P.Lakshmi Sarada

1 A.S.NO. 18 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE; PUTTUR.

Present: Smt P.Lakshmi Sarada,

Senior Civil Judge, Puttur.

Friday, the 13th (Thirteenth) day of April, 2018

Appeal Suit No. 18 of 2015

Between:

Gali Subramanyam Naidu. .. Appellant

And:

1. Enugurthi Muniswamy Naidu,

2. Korapati Narendra Babu. (2nd Defendant added as per orders in IA.No.56/2011

dt.27.6.2011.) .. Respondents

Appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the of the Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Puttur dt.06.4.2015 made in

O.S.NO. 99 of 2009

Between: Gali Subramanyam Naidu. … Plaintiff

And:

1. Enugurthi Muniswamy Naidu,

2. Korapati Narendra Babu. (2nd Defendant added as per orders in IA.No.56/2011 dt.27.6.2011.) … Defendants

This Appeal is coming on 21/3/2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Nagaraju, Advocate for Appellant and of Sri E.Mohan Naidu, Advocate for respondent, upon perusing the grounds of appeal and the material part of records connected there with, and upon hearing the arguments on either side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- 2

A.S.NO. 18 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

This is an Appeal preferred by the Appellant/Plaintiff aggrieved by the

Judgment and Decree of Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Puttur, in dismissing the suit filed for permanent injunction.

2. The brief pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint, are that plaint schedule property originally owned by Raguru Narasappa Naidu of

Parameswaramangalam village. During his life time, in sound state of mind, he executed a regular registered Will dt.5/1/1962 in favour of deceased Manohar

Naidu, who is son of plaintiff and some others. Manohar Naidu died during his childhood itself, later Narasappa Naidu also died. After the death of Narasappa

Naidu the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property along with wife of Narasappa Naidu by name Chinnamma. Plaintiff is in exclusive possession of property and looking after the affairs of Chinnamma also. Chinnamma died 4 or 5 years prior to filing of this suit. As per registered

Will, the plaintiff is entitled to plaint schedule property, because Narasappa

Naidu executed a Will in favour of son of plaintiff.

(a) Plaintiff planted saplings of mango trees in plaint schedule property about ten years ago and ploughing the land and raising manavari crops. During life time of Narasappa Naidu, one Ragooru Kuppamma wife of Ramaswamy

Naidu and some others filed a suit against Chinnamma and others in respect of plaint schedule property. The said suit was dismissed and ended in favour of

Chinnamma. Before filing the said suits itself, Narasappa Naidu executed Will in favour of Manohar naidu. In the said Will Narasappa Naidu mentioned that 3 A.S.NO. 18 of 2015 plaintiff should protect Narasappa Naidu and his wife Chinnamma and after the death of Chinnamma, the plaintiff will get absolute rights over the property.

(b) The defendant is working as village assistant for many years and he created a sale deed and revenue documents in his favour. The other beneficiaries under the Will dt.5/1/1962 died and plaintiff alone is entitled to suit property. Plaintiff got issued legal notice to defendants and defendants did not give any reply for the same. Defendant is objecting the plaintiff from ploughing the land in the month of December, 2008. Hence, suit. Original Will was filed in the previous proceedings and it was destroyed in the court and registration copy of Will is available which is filed with this suit.

3.By way of amendment, the plaintiff added 2nd defendant as per orders in IA.No.66/2011 dt.27/6/2011 on the ground that 1st defendant created a sale deed in favour of 2nd defendant on 09/12/2010 without any rights. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction.

4. Defendant No.1 filed written statement and pleaded that testator had no right, title or interest or possession over the suit property which was item No.5 mentioned in the Will. As per Will, bequest was in favour of Manohar Naidu, his daughter's son was also there ie., the children of G. Lalithamma, the second daughter of testator. However, the defendant No.1 pleased that Will is a created one and plaintiff is not in possession of the property.

(a) Defendant No.1 further pleaded that suit land was originally owned by one Vasantha Nagaiah Naidu who was raising crops and paying cists to the

Government. He sold the same to E.Munaswamy Naidu ie., father of 1st defendant under registered sale deed dt.15/7/1974 and delivered possession of 4

A.S.NO. 18 of 2015

the same. The father of defendant was in possession of the property till his death on 30/10/2001 and later, the property devolved upon 1st defendant, who had been in possession and enjoyment of the same and his possession was recognized by the revenue authorities, and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Defendant No.2 filed written statement and pleaded that father of 1st defendant purchased the suit property on 15/7/1974 and 1st defendant was entered as owner of the property in the revenue records. Defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of 2nd defendant on 19/12/2010 for valid consideration, and as such, 2nd defendant is the absolute owner of the property. Plaintiff has no manner of right, title or possession over the suit land.

After due verification of records, 2nd defendant purchased the property and got possession of the same, and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. Basing on the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:-

1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit property as on the date of filing of suit as prayed for ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction over the suit property as prayed for ?

3) To what relief ?

7. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiff Pw1 and Pw2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked. Pw1 is Gali Subramanyam Naidu and Pw2 is

P.N.Anbalagan. Ex.A1 is registration copy of Will dt.5/1/1962 executed by deceased Narasappa Naidu in favour of Manohar Naidu, Ex.A2 is the cists receipts (3 in number) Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice dt.18/9/2008 along with postal receipt and acknowledgment, Ex.A4 is the registration copy of 5 A.S.NO. 18 of 2015 registered sale deed dt.09/12/2010 executed by E.Munirathnam Naidu in favour of 2nd defendant, Ex.A5 is the certified copy of Judgment in OS.No.130/1964,

Ex.A6 is the registration copy of registered sale deed dt.5/7/1974 executed by

Nagaiah Naidu in favour of Munaswamy Naidu and Ex.A7 is the office copy of legal notice dt.10/1/2011 along with postal receipt and acknowledgement.

(a) On behalf of the defendants Dw1 E.Munirathnam naidu was examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were marked. Ex.B1 is original registered sale deed dt.15/7/1974 executed by Munaswamy Naidu, Vasantha Nagaiah Naidu in favour of E.Munaswamy Naidu, Ex.B2 is the certified copy of decree passed in

OS.No.130/1964 by District Munisif Court, Puttur, Ex.B3 is the original

pattadar pass book stands in the name of 1st defendant, Ex.B4 is the original title deed pass book stands in the name of 1st defendnat, Ex.B5 is the attested copy of No.3 account for the fasili 1412, 1420 and 1422 issued by Tahsildhar,

Puttur on 23/7/2013, and Ex.B6 is the attested copy of No.3 account for the fasili 1419 issued by Deputy Tahsildhar, Puttur dt.3/11/2014.

(b) The Advocate commissioner's report was marked as Ex.C1.

8. After due trial and arguments, the trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that there is no documents in the name of plaintiff to prove his possession over the suit property and that suit for mere injunction is not maintainable and, unless and until the contrary is proved the revenue records produced by the defendants shall be presumed to be true. Advocate commissioner report is not helpful for the plaintiff in the absence of production of any evidence in respect of possession of the property. The Will was not proved and as such, plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction as prayed.

6

A.S.NO. 18 of 2015

9. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the present appeal has been preferred.

10. The brief grounds of appeal are that the trial court did not appreciate the documentary evidence and the pleadings properly. As per Will, the plaintiff has been enjoying the property after the death of Chinnamma and his mother.

Plaintiff clearly stated about his enjoyment over the property by mentioning about crops raised by him. During the pendency of the suit 1st defendant alienated the property to 2nd defendant. Vendor of father of 1st defendant

Nagaiah Naidu filed a suit against Chinnamma and Lalithamma, and

Lalithamma was minor by then and 1st defendant was appointed as guardian.

At the time of filing of suit in OS.No.130/1964, 1st defendant was aged 12 years and the suit was disposed on 1/12/1969, in which, the original Will was filed. Nagaiah Naidu did not state anywhere in the registered sale deed of 1st defendant as to how he got the properties and boundaries of the property were not mentioned in the registered sale deed. No document was filed in respect of enjoyment of the property during the life time of father of 1st defendant and trial court did not appreciate all these facts. Defendants did not state about the existing mango garden and the suit property and its age. Since the son of plaintiff deed his father was enjoying the property and there are no other legal representatives, plaintiff fulfilled his duties and enjoying the properties. The trial court did not observe the legal possession and practical possession of properties, and as such, prayed to allow the appeal.

11. In this appeal, Appellant/plaintiff filed petition under order-14 Rule-1

C.P.C in IA.No.44/2018 praying the court to frame additional issue as to 7 A.S.NO. 18 of 2015 whether the sale deed dt.15/7/1974 under Ex.B1 is binding upon the plaintiff and whether the sale deed dt.09/12/2010 under Ex.A4 is binding upon plaintiff.

Defendant No.1 filed counter for the said petition and submitted that plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction over the suit property and plaintiff has to prove his case by proving possession and there is no necessity to discuss about the documents mentioned by the plaintiff, which are the documents of defendants and documents are no way helpful to the plaintiff to prove his case as there is no necessity to frame the additional issues.

12. As seen from the record, the main suit is filed by plaintiff praying for the relief of permanent injunction over the suit property and the trial court framed issues as to whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit and whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. The record further shows that the documents referred by plaintiff for the above petition, are said to have been executed by one third party in favour of father of defendant and in turn, 1st defendant, in favour of 2nd defendant.

13. Evidently, the plaintiff is disputing the rights and possession of 1st defendant over the suit property, but limiting his claim only in respect of permanent injunction and he did not seek for declaration of his rights over the property. In these circumstances, the issues with regard to possession as prayed by trial court is sufficient to effectively and finally adjudicate the suit.

14. Moreover, the plaintiff seeks for framing of said issues on the ground that details of the property are not completely mentioned in the sale deed relied upon 1st defendant. But it is in no way shift the burden of the plaintiff to prove 8

A.S.NO. 18 of 2015

his possession over the property, which is essential, to get permanent injunction relief. In these circumstances, the framing of additional issues as sought by plaintiff is not necessary and IA.No.44/2018 is dismissed by way of separate orders.

15. Both parties are arrayed as the same as referred in the trial court.

16. Heard both sides. Both parties filed written arguments.

17. Point for consideration is whether the appeal can be allowed and whether the appellant are entitled for decreeing of the suit in OS.No.99/2009 as prayed ?

18. Point:- The evidence of plaintiff who was examined as Pw1 reveals that there is a mango garden on the western side of plaint schedule property, belonged to 1st defendant and so also on the eastern side. On the northern side, there is a road which is called Nakkalacheruvu bata, and on the southern side the land of Krishna Mandadi is situated. He does not know whether the property is ancestral property of his father-in-law or self acquired property, but he succeeded it after the death of his father. His father-in-law Narasappa Naidu and Rajamma are children of Ramaswamy Naidu. Wife of Ramaswamy Naidu is Kuppamma. His father-in-law had two daughters Sarasamma, wife of plaintiff and Lalithamma. Rajamma got one daughter Sarojamma and son

Nagaiah. Plaintiff has one daughter Rosamma and son Manohar Naidu. (a)

Narasappa Naidu executed Will in the name of wife of plaintiff and Lalithamma with limited rights. Lalithamma got one son Babu and they are residing at

Tamilnadu. After the death of Narasappa Naidu, the son of plaintiff died after four years. They have partitioned their properties including the plaint schedule 9 A.S.NO. 18 of 2015 property, after the death of Narasappa Naidu. Plaintiff paid amount to

Lalithamma towards her share of property and got all the properties including the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff obtained relinquishment deed from

Lalithamma, in respect of her share. There is no document to show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. There is no record in the name of Chinnamma. His mother-in-law died about 7 or 8 years ago, before his evidence. He does not know the survey number of the plaint schedule property. After the death of his mother-in-law, the plaintiff used to pay tax for the property in her name. He obtained pattadar pass book and title ded for the property. He further deposed that there is a well at a distance of one kilometer from the mango garden of plaintiff and he is drawing water from that well through water drums. He does not know whether the 1st defendant executed registered sale deed in favour of 2nd defendant.

19.Plaintiff has produced Ex.A1 registration copy of Will said to have been executed by Narasappa Naidu in favour of son of plaintiff dt.5/1/1962. A perusal of the same shows that it is document No.1/1962 and the testator mentioned that beneficiaries shall look after the mother and wife of testator during their life time and after their life time, the property shall devolve upon his grand son Manohar Naidu and the children of his second daughter equally and they shall enjoy the same equally. It was further mentioned that the property was ancestral property of testator. The said property is in Sy.No.91/2 to an extent of Ac.0.86 cents was also mentioned in it.

20.The Will shows that Narasamma, the mother of Manohar Naidu is daughter of testator Narasappa Naidu and wife of G.Subramanyam Naidu ie., 10

A.S.NO. 18 of 2015

plaintiff herein. Evidently, the pleadings in the plaint does not show the relation of plaintiff with Narasappa Naidu except mentioning that Narasappa Naidu bequeathed the property in favour of his son, who is no more, and as such, he became owner of the property.

21. Ex.A2 is the cists receipts during the year 1974, 1977, and 1978 in the name of Chinnamma. Suit survey number was not mentioned in the said cists receipts. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of Judgment in OS.No.130/1964 said to have been filed by Sarojamma and Nagaiah Naidu against Chinnamma and

Laleetha and Sarasamma for declaration of rights over the plaint schedule property and permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed, as per the

Judgment on merits. Ex.A3 and Ex.A5 are legal notices.

22. On the other hand, the evidence produced by defendants shows that 1st defendant is Dw1 who deposed that he worked as Village Revenue Officer for the suit village from 1992-2002. The property was purchased by his father and he was in possession and later, 1st defendant got possession. Dw1 planted mango trees in the plaint schedule property. He has handed over his pattadar pass book to 2nd defendant. He made fencing to his property in 2002.

Defendant No.1 is a party to Ex.A1. During the pendency of suit, he sold the property to 2nd defendant. He himself signed on Ex.B3 and Ex.B4. He did not give any instructions to 1st respondent to make entries in Ex.B3 and Ex.B4. His father gave consent for issuance of pass books during his life time. The mortgage obtained is not shown in the cultivation accounts for the year 2014, he was present when Advocate commissioner visited the property. He has no landed property in Sy.No.91/2 adjacent to the road. Standing trees are not 11 A.S.NO. 18 of 2015 mentioned in Ex.A4 sale deed executed by him. He does not know about the

Will executed by Narasappa Naidu.

23. The defendant has produced the original Will deed in the name of his father under Ex.B1. The plaintiff also produced the registration copy of the same under Ex.A6. Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 are the pass books in the name of 1st defendant.

24. Ex.B5 is No.3 adangal for the fasili 1420 corresponding to 2010- 2011 showing Sy.No.91/2 in the name of 1st defendant and mango crop was shown in it. Ex.B6 is another adangal for the year 2009-2010 which reflect the suit property in the name of 1st defendant under his enjoyment.

25. Ex.B2 is decree copy in OS.No.130/1964. It shows that the property involved in that suit was Sy.No.145/2 in an extent of Ac.0.81 cents and 1/6th share in the well in Sy.No.145/5. The basis for plaintiff in the said suit to file the suit, as per Ex.A5 Judgment is, that plaintiff pleaded that the property was

Sthridana property of her maternal grand mother, who executed registered settlement deeds in favour of plaintiff in 1962 itself and sought for declaration of her rights and other reliefs.

26. As already discussed above, this suit was filed by plaintiff for permanent injunction, to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession, as such, the plaintiff has to produce cogent evidence to prove his possession over the property as on the date of filing of the suit. The evidence as discussed above shows that both the plaintiff and defendants admitted that original owner of the property was Narasappa Naidu. Though the plaintiff 12

A.S.NO. 18 of 2015

denied that it is ancestral property of Narasappa Naidu. His own documents prove that the property is ancestral property of Narasappa Naidu.

27. The evidence of Pw1 categorically shows that parents of Narasappa

Naidu are Ramaswamy and Kuppamma and they had a daughter by name

Rajamma. Narasappa Naidu got two daughters ie., wife of plaintiff and

Lalithamma who had children and so also Rajamma had got children ie.,

Sarojamma, Nagaiah who are plaintiffs in OS.No.130/1964. Defendant No.1 pleads that he purchased the property from Nagaiah Naidu under Ex,B1 in 1974.

28. The plaintiff pleads that Narsappa Naidu was in absolute possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and he executed a Will in favour of son of plaintiff and some others and the property has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of plaintiff since beginning. Evidently, the proceedings in OS.No.130/1964 does not relate to present plaint schedule property. It is also evident that there are several successors to the property, had there been no Will as propounded by the plaintiff under Ex.A1.

29. The plaintiff pleaded that his son died but it is not pleaded in the plaint as to whether the son of plaintiff pre-deceased the testator or later. It is during evidence of Pw1, he deposed that four years after the death of testator, his son died. However, the dates of deaths of testator or son of plaintiff, were not mentioned by plaintiff nor any evidence produced to that effect, so as to prove the continuous flow of possession of property to the plaintiff. Except mentioning himself, the plaintiff did not produce any other evidence to that 13 A.S.NO. 18 of 2015 affect. It is further evident that Will was not propounded anywhere earlier and proved with cogent evidence, as per law.

30. Under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, if a document required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least had been called for the purpose of proving its execution and a Will even if it is produced as registered document, it shall be proved by following the said procedure.

31.So also, section 63 of Indian Succession Act provides for execution of unprivileged Wills, which states that attestor is mandatory for a Will. In the present case, plaintiff did not produce any such mandatory evidence as provided by law to prove the Will, so as to prove the diversion of rights of possession of the property to the exclusion of all other successors, to the son of plaintiff and then to the plaintiff.

32. Even otherwise, the plaintiff himself admitted that son of plaintiff as well as the children of another daughter of Narasappa Naidu were bequeathed properties equally. Plaintiff deposed during his evidence that he made payments to other daugther by name Lalithamma, who executed relinquishment deed in favour of plaintiff for the properties. These facts were not pleaded in the plaint nor any evidence was produced by plaintiff to prove the same. Thus, the plaintiff cannot rely upon Ex.A1 Will, to prove the flow of possession to him, from the time of Narasappa Naidu.

33. As seen from the record, an Advocate commissioner was appointed by the trial court to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule properties, who filed report before the trial court. Pw2 is Advocate 14

A.S.NO. 18 of 2015

commissioner, who was examined by trial court. His evidence is reveals that he was appointed to note down the physical features of plaint schedule property and both parties, surveyor and counsel were present at that time. He identified the suit property and observed 36 mango trees in the plaint schedule property, in which 25 mango trees are nearly 15 years aged and remaining mango trees are ten years aged.

(a) Towards eastern side of plaint schedule property, there is a mango garden belonged to plaintiff. Towards southern side of plaint schedule property there is compound wall and on other three sides, there is fencing for

Sy.No.91/3, 92/5 and 6. There is iron gate through which one could enter to plaint schedule property through the lands of 1st defendant. Defendant No.1 or his counsel were not present when the Advocate commissioner visited the property. There are no ridges separating the plaint schedule property from the land situated on its eastern side and western side.

34. Ex.C1 is report filed by Advocate commissioner along with rough sketch and FMB. A perusal of the same shows that plaint schedule property ie., land in Sy.No.91/2 in an extent of Ac.0.86 cents was shown in the middle and on the eastern side the mango garden of 1st defendant in Sy.No.92/5 and 6 and on the western side the land of one Ravala Veera Ragavalu Mango garden in

Sy.No.91/3 were shown. Cement pillars with iron gate were shown on all those properties together. Bore well was shown in the property of 1st defendant.

35. As per the report of Advocate commissioner, the trees aged more than 15 years were seen. Plaintiff submitted that trees were not seen in the sale deeds of 1st defendant or 2nd defendant and as such, defendants cannot claim 15 A.S.NO. 18 of 2015 that the trees belonged to them. However, in a suit for permanent injunction, even in the absence of evidence from the defendants, the burden is upon the plaintiff to produce cogent evidence to prove his possession so as to get entitled for permanent injunction, since it is the plaintiff who would fail if no evidence if produced in the suit.

36. As discussed above, the plaintiff himself admitted that there are other successors to the property but not made them as parties to the suit. Plaintiff has been claiming exclusive possession of suit property by excluding all other successors. He did not produce any evidence except Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 to prove that he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the period of Narasappa Naidu and thereafter on behalf of his son. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are during the period from 1962 to 1978. Those documents are not authenticated proof of possession even for the persons mentioned in it. Plaintiff did not produce any other evidence before the court to prove that he got absolute possession over the property from all other persons and especially from the other beneficiaries under the Will, propounded by him. In such circumstances, the plaintiff failed to prove that he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, and as such, he is entitled for permanent injunction in his favour as prayed by him.

37. For all the reasons discussed above, the trial court rightly concluded that plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the property to get entitled for permanent injunction, and as such, the findings of the trial court need not be interfered with.

16

A.S.NO. 18 of 2015

38. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in Open court, this the 13th day of April, 2018.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PUTTUR. Appendix of evidence -Nil- SCJ,CTR. PTR

FAIR Judgment in AS.No. 18 of 2015 Dt.13/4/2018

1 Sessions Case No. 189 of 2017

 IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE : PUTTUR.

Present: Smt P. Lakshmi Sarada Assistant Sessions Judge, Puttur.

Wednesday, the 18th (Eighteenth) day of April, 2018

Sessions Case No. 189 of 2017

Between:

The State, rep. by The Sub­Inspector of Police, Vijayapuram Police station. … Complainant.

And:

A.Srinivasulu, aged 21 years, son of A.Venkatesh, R/o Kosalanagaram Audi Andhra Wada, Vijayapuram Mandal, Chittoor District. … Accused.

This case is coming on 16/4/2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri M.Babu, 

Advocate for accused and upon hearing their arguments and upon perusing the documents on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :­

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vijayapuram Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.56/2016 for the offences u/ss 417, 493, 498-A and 307 IPC.

2. The brief facts as narrated in the charge sheet are that the complainant lodged a complaint on 20/11/2016 at 5.00 pm before the Sub- 2 Sessions Case No. 189 of 2017

Inspector of police Vijayapuram Police station stating that she got married to one Sekhar of Rama Samudram ST colony during 2009 and they were blessed with son. After two years of marriage, differences arose between them and complainant separated from her husband after mediation by the advise of elders and since then living with her parents at Kosalanagaram ST colony, Vijayapuram mandal. The complainant developed friendship with the accused. The accused with dishonest intention induced the complainant to cohabit with him so that he will marry her and look after the complainant and her son. Believing his words, the complainant joined the accused and both of them took a house bearing D.No.10/46A at Rama Naidu colony,

Puttur belonged to one Muniyamma on rent and lived there for four months as wife and husband from 11/3/2016. Later as per advise of one Masthan they have vacated the house and constructed a thatched hut at the vacant house site of parents of complainant at Kosalanagaram ST colony and lived there. At that time, differences arose between them and accused demanded to arrange money from her parents for their livelihood. The parents of complainant refused for the same. After two months, when the complainant demanded the accused to marry her, on 16/9/2016 the accused took her by his motor-bike towards Vijayapuram on the pretext of marrying her and on the way at Mala Madugu area, beat her and attempted to kill her by throttling her neck. She lost consciousness and the accused escaped. The villagers saved the complainant and sent her to her village. She informed the same to the village elders who promised to do justice, but invain. Later, 3 Sessions Case No. 189 of 2017 after two months she lodged the complaint before the police.

3. On receipt of complaint, the Sub-Insepctor of police registered a case in Crime No.56/2016 u/ss 419, 493, 498-A and 307 IPC and issued

FIR.

4. During the course of investigation he has examined and recorded the statements of material witnesses which revealed the relationship between complainant and accused. On 21/2/2017 the accused obtained anticipatory bail from Hon'ble V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet.

5. After filing charge sheet, before the learned Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Nagari, case taken on file for the offence u/ss 417, 493, 498-A, and 307 IPC against the accused and registered as PRC.No.5/2017.

6. After appearance of accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Nagari, copies of documents submitted by the police were furnished to him and case was committed to Hon’ble Principal Sessions

Judge’s Court u/s 209 Cr.P.C and the said case is registered as

SC.No.189/2017 and made over to this court, for trial according to law.

7. After appearance of accused before this court, he was asked whether he has means to engage counsel and he informed the court that he got means to engage counsel. After hearing the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused and on perusing the material available on record, charges u/ss 307, 417, 493, and 498 IPC were framed against him, read over and explained to him in Vernacular language and 4 Sessions Case No. 189 of 2017 they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Then, the matter was posted for trial.

8. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined Pw1 to Pw10, and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. Pw1

K.Varalakshmi, Pw2 A.Hari Krishna, Pw3 G.Muniyamma, Pw4 K.Sekhar,

Pw5 R.John, Pw6 S.Raja, Pw7 D.Masthan, Pw8 D. Chenchu Vara Prasad,

Pw9 N. Mallikamma, and Pw10 G.Prasad Rao, Sub-Inspector of police.

Ex.P1 is the report of Pw1, Ex.P2 is 162 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3, Ex.P3 is 162 Cr.P.C statement of Pw5, Ex.P4 is 162 Cr.P.C statement of Pw6, Ex.P5 is 162 Cr.P.C statement of Pw7, Ex.P7 is 162 Cr.P.C statement of Pw9,

Ex.P8 FIR in Crime No.56/2016 of Vijayapuram Police station and Ex.P9 is the rough sketch of scene of offence.

9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, with regard to incriminating material appearing against him, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty, and also he reported no defence evidence. Then the matter is posted for arguments.

10. Heard arguments on both sides.

Now the point for determination is Whether the accused have committed the offences charged u/ss 307, 417, 493, and 498 IPC and whether the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt?

5 Sessions Case No. 189 of 2017

11. POINT:­ The case of the prosecution as unfold by prosecution witnesses is that Pw1is complainant. She was married to one Sekhar in 2009 and begot two children. One son died. He was coming drunk and beating Pw1 in drunken condition, and as such, as per mediations before the elders they got separated and complainant returned to her parents house at

Kosalanagaram. She started working as coolie at neighbouring villages for gardening work. Accused developed acquaintance with her by stalking over her. He threatened that he would commit suicide if the complainant does not agree to marry him, and thus, both have informed the matter to their elders, but the elders admonished the accused for behaving like that.

(a)At last, Pw1 agreed to marry him and they both married in

Subramanyeswara Swamy temple, Puttur by exchanging garlands and they have put up family in a house at Ramanaidu colony and lived there happily for seven months. The accused was attending his work from Puttur. On one day accused declared to return to Kosalanagaram, and as such, they have shifted their family and lived there happily for one week, but the accused was coming home drunk and harassing her about her previous marriage. Her parents admonished the accused for his behaviour and Pw1 lodged a complaint. At that time the police conducted counselling and send them away and later they lived happily for ten days.

(b) On one day, the accused suddenly came in drunken condition and demanded money and when the parents of Pw1 informed that money is not available with them the accused asked Pw1 to get on the bike and took her 6 Sessions Case No. 189 of 2017 to Mulamadugu. He stopped the bike and started abusing Pw1, slapped her and kicked in her stomach and caught hold of her neck and pressed it.

Thinking that she died, the accused left the place and went away. Passersby from Mulamadugu village saw her condition and brought her to her house.

Her parents placed the matter before elders, but they did not take any action, as such, lodged a complaint. Her uncle drafted the complaint and

Pw1 signed on it.

12. Her evidence further reveals that during childhood of Pw1 her parents settled at Rajulakandriga, Nindra Mandal. Her father is working in

Puttur Post office. Their house is situated opposite to RTC bus stand,

Puttur. Her parents continued to live in that house even as on the date of her deposition. After separation from her first husband, Pw1 was working in garment shop at Puttur. She did not obtain any decree of divorce for first marriage. She underwent family planning operation while she was living with first husband. She stated to police that on 16/9/2016 she demanded the accused whether he was ready to marry her or not. She does not know the period from which they lived at Puttur. She cannot say the door number of the said house where they lived. She lodged complaint on 20th, but she does not know the month and year. After four days of incident, she lodged report. Her complaint was dt.20/11/2016 and the incident took place on 16/9/2016. She does not know the names of persons who brought her to her house. She cannot identify them. There is no proof of her marriage with accused. After one month of lodging report the police examined her. She 7 Sessions Case No. 189 of 2017 was not taken to hospital and her injuries were not recorded anywhere.

13. The father of complainant was examined as Pw2. His evidence reveals that he is working as Postman at Puttur Post office for more than 33 years. Pw1 came to their native village Kosalangaram after separating from her husband and attending coolie work. Accused was tractor driver at the mango garden where Pw1 was working. Without his knowledge, both Pw1 and accused came to Puttur and performed marriage and put up family.

They lived there for two or three months and the parents of accused brought them to their village. Pw2 erected thatched house and gave it to Pw1 and accused and they lived there one month. Later, disputes arose due to drinking habit of accused. On one day, Pw1 asked him for amounts and he promised to arrange for the same. Later, Pw1 informed him that accused took her to a scheduled place and kicked her and pressed her neck due to which she fell unconscious and later passers by of Mangalam village brought her to the house at about 10.00 or 10.30 pm. On the next day, Pw2 took Pw1 to the hospital for treatment. He tried to solve the dispute with the help of village elders, but invain. As such, Pw1 lodged report.

14. He further deposed that he is resident of Rama Rao colony near

RTC bus-stand and he is native of Kosalanagaram. He was orignally native of Jambada and they resided at Rajulakandriga village, Nagari mandal and both Pw2 and his wife are residing at Rama Rao street, Puttur. Pw1 lived along with them at Puttur and worked at garment shop. Accused never directly approached him nor asked for marrying Pw1. He will go to his 8 Sessions Case No. 189 of 2017 village whenever there is a work. On 16th he was at Kosalangaram. He was visiting Pw1 when she lived at rented house with accused in Puttur. He did not see the Mangalam village people who brought Pw1. He did not witness the accused taking Pw1 by his bike. Pw1 was treated at

Ramachandra hospital. Pw1 did not apply for a decree of divorce for her first marriage. Village elders did not call any person to enquire about the matter. The accused has parents. Pw2 did not approach his parents at any time. He went along with Pw1 to lodged report. His son-in-law Madhu drafted the report and Pw1 signed on it. They belonged to ST community and as such divorce laws are not applicable to them and they need not obtain decree of divorce.

15. The house owner where Pw1 said to have resided, was examined as Pw3. Her evidence reveals that Pw1 resided as tenant in her house for 5 or 6 months alone when she was working at Garment shop. Pw3 has knowledge that the father of Pw1 is postman, and as such, she let Pw1her house. She never observed that anybody were meeting Pw1 at her house.

16. Pw4 is husband of Pw1 and his evidence reveals that their marriage was dissolved as Pw1 does not like him. Pw4 does not know what happened to her lateron.

17.Pw5 is resident of Mangalam Dalithawada. He does not know anything about the facts of the case. Their village road is isolated and there will be no public movement. He never observed any unusual incident on the road and he never observed any persons quarreling and any female cries 9 Sessions Case No. 189 of 2017 at any time. Pw6 is another resident of Mangalam Dalithawada who deposed in the same lines as that of Pw5. Pw7 is the person with whom, accused works as tractor driver. Pw1 is known to Pw7, but he does not know about the personal affairs.

18.The sarpanch of Kosalanagaram village was examined as Pw8.

His evidence reveals that Pw2 is their villager and he visits his village. Pw2 contacted him over phone from police station about some injustice, on which Pw8 went to the police station. In the meanwhile, the father of accused also called him. Pw2 informed him that accused took away Pw1 and stayed for some time and Pw1 suffered injustice, but the father of accused told that no such things were done by accused. He advised both parties not to lodge any complaints. When the matter was not solved, he returned on his work. Pw1 informed him that she willingly went with accused. He does not know what type of injustice was suffered by Pw1.

19. One resident of Kosalanagaram was examined as Pw9, to support the prosecution witnesses, but her evidence reveals that she does not know pw1 and she was never examined by police.

20. The Sub-Inspector of police, Vijayapuram was examined as

Pw10. His evidence reveals that on 20/11/2016 Pw1 came to police station and lodged report on which he registered a case. He visited the scene of offence at Moolamadugu and prepared rough sketch and he has examined and recorded the statement of material witnesses at police station and also at Kosalangaram and Rama Naidu colony, Puttur. After completion of 10 Sessions Case No. 189 of 2017 investigation, he laid charge sheet.

21. His evidence further reveals that he did not receive any complaint from Pw1 on 16/9/2016 and also about any intimation about the injuries of

Pw1 from any hospital in that week. Pw5 and Pw6 did not come to police station that they rescued any lady on 16/9/2016. There is a gap of more than two months from the date of incident till lodging complaint. Pw1 did not give the names of village elders in Ex.P1 report. He did not collect any independent witnesses about the age of accused. Earlier to registering crime he did counseling to Pw1 and accused to live together, which was six months prior to incident, but the details of said counseling were not mentioned in the charge sheet or in Ex.P1 or during recording the statements of Pw1 and Pw2.

22. Ex.P1 report lodged by complainant on 20/11/2016. it shows that accused stalked her and promised to marry her. On 11/3/2016 they took one house from Pw3 on rent and lived there as a couple. Later, the parents of accused and some others brought them to Kosalanagaram and they have put up family there. But accused started harassing her. Pw1 lodged a report before Vijayapuram and counselling was done to them. On 16/9/2016, the accused demanded to bring money and Pw1 demanded to marry her. Then the accused took her to Moolamadugu by his motor-bike and beat her and throttled her neck. She fell unconscious and accused went away. The villagers of Mangalam shifted her to her house. Matter was informed to elders and elders agreed to do justice, and as such, she did not 11 Sessions Case No. 189 of 2017 lodge the complaint immediately and later she lodged complaint.

23. Ex.P1 report shows that Pw1 and accused have discussed the matter and then put up family at Puttur. However, during evidence of Pw1 deposed that they have married at Subramanyeswara Temple at Puttur and then put up family. The evidence of Pw2, the father of Pw1 reveals that he does not know about the eloping of Pw1 with accused and putting up family. However, he deposed that later he was visiting Pw1 at Puttur. Pw3 is house owner wherein they both said to have lived together. But her evidence reveals that it is Pw1 alone who was residing at her house.

24. The evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 shows that incident took place on 16/9/2016. Pw5 and Pw6 categorically denied that they rescued any lady and sent her to Kosalanagaram from Moolamadugu. The evidence of Pw8 sarpanch shows that on one day he was called to police by Pw2 and father of accused and both gave contradicting statements about the relationship between Pw1 and accused and he could not solve the disputes and went away.

25. Above circumstances show that there is no other evidence about living together of Pw1 and accused as wife and husband at any point of time, except the evidence of Pw1 and Pw2. The evidence of Pw2 shows that he is resident of Puttur, but he visits his native village Kosalanagaram.

Both Pw1 and Pw2 admitted that Pw1 was working in garments shop and staying at Puttur. The evidence of Pw2 categorically shows that he never enquired the accused nor accused approached him at any time in respect of 12 Sessions Case No. 189 of 2017 his relationship with Pw1. But Pw2 was visiting Pw1 at Puttur. Thus, it shows that Pw1 is living apart from parents at Puttur, it is also substantiated by the evidence of Pw3. But, the fact of Pw1 and accused living together as wife and husband at Puttur, is not proved.

26. When the incident said to have taken place at Moolamadugu there is no other evidence except the evidence of Pw1. Even the evidence of Pw2 is very vague in respect of the same, but his evidence is clear that he did not witness any such incident wherein the accused took Pw1 to his bike. Pw2 stated that he took Pw1 to the hospital for treatment, which was negatived by Pw1. However, there is no evidence placed before the court in respect of any such treatment.

27. There is no whisper about any previous counseling done by police between Pw1 and accused, as per Ex.P8 FIR. No such facts were brought to the notice of court, even during the evidence of prosecution witnesses, till the investigating officer ie. Pw10, was examined before the court. Pw10, without any supporting document, deposed that he did counseling between both of them earlier. He did not explain about the basis of this fact for stating the same during his evidence.

28. Thus, the accused was taken by surprise, in respect of said fact that earlier to lodging of report by Pw1, the police did counseling to Pw1 and accused. Moreover, Pw10 the investigating officer stated that it was six months prior to lodging of report. However, the evidence of Pw1 and

Ex.P1 is to the effect that it was only ten days prior to lodging report. But 13 Sessions Case No. 189 of 2017 no whisper was made about it in FIR and charge sheet. In these circumstances, there is no basis in respect of said counseling, said to have taken place between Pw1 and accused.

29. All the above circumstances further categorically show that there are several material developments in the evidence of Pw1 and Pw2, from their previous statements, which are contradictory to their earlier statements. The above circumstances are not at all proving that there is any cohabitation between Pw1 and accused at any point of time and that accused enticed Pw1 with any criminal intentions to come with him 30.Another important point is that as per the story of Pw1, the incident occurred on 10/9/2016 and they were trying for mediation to resolve the issue and, on 20/11/2016, Pw1 lodged report. Curiously, during this period Pw2 did not at all make attempts to contact the parents of accused nor made them to solve the dispute even as per his evidence.

31. All these circumstances, raised doubts in respect of any connection between Pw1 and accused, which may lead to any cheating, cohabitation or enticing married women with criminal intentions.

Moreover, the incident of attempt to kill Pw1 was not at all proved. None of prosecution witnesses except Pw1 and Pw2 stated about any mediations in respect of said dispute.

32. Except the evidence that Pw1 is showing interest upon the accused, no other evidence in respect of both of them has come out from the prosecution witnesses even as per Pw1 and Pw2. There is inordinate delay, 14 Sessions Case No. 189 of 2017 without any proper explanation, to lodge report, even as per version of Pw1 and Pw2. As such, it all discloses that preparation of Ex.P1 report is, after a thorough thought and deliberations and hence it cannot be relied upon.

33. For all the reasons discussed above, prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused and connection between Pw1 and accused, beyond all reasonable doubts.

34.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 307, 417, 493, and 498 IPC. Hence, accused is acquitted for the said offences u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months and thereafter shall be cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, and after his transcription, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18th day of April, 2018.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

PUTTUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION : DEFENCE :

Pw1 K.Varalakshmi, Pw2 A.Hari Krishna, Pw3 G.Muniyamma, Pw4 K.Sekhar, Pw5 R.John, Pw6 S.Raja, Pw7 D.Masthan, Pw8 D. Chenchu Vara Prasad, Pw9 N. Mallikamma, Pw10 G.Prasad Rao, Sub-Inspector of police.

15 Sessions Case No. 189 of 2017

EXHIBTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 is the report of Pw1, Ex.P2 is 162 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3, Ex.P3 is 162 Cr.P.C statement of Pw5, Ex.P4 is 162 Cr.P.C statement of Pw6, Ex.P5 is 162 Cr.P.C statement of Pw7, Ex.P7 is 162 Cr.P.C statement of Pw9, Ex.P8 FIR in Crime No.56/2016 of Vijayapuram Police station, Ex.P9 is the rough sketch of scene of offence.

DEFENCE :NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: NIL

A.S.J. P.T.R

1 O.S.NO. 8 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PUTTUR

Present : Smt. P.Lakshmi Sarada,

Senior Civil Judge, Puttur.

Monday, the 16th (Sixteenth) day of April, 2018

O.S.No. 8 of 2017

Between:

1. Ammapalli Munirathnam Reddy,

2. Ammapalli Chinnakka. ... Plaintiffs

And: 1.Ammapalli Arunkumar Reddy, 2.Ammapalli Badrinath Reddy. Defendants 1 and 2 are minors represented by their mother Viz., Manjula who is natural guardian. 3.A. Munichandra Reddy. … Defendants

This suit coming before me on 10/4/2018 for final disposal in the presence of Sri

Gali Ramesh, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri S.Laxmipathy, Advocate for the defendants 1 and 2, 3rd defendant remained exparte. upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by plaintiff to declare the settlement deed dt.16/8/2004 stands in the name of defendants 1 and 2 under document No.1013/2004 as null and void and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their followers not to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

2 O.S.NO. 8 of 2017

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that plaintiffs are wife and husband.

Defendant No.3 is their son and defendants 1 and 2 are grand sons of plaintiffs.

Plaint schedule property is the absolute property of plaintiffs and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and all the revenue records stand in the name of 1st plaintiff. Defendant No.3 and his wife Manjula took the plaintiffs to

Sub-Registrar's office on 16/8/2004 and convinced them that they are executing

Will in respect of plaint schedule property in favour of defendants 1 and 2, so that the property will be transferred after their life time. Believing their words the plaintiffs signed on the documents shown to them, on the assumption that it was a

Will deed. Plaintiffs continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property and ekeing out their livelihood derived from the plaint schedule property.

Plaintiffs are illiterates and uneducated persons.

(a) Plaintiff further pleaded that before filing the suit they came to know that 3rd defendant and his wife are proclaiming in the village that plaintiffs executed a settlement deed and they want to sell away the property on behalf of defendants 1 and 2. Then the plaintiffs went to Sub-Registrar's office and on verification they came to know that plaintiffs executed settlement deed without handing over possession and without knowledge of the contents. The settlement deed is by way of coercion, undue influence and fraud. The settlement deed is a void document as per law and plaintiffs did not execute it voluntarily with free will and consent. Except the suit schedule property they have no other property for their livelihood. Defendant No.3 neglected to maintain them and left them to their fate. As such, plaintiffs got issued legal notice dt.10/10/2016 to the 3 O.S.NO. 8 of 2017 defendants calling upon them to execute cancellation of settlement deed.

Defendants received notice, but did not comply the demand. As such, the suit for cancellation of settlement deed by declaring it as null and void.

3. Defendant No.3 remained exparte.

4. Defendants 1 and 2 are minors and that natural guardians did not turn up

before the court to represent the minors. As such, as per orders in IA.No.51/2017

dt.20/4/2016, this court appointed Sri S.Lakshmipathi, Advocate as court guardian to represent the interest of defendants 1 and 2.

5. Written statement filed on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 shows that plaintiff pleading are denied and it was further averred that settlement deed was not executed by way of coercion, undue influence and fraud and it was pleaded that plaintiffs voluntarily executed settlement deed and now going back from their words, and as such, prays to dismiss the suit.

6.Basing on the pleadings of both parties the following issues are framed :-

1. Whether the registered settlement deed dated 16/8/2004 is the result of coercion, undue influence and fraud played upon plaintiffs by 3rd defendant ?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of plaint schedule property even as on the date of filing of the suit ?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that settlement deed dt.16/8/2004 is null and void ?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed ?

5. To what relief?

7. In this suit, on behalf of plaintiffs Pw1 to Pw4 were examined and

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were marked. { Pw1 is A.Munirathnam Reddy, Pw2

A.Chinnakka, Pw3 K.Dilli Reddy and Pw4 K.Doraswamy Reddy, Ex.A1 is the registration copy of settlement deed dt.16/8/2004 stands in the name of 4 O.S.NO. 8 of 2017 defendants 1 and 2 over the plaint schedule property and Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dt.10/10/2016 issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants 1 to 3 with postal receipts}

(a) On behalf of the defendants no oral evidence is adduced and no documents marked.

8. Heard.

9. Issues 1 to 4 :- The pleadings of the plaintiffs show that they have executed a registered settlement deed on the impression that it was a Will deed and that due to illiteracy they could not know the contents of the documents and when they have asked 3rd defendant who is their son, he did not comeforward to set-right the mistake, and as such, they are praying for cancellation of the registered settlement deed dt.16/8/2004 obtained from them

10. Plaintiff No.1 is examined as Pw1 by reiterating the plaint pleadings.

His evidence reveals that he does not remember in which year Ex.A1 was executed. Property is in his enjoyment and the pass book stands in his name. He raised objection when defendants tried to mutate their names for the property.

11. Plaintiff No.2 examined as Pw2 and she deposed that defendants 1 and 2 are her grand children. Defendant No.3 obtained gift settlement deed from the plaintiffs in favour of defendants 1 and 2 under a registered document. There are two attestors for the said document ie., Dili Reddy and Doraswamy.

12. One of the attestor was examined as Pw3 to support the plea of plaintiffs. He deposed that 3rd defendant represented that the document is a Will 5 O.S.NO. 8 of 2017 and obtained signatures of plaintiffs and Pw3. He does not know the details of the property. He was neighbouring villager and as such attended for attestation.

13.Another attestor was examined as Pw4 to support the plea of plaintiffs and he has also deposed in the same lines.

14. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of settlement deed said to have been obtained from plaintiffs and Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice sent by plaintiffs calling upon the defendants to cooperate for cancellation of settlement deed.

15. The pleadings and evidence of plaintiffs categorically show that they are uneducated persons and 3rd defendant is none other than their son and defendants 1 and 2 are their grand sons. The plea of plaintiffs that they have no other source of income except the income from the plaint schedule property and also their relationship with defendants categorically prove that there is no need for the plaintiffs to execute a settlement deed in favour of their grand sons, if at all they are anything to do so since their son is alive.

16.A perusal of Ex.A1 registered settlement deed shows that it was mentioned that the property was settled in the name of minor grand sons and 3rd defendant was looking after the welfare of defendants 1 and 2 with the help of income from the plaint schedule property and handed over the property to them after they attained majority. There was no reference as to responsibility of looking after the plaintiffs in the said settlement deed. Moreover, 3rd defendant remained exparte and he did not also issue any reply to the legal notice of the plaintiffs. As per Section.111 of Indian Evidence Act, it is the 3rd defendant 6 O.S.NO. 8 of 2017 who bound to prove good faith of the transaction as he is in relation of active confidence with plaintiffs, in respect of nature of Ex.A1. He conveniently remained exparte.

17. All these circumstances categorically proved that Ex.A1 was obtained from plaintiffs by misrepresentation, as a Will deed and the plaintiffs have no intention to execute a gift settlement deed in favour of defendants 1 and 2 as on the date of Ex.A1.

18.Hence, the document is hit by section 10 of Indian Contract Act which says that “ the contract must be made by free consent of the parties competent to the contract for lawful consideration with the lawful object”. Free consent from the plaintiffs is not there in view of misrepresentation, as seen from the proved facts and also the execution of Ex.A1 is hit by fraud played upon the plaintiffs.

19. In these circumstances, under section 19 of Indian Contract Act, when the consent is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, the agreement is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. As such, Ex.A1 agreement ie., a gift settlement deed is a voidable document at the option of plaintiffs. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs have proved that document is not supported by free will and consent of plaintiffs, and as such, they are entitled for cancellation of the same.

20. The unchallenged evidence of plaintiffs categorically show that it is the plaintiffs who are in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property, for all these years from the date of execution of Ex.A1. Ex.A2 office copy of legal notice also substantiates the same, which further reveals that immediately after 7 O.S.NO. 8 of 2017 coming to know about the nature of the document obtained from them, they have taken steps legally to cancel the said document. The legal notice was issued on 10/10/2016 and the present suit is filed on 18/1/2017, and as such, the suit is within the period of limitation from the date of knowledge of plaintiffs, about the document. As such, plaintiffs further proved that they are in possession of the property and they entitled for permanent injunction also. These issues are answered accordingly in favour of plaintiffs.

21. Issue No.5:- In the result, the suit is decreed with costs declaring the registered settlement deed dt.16/8/2004 under document No.1013/2004 as null and void and also granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after his transcription, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 16th day of April, 2018.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PUTTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Plaintiffs: Pw1 A.Munirathnam Reddy, Pw2 A.Chinnakka, Pw3 K.Dilli Reddy, Pw4 K.Doraswamy Reddy,

For Defendants:- None- 8 O.S.NO. 8 of 2017

Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiffs:-

Ex.A1 is the registration copy of settlement deed dt.16/8/2004 stands in the name of defendants 1 and 2 over the plaint schedule property,

Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dt.10/10/2016 issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants 1 to 3 with postal receipts

Exhibits marked on behalf of the defendants:- Nil

S.C.J. PTR

Fair Judgment In OS.No. 8/2017

Dated 16/4/2018

1OS.No.12 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PUTTUR.

Present : Smt. P.Lakshmi Sarada.,

Senior Civil Judge, Puttur.

Thursday, the 19th (Nineteenth) day of April, 2018

O.S.No. 12 of 2018

Between:

Smt V.Suhasini. .. Plaintiff.

And:

Smt G. Shymala. .. Defendant

This suit coming before me on 18/4/2018 for final disposal in the presence of Sri N.Murugeshan Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendant remained exparte, upon hearing the arguments on behalf of the plaintiff, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for passing preliminary decree against the defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs.4,98,630/- based on the registered simple mortgage deed dt.21/1/2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.4,00,000/- by mortgaging the plaint schedule property and also agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a; and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 21/1/2017 and the defendant have executed registered simple mortgage deed, by mortgaging the plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiff and also agreed to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Inspite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dt.22/1/2018, the defendant did not discharge the said debt due to the plaintiff inspite of demands and issuance of legal notice dt.31/7/2017.

Hence, the suit for passing of preliminary decree.

3. Though defendant received summons, but failed to make their appearance and ultimately remained exparte.

2OS.No.12 of 2018

4. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1 (Smt V.Shuhasini) by reiterating the contents of the plaint, and also marked registered mortgage deed dt.21/7/2017 as Ex.A1, office copy of legal notice dt.22/1/2018 as

Ex.A2, and returned postal cover as Ex.A3. The plaintiff, by examining herself as Pw1 and producing the documents, has proved her case and her evidence remained unchallenged, and thus, proved. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim.

4. In the result, the suit is decreed preliminarily with costs for a sum of

Rs.4,98,130/- to the plaintiff together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.4,00,000/-. Two months time is granted for redemption.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, Corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 19th day of April, 2018.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PUTTUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined and Exhibits marked; For the Plaintiff : PW1Smt V.Suhasini.

Ex.A1Registered mortgage deed dt.21/7/2017. Ex.A2Office copy of legal notice dt.22/1/2018 Ex.A3Returned Postal cover. For Defendants: Exparte S.C.J. PTR

Fair Judgment

OS.No.12/2018

Dt.19/4/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PUTTUR

Present: Smt. P.Lakshmi Sarada,

Senior Civil Judge, Puttur.

Chittoor District, A.P.

Monday, the Twenty-Third (23rd) day of April, Two thousand Eighteen.

O.S.No.30/2018

Between:

1. C.Kuppamma, W/o Late Subbulu Naidu, Hindu, aged 60 years, Cultivation, residing at Karimbedu village and Post, Pallipat Taluk, Tiruvallore District, Tamil Nadu State.

2. T. Muni Lakshmi, W/o T. Govinda Naidu, Hindu, aged 45 years, residing at Mangadu village, M.Kothur post, Nagari mandal, Chittoor District.

3. M.Lakshmi, W/o M.Muni Lakshmaiah @ Gandeevan, Hindu, aged 40 years, Cultivation, residing at Karimbedu village and Post, Pallipat Taluk, Tiruvallore District, Tamil Nadu State.

... Plaintiffs.

And:

1. C.Munisekhar, S/o late C.Subbulu Naidu, Hindu, aged 43 years, Cultivation, residing at D.No.1-177, Mangadu village, M.Kothur post, Nagari mandal, Chittoor District.

2. C.Amaravathi, W/o C. Munisekhar, Hindu, aged 40 years, Housewife, residing at D.No.1-177, Mangadu village, M.Kothur Post, Nagari mandal, Chittoor District.

3. C.Murali, S/o C. Muni Sekhar, Hindu, aged 20 years,Cultivation, residing at D.No.1-177, Mangadu village, M.Kothur Post, Nagari mandal, Chittoor District.

4. C. Ashok Kumar, S/o C. Muni Sekhar, Hindu, aged 19 years, Cultivation, residing at D.No.1-177, Mangadu village, M.Kothur Post, Nagari mandal, Chittoor District.

5. C.Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o C. Bala Krishnaiah, Hindu, aged 41 years, residing at D.No.10-14-227, Kakavedu Road, near Kondachuttu mandapam, Nagari post and Mandal, Chittoor District.

… Defendants.

Suit is filed for Partition -(a) passing a preliminary decree – dividing the

Plaint Schedule Properties into four equal shares taking into consideration of good and bad qualities and allot one such share to each of the Plaintiff and one such share to the 1st Defendant and for costs.

(P.T.O) 2

This Suit is coming on this day for filing of Written statement of D1 to D5

before me in the presence of Sri K.G. Prabhakar, Sri K.Giri Prasad and Sri

N.Mahadevan, Advocates for Plaintiffs and of Sri K.Murali, Advocate for

Defendants 1 to 4 and Sri M.Sanjeevi, Advocate for Defendant No.5 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

Memo filed that matter settled out of Court. Hence, suit dismissed as settled out of Court.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rdday of April, 2018.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PUTTUR.

Draft/Fair Judgment in O.S.No.30/2018

Dated 23-04-2018.