 6 and also husband of

Defendant No.1.

3. The plaintiff further submitted that except Defendant no.3 and 6 all the daughters of Defendant no.1 including plaintiff were performed and given to different villages. It is further submitted that during the life time of father of plaintiff and grand of father of plaintiff namely Maroof Ali and Mohd. Yousuf assured the plaintiff and

Defendant no.2 to 6 are having share in the suit schedule property as per

Mahammadan law and accordingly Defendant no.1 use to cultivate the suit lands by engaging servants and labours in the suit lands and gave the shares to the plaintiff 3 O.S.No.08 of 2017 and Defendant no.2 to 6 respectively every year and same was continued till 2015.

Since the Defendant no.1 in collusion with other Defendants refused to give share in the crops to the plaintiff herein as such the plaintiff held a panchayat in the presence of village elders in the month of March 2016 wherein all the Defendants denied the share of the plaintiff and further the plaintiff came to know that on 26-11-2015

Defendant no.1 and 5 executed Gift Settlement Deed in favour of Defendant no.6 vide document no. 4816/2015 before SRO Shankarpally, further came to know that

Defendant no.1 is also tried to alienate the other suit lands in favour of third parties by depriving the right of plaintiff as Defendant no.1 is not sole owner of the suit lands as they are Marthuka properties. Further on 15-5-2016 the plaintiff went to Singappaguda village and demanded the Defendants for partition but they denied the same.

4) It is further submitted that the suit schedule property is succeeded by way of inheritance and the plaintiff and Defendant no1 to 6 are entitled equal shares in suit schedule property. The plaintiff also filing the Fathwa issued by the Darul-Ifta-Jamia

Nizamia and the Defendant No.1 is entitled for 9 shares and plaintiff and other daughters are given 8 shares. Hence the suit.

3. On receipt of summons, defendants No. 1 to 6 failed to appear before the court and to file their written statement as such they were set ex parte on 20-6-2017. The counsel for plaintiff filed a memo that the Defendant no.1 died on 24-12-2019 and her

LRs are already on record i.e plaintiff and Defendant no.2 to 6.

4. Now the point for consideration is :

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of suit schedule property as prayed for ?

(2) To what relief?

5. Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

4 O.S.No.08 of 2017

6. Point : The plaintiff herself is got examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to

A38. PW1 in her evidence reiterated the averments of plaint. In support of her contention and she relied on the documents.

Ex.A1 is the CC of pahani for the year 1954-55, Ex.A2 is the CC of pahani for the year 1955-58, Ex.A3 is the CC of pahani for the year 1962-63, Ex.A4 is the CC of pahani for the year 1964-65, Ex.A5 to A10 are the CC of pahani for the year 1971-72 to 1976- 77, Ex.A11 is the CC of pahani for the year 1989-90, Ex.A12 is the CC of pahani for the year 1985-86, Ex.A13 is the CC of pahani for the year 1994-95, Ex.A14 is the CC of pahani for the year 1999-00, Ex.A15 is the CC of pahani for the year 2004-05,

Ex.A16 is the CC of pahani for the year 2008-09, Ex.A17 is the CC of pahani for the year 2009-10, Ex.A18 is the CC of pahani for the year 2010-11, Ex.A19 is the CC of gift settlement deed standing in the name of D6, Ex.A20 to A25 are CC of pahanies for the faslies 1420 to 425 (2010 to 2015) in Sy.No. 26/A standing in the name of first

Defendant. Ex.A26 to 31 are CC of pahanies for the faslies 1420 to 425 (2010 to 2015) in Sy.No. 6/A standing in the name of first Defendant. Ex.A32 to 37 are CC of pahanies for the faslies 1420 to 425 (2010 to 2015) in Sy.No. 13/AA standing in the name of first Defendant. Ex.A38 to 43 are CC of pahanies for the faslies 1420 to 425 (2010 to 2015) in Sy.No. 12/AA standing in the name of first Defendant.

. 7. On a consideration, this court find the evidence of PW.1 have remained unchallenged, as much as the defendants has failed to turn up to the Court in response to the summons served on them. The said evidence of PW-1, supported by

Exs.A1 to A43 documents, would prove the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is, accordingly, entitled to have the suit decreed in their favour.

8. The plaintiff and defendant no.2 to 6 are being the children of late Mohd. Yousuf are entitled for shares equally as prayed by them over the suit scheduled property.

Accordingly, point is answered.

5 O.S.No.08 of 2017

9. In the result, the suit is decreed by passing a preliminary decree for partition of suit schedule property into 6 equal parts and allot 7/48th share and one part of 1/8th share to the Defendant No.1 and 1/8th share allotted to the plaintiff and defendant no.2 to 6 and 7/48th such equal shares with metes and bounds. The plaintiffs are at liberty to file a final decree petition for dividing the suit schedule property in terms of preliminary decree.

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

Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, R.R.Dist

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendants PW1: Smt. Thaheera Begum Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs Ex.A1 is the CC of pahani for the year 1954-55

Ex.A2 is the CC of pahani for the year 1955-58

Ex.A3 is the CC of pahani for the year 1962-63

Ex.A4 is the CC of pahani for the year 1964-65

Ex.A5 to A10 are the CC of pahani for the year 1971-72 to 1976-77

Ex.A11 is the CC of pahani for the year 1989-90

Ex.A12 is the CC of pahani for the year 1985-86

Ex.A13 is the CC of pahani for the year 1994-95

Ex.A14 is the CC of pahani for the year 1999-00

Ex.A15 is the CC of pahani for the year 2004-05

Ex.A16 is the CC of pahani for the year 2008-09

Ex.A17 is the CC of pahani for the year 2009-10

Ex.A18 is the CC of pahani for the year 2010-11

Ex.A19 is the CC of gift settlement deed standing in the name of D6.

Ex.A20 to A25 are CC of pahanies for the faslies 1420 to 425 (2010 to 2015) in Sy.No. 26/A standing in the name of first Defendant.

Ex.A26 to 31 are CC of pahanies for the faslies 1420 to 425 (2010 to 2015) in Sy.No. 6/A standing in the name of first Defendant.

6 O.S.No.08 of 2017

Ex.A32 to 37 are CC of pahanies for the faslies 1420 to 425 (2010 to 2015) in Sy.No. 13/AA standing in the name of first Defendant.

Ex.A38 to 43 are CC of pahanies for the faslies 1420 to 425 (2010 to 2015) in Sy.No. 12/AA standing in the name of first Defendant.

For Defendants Nil

Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, R.R.Dist

1 O.S.No.03 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE:CHEVELLA:RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Smt. P. Devi Manasa Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

Dated this 27th day of March, 2023

O.S. 03 of 2020

Between Chindam Satyamma W/o.Narsimlu Aged 45 yrs. Occ: Agriculture R/o.H.No.7-13, Machanphad (v) Kothur (m) R.R Dist. T.S. … Plaintiff AND 1.Barka Chandraiah S/o.Late Mutahaiah Aged 75 yrs. Occ: Agriculture H.No.1-38, Nagarkunta (v) Shabad (m) R.R. Dist.

2.Kuthuru Hamsamma W/o.Anjaiah Aged 52 yrs. Occ: Agriculture R/o. H.No. 9-7, Bandoniguda (v), Nandigama (m), R.R Dist.

3.Peddeti Laxmamma W/o.Venkataiah Aged 47 yrs. Occ: Agriculture R/o.H.No.1-33/1, Kummariguda (v), Shabad (m), R.R Dist.

4.Guduru Manjula w/o.Manaiah Aged 40 yrs. Occ:Housewife R/o.H.No.2-24-105/13/20/A Laxminarayana Colony, IDA Uppal, Hyderabad 5.Barka Mallaiah s/o. Chandraiah Aged 35 yrs. Occ:Agriculture 6.Barka Lalitha W/o.Mallaiah Aged 33 yrs. Occ:Housewife 7.Barka Sumith Kumar S/o.B. Mallaiah Aged 10 yrs (Minor) Rep. by his natural mother D. Lalitha W/o.Mallaiah (D6) D5 – D7 are residents of H.No.1-38, Nagarkunta (v) Shabad (m) R.R Dist.

8.Palamakula Srisailam S/o. P. Masaiah Aged about 46 yrs. Occ:Agriculture R/o.H.No.1-24/2 Nagarkunta Village, Shabad (m) R.R Dist.

.......Defendants

2 O.S.No.03 of 2020

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned counsel for the plaintiffs Sri. S. Satyanarayana Reddy, Advocate and defendants are set exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record and after having stood over this matter till date this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff praying to pass preliminary decree by dividing the suit schedule property into six shares and allot 1/6th share each to the plaintiff and

Defendant no.1 to 5 out of the total suit schedule A and B property with metes and bounds and to award the costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint in nutshell are that plaintiff and defendant no.2 to 5 are the children of Defendant no.1 Defendant no.6 is the wife of Defendant no.5 and

Defendant no.6 is their son. Defendant no.8 is the third party. The land in Sy.No.56/E, adm.Ac.4-10 gts , Sy.No.117/Lu, adm.Ac.1-09 gts, Sy.No.118/A/3, adm.Ac.2-08 gts and Sy.No.119/ఊ3, adm.Ac.0-15 gts total admeasuring Ac.8-02gts situated at

Nagarkunta village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (herein after referred as suit schedule “A” property) and land bearing Sy.No.271, adm. Ac.0-32 gts and

Sy.No.297, adm. Ac.0-32 gts total admeasuring Ac.1-24gts situated at Machanpally

Village, Shabad Mandal, R.R District bounded (herein after referred as suit schedule “B” property) total admeasuring Ac.9-26 gts are undivided joint Hindu Family Property which were fell in to the share of Defendant No.1 during the partition among his brothers. Originally the elder brother of Defendant no.1 by name Barka Mallaiah is the of suit schedule A and B property including other properties and the above mentioned property fell to the share of Defendant no.1 as out of joint family property as such it is ancestral property. as such the Defendant no.1 to 5 used to cultivate the suit schedule

A and B property jointly till the marriage of Defendant no.5 and Defendant no.1 used to give crop share to the plaintiff and Defendant no.2 to 4every year accordingly plaintiff and Defendant no.2 to 4 assist the Defendant no.1 in agricultural operations in the suit lands.

3. It is further submitted that the Defendant no.1 to 4 in collusion with each other not allowed the plaintiff to assist in agriculture operations for this season over the suit 3 O.S.No.03 of 2020 lands. Further the Defendant no.1 warned the plaintiff that he would not give any crop share in the suit lands for the 2019-20 season and further warned the plaintiff that she has no right to claim any share in the suit lands. Further the plaintiff went to Tahasil office and verified the records and came to know that the Defendant no.1 with malafied intention transferred the suit schedule A property in favour of Defendant No.7 under registered Gift Deed document No.111 of 2012 dt. 09-1-2012 depriving the right of plaintiff and also transferred the suit schedule B property in the name of Defendant no.5 and 6 under registered sale deed document no. 121/2015 dt. 12-1-2015 and further in Sy.No.271 out of B schedule property alienated in favour of Defendant no.8 under registered sale deed document no. 5378/2016 dt. 01-7-2016. Finally the plaintiff on 15-7-2019 went to the Defendants no.1 and 5 and demanded for partition of the suit lands into 6 equal shares and to allot one share to the plaintiff but Defendant No.1 refused for partition and other Defendants warned the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

4. On receipt of summons, defendants No. 1 to 8 failed to appear before the court and to file their written statement as such their right of filing written statement is forfeited on 22-8-2022 (D2 to D4), 08-11-2021 (D1, D5 to D7) and Defendant No.8 is set exparte on 18-4-2023.

5. Now the point for consideration is :

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of suit schedule property as prayed for ?

(2) To what relief?

6. Heard the counsel for plaintiffs.

7. Point : The plaintiff got examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15.

PW1 in her evidence reiterated the averments of plaint and relied on the following documents.

Ex.A1 is the CC of Pahani for the year 54-55. Ex.A2 is the CC of Pahani for the year 73-74. Ex.A3 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2000-2003. Ex.A4 is the CC of Pahani 4 O.S.No.03 of 2020 for the year 2009-2010. Ex.A5 is the CC of Gift Deed executed by D1 in favour of D7

D.No.111 of 2012. ExA6 is the CC of 18 ROR. Ex.A7 is the CC of Pahani 4 sheets for the year 2017. Ex.A8 is the CC of Pahani 1954-55, Ex.A9 is the CC of Pahani 2008- 2009. Ex A10 is the CC of Sale Deed executed by D1 in favour of D5 and D6 D.No.

121 of 2015, ExA11 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2015-2016. Ex.A12 is the CC of 18 ROR. Ex.A13 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2017 fasli. Ex.A14 is the CC of Sale

Deed executed by D5, D6 in favour of DB, Doct.No.5378 of 2016 dated 01.07.2016

ExA15 is the CC of 1B ROR dated 14.08.2019, the same may be marked as exhibit

A1 to A15.

8. On a consideration, this court find the evidence of PW.1 have remained unchallenged, as much as the defendants has failed to turn up to the Court in response to the summons served on them. The said evidence of PW-1, supported by

Exs.A1 to A15 documents, would prove the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is, accordingly, entitled to have the suit decreed in their favour.

9. The plaintiff and defendant no.2 to are being the children of Defendant No.1 are entitled for one share each equally over the suit scheduled property. Accordingly, point is answered.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed by passing a preliminary decree for partition of suit schedule property into 6 equal shares by allotting one such share i.e 1/6th share to the plaintiff herein and remaining five shares to be allotted to the Defendant No.1 to 5 each (1/6th) equally with metes and bounds. The plaintiff is at liberty to file a final decree petition for dividing the suit schedule property in terms of preliminary decree.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of March, 2023.

Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, R.R.Dist 5 O.S.No.03 of 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendants PW1: Chindam Satyamma Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs Ex.A1 is the CC of Pahani for the year 54-55. Ex.A2 is the CC of Pahani for the year 73-74. Ex.A3 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2000-2003. Ex.A4 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2009-2010. Ex.A5 is the CC of Gift Deed executed by D1 in favour of D7 D.No.111 of 2012. Ex.A6 is the CC of 18 ROR. Ex.A7 is the CC of Pahani 4 sheets for the year 2017. Ex.A8 is the CC of Pahani 1954-55 Ex.A9 is the CC of Pahani 2008-2009. Ex A10 is the CC of Sale Deed executed by D1 in favour of D5 and D6 D.No. 121 of 2015

ExA11 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2015-2016. ExA12 is the CC of 18 ROR. ExA13 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2017 fasli. ExA14 is the CC of Sale Deed executed by D5, D6 in favour of DB, Doct.No.5378 of 2016 dated 01.07.2016

ExA15 is the CC of 1B ROR dated 14.08.2019, the same may be marked as exhibit A1 to A15

For Defendants Nil

Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, R.R.Dist

C.C.No.175 of 2016 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, CHEVELLA, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Smt. P. Devi Manasa Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated this the 28 th day of April , 2023

C.C.No. 175 of 2016

Between: State through Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. Chevella. ...Complainant.

And

Kotla Balakista Reddy S/o Late Narayana Reddy Aged 61 years, Occ: Retired Teacher, R/o H.No.13-6-434/C/97, Maruthi Nagar, Opp: Pillar No.84 Ring Road, Golkonda, Hyderabad.

...Accused.

***

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 12-4-2023 in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and of Sri A. Prabhakar Reddy advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. The accused is indicted for the offence U/s 409, 420, 120-B of IPC in

Cr.No.226/2013 of PS Chevella.

2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are that on accused being the head master at Government High School, Kandawada has claimed medical reimbursement of

Rs.1,72,514/- on 14-10-2009 from the Government with fraudulent intention by fabricating medical bills. Hence the report. Based on the above report, the LW7 registered a case vide Cr.No. 226/2013 U/s 409, 420, 120-B of IPC and investigated upon. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3. On appearance of the accused, the accused was examined under section 239 of

Cr.P.C, read over and explained the contents of it to the accused for the offence U/s 409, 420, 120-B of IPC . He denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined Pw1 and got marked

Exhibits-P1 to P14. Despite several opportunities police failed to produce the witnesses as such the evidence of LW2 to LW7 are closed. After completion of prosecution

C.C.No.175 of 2016 Page 2 evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence that appears against him in the prosecution evidence. Accused denied prosecution evidence as being false and reported no defence evidence.

5. Heard both sides and Perused the record.

6. The point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt or not for the offence U/s 409, 420, 120-B of IPC ?

7. During the course of trial the evidence of LW2 to 7 are closed for non production of witnesses. The complainant is examined as PW1.

8. PW1 in his chief examination deposed that he received letter from DEO Ranga

Reddy District stating accused has reimbursed his medical bills fraudulently and instructed him to file a case. He further deposed that previously accused used to work as a Head Master School in Kadawada ZPHS School from 2005 to 2009. subsequently he was transferred to Kukatpally ZPHS School. He further deposed that as per the letter the accused has reimbursed medical bill to a tune of Rs.1,72, 514/- while he was working in Kandawada ZPHS High School., through this witness the prosecution got marked Ex.P1 to P14. In the cross examination he admitted that he did not verify the fee reimbursement documents and he did not hand over the direction copy received from

DEO. Further he admitted that he did not state that he is in the possession of Ex.P2 to

P14 documents and he did not file along with the Ex.P1. He denied formal suggestions put by the defense counsel.

9. Now coming to appreciation of evidence, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients U/s 409 IPC.

1) The accused must be a public servant

2) The accused has committed criminal breach of trust as provided U/s 405 IPC.

C.C.No.175 of 2016 Page 3

The learned APPO submitted that as per the documents produced by the PW1 i.e Ex.P2 to P14 which shows that accused being a public servant with fraudulent intention reimbursed the medical bill is sufficient to prove offence U/s 409 IPC. The learned APPO submitted that the Ex.P2 to P14 discloses that accused being the Head

Master on 14-10-2009 has claimed the fee reimbursement by creating false documents as such the enquiry proceedings were conducted by the concerned authorities and accused has admitted his mistake which is marked as Ex.P12. However on perusal

Ex.P2 to P12 are attested copies, it is to be noted that mere marking of the documents is not sufficient it contents has to be proved. In the present case in order to attract section 409 IPC the prosecution has to examine the concerned authorities to show that the accused was entrusted with the dominion over the property in his capacity as a

Head Master. Though PW1 deposed that he has filed the present case as per the instructions of DEO but no such copy was filed to show that he is competent to lodge the Ex.P1. No person was examined, to show accused was entrusted with property on alleged date of incident. No person was examined, to show accused was entrusted with property on alleged date of incident.

10. The offence U/s 409 IPC requires criminal intent or mensrea. It is pertinent to refer a decision in Chandraiah Vs State of A.P 2003 2012 SCC 670 wherein the Apex

Court held that “ wherein the matter of post office deposit accounts all that was proved showed that there was a negligence in maintaining them the court said that it could be a fit case for departmental proceedings but not proceedings U/s 409 IPC because the intention to misappropriate the proceeds of the accounts was not in evidence.” As discussed earlier mere marking of documents does not prove its contents except examining the PW1 the prosecution failed to corroborate the evidence of PW1 with other witnesses. Therefore in the present case the prosecution failed to prove that accused being the public servant with fraudulent intention reimbursed the medical bill to the tune of Rs.1,72,514/-. Accordingly the primary offence U/s 409 IPC remains unproved, as a consequence the ancillary offences U/s 420, 120-B IPC remains

C.C.No.175 of 2016 Page 4 unproved too. Therefore the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused he is entitled for benefit of doubt which leads to acquittal. Accordingly point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

11. In the result accused is found not guilty for the offense punishable U/s 409, 420, 120-B of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. No case property deposited by police concerned in this case.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 28 th day of April, 2023.

Junior Civil Judge-Cum M.M, Chevella, R.R.District.

:: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence: PW1. K. Narahari Nil ::Exhibits marked for:: Prosecution: Ex.P1: Attested copy of the complaint. Ex.P2: Attested copy of the proceedings dt. 24-9-2013 attested by LW3. Ex.P3: Attested copy of the Enquiry copy attested by LW3 dt. 20-7-2012 attested by LW3. Ex.P4: Attested copy of the proceedigns vide Memo No. 7756/A2/2010-2 dt. 06-12-2010 attested by LW3. Ex.P5: Attested copy of the proceedings vide Memo No.7756/A2/2010-1 dt. 06-12-2010 attested by LW3. Ex.P6: Attested copy of the Challan dt. 16-10-2010 attested by LW3. Ex.P7: Attested copy of the proceedings dt. 20-10-2010 attested by LW3. Ex.P8: Attested copy of the proceedings dt. 21-02-2012 attested by LW3. Ex.P9: Attested copy of the proceedings No.7006/AB/2012 dt. 21-02-2012 attested by LW3. Ex.P10: Attested copy of the letter given by Deputy Education Officer to the DEO, R.R.Dist attested by LW3. Ex.P11: Attested copy of the half margin Memo given to the accused attested by LW3. Ex.P12: Attested copy of the proceedings dt. 14-12-2010 given by the accused to DEO, R.R.Dist. Ex.P13: Attested copy of the proceedings dt. 24-2-2011 attested by LW3. Ex.P14: The original Appendix IX-A.

Defence: Nil ::Material objects marked for:: -Nil- Junior Civil Judge-Cum M.M, Chevella, R.R.District.

1 O.S.No.55 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE:CHEVELLA:RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Smt. P. Devi Manasa Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, R.R.Dist

Dated this 27th day of April, 2023

O.S. 55 of 2021

Between:

1. Kamal Kishore Mundada son of late Srikishan Mundada, aged about 60 years, Occ: business, Residents of 8-2-616/5, plot number 84 road number 11, Banjarahills, Hyderabad.

2. Kishan Lal Aggarwal son of late Sri Satyanarayana Agarwal, Aged about 53 years, Occ: business, Residents of 5-3-667, Topekhana, Hyderabad.

3. Deepak Kumar Mundada son of late Jagadish Prasad Mundada. Aged about 40 years, Occ: business, Residents of 8-2-616/5, plot number 84 road number 11, Banjarahills, Hyderabad, ….…Plaintiff AND

1. Smt. Vadde Pentamma W/o late Chandraiah Aged about: 65 years Occ: House wife, Residents of Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Smt. Vadde Bharatamma W/o Vadde Yellaish Aged about: 50 years Occ: House wife, residents of 3-58/3, Hussainpur village, Shankarpally Ranga Reddy District.

3. Smt. Baswapuram Amurutha W/o Vadde Yadagiri Aged about: 33 years Occ: House wife, Residents of 6-6, Rudraram village, Patancheru mandal, Sangareddy district.

4. Manne Sreekanth S/o Satyanarayana, Aged about: 36 years Occ: Business R/o 1-46, Yevaguda, Shankarpally Mandal, Parveda Khasla, R.R.District.

5. Vadde Suresh S/o Vadde Chandraiah Aged about 32 years Occ Business, R/o H.No.3-55, Hussainpur village, Shankarpally mandal, Ranga Reddy District ….…Defendants

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned counsel for the plaintiff Sri S.K.Bang, and defendants are set exparte, and upon perusal of the material papers on record and after having stood over this matter till date this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

2 O.S.No.55 of 2021

1. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction.

They would aver, as below:

2. That the Plaintiff No.1 and 2 are the joint owners and purchasers of agricultural land in Sy.No.271/AA admeasuring Ac.1-03½ guntas, situated at

Masaniguda village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and similarly the plaintiff no.3 is the owner and purchaser of agricultural land in Sy.No.271/AA admeasuring Ac.0-08½ situated at Masaniguda village, Shankarpally Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District (new number Sy.No.271/ఆ6/2 admeasuring Ac.0-08.5gts,

Sy.No.271/ఆ6/3 admeasuring Ac.0-22gts and Sy.No.271/ఆ6/4 admeasuring Ac.0- 21.5 gts) total admeasuring Ac.1-12gts (hereinafter referred as suit schedule property).

3. It is further submitted that the plaintiff no.1 and 2 purchased above mentioned land Ac.1-3 ½ gts under registered 8197/2007 dt. 31-7-2007 from their vendors namely R. Vijay Kumar and R. Vinay Kumar for valid sale consideration and plaintiff no.3 also purchased the above mentioned land Ac.0-08 ½ gts from same vendors under registered document no.8198/2007 dt. 31-7-2007. The above lands adjacent to each other and subsequently their names were mutated in the names of plaintiffs to their respective shares and issued pattedar pass books to them by the revenue authorities and since then the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

4. It is further submitted that the vendor of vendors of the plaintiffs namely B.

Jagan Mohan Reddy previously entered into an agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule property with Defendant no.1 who is the original owner. The Defendant no.1 being the absolute owner of land to an extent of Accused No.3-37gts and out of this land she executed a registered agreement of sale cum GPA dt 16-11-2005 vide document no. 10636/2005 after receiving total sale consideration and delivered the physical possession to him. The said Jagan Mohan Reddy in turn as a GPA 3 O.S.No.55 of 2021 holder of suit schedule property sold the same to the vendors of plaintiffs i.e R.

Vijay Kumar and R. Vinay Kumar for valid sale consideration under registered document no. 12480/2005 dt. 26-12-2005, after mutating their names in revenue record the said R. Vijay Kumar and R. Vinay Kumar sold the same to the plaintiffs herein.

5. It is further submitted that the Defendant no.2 and 3 are the daughters and

Defendant no.4 and 5 are the relatives of the Defendant no.1 without having any right, title went to the suit schedule property on 17-1-2021 along with unsocial elements and tried to interfere in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. But the plaintiffs timely resisted the illegal acts of the Defendants and apprehending the danger in the hands of Defendants the present suit is filed.

6) Despite service of summons the defendant no.1 to 5 failed to appear before the court and to file written statement, as such they were set exparte and right of filing written statement is forfeited on 31-3-2021 (D4) and on 01-10-2021 (D1 to D3 and D5).

7). During trial, the plaintiff no.3 has examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A6.

8). PW-1, in his chief examination affidavit, has deposed to the above said averments in the plaint, and filed the following documents.

Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of the AGPA dated 16-11-2005 bearing Doct.No.10636 /2005, Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of the AGPA dated 26-12-2005 bearing Doct.

No.12480/05. Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 31-07-2007 bearing Doct.No.8197/2007 in favour of Plaintiff No.1 and 2. Ex.A4 is the Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 31-07-2007 bearing Doct.No.8198/2007 in favour of

Plaintiff No.3. Ex.A5 is the Statement of Encumbrance No.51173304. Ex.A6 is the

Statement of Encumbrance No.51173268 4 O.S.No.55 of 2021 9). On a consideration, this court find the evidence of PW.1 have remained unchallenged, in as much as the defendants have failed to turn up to the Court in response to the summons served on them. The said evidence of PW-1 and 2, supported by Exs.A.1 to A6. documents, would prove the case of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are, accordingly, entitled to have the suit decreed in his favour.

10). IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed, as prayed, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their family members, workers, agents etc., and all those persons acting for and on behalf of the defendants from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

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

Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, R.R.Dist

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendants PW1: Deepak Kumar Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of the AGPA dated 16-11-2005 bearing Doc.No.10636/2005.

Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of the AGPA dated 26-12-2005 bearing Doct. No.12480/05. Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 31-07-2007 bearing Doct.No.8197/2007 in favour of Plaintiff No.1 and 2.

Ex.A4 is the Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 31-07-2007 bearing Doct.No.8198/2007 in favour of Plaintiff No.3.

Ex.A5 is the Statement of Encumbrance No.51173304. Ex.A6 is the Statement of Encumbrance No.51173268

For Defendants Nil

Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, R.R.Dist

1 O.S.No.89 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE:CHEVELLA:RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Smt. P. Devi Manasa Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

Dated this 28th day of April, 2023

O.S. 89 of 2022

Between 1.Kavadi Venkatamma W/o.Krishna D/o. Late Syanna Aged about 40 yrs. Occ: House wife R/o.H.No. 9-24/2, Gummadidala Village and Mandal Sanga Reddy District.

2. Golla Manjula W/o.Subhash D/o. Late Syanna Aged about 31 yrs. R/o.H.No. 3-62/1, Malchalma Village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.

…..Plaintiffs

AND 1.Borra @ Pasham Bharathamma W/o. Late Sayanna Age about 70 yrs. Occ: House hold

2. Borra @ Pasham Shiva Kumar S/o. Late Sayanna Age about 25 yrs. Occ: Agriculture

3. Borra @ Pasham Saritha W/o. Late Srisailam Age about 30 yrs. Occ: House hold

4. Borra @ Pasham Sai Harshith S/o. Late Srisailam Age about 5 yrs.

5. Borra @ Pasham Neha D/o. Late Srisailam Age about 3 yrs. (Defendnats No.4 and 5 are minors, their natural Guardian Their mother i.e Defendant No.3)

All are R/o.H.No.2-59. Surangal Village Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

6.Shabad Darshan S/o.Balaiah Aged about 40 yrs. Occ: Business R/o. H.No.1-37/1, Moinabad Village & Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

.......Defendants

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned counsel for the plaintiffs Sri. N. Chandra Shekar, Advocate and defendants are set exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record and after having stood over this matter till date this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs praying to pass preliminary decree by dividing the suit schedule property into 5 equal shares and allot 1/5th each to the plaintiffs 2 O.S.No.89 of 2022 herein and Defendant no.1 and 2 equally and remaining one share to be allotted jointly to the Defendant No.3 to 5 with metes and bounds and to award the costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint in nutshell are that plaintiff No.1, 2 and defendant no.2 and husband of Defendant no.3 namely late Srisailam are the children of

Defendant no.1. The Defendant no.4 and 5 are the children of Defendant no.3. The husband of Defendant no.1 namely Late Sayanna is their father and he is the absolute owner and possessor of land bearing Sy.No.389/A to an extent of Ac.0-36gts situated

Surangal village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and after the death of late

Sayanna his wife i.e the Defendant No.1 succeeded the above said land through title deed no. 463107 and thereafter all the Defendants and plaintiffs cultivating the remaining land of 6 guntas jointly and the elder brother of plaintiffs and husband of

Defendant no.3 Late Srisailam used to managed the suit schedule property and shared the crops to the plaintiffs till the year 2019-20 and unfortunately he expired in the year 2021 as such the plaintiff did not demand the defendants for crop share.

Subsequently in the year 2022 also the Defendant no.1 to 3 were not shared any crops to the plaintiffs. Then the plaintiffs demanded the Defendants then the

Defendants did not respond properly. Immediately on 20-1-2022 the plaintiffs conducted panchayat before the common elders of both parties but the Defendant no.1 to 3 did not come to the panchayat. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs came to know that the Defendant no.1, 2 and late Srisailam were disposed schedule property of 6 guntas to the Defendant no.6 through registered document no.

2707/2015. Hence the suit.

3. On receipt of summons, defendants No. 1 to 6 failed to appear before the court and to file their written statement as such they were set ex parte on 08-9-2022.

4. Now the point for consideration is:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of suit schedule property as prayed for ?

(2) To what relief?

3 O.S.No.89 of 2022

5. Heard the counsel for plaintiffs.

6. Point : The plaintiff no.2 got examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.

One Pasham Beerappa was examined as PW2.

Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2017, Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of

Pahani for the year 2013-2014, Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2000 – 2001, Ex.A4 is the Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed document bearing

No.1 in favour of Defendant No.6 and Ex.A5 is the Market value dated 28-01-2022.

PW2 supported the evidence of PW1 in his chief examination.

7. On a consideration, this court find the evidence of PW.1 and PW2 have remained unchallenged, as much as the defendants has failed to turn up to the Court in response to the summons served on them. The said evidence of PW-1 and PW2, supported by Exs.A1 to A5 documents, would prove the case of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are, accordingly, entitled to have the suit decreed in their favour.

8. The plaintiffs and defendant no.1,2 and 3 are being the wife and children of late

Late Sayanna are entitled for shares equally as prayed by them over the suit scheduled property. Accordingly, point is answered.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed by passing a preliminary decree for partition of suit schedule property into 5 equal shares and allot 1/5th share each to the plaintiff

No.1 and 2 herein and Defendant no.1 and 2 equally and remaining one share to be allotted jointly to the Defendant No.3 to 5 with metes and bounds. The plaintiffs are at liberty to file a final decree petition for dividing the suit schedule property in terms of preliminary decree.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th day of April, 2023.

Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, R.R.Dist 4 O.S.No.89 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendants PW1: Golla Manjula Nil PW2: Pasham Beerappa.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2017.

Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2013-2014.

Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2000-2001.

Ex.A4 is the Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed document bearing No.1 in favour of Defendant No.6.

Ex.A5 is the Market value dated 28-01-2022.

For Defendants Nil

Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, R.R.Dist