P.Jeevan
II Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge
Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex · Rangareddy · Telangana
Based on 13 recent ordersP.Jeevan, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge, is posted at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana, India. 13 court orders on record since 2012. 7 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC, SC cases.
Featured Judgments
15
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DIST., L.B.NAGAR.
Present:: Sri P. JEEVAN., B.Com., LL.M.,
Principal Junior Civil Judge, RR Dist.
Dated this the 28 th day of September, 2012
O.S. Nos. 917 of 2009 & 1927 of 2009
Between::
O.S. No. 917 of 2009
Gattu Ramanaiah S/o G Tirupalu aged 50 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No.203, H.No.10-1/6, Karna Nilayam, P & T colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad
.........Plaintiff
and
G. Srinivas @ Srinivasulu S/o Lingaiah, aged Major R/o H.No.16-9, Road No.5, Krishnanagar, P & T colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyd
.......Defendant
Between::
O.S. No. 1927 of 2009
G. Srinivas S/o Lingaiah, Aged 40 yrs, R/o H.No.16-9, Road No.5, Krishnanagar, P & T colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyd
.........Plaintiff
and
Gattu Ramanaiah S/o G Tirupalu aged 50 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No.203, H.No.10-1/6, Karna Nilayam, P & T colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad
.......Defendant
These suits are coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the plaintiff in the suit in OS No.917/2009 & defendant in OS No.1927/09 and of Sri P. Srinath, Advocate for the defendant in the suit in OS No.917/2009 & plaintiff in OS 1927/09, having heard and stood over for consideration in the open court delivered the following::
15
:: C O M M O N J U D G M E N T ::
These suits are taken up together as parties and subject matter pertaining to both the suits are one and the same and the suits were clubbed on 07-04-2011, wherein, the evidence was recorded in OS
No.1927/2009.
PLEADINGS OF OS No. 917/2009 ::
2.The plaintiff in OS No.917/2009 sought the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant over the suit schedule premises bearing mulgie No.11/A situated at Shilpi Apartments, Near
Konark Theatre, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad to pass a decree restraining the defendant, his henchmen from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of suit mulgie or in any manner evict the plaintiff without following due process of law.
3.It is mainly averred in the plaint that the plaintiff entered into the possession of suit premises on 01-01-2003 as tenant on oral agreement, agreed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month and also deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which is refundable one. The plaintiff established a Jewellery business under the name and style of “M/s Sri
Laxmi Venkata Ramana Jewellery, Gems & Pearls”. It is further averred that it was agreed to enhance the rent @ 5% per annum on the existing rent and the plaintiff will be vacated the premises when ever he intends. But, the defendant with an eye sore after one year of commencement of business approached the plaintiff demanding to enhance the rent @ 10% on existing rent instead of 5 percentage or 15 otherwise to deposit additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. But, the plaintiff accepted the offer of enhancement of 10% on the existing rent and the said rent was paid regularly by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. But, the defendant with a malafide intention insisted the plaintiff to deposit additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, in which the plaintiff paid an amount of rupees one lakh on 16-07-2008, for which the defendant is not issued any receipt and informed to issue receipt for the
additional amount of one lakh paid by the plaintiff. It is further averred
that a legal notice was issued by the defendant in the month of July, 2008, demanding the plaintiff to vacate the premises as defendant intended to establish a Sweet shop and for his personal use, for which a reply notice was given by the plaintiff herein on 26-07-2008. Thereafter, the plaintiff paid rent through demand draft in favour of the defendant till July, 2009. It is further specifically averred that the defendant along with his henchmen threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences to vacate the said mulgie within week, otherwise he will throws all the articles from the shop and such threatens made by the defendant on 07-08-2009 and thereafter one Satish on behalf of defendant threatened through a phone on 10-08-2009 and the plaintiff apprehends about unlawful eviction by the defendant.
4.The defendant in Os No.917/2009 filed his written statement and admitted the relationship between the parties and commencement of tenancy on 01-01-2003 and also receipt of advance of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff. It is also admitted about oral tenancy between the parties, which was extended from time to time up to September, 2007, prevailing the rate of rent was Rs.4,500/- per month. The other allegations of insistence, additional security amount and making threats 15 is specifically denied. It is also denied about the non issuance of receipt for additional security of Rs.1,00,000/- as false. It is specifically pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff has failed to pay rent from the month of October, 2007 to July, 2008 and further pleaded that the cause of action is created by the plaintiff falsely, which was not accrued at all.
5.Upon consideration of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled for trial in OS No.917/2009.
i)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. ?
ii) To what relief. ?
PLEADINGS IN OS No. 1927/2009 ::
6.The plaintiff in OS No.1927/2009, who is the defendant in Os
No.917/2009 filed the suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits.
7.It is mainly averred in the plaint that the suit schedule premises was leased out on oral agreement in favour of the defendant which tenancy was commenced on 01-01-2003 @ Rs.2,500/- per month and also an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was received by the plaintiff as refundable advance and the defendant has to pay rent on or before the 10th day of English Calender month. It is further pleaded that the lease was extended from time to time up to September, 2007 when the rent was at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. It is specifically pleaded that the plaintiff carry on business of sweet in a leased premises nearby
Venkatadri theatre, Dilsukhnagar, and he intended to expand his business, for which purpose, the suit premises is required for own use.
15
It is further specifically pleaded that the defendant assured to vacate the premises after expiry of lease period in the month of September, 2007 and upon which promise, the plaintiff appointed sales boys and girls to extend his business by opening a sweet shop in the said mulgi and proposed date was fixed to open the same on 10-10-2007, but to utter surprise and dismay, the defendant dodged the matter on one pretext or the other. Then the plaintiff was compelled to issue a notice under sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act calling upon the defendant to vacate the premises, but the defendant replied falsely. It is further pleaded that the defendant paid rent at the rate of Rs.4.030/- per month through demand drafts from the month of August, 2008 to July, 2009, which amount was received under protest. It is specifically pleaded that the defendant instituted proceedings for the relief of perpetual injunction in Os No.917/2009 against the plaintiff herein, who failed to pay rent from October, 2007 to July, 2008 and was indebted an amount of Rs.40,300/- for the said period of 10 months. It is further pleaded that the defendant herein has taken undue advantage of time granted by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff, who personally requested the defendant to vacate the premises on 04-09-2009, but the defendant refused to vacate and also failed to pay rent.
8.The defendant filed his written statement, in which the relationship between the parties has not disputed, but it is specifically pleaded that the plaintiff demanded additional security deposit of
Rs.1,00,000/- from the defendant, but the plaintiff failed to issue receipt in spite of payment of such additional deposit on 16-07-2008. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff hatched a plan to evict the defendant, got issued a legal notice, for which a suitable reply was given by the 15 defendant. On the point of indebtedness of rent, it is categorically pleaded by the defendant as “if at all there are any arrears of monthly rent, the plaintiff would have refused to receive the demand drafts”, which plea of the defendant is not denial at all. But, impliedly admitted his indebtedness. The defendant further pleaded as the plaintiff unlawfully tried to interfere into possession of the defendant.
9.Upon consideration of pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial.
i)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of defendant from suit premises. ?
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.40,300/- from October, 2007 to July, 2008 from the defendant. ?
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits of
Rs.5000/- per month from the date of suit till eviction. ?
iv) To what relief. ?
10.In support of plaintiff in OS No.1927/2009, who is the defendant in OS No. 917/2009, PW.1 was examined as witness and
Ex.A1 to A5 were marked as documents. On the other hand on behalf of the defendant in OS No.1927/2009, who is the plaintiff in OS
No.917/2009, DW.1 & 2 were examined as witnesses and Ex.B1 to B16 were marked as documents.
11.After closure of evidence on both the parties, heard the counsel for the parties.
12. (i)The documentary evidence adduced under Ex.A1 to A5 consists of office copy of legal notice dt.23-07-2008 issued on behalf of 15
PW.1, Ex.A2 is certificate of posting, Ex.A3 is postal receipt, Ex.A4 is the acknowledgment for the same and Ex.A5 is the reply notice given by
DW.1, wherein the contents of Ex.A1 to A5 consists with the pleading of the parties, wherein there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties, commencement of tenancy, demand for eviction and arrears of rent on behalf of the PW.1 The reply notice under Ex.A5 consists with the pleadings of DW.1, who insisted for receipt on the ground of payment of additional deposit of one lakh on 16-07-2008 and nothing new is found under Ex.A1 to A5.
i)On behalf of the defendant in OS No.1927/2009, who is the plaintiff in OS No.917/2009, Ex.B1 to B16 were marked, which consists of postal receipts dt.24-02-2011, a paper publication dt.13-12-2009 of shop for sale, statement of bank account of
PW.1 commencing from 01-01-2009 to 14-12-2009, acknowledgment card of legal notice, reply notice and other postal receipts commencing from dt.19-08-2008 to 25-02-2009 and copy of interim orders passed in OS No.917/2009 and a receipt dt.01-01-2003. On scrutiny of said documents, there is no dispute regarding the receipt of rent from the month of August, 2008 onwards.
ii) The documents under Ex.B1, B3, B7 to B14 relating to such transaction and those documentary contents are no way disputed.
Similarly, the notice under Ex.B5 and reply notice under Ex.B6 and acknowledgment under Ex.B7 also not disputed, which contents already covered under the pleadings of both the parties and considered under Ex.A1 & A5. The documentary evidence under
Ex.B2 is produced as paper publication dt.13-12-2009 in which 15 general advertisement seems as made for sale of suit premises, which is no way useful in adjudication of dispute between the parties in the present proceedings. Ex.B15 is the certified copy of
IA Order, which is also part of record, where there is no dispute about possession of the defendant in OS No.1927/2009 as tenant in the premises of plaintiff. Ex.B16 is the document of receipt in which, it shows that an amount of one lakh was received by the
PW.1 from DW.1 towards advance rental deposit, which is also an undisputed facts.
iv) The chief examination affidavit of PW.1 runs on similar lines of his pleadings on all material facts. In his cross examination,
PW.1 mainly denied the suggestion of receiving one lakh rupees
additional deposit from the defendant and not issuing of receipt
on 16-07-2008 and making harassment to the defendant, when he insisted for receipt. PW.1 further denied about making influence to vacate the premises by the defendant through Malakpet
Corporator and it is clarified by the PW.1 that he is running a
Sweet shop in a rented premises at Dilsukhnagar, wherein, the suit premises is situated in a lane by Konark Theatre, much extent is less than the present shop. PW. 1 further admittedly explained that a negotiations taken place before the police regarding the dispute between the parties after dismissal of suits for default.
But, it is specifically denied about expressing his intention to sell the said premises on the advise of police. However, PW.1 admittedly explained that he made publication with reference to
Ex.B2 on 13-12-2009 offering to sell away the suit premises. It is 15 further denied about initiation of proceedings as defendant refused to purchase @ rate offered by the plaintiff to sell the suit shop. It is also clarified that the publication with reference under
Ex.B2 was made after institution of these proceedings only. The defence has not elicited any facts on the point raised by the defence regarding the payment of additional deposit of one lakh on 16-07-2008 and also on the point of non payment of rent during the period commencing from October, 2007 to July, 2008.
13.The chief examination affidavit of DW.1 runs on similar lines of his pleadings on all material points, particularly, non receiving of receipt from the plaintiff regarding the payment of one lakh as
additional deposit on 16-07-2008 and it is not clarified by DW.1 about
payment of rent for the period commencing from October, 2007 to July, 2008, which is the period claimed by the plaintiff as defendant failed to pay rent. It is additionally stated in his chief examination affidavit that adjacent shop bearing No.13 was sold out by the plaintiff for
Rs.19,00,000/- and thereafter the defendant herein expressed his willingness to purchase the suit mulgie for which, the plaintiff not responded properly. It is further stated that on 04-02-2011 the plaintiff called to the house of Ex-Corporator, Malakpet for mediation, where the plaintiff offered to sell the suit schedule premises for Rs.30,00,000/-, which is more than the market value, but the defendant offered to purchase the same for Rs.17,00,000/-, for which, the defendant is even prepared to purchase at present. However, it is stated by the DW.1 that he has not defaulted any payment of rent even for single month and the plaintiff is not required the premises, who offered to sell the 15 premises. In his cross examination, DW.1 admitted that he filed the suit in OS No.917/2009 after receipt of legal notice from the plaintiff to evict him and he sending the rent after institution of these proceedings only.
It is specifically denied about creating false story inspite of vacating the premises, who filed the suit in OS No.917/2009. DW.1 avoided to speak about running of Sweet shop by payment of monthly rent @ Rs.15,000/- by the plaintiff in a rented premises as said “not known”. It is also stated by the DW.1 that he is knowing about deposit of Rs.18,00,000/- by the PW.1 in favour of landlord as advance. It is further admittedly stated by the DW.1 that at present, PW.1 has got only the suit schedule premises and further said as not known about the sale of other shop for the purpose of depositing additional advance with the landlord of PW.1.
It is also stated by DW.1 that he has not known about initiation of eviction proceedings by the landlord of PW.1.
14.The chief examination of DW.2 shows that he is the tenant of the plaintiff in the premises bearing No.13/B in Shilpi Apartments,
Dilsukhnagar and running his business since 1999 in which, the plaintiff was the owner of said apartment till the month of March, 2010 only. It is further stated by DW.2 that publication given by the plaintiff on 13-12- 2009 offering to sell two shops to the prospective purchasers and then
DW.1 purchased the premises bearing shop No.13/B, in which he was a tenant. It is further stated that DW.1 was intended to purchase the premises occupied by him, but the said publication was seems as made after institution of these proceedings. It further shows that the defendant is ready to purchase the premises at prevailing market value, but in his cross examination, DW.2 stated as not known about the 15 reasons behind filing the present cases and also not known about the issuance of notice by the land lord of PW.1 and also not known the dispute between the parties. It is further stated that he has not known about payment of regular rent, deposit and the rate of rent.
15.From the facts and circumstances of these cases and upon careful scrutiny of entire oral and documentary evidence on record discussed above and upon consideration of rival contentions of the parties, the issues settled in both the cases are decided as under::-
16. ISSUE No.1 in OS.No. 917/2009 ::Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. ?
i)Admittedly the plaintiff in this case was the tenant, his tenancy was not extended by the defendant, being the owner of the premises, who issued a valid notice for eviction of the premises, but in spite of vacating the premises, it seems that the plaintiff approached the court for the relief of perpetual injunction, which cannot be granted against the true owner. However, the evidence of DWs.1 & 2 clearly shows that the plaintiff in this case is intended to purchase the suit schedule property, which was not materialized and it seems that the plaintiff in this case insisting to come down the defendant to price offered by the plaintiff and therefore, I am of the view that the approach for the relief of injunction by the plaintiff in this case is not fair and I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant.
15 ii)ISSUE No.2 in OS.No. 917/2009 :: To what relief. ?
Upon consideration of entire evidence on record discussed above and in view of finding in issue No.1, I am of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief in the present case except bearing costs.
17.ISSUE No.1 in OS.No. 1927/2009 :: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of defendant from suit premises. ?
i)This suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of eviction of the defendant on the ground that the defendant was committed default in payment of rent from the month of October, 2007 to
July, 2008 and also the plaintiff required the premises to run his business. Upon consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence on record discussed above, it is found that the plaintiff is running a Sweet shop in a rented premises some where else and required the suit premises. Wherein the defendant has only to prove the fact of payment of due rent from the month of October, 2007 to July, 2008, it is no doubt, the defendant being tenant continued the tenancy over the premises without payment of rent and he is in still occupation of the same, though paid rent regularly after institution of the proceedings by himself in Os
No.917/2009 and it is also found that the defendant, who occupied the premises as tenant is prepared to purchase the same premises when offered to sell by the plaintiff, but the rates were not finalized. Though, conciliation was taken place even in the police station also. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that the defendant, who is continuing over the premises of 15 the plaintiff unlawfully liable to be evicted from the suit premises.
Accordingly, this issue is decided.
ii) ISSUE No.2 in OS.No. 1927/2009 :: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.40,300/- from
October, 2007 to July, 2008 from the defendant. ?
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case particularly the rival contentions of the rival parties discussed above and in view of the findings in OS No.917/2009 and issue
No.1 of this case, I am of the considered view that the defendant is liable to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.40,300/- for the period from October, 2007 to July, 2008 and such rent shall be adjusted in the advance deposit with the plaintiff with reference to Ex.B16.
Accordingly, this issue is decided as the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent.
iii) ISSUE No.3 in OS.No. 1927/2009 :: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits of Rs.5000/- per month from the date of suit till eviction. ?
Having regard to the findings in OS No.917/2009 and issue
No.1 & 2 of this case and upon consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence on record referred supra, it is found that the defendant deposited rents after institution of proceedings in favour of the plaintiff to the credit of the plaintiff’s bank account and therefore, the question of payment of mesne profits does not arise. But, the plaintiff is entitled for only due agreed rent from the date of suit till the date of eviction enhancing at the rate of 15 10% per annum on the existing rent every year, if the defendant failed to do so. Accordingly, this issue is decided.
iv)ISSUE No.3 in OS.No. 1927/2009 :: To what relief. ?
In view of findings in issues No.1 to 3 in this case and upon consideration of entire circumstances and evidence on record, I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of eviction of defendant from the suit schedule premises and also relief of recovery of rent apart from the costs.
In the result, firstly the suit in OS No.917/2009 is dismissed, where the plaintiff shall bear the costs.
Secondly, the suit in OS No.1927/2009 is decreed as the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of eviction of the defendant from the suit premises and also entitled for recovery of arrears of rent claimed by the plaintiff from the period commencing from October,2007 to July, 2008. The defendant shall bear the costs.
Dictated to the Senior Assistant, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open court on this the 28h day of September, 2012.
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DIST.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF::
PW.1::Mr G. Srinivasulu
FOR DEFENDANT ::
DW.1::Mr Gattu Ramanaiah DW.2::Mr K. Narsimha Reddy 15
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF::
Ex.A1::Office copy of Legal notice dt.23-07-2008 Ex.A2::Certificate of posting dt.23-07-2008 Ex.A3::Postal receipt dt.23-07-2008 Ex.A4::Acknowledgment card dt.25-07-2008 Ex.A5::Reply notice dt.26-07-2008
FOR DEFENDANT ::
Ex.B1::Postal receipts (12 in number) Ex.B2::Paper Publication dt.13-12-2009 Ex.B3::Statement of account dt.26-02-2011 Ex.B4::Acknowledgment card Ex.B5::Office copy of Legal notice dt.23-07-2008 Ex.B6::Reply Notice dt.26-07-2008 Ex.B7::Postal receipt dt.19-08-2008 Ex.B8::Postal receipt dt.20-09-2008 Ex.B9::Postal receipt dt -- Ex.B10::Postal receipt dt.21-11-2008 Ex.B11::Postal receipt dt.123-12-2008 Ex.B12::Postal receipt dt.28-01-2009 Ex.B13::Postal receipt dt. 25-02-2009 Ex.B14::Bunch of xerox copies of demand drafts receipts (13 in no.) Ex.B15::CC of order passed in IA 1019/2009 Ex.B16::Original receipt for Rs.1,00,000/-
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DIST.
15
15
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DIST., L.B.NAGAR.
Present:: Sri P. JEEVAN., B.Com., LL.M.,
Principal Junior Civil Judge, RR Dist.
Dated this the 28 th day of September, 2012
O.S. Nos. 917 of 2009 & 1927 of 2009
Between::
O.S. No. 917 of 2009
Gattu Ramanaiah S/o G Tirupalu aged 50 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No.203, H.No.10-1/6, Karna Nilayam, P & T colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad
.........Plaintiff
and
G. Srinivas @ Srinivasulu S/o Lingaiah, aged Major R/o H.No.16-9, Road No.5, Krishnanagar, P & T colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyd
.......Defendant
Between::
O.S. No. 1927 of 2009
G. Srinivas S/o Lingaiah, Aged 40 yrs, R/o H.No.16-9, Road No.5, Krishnanagar, P & T colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyd
.........Plaintiff
and
Gattu Ramanaiah S/o G Tirupalu aged 50 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No.203, H.No.10-1/6, Karna Nilayam, P & T colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad
.......Defendant
These suits are coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the plaintiff in the suit in OS No.917/2009 & defendant in OS No.1927/09 and of Sri P. Srinath, Advocate for the defendant in the suit in OS No.917/2009 & plaintiff in OS 1927/09, having heard and stood over for consideration in the open court delivered the following::
15
:: C O M M O N J U D G M E N T ::
These suits are taken up together as parties and subject matter pertaining to both the suits are one and the same and the suits were clubbed on 07-04-2011, wherein, the evidence was recorded in OS
No.1927/2009.
PLEADINGS OF OS No. 917/2009 ::
2.The plaintiff in OS No.917/2009 sought the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant over the suit schedule premises bearing mulgie No.11/A situated at Shilpi Apartments, Near
Konark Theatre, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad to pass a decree restraining the defendant, his henchmen from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of suit mulgie or in any manner evict the plaintiff without following due process of law.
3.It is mainly averred in the plaint that the plaintiff entered into the possession of suit premises on 01-01-2003 as tenant on oral agreement, agreed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month and also deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which is refundable one. The plaintiff established a Jewellery business under the name and style of “M/s Sri
Laxmi Venkata Ramana Jewellery, Gems & Pearls”. It is further averred that it was agreed to enhance the rent @ 5% per annum on the existing rent and the plaintiff will be vacated the premises when ever he intends. But, the defendant with an eye sore after one year of commencement of business approached the plaintiff demanding to enhance the rent @ 10% on existing rent instead of 5 percentage or 15 otherwise to deposit additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. But, the plaintiff accepted the offer of enhancement of 10% on the existing rent and the said rent was paid regularly by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. But, the defendant with a malafide intention insisted the plaintiff to deposit additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, in which the plaintiff paid an amount of rupees one lakh on 16-07-2008, for which the defendant is not issued any receipt and informed to issue receipt for the
additional amount of one lakh paid by the plaintiff. It is further averred
that a legal notice was issued by the defendant in the month of July, 2008, demanding the plaintiff to vacate the premises as defendant intended to establish a Sweet shop and for his personal use, for which a reply notice was given by the plaintiff herein on 26-07-2008. Thereafter, the plaintiff paid rent through demand draft in favour of the defendant till July, 2009. It is further specifically averred that the defendant along with his henchmen threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences to vacate the said mulgie within week, otherwise he will throws all the articles from the shop and such threatens made by the defendant on 07-08-2009 and thereafter one Satish on behalf of defendant threatened through a phone on 10-08-2009 and the plaintiff apprehends about unlawful eviction by the defendant.
4.The defendant in Os No.917/2009 filed his written statement and admitted the relationship between the parties and commencement of tenancy on 01-01-2003 and also receipt of advance of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff. It is also admitted about oral tenancy between the parties, which was extended from time to time up to September, 2007, prevailing the rate of rent was Rs.4,500/- per month. The other allegations of insistence, additional security amount and making threats 15 is specifically denied. It is also denied about the non issuance of receipt for additional security of Rs.1,00,000/- as false. It is specifically pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff has failed to pay rent from the month of October, 2007 to July, 2008 and further pleaded that the cause of action is created by the plaintiff falsely, which was not accrued at all.
5.Upon consideration of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled for trial in OS No.917/2009.
i)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. ?
ii) To what relief. ?
PLEADINGS IN OS No. 1927/2009 ::
6.The plaintiff in OS No.1927/2009, who is the defendant in Os
No.917/2009 filed the suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits.
7.It is mainly averred in the plaint that the suit schedule premises was leased out on oral agreement in favour of the defendant which tenancy was commenced on 01-01-2003 @ Rs.2,500/- per month and also an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was received by the plaintiff as refundable advance and the defendant has to pay rent on or before the 10th day of English Calender month. It is further pleaded that the lease was extended from time to time up to September, 2007 when the rent was at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. It is specifically pleaded that the plaintiff carry on business of sweet in a leased premises nearby
Venkatadri theatre, Dilsukhnagar, and he intended to expand his business, for which purpose, the suit premises is required for own use.
15
It is further specifically pleaded that the defendant assured to vacate the premises after expiry of lease period in the month of September, 2007 and upon which promise, the plaintiff appointed sales boys and girls to extend his business by opening a sweet shop in the said mulgi and proposed date was fixed to open the same on 10-10-2007, but to utter surprise and dismay, the defendant dodged the matter on one pretext or the other. Then the plaintiff was compelled to issue a notice under sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act calling upon the defendant to vacate the premises, but the defendant replied falsely. It is further pleaded that the defendant paid rent at the rate of Rs.4.030/- per month through demand drafts from the month of August, 2008 to July, 2009, which amount was received under protest. It is specifically pleaded that the defendant instituted proceedings for the relief of perpetual injunction in Os No.917/2009 against the plaintiff herein, who failed to pay rent from October, 2007 to July, 2008 and was indebted an amount of Rs.40,300/- for the said period of 10 months. It is further pleaded that the defendant herein has taken undue advantage of time granted by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff, who personally requested the defendant to vacate the premises on 04-09-2009, but the defendant refused to vacate and also failed to pay rent.
8.The defendant filed his written statement, in which the relationship between the parties has not disputed, but it is specifically pleaded that the plaintiff demanded additional security deposit of
Rs.1,00,000/- from the defendant, but the plaintiff failed to issue receipt in spite of payment of such additional deposit on 16-07-2008. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff hatched a plan to evict the defendant, got issued a legal notice, for which a suitable reply was given by the 15 defendant. On the point of indebtedness of rent, it is categorically pleaded by the defendant as “if at all there are any arrears of monthly rent, the plaintiff would have refused to receive the demand drafts”, which plea of the defendant is not denial at all. But, impliedly admitted his indebtedness. The defendant further pleaded as the plaintiff unlawfully tried to interfere into possession of the defendant.
9.Upon consideration of pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial.
i)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of defendant from suit premises. ?
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.40,300/- from October, 2007 to July, 2008 from the defendant. ?
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits of
Rs.5000/- per month from the date of suit till eviction. ?
iv) To what relief. ?
10.In support of plaintiff in OS No.1927/2009, who is the defendant in OS No. 917/2009, PW.1 was examined as witness and
Ex.A1 to A5 were marked as documents. On the other hand on behalf of the defendant in OS No.1927/2009, who is the plaintiff in OS
No.917/2009, DW.1 & 2 were examined as witnesses and Ex.B1 to B16 were marked as documents.
11.After closure of evidence on both the parties, heard the counsel for the parties.
12. (i)The documentary evidence adduced under Ex.A1 to A5 consists of office copy of legal notice dt.23-07-2008 issued on behalf of 15
PW.1, Ex.A2 is certificate of posting, Ex.A3 is postal receipt, Ex.A4 is the acknowledgment for the same and Ex.A5 is the reply notice given by
DW.1, wherein the contents of Ex.A1 to A5 consists with the pleading of the parties, wherein there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties, commencement of tenancy, demand for eviction and arrears of rent on behalf of the PW.1 The reply notice under Ex.A5 consists with the pleadings of DW.1, who insisted for receipt on the ground of payment of additional deposit of one lakh on 16-07-2008 and nothing new is found under Ex.A1 to A5.
i)On behalf of the defendant in OS No.1927/2009, who is the plaintiff in OS No.917/2009, Ex.B1 to B16 were marked, which consists of postal receipts dt.24-02-2011, a paper publication dt.13-12-2009 of shop for sale, statement of bank account of
PW.1 commencing from 01-01-2009 to 14-12-2009, acknowledgment card of legal notice, reply notice and other postal receipts commencing from dt.19-08-2008 to 25-02-2009 and copy of interim orders passed in OS No.917/2009 and a receipt dt.01-01-2003. On scrutiny of said documents, there is no dispute regarding the receipt of rent from the month of August, 2008 onwards.
ii) The documents under Ex.B1, B3, B7 to B14 relating to such transaction and those documentary contents are no way disputed.
Similarly, the notice under Ex.B5 and reply notice under Ex.B6 and acknowledgment under Ex.B7 also not disputed, which contents already covered under the pleadings of both the parties and considered under Ex.A1 & A5. The documentary evidence under
Ex.B2 is produced as paper publication dt.13-12-2009 in which 15 general advertisement seems as made for sale of suit premises, which is no way useful in adjudication of dispute between the parties in the present proceedings. Ex.B15 is the certified copy of
IA Order, which is also part of record, where there is no dispute about possession of the defendant in OS No.1927/2009 as tenant in the premises of plaintiff. Ex.B16 is the document of receipt in which, it shows that an amount of one lakh was received by the
PW.1 from DW.1 towards advance rental deposit, which is also an undisputed facts.
iv) The chief examination affidavit of PW.1 runs on similar lines of his pleadings on all material facts. In his cross examination,
PW.1 mainly denied the suggestion of receiving one lakh rupees
additional deposit from the defendant and not issuing of receipt
on 16-07-2008 and making harassment to the defendant, when he insisted for receipt. PW.1 further denied about making influence to vacate the premises by the defendant through Malakpet
Corporator and it is clarified by the PW.1 that he is running a
Sweet shop in a rented premises at Dilsukhnagar, wherein, the suit premises is situated in a lane by Konark Theatre, much extent is less than the present shop. PW. 1 further admittedly explained that a negotiations taken place before the police regarding the dispute between the parties after dismissal of suits for default.
But, it is specifically denied about expressing his intention to sell the said premises on the advise of police. However, PW.1 admittedly explained that he made publication with reference to
Ex.B2 on 13-12-2009 offering to sell away the suit premises. It is 15 further denied about initiation of proceedings as defendant refused to purchase @ rate offered by the plaintiff to sell the suit shop. It is also clarified that the publication with reference under
Ex.B2 was made after institution of these proceedings only. The defence has not elicited any facts on the point raised by the defence regarding the payment of additional deposit of one lakh on 16-07-2008 and also on the point of non payment of rent during the period commencing from October, 2007 to July, 2008.
13.The chief examination affidavit of DW.1 runs on similar lines of his pleadings on all material points, particularly, non receiving of receipt from the plaintiff regarding the payment of one lakh as
additional deposit on 16-07-2008 and it is not clarified by DW.1 about
payment of rent for the period commencing from October, 2007 to July, 2008, which is the period claimed by the plaintiff as defendant failed to pay rent. It is additionally stated in his chief examination affidavit that adjacent shop bearing No.13 was sold out by the plaintiff for
Rs.19,00,000/- and thereafter the defendant herein expressed his willingness to purchase the suit mulgie for which, the plaintiff not responded properly. It is further stated that on 04-02-2011 the plaintiff called to the house of Ex-Corporator, Malakpet for mediation, where the plaintiff offered to sell the suit schedule premises for Rs.30,00,000/-, which is more than the market value, but the defendant offered to purchase the same for Rs.17,00,000/-, for which, the defendant is even prepared to purchase at present. However, it is stated by the DW.1 that he has not defaulted any payment of rent even for single month and the plaintiff is not required the premises, who offered to sell the 15 premises. In his cross examination, DW.1 admitted that he filed the suit in OS No.917/2009 after receipt of legal notice from the plaintiff to evict him and he sending the rent after institution of these proceedings only.
It is specifically denied about creating false story inspite of vacating the premises, who filed the suit in OS No.917/2009. DW.1 avoided to speak about running of Sweet shop by payment of monthly rent @ Rs.15,000/- by the plaintiff in a rented premises as said “not known”. It is also stated by the DW.1 that he is knowing about deposit of Rs.18,00,000/- by the PW.1 in favour of landlord as advance. It is further admittedly stated by the DW.1 that at present, PW.1 has got only the suit schedule premises and further said as not known about the sale of other shop for the purpose of depositing additional advance with the landlord of PW.1.
It is also stated by DW.1 that he has not known about initiation of eviction proceedings by the landlord of PW.1.
14.The chief examination of DW.2 shows that he is the tenant of the plaintiff in the premises bearing No.13/B in Shilpi Apartments,
Dilsukhnagar and running his business since 1999 in which, the plaintiff was the owner of said apartment till the month of March, 2010 only. It is further stated by DW.2 that publication given by the plaintiff on 13-12- 2009 offering to sell two shops to the prospective purchasers and then
DW.1 purchased the premises bearing shop No.13/B, in which he was a tenant. It is further stated that DW.1 was intended to purchase the premises occupied by him, but the said publication was seems as made after institution of these proceedings. It further shows that the defendant is ready to purchase the premises at prevailing market value, but in his cross examination, DW.2 stated as not known about the 15 reasons behind filing the present cases and also not known about the issuance of notice by the land lord of PW.1 and also not known the dispute between the parties. It is further stated that he has not known about payment of regular rent, deposit and the rate of rent.
15.From the facts and circumstances of these cases and upon careful scrutiny of entire oral and documentary evidence on record discussed above and upon consideration of rival contentions of the parties, the issues settled in both the cases are decided as under::-
16. ISSUE No.1 in OS.No. 917/2009 ::Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. ?
i)Admittedly the plaintiff in this case was the tenant, his tenancy was not extended by the defendant, being the owner of the premises, who issued a valid notice for eviction of the premises, but in spite of vacating the premises, it seems that the plaintiff approached the court for the relief of perpetual injunction, which cannot be granted against the true owner. However, the evidence of DWs.1 & 2 clearly shows that the plaintiff in this case is intended to purchase the suit schedule property, which was not materialized and it seems that the plaintiff in this case insisting to come down the defendant to price offered by the plaintiff and therefore, I am of the view that the approach for the relief of injunction by the plaintiff in this case is not fair and I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant.
15 ii)ISSUE No.2 in OS.No. 917/2009 :: To what relief. ?
Upon consideration of entire evidence on record discussed above and in view of finding in issue No.1, I am of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief in the present case except bearing costs.
17.ISSUE No.1 in OS.No. 1927/2009 :: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of defendant from suit premises. ?
i)This suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of eviction of the defendant on the ground that the defendant was committed default in payment of rent from the month of October, 2007 to
July, 2008 and also the plaintiff required the premises to run his business. Upon consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence on record discussed above, it is found that the plaintiff is running a Sweet shop in a rented premises some where else and required the suit premises. Wherein the defendant has only to prove the fact of payment of due rent from the month of October, 2007 to July, 2008, it is no doubt, the defendant being tenant continued the tenancy over the premises without payment of rent and he is in still occupation of the same, though paid rent regularly after institution of the proceedings by himself in Os
No.917/2009 and it is also found that the defendant, who occupied the premises as tenant is prepared to purchase the same premises when offered to sell by the plaintiff, but the rates were not finalized. Though, conciliation was taken place even in the police station also. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that the defendant, who is continuing over the premises of 15 the plaintiff unlawfully liable to be evicted from the suit premises.
Accordingly, this issue is decided.
ii) ISSUE No.2 in OS.No. 1927/2009 :: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.40,300/- from
October, 2007 to July, 2008 from the defendant. ?
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case particularly the rival contentions of the rival parties discussed above and in view of the findings in OS No.917/2009 and issue
No.1 of this case, I am of the considered view that the defendant is liable to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.40,300/- for the period from October, 2007 to July, 2008 and such rent shall be adjusted in the advance deposit with the plaintiff with reference to Ex.B16.
Accordingly, this issue is decided as the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent.
iii) ISSUE No.3 in OS.No. 1927/2009 :: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits of Rs.5000/- per month from the date of suit till eviction. ?
Having regard to the findings in OS No.917/2009 and issue
No.1 & 2 of this case and upon consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence on record referred supra, it is found that the defendant deposited rents after institution of proceedings in favour of the plaintiff to the credit of the plaintiff’s bank account and therefore, the question of payment of mesne profits does not arise. But, the plaintiff is entitled for only due agreed rent from the date of suit till the date of eviction enhancing at the rate of 15 10% per annum on the existing rent every year, if the defendant failed to do so. Accordingly, this issue is decided.
iv)ISSUE No.3 in OS.No. 1927/2009 :: To what relief. ?
In view of findings in issues No.1 to 3 in this case and upon consideration of entire circumstances and evidence on record, I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of eviction of defendant from the suit schedule premises and also relief of recovery of rent apart from the costs.
In the result, firstly the suit in OS No.917/2009 is dismissed, where the plaintiff shall bear the costs.
Secondly, the suit in OS No.1927/2009 is decreed as the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of eviction of the defendant from the suit premises and also entitled for recovery of arrears of rent claimed by the plaintiff from the period commencing from October,2007 to July, 2008. The defendant shall bear the costs.
Dictated to the Senior Assistant, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open court on this the 28h day of September, 2012.
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DIST.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF::
PW.1::Mr G. Srinivasulu
FOR DEFENDANT ::
DW.1::Mr Gattu Ramanaiah DW.2::Mr K. Narsimha Reddy 15
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF::
Ex.A1::Office copy of Legal notice dt.23-07-2008 Ex.A2::Certificate of posting dt.23-07-2008 Ex.A3::Postal receipt dt.23-07-2008 Ex.A4::Acknowledgment card dt.25-07-2008 Ex.A5::Reply notice dt.26-07-2008
FOR DEFENDANT ::
Ex.B1::Postal receipts (12 in number) Ex.B2::Paper Publication dt.13-12-2009 Ex.B3::Statement of account dt.26-02-2011 Ex.B4::Acknowledgment card Ex.B5::Office copy of Legal notice dt.23-07-2008 Ex.B6::Reply Notice dt.26-07-2008 Ex.B7::Postal receipt dt.19-08-2008 Ex.B8::Postal receipt dt.20-09-2008 Ex.B9::Postal receipt dt -- Ex.B10::Postal receipt dt.21-11-2008 Ex.B11::Postal receipt dt.123-12-2008 Ex.B12::Postal receipt dt.28-01-2009 Ex.B13::Postal receipt dt. 25-02-2009 Ex.B14::Bunch of xerox copies of demand drafts receipts (13 in no.) Ex.B15::CC of order passed in IA 1019/2009 Ex.B16::Original receipt for Rs.1,00,000/-
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DIST.
15
1
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SRI. V. BALA BHASKAR RAO,
II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Dated on this the 15th Day of February, 2016
SC No. 6 / 2015
Name of the complainant: The State through PS Kukatpally
Name of accused: A-1. Raavi Shekar S/o. Krishna Murthy, Aged about 45yrs, Occ: Brothel House Organizer, A-2. Akula Shivaram S/o. Srinivas, Aged about 19yrs, Occ: Brothel House Maintenance, A-3. Akula Rama W/o. Srinivas, Aged about 38yrs, Occ: Brothel house maintenance, All are R/o. Plot no.109, Shatavahana Nagar,KPHB,Cyberabad.N/o. Dyvalaravuru (v) Myodarmetla, Korsupadu (M), Prakasham District.
Crime Number: 1218/2014
Offence Under Section: 370-A of IPC, Sec.3,4,5,6 of PIT Act
PRC No.: 109/2014 on the file of IX Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, at
Miyapur
Case committed by: Smt.N.Roja Ramani XIX Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at
Miyapur
Prosecution conducted by: Kovkuntla Shiva Kumar, II Addl. P.P.
Defence conducted by: M/s.N.Bhavani Shanker Advocate for Accused
Plea of the accused: Not guilty
Sentence of order :
This case coming before me for hearing in the
presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and
of M/s.N.Bhavani Shanker , Advocate for the accused
and having stood over the matter for consideration
till this day, this court delivered the following:
2
J U D G M E N T
1) The SI of Police, PS Kukatpally filed charge sheet against
A1 to A3 for the offences punishable u/sec. 370-A of IPC and Secs.
3, 4,5,6 of PIT Act in Cr.no. 1218/2014 of PS Kukatpally
2) The brief facts of the case are that 26.11.2014 at about 5:30PM the SI of Police, PS KPHB T. Narsimha Raju received credible information that prostitution is going on at Plot no. 109, Near
Hetero Pharmacy, Satavahana Nagar, KPHB, Cyberabad. Believing the information to be authentic, obtained permission from ACP
Kukatpally division to search the above premises the investigation officer T.Narsimha Raju secured two mediators Rekha WPC and
Santhosh Reddp Police Constable and proceeded to Plot no. 109,
Near Hetero Pharmacy, Satavahana Nagar, KPHB and knocked the door and found two l adies and two gents in the said house. The investigation officer recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 and pursuant to his confession seized cell phones (I.e) One Samsung, one Micromax, one Yestel, one Celkon from his possession and also recorded the confession of A2 and recovered one Celkon Mobile phone from his possession and then recorded the confession statement of A3 and from her possession, he recovered six skore company condoms from the hall which was kept on the table under cover of confessional cum seizure panchanama and brought the accused persons and the victim Dara Kavitha and seized material to the PS KPHB. Basing on the above scene of offence cum seizure panchanama prepared by T.Narsimha Raju SI of
Police PS KPHB, T. Sridhar, SI of Police PS KPHB registered a case 3 in Cr.no. 1218/2014 u/sec.370-A of IPC, and Sec. 3, 4, 5, 6 of PIT Act 1956 and entrusted further investigation to T.Narsimha Raju. During the course of investigation the Investigation officer T. Narsimha Raju examined and recorded the statement of victim Dara Kavitha,
Woman Police Constable Rekha and Police constable Santosh
Reddy and arrested A1 to A3 and produced them before the court for judicial custody and produced the victim girl before the court to direct the victim girl to rescue him for accommodation. Later secured the presence of house owner Uddandapuram Prakash Goud and recorded his statement. After completion of investigation the SI of
Police, PS KPHB T.Narsimha Raju filed charge sheet against A1 to
A3 for the offences punishable u/sec. 370-A of IPC and Secs. 3, 4, 5, 6 of PIT Act 1956.
3) The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under section 370-A I.P.C, Sec. 3, 4, 5, 6 of PIT Act 1956 against the accused no.1 to 3 in PRC No. 109 / 14 by the learned XIX
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Miyapur and committed the case to the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar as the learned magistrate having perused the record found the case as exclusively triable by the court of
sessions after furnishing the case copies as contemplated under
section 207 of Cr.P.C.
4) The Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad took the case on file in SC No. 06 / 2015 and made over the case to this court for the purpose of disposal according to law.
4
5) This court having considered the record, framed charge under section 370-A I.P.C, Act against accused No.1 to 3, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the said charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6) During the course of trial to prove its case the prosecution has examined PW 1 to PW 7 and marked Ex. P1 to P5 and M.O.1 to 6.
7) After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating evidence that is brought on record against them for which they denied the said evidence and reported no defence evidence.
8) Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.
9)Now the point for determination is whether the
prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the charges
under section 370-A of I.P.C, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of PIT Act
beyond all reasonable doubt?
10) The burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of A1 to
A3 for the charges u/sec.370-A of IPC, Sec. 3, 4, 5, 6 of PIT Act. In this regard, as stated above, the prosecution has examined PW1 to
PW7 and market Ex.P1 to P5 and M.O.1 to 6.
11) PW1 T. Narsimha Raju the then SI of police PS KPHB has deposed that on 26.11.2014 at a bout 4PM on receipt of credible information that a brothel house is being run at Plot no.109,
Sathavahana Nagar, KPHB and basing on the said information, he informed ACP Kukatpally and obtained necessary permission from him and then he along with his staff PW5 and PW6 secured the 5 presence of mediators PW1 and PW2 at PS KPHB and proceeded to the above said house and they reached the said house at about 4:30PM and knocked the door and on opening the said house door they went inside the house and found two male persons and two female persons in the said house. PW 7 stated that in the presence of the above mediators, he enquired the above four persons and pursuant to the confession of A1 he seized four mobile phones from
A1 and one mobile phone from A2 and six condom packets from the said house under cover of panchanama in the presence of the above mediators and obtained the signatures on it at the scene of offence.
Ex.P4 is the admissible portion of the confession cum seizure panchanama, dt. 26.11.2014 at about 4:30PM. PW7 stated that then he brought the said two male persons and two female persons and the seized property to PS KPHB and handed over the said panchanama to the SI of police Sreedhar and on the basis of the same, he registered the case in cr.no. 1218/2014 u/sec. 370-A of IPC
Sec. 3, 4,5 of PIT Act and submitted the FIR Ex.P5 to the court and entrusted the further investigation to him and he arrested A1 to A3 at 11:30PM at PS KPHB and produced before the court for judicial custody. PW7 stated, he produced the victim girl PW4 before the court and the victim girl was sent to rescue home. PW7 stated that he recorded the statements of PW4 , PW5, PW6 and house owner of the said house PW3 and on completion of investiation he filed charge sheet against you A1 to A3 for the offence punishable u/sec. 370-A of
IPC, Sec. 3, 4, 5, 6 of PIT Act and submitted the case property before the court. Mo.1 to 5 are the cell phones recovered from A1 and A2.
6
M.O.6 is six condom packets recovered at the the scene of offence.
PW4 stated before him as in Ex.P3.
12) The prosecution has examined the woman police constable
D.Rekha as PW5 and police constable Santosh Reddy PW6 who participated in the above raid and assisted PW7 in conducting the said raid. PW5 and PW6 corroborated the evidence of PW7 that on 26.11.2014 entered the said house situated at plot no. 109,
Sathavahana Nagar, KPHB they found two women and a male person present in the hall of the said house and pursuant to the confession of A1, the SI of Police PS KPHB T. Narsimha Raju recovered five cell phones and six condom packets under cover of panchanama and the further investigation in this case was done by the SI of Police.
13) To further corroborate the evidence of PW7, the prosecution has examined two independent mediators Shaik Hussain
Basha and Md.Kasim PW1 and PW2 who attested the confession cum seizure panchanama who totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and deposed that police obtained their signatures on some papers at PS KPHB and they does not know the contents of the said papers.
14) U. Prakash Goud the owner of the above said house was examined by the prosecution as PW3,. PW3 deposed that he gave his house bearing no. 109, Satavahana Nagar, Kukatpally on rent to one Gopi Krishna on monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/- in the month of
February 2014 and two months later police enquired him about the ownership of the said house and informed him that brothel house is 7 being run in that house and the above said Gopi Krishna for whom he has given the above said house on lease is not present in the court hall and A1 to A3 are present in the court hall.
15) PW4 D.Kavitha victim girl in this case was examined incamera u/sec. 327 of Cr.P.C at the request of the said witness.
PW4 stated, she is a resident of Vinukonda, Guntur District and she is a student and that on 26.11.2014 at about 6PM she went to her friends house situated at Kukatpally at the request of her friend
Saroja and stayed back in her house for that night and on the next day morning Saroja and her husband left the house on their work and she alone was in the house and at about 2 to 2:3PM about four or five persons entered into the said house and questioned her as to why she is in the said house and what is happening in the said house and took her to KPHB Police station and from there she was shifted to Kasthurba Gandhi National Memorial Trust Hostel,
Hydershakota and she was in the said hostel till that day and she is given training in vocational courses. PW4 stated she does not know
A1 to A3 who are present in the court hall and she does not know the facts of this case. As PW4 totally turned hostile to the prosecution case, learned APP cross examined the witness but nothing was elicited in support of the prosecution case. The statement of PW4 u/sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C is marked as Ex.P3.
16) The case of the prosecution against A1 to A3 is that A1 to A3 are running brothel house at plot no. 109, Satavahana Nagar,
Kukatpally and living on the income earned from the prostitution with the help of the victim girl D.Kavitha PW4 and that the investigation 8 officer PW7 arrested A1 to A3 under cover of panchanama Ex.P4 and recovered M.O.1 to 6 from the possession of A1 to A3 and that
A1 to A3 are liable to be punished u/sec. 379-A of IPC, Sec. 3, 4, 5, 6 of PIT Act.
17) In the cross examination, PW7 stated, he did not receive any complaint in writing that the prostitution was going in the said house and on receipt of the said information he made GD Entry and the said GD entry record is not produced before the court. PW7 stated, he obtained permission from the ACP Kukatpally in writing to conduct the raid, and the said proceedings are not filed before this court. PW7 stated, by the date of offence, he was working as SI of
Police, Law and Order, PS KPHB and he was not appointed as a special officer/competent officer as provided u/sec 13A of PIT Act to conduct the above said raid.
18) In a reported case at 2010 (3) ALD Crl. 684 it was held as follows:
19)That police officer unless appointed as Special Officers or empowered by the District Magistrate for the purpose of visiting duties under the provisions of this act will not have jurisdiction to conduct investigation.
20) Hence, keeping in view of the ratio laid down in the above reported case and the facts and circumstances of this case and since the investigation officer failed to file any proceedings before this court to show that ACP, Kukatpally has permitted him to conduct the above said raid and hence the search of the above said premises by PW7 without obtaining a proper search warrant is found to be without valid 9 permission and on the said ground the above prosecution case is vitiated.
21) Further, the evidence of mediators Pw1 and PW2 is of no help to the prosecution case since both of them turned hostile to the prosecution case and deposed that the police have obtained their signatures on some papers at PS KPHB and they donot know the contents of the said papers. Further, the evidence of PW3 the house owner is of no help to the prosecution case since he stated that he was informed by the police that prostitution was going on in the said house. The victim PW4 totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and the evidence of PW4 is also of no help to the prosecution case.
Further, the evidence of PW5 to PW7 discloses that on entering the said house, they found two male persons and two female persons in the said house. The said evidence of PW5 and PW7 does not disclose that there is sexual activity going on in the said house when they entered the house. Basing on the said evidence of PW5 and
PW7 it can be concluded that no prostitution was going on in the said house. Further, the recovery of M.O.1 to 6 does not conclude that prostitution was going on in the said house and that A1 to A3 were living on the said earnings of the prostitution done with the aid of the victim girl PW4.
22) On close perusal of the entire evidence placed on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that A1 to A3 are running brothel house and are living on the earnings of said brothel house and thereby the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused for the offences punishable u/sec. 370-A 10 of IPC, Sec. 3, 4, 5, 6 of PIT Act beyond all reasonable and A1 to A3 are entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt and are to be acquitted.
Thus the point is answered accordingly.
23) In the result, the accused no. 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the charges punishable under section U/s 370-A of I.P.C, Secs. 3, 4, 5, 6 of PIT Act framed against the accused and they are acquitted
U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 to 3 shall be confiscated to state after lapse of appeal time. M.O.6 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open court on this the 15th day of February, 2016.
II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: - Nil - PW.1: Shaik Hussain Pasha PW.2: Mohd Kasim ` PW.3: U.Prakash Goud PW.4: D.Kavitha PW.5: Rekha PW.6: Santhosh Reddy PW.7: T.Narsimha Raju
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P2: Signature of PW2 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3: Sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P4: Admissible portion of the confession cum seizure panchanama dt. 26.11.2014 11
Ex.P5: First Information Report
FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -
MATERIAL OBJECTS:
M.O.1: to M.O.5: Cell phones M.O.6: Condoms
II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
15.02.2016
Police present. Accused no.1 to 3 are present. Judgment is pronounced (VSJ) in the open court.
In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under section 370(A) of I.P.C, Sec. 3, 4 5, & 6 of
PIT Act 1956 framed against accused and he is acquitted U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six 12 months from the date of this judgment.
M.O.1 to 5 shall be confiscated to state after lapse of appeal time. M.O.6 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.
IIASJ
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.
PRESENT :- SRI P.JEEVAN, B.Com., LL.M.,
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
MONDAY, THE 24 th DAY OF JUNE, 2013.
O.S.No.1527 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
Smt.Jasti Durga Bhavani, W/o.J.Bapanaiah Chowdary, Aged about 64 years, Occ: Household R/o.H.No.29-22-21, Peersapativari Street, Surya Rao Pet, Vijayawada – 520 002. rep.by her G.P.A. Holder Smt. Y.Uma Devi W/o. Dr.Y.Ram Babu, aged about 44 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.D-2, ICT Quarters, Tarnaka, Hyderabad – 7.
... Plaintiff
AND
1.D.Yellaiah (died) per L.Rs.
2.D.Yadaiah, S/o.Yellaiah, aged about 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.4-38, Gowlidoddi, Gopannapally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, & Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.
3.D.Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Yellaiah, aged about 44 years, R/o.2-22, Gowlidoddi, Vattinagarpally Gram panchayat, Ranga Reddy District.
4.D.Sree Ramuluy, S/o.Late Yellaiah, aged about 49 years, R/o.3-33, Gowlidoddi, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
5.D.Krishna, S/o.Late Yellaiah, Aged about 46 years, R/o.3-33, Gowlidoddi, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
(Defendants No.3 to 5 add as per the order dated 04.04.2007 in
I.A.No.234/2006). … Defendants
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. M.V.Durga Prasad, advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri
G.Madhusudhan Reddy, advocate for defendants No.3 to 5 and defendant No.2 remained ex parte, having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants
No.1 and 2 originally, wherein the defendants No.3 to 5 were subsequently added as legal representatives of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff sought the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants over the suit schedule property consisting of plot bearing No.6, in
Sy.Nos.50, 51 & 56, admeasuring 1318 Sq.yards situated at Gowlidoddi,
Gopannapally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
2.It is averred by the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property which was purchased under a registered sale deed bearing No.8002/1996, dated 28-09-1996 from
N.Appa Rao and N. Bhaskar Rao. It is further averred that the vendors of the plaintiff purchased the land in said survey numbers under a registered sale deed No.11383/1995, dated 18-12-1995. It is further averred that the defendants having no concern with the title and possession of the suit schedule property tried to occupy the same on 30- 06-2005, as the defendants along with unsocial elements came to the suit schedule property and tried to interfere in construction activities of the plaintiff. It is also averred that the defendants in similar way tried to interfere into the land of one M.Saraswathi, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.1395/2005, in which injunction was granted in favour of said
Saraswathi.
3.In this case summons were served on defendant No.2 on 25-10-2005, but he neither appeared nor taken part in the proceedings so far and therefore it shall be treated as defendant No.2 remained ex parte, as he was silent on the issues raised by the plaintiff. However the defendant No.1 filed his written statement which was adopted by his
L.Rs. who are defendants No.3 to 5. The pleadings of the defendant No.1 does not dispute the purchase of land by Mr.M.Appa Rao and Bhaskar
Rao to the extent of Ac.3-20 gts., in Sy.Nos.50, 51 & 56 of Gowlidoddi,
Gopannapally Village, Serilingampally Mandal and the subject matter in the present suit seems as part of that land only. It is further specifically pleaded by the defendant No.1 that the vendors of the plaintiff illegally sold the land in Sy.No.57 belonging to the defendant No.1 and his family members taking advantage of the contiguity of the land. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff taking advantage of the sale deeds trying to interfere into the possession of the defendants land in Sy.No.57. It is specifically pleaded that the vendor of the plaintiff purchased the land to the extent of 16,940 Sq.yards, which is equal to Ac.3-20 gts., but executed sale deed to the extent of land of 19,137.5 sq.yards in favour of 17 persons including the plaintiff herein and the transaction made by the vendors of the plaintiff exceeds the land to the extent of 2197 Sq.yards and on that ground it is questioned by the defendant No.1 on the title of the vendors of the plaintiff as not clear and opposed to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff on the ground of no clear title. However defendant No.1 denied interference of the defendants over the suit schedule property.
4. Upon consideration of rival pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled for trial:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?
2. To what relief ?
5.In support of the contention of the plaintiff PW.1 and PW.2 were examined as witnesses and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked as documents. On the other hand DW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B11 were marked as documents on behalf of contesting defendants.
6.After closer of evidence of both the parties, heard the counsels for parties. Wherein the learned counsel for plaintiff mainly contended that the plaintiff being owner and possessor of the suit property has acquired the ownership under the registered sale deed
dated 28-09-1996, for which certified true copy of the said sale deed filed
as Ex.A1. It is also contended that the vendor of the plaintiff purchased the said property under another registered transaction of sale deed
No.11383/1995, for which Ex.A2 is produced as copy of the said sale deed. The learned counsel for plaintiff also contended that the defendants habituated to extract money from the purchasers of the land from the vendors of the plaintiff in Sy.No.50, 51 & 56 by showing as got land in Sy.No.57 and OS No.1395/2005 is the similar case. It is also contended that there is no dispute raised by the defence regarding sale transactions either under Ex.A1 or under Ex.A2 except pleading as the vendors of the plaintiff sold out the land exceeding into Sy.No.57 without authority, but the pleading of the defendants itself shows as there were several persons purchased the land in Sy.Nos.50, 51 & 56 against whom the defendants were not proceeded in any way. It is also contended that the contesting defendants has not even sued the vendors of the plaintiff if they really sold out, the land in Sy.No.57 by showing the land in
Sy.Nos.50, 51 & 56. It is also contended that the unlawful interference of the defendants is clearly established as they are disputing the title of the plaintiff without any reasonable grounds or producing any substantial evidence.
7.On the other hand the learned counsel for the contesting defendants mainly questioned the title of the vendors of the plaintiff on the date of sale transaction under Ex.A1. The learned counsel for the defendants also questioned certainity and identity of the suit property as situated in Sy.Nos.50, 51 & 56 and contended as not proved by the plaintiff. Wherein the plaintiff being PW.1 unable to explain the locations, layout and identity of the property, who also referred for reliance to the evidence of PW.2, who also unable to explain the certainty and identity of the suit property. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that the defendants made settlements of their disputes with the persons who held property under Exs.B1 to B4. It is also contended during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the defendants that the owners of the plot Nos.1 to 5 and 7 settled dispute with the defendant No.1 on the identity of the property, but the plaintiff herein being owner of plot No.6 has not come forward for settlement.
8.On verification of Exs.B1 to B3, B5 and B6 it seems that there was settlement taken place between the parties regarding land sold out by M.Appa Rao and Bhaskar Rao under various documents. The settlement of dispute also supported by the documentary evidence under
Ex.B4, which is the certified copy of joint memo filed in OS
No.3011/2006 on the file of AJCJ, R.R.District, for which contesting defendants herein were also parties to the said proceedings. Ex.B7 is also joint memo in OS NO.3012/2006, in which the contesting defendants herein are the parties settled the dispute with the plaintiffs therein. Ex.B8 is also copy of settlement deed. Ex.B9 is produced as copy of pahani for the year 1964-65, which entries regarding to the year prior to sale of land in favour of vendors of the plaintiff and it shows land in Sy.No.56 in favour of defendant No.1, but the land in Sy.No.57 does not contains the name of the defendants either as pattadars or possessors. The defendants produced Ex.B10 and B11 as copies of village map which are no way useful to disprove the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property claimed as under possession of the defendants.
9.The plaintiff further relied on Ex.A3 as encumbrance certificate which discloses the entries in favour of the plaintiff as purchased plot No.6 and his vendors purchased the land to the extent of
Ac.3-20 gts., in Sy.Nos.50, 51 & 56. Ex.A4 is produced as photographs with CD, wherein it does not explains the specific identity of any survey number either in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of the defendants.
10.The chief examination of PW.1 and PW.2 mainly shows that the plaintiff purchased the suit property with reference to Ex.A1 which was purchased by her vendors from the defendant No.1 and others with reference to Ex.A2 and it further shows that the defendants along with unsocial elements tried to interfere over the suit schedule property on 30-06-2005. In her cross-examination PW.1 was unable to explain the extent of land held by her vendor, but she is firmly denied about the situation of suit schedule property in Sy.No.57. However PW.1 was also unable to explain the names of the persons who are holding the lands surrounding the suit schedule property. But her testimony was not shaked on the point of suit schedule property under Ex.A1 and also purchase of the land by the vendors of the plaintiff from the defendant
No.1. The cross-examination of PW.2 explains the circumstances that her parents verified the documents of holding title of vendors of plaintiff
before purchase and PW.2 is the daughter of PW.1. PW.2 further unable
to say the existing layout if any available in the plot purchased by PW.1.
However PW.2 also clearly denied the suggestion of situation of suit schedule property in Sy.No.57.
11.The chief examination affidavit of DW.1, who is the defendant No.3 herein disputes the ownership and possessor-ship of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property for want of title to her vendors, who purchased the land of Ac.3-20 gts., in Sy.Nos.50, 51 & 56 from defendant No.1 and it is undisputedly explained as purchase of land of
Ac.3-20 gts., by the vendors of the plaintiff and sale of same. But it is specifically consisting with the pleading of the defendants said as vendors of the plaintiff sold out the plots to 17 persons with various extents exceeding the land purchased by them and such excessive land is claimed by the DW.1 as situated in Sy.No.57, but it is uncertain from the lengthy chief examination of the DW.1 about the land sold out by the vendors of the plaintiff to a certain person exceeding the limit of Ac.3-20 gts. On careful scrutiny of pleadings of the defendants and chief examination of DW.1 itself shows that the plaintiff was one of the bonafide purchasers of suit schedule property from their vendor.
Wherein the cross-examination of DW.1 also firmly explains that the defendants are no way concern with the land in Sy.Nos.50, 51 & 56 and it further clarifies when the plaintiff is not having title over the Sy.No.57 and the defendants are non concern with the land held by the plaintiff is disputing on the ground of excessive sale by the vendors of the plaintiff who are purchasers of the land from the defendants and it supports the claim of the plaintiff as in possession over the land purchased under
Ex.A1 irrespective of claim made by the defendants. The cross- examination further clarifies that the documents under Exs.B1 to B3,
B5, B6 and B8 were executed by DW.1 and his brothers and they got no right over the land in Sy.No.50, 51 & 56 and the documents of settlement itself establishes the intention of the defendants as interfering unlawfully to get money from the persons who purchased plots from the vendors of the plaintiff. However DW.1 denied the suggestion of selling out of the land even in Sy.No.57.
12.From the facts and circumstances of this case and upon careful scrutiny of entire oral and documentary evidence on record discussed above, the issues settled in this case are decided as under:-
13. Issue No.1 :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?
This is a case wherein the plaintiff claimed the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff purchased the suit property under Ex.A1 and her vendors purchased the same from defendant No.1 and others under Ex.A2 which fact is undisputed by the defendants. But the defendants herein disputing the ownership and title of the plaintiff on the ground that the vendors of the plaintiff sold out the land exceeding to Ac.3-20 gts., purchased by them by taking undue advantage of contiguity of land in
Sy.No.57, for which their ownership is said as subsisted. But the evidence on record particularly cross-examination of DW.1 with reference to Ex.B1 to B8 clearly shows that the defendants disturbed various plot owners who purchased from Appa Rao and Bhaskar rao alike plaintiff herein and got settlement with them by way of entering into compromise as they have no rights in Sy.No.57 which itself proves that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit schedule property from the date of her purchase. It is also clearly established that the defendants who are claiming title itself, entered into compromise with others is a ground for possibility of continuous interference unlawfully, over the suit property and such unlawful interference of the defendants in any way over the suit schedule property is liable to be restrained perpetually. Accordingly this issue is decided as the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain unlawful interference of the defendants.
14. Issue No.2:- To what relief ?
Upon careful scrutiny of pleadings and entire evidence on record discussed above and in view of findings on issue No.1, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants over the suit schedule property which is ultimately and exclusively possessed by the plaintiff. Accordingly this issue is decided.
15.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed by restraining unlawful interference of the defendants over the suit schedule property perpetually. The defendants shall bear the costs in the circumstances of this case.
Dictated to Personal Assistant transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, on this 24 th day of June, 2013.
Principal Junior Civil Judge
Ranga Reddy District.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of the Plaintiff:
PW.1: Smt. Jasti Durga Bhavani PW.2: Smt.Y.Uma Devi
On behalf of the Defendants:
DW.1: D.Sree Ramulu
EXHIBITS MARKED
On behalf of the Plaintiff:
Ex.A1: Certified copy of the registered sale deed document No.8002/96
dated 28-09-1996.
Ex.A2: Certified copy of the registered sale deed document
No.11383/1995, dated 18-12-1995.
Ex.A3: Encumbrance certificate, dt:02-07-2005
Ex.A4: Photographs with CD.
On behalf of the Defendants:
Ex.B1: Certified copy of the sale deed document No.19444/2005.
Ex.B2: Certified copy of the sale deed document No.19440/2005.
Ex.B3: Certified copy of the sale deed document No.19441/2005.
Ex.B4: Certified copy of the compromise memo in OS No.3011/2006.
Ex.B5: Certified copy of the settlement deed document No.6063/2007.
Ex.B6: Certified copy of the settlement deed document No.6062/2007.
Ex.B7: Certified copy of judgment in OS NO.3012/2006 along with Joint memo filed by the plaintiff and defendants.
Ex.B8: Certified copy of the settlement deed document No.19443/2005.
Ex.B9: Certified copy of the pahani for the year 1964-65.
Ex.B10: Certified true copy of the village Map of Maji Goppanpally village after rectification of survey number.
Ex.B11: Certified true copy of the village Map of Maji Goppanpally village after rectification of survey number.
Principal Junior Civil Judge
Ranga Reddy District.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -cum-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL OF AP LG
ACT, RANGA REDDY DIST
Present: Sri. P. JEEVAN, B.Com., LL.M.,
Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, RR Dist.
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2013
C.C. No. 3 of 2013
Between::
The State of Andhra Pradesh, through the Inspector of Police,
Miyapur... Complainant
And
Y. Suresh, S/o. Late Y. Koteshwar Rao, age 42 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. E-4, Dev. Nivas, Madhura Nagar, Ameerpet,
Hyderabad...Accused
The case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APP for the state and of Sri B. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate for the accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration in the open court passed the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Miyapur alleged that the accused started excavation work for erection of pillars in land in Survey No. 70 of Tank bed area situated at Miyapur village back side of VR Bar by engaging two compressors and one Hitachi illegally violating the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in WP No. 16935/2011, dt. 06-07-2011 and also violating the oral instructions of Deputy Collector cum Tahsildar,
Serilingampally. It is further alleged specifically that PW 1 being the
Revenue Inspector, Serilingampally stopped the work of accused on 04-09-2012 and also seized two compressor vehicles. It is further alleged that the Hon’ble High Court directed to preserve and conserve the water body called Patel Cheruvu and permitted to carry out construction activity by the accused in accordance with the building permission granted. It is further alleged that the case in Cr. No.
403/2012 was registered by PW 6 upon written complaint of PW 1 and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed by PW 6 who collected the evidence.
2. Upon consideration of material placed before the court, the cognizance of offences punishable under section 447 IPC & Sec. 4 & 5 of AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
3. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. Then accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C for the substance of allegations, for which he denied. Then Charges for the offences punishable under section 447 IPC & Sec. 4 & 5 of AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act were framed and explained to the accused. On the question of plea, the accused was pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove the case of the prosecution, PW1 to PW6 were examined as witnesses and Ex. P1 to P10 were marked as documents.
5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under sec. 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, for which he denied.
6. Heard the counsel for the parties (accused and learned APP).
7. Now the point for consideration is that whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
8. This is a case, wherein PW 6 being the investigation officer, specifically alleged that the accused deviated the direction of the
Hon’ble High Court of A.P in WP No. 16935/2011, dt. 06-07-2011 in
carrying construction activity for which permission was granted. On observation of the same, PW 1 being Revenue Inspector concerned stopped the work of accused on 04-09-2012 and also seized two compressor vehicles to protect the water body area called Patel
Cheruvu.
9. In this case PW 1 initiated the proceedings by filing the written complaint under Ex. P2 which consists with the allegations of the prosecution. On the point of deviation, stoppage of work and seizure of vehicles, the evidence of PW 1 shows that he found construction activity when he visited the spot at Sy. No. 70 Patel
Cheruvu, Miyapur on 04-09-2012 and he was accompanied by his
VRO, Ahmed Shareef and village servant Krishna. Wherein the prosecution neither sited nor examined the said Ahmed Shareef or
Krishna as witnesses befor the court. It is further stated that as per enquiry of PW 1, the accused taken construction activity wherein PW 1 seized Hitachi compressor in the presence of PWs 2 to 4. But it is not explained even in chief examination of PW 1 about the manner, extent of violation of direction of the Hon’ble High Court by the accused. In his cross examination PW 1, who seized the vehicle was unable to say even name of the owner and further stated as he is not recorded the statements of any labour present there and informed about the construction activity of accused. PW 1 being revenue authority has admittedly explained his defect as not issued any notice to the accused, seeking particulars or permission or ownership over the land under construction activity. It is also further clarified that PW 1 was not taken any assistance of his Surveyor, wherein, the High Court orders were found in favour of accused owns land in Sy. No. 225 and it is not demarcated to the extent of land even tried to encroach by the accused in Sy. No. 70. However, PW 1 denied the suggestion of creating false case.
10. The evidence of PWs 2 to 4 explained the fact that they attested their signatures on the proceedings recorded by PW 1 who seized the vehicle which digging the pillars. However, in their cross examination PWs 2 to 4 were unable to explain the details of vehicle number, name of the driver, and the persons who occupied the land in survey number and they also specifically stated as not known the accused.
11. In this case the prosecution has examined PW 5 as one of the witnesses observed the scene of offence panchanama proceedings recorded by PW 6 and PW 5 stated that he along with one Narasimha attested the proceedings recorded by the police, but in his cross examination PW 5 stated as not known the survey number of land and number of tractor, drivers therein. It is clearly clarified by PW 5 in his cross examination that the tank bed area differs from the place of construction under taken by the accused which does not supports the case of prosecution.
12. The evidence of PW 6 shows that he registered a case upon the written complaint of PW 1 and recorded the proceedings of observation as in the scene of offence in presence of PW 5 and another and also seized two compressor tractors where he prepared seizure report. But it is the case of prosecution and the evidence of PW 1 shows that the compressor tractors were seized by PW 1 at the spot, but not by PW 6 being I.O. PW 6 further stated that he examined PWs 1 to 4 and taken proceedings recorded by PW 1 and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. In his cross examination PW 6 explained that he has not taken assistance of Surveyor and also not filed the copy of orders of the Hon’ble High Court, though he seen. It is further stated that the land of accused situated in Sy. No. 225 but he is unable to explain to what extent of land held by the accused.
PW 6 denied the suggestion of creating false case at the instance of
PW 1.
13. From the facts and circumstances of this case and upon careful scrutiny of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case of either tress pass or land grabbing activity as under taken by the accused.
14. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences
U/s. 447 IPC and Sec. 4 & 5 of A.P. Land Grabbing (P) Act.
Accordingly he is acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences.
His bail bonds shall stands cancelled. He is set at liberty. The unmarked case property consisting of two compressor tractors is the property of its owners after appeal time.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on
this the 26th day of June, 2013
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL OF AP
LG ACT,RANGA REDDYDIST
APPEN DIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of prosecution:
PW 1 Saleem Miya PW 2 V. Pentaiah PW 3 M. Kondal PW 4 S. Venkata Swamy PW 5 S. Vittal PW 6 Ch. Ramaiah
EXHIBITS MARKED
Ex. P1 is the Proceedings of PW 2 & 3. Ex. P2 is the permission from Tahsildhar. Ex. P3 is the Copy of Pahani for the year 2004-2005. Ex. P4 is the attested signature of PW 2 on Ex. P4. Ex. P5 is the attested signature of PW 3 on Ex. P5. Ex. P6 is the attested signature of PW 4 on Ex. P6. Ex. P7 is the signature of PW 5 on panchanama. Ex. P8 is the written complaint of PW 6 in Cr. No. 403/2012. Ex. P9 is the attested proceedings of PW 6. Ex. P10 is the presence of witnesses.
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL OF AP LG
ACT,RANGA REDDYDIST
Order Record 11 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC/300006/2015 | P.S. KPHB vs Ravi Shekar | 06 Jan 2015 | Order On Exgibit | Acquitted |
| CC.LG/100003/2013 | P.S. Miyapur vs Y. Suresh | 26 Jun 2013 | Order On Exgibit | Acquitted |
| CC.LG/100005/2013 | P.S. Miyapur vs Y. Suresh | 26 Jun 2013 | Order On Exgibit | Acquitted |
| OS/1527/2009 | Jasti Durga Bhavani, vs D. Yellaiah, | 24 Jun 2013 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| OS/1375/2009 | Kasi Lakshmi Prasanna vs Gopi Chand | 22 Jun 2013 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| OS/917/2009 | G. Srinivas alias Srinivasulu vs Gattu Ramanaiah | 28 Sep 2012 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| OS/106/1999 | N.Anjaneyulu, vs K.Narsimha | 09 Aug 2012 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| OS/552/2009 | Venkata Subbamma I vs Syed Akbar | 26 Jul 2012 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| OS/292/1999 | AVRLN Prasad vs The Govt. AP, rep. The Mandal Revenue Officer, | 29 Jun 2012 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| OS/267/2003 | B.Samrajyam, Wo. B.Pradeep Kumar, vs Babu Rao, So Not known. | 27 Jun 2012 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| OS/667/2001 | petnm vs Vsresnm | 25 Jun 2012 | Order On Exgibit | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has P.Jeevan handled?
P.Jeevan has handled 13 court orders since 2012 at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.
What types of cases does P.Jeevan hear?
Based on available records, P.Jeevan primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Sessions Cases) at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.
Where is P.Jeevan currently posted?
P.Jeevan is posted as II Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana.
Are judgments by P.Jeevan available online?
Yes. 7 judgments by P.Jeevan are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
Since when is P.Jeevan serving?
P.Jeevan has been serving at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex since 2012.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Mar 2014 — May 2015II Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge · 1 orders
-
Jun 2012 — Mar 2014Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum Metropolitan Magistrate, , RangaReddy District, Cyberabad at L.B Nagar · 12 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court