P.Ramana Reddy

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ALUR

Present:- Sri P.Ramana Reddy,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

FAC.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Alur.

Monday, the 30th day of October, 2023

C.C.No.35/2022

The State repd. by Sub Inspector of Police,

Aspari P.S. ....Complainant

AND

B.Guntappa Gari Lalappa, Age 36 years, S/o Usenappa , Resident of Tangaradona village,

Aapari Mandal....... Accused

This case came on 27-10-2023 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant; and of Sri M.Vannappa, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

01.The Sub Inspector of Police, Aspari PS filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.38/2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, against the accused.

02. The SHO, Aspari PS filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that on 09- 03-2020 at about 09.30 hours, PW.1 along with LW.1/S.A.Rahiman PC 3378,

LW2/R.Lakshmanna HC-2368 were reached near us stand in the outskirts of

Tangaradona Village, Aspari Mandal at 11.00 hours and found the accused was in possession of ID arrack having 05 litres of ID arrack. PW1 arrested the accused and seized contraband under the cover of police proceedings. They also seized with the one sample bottle for chemical analysis. Basing on the Ex.P.1 police proceedings,

PW.1 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.38/2020 against the accused. On 09-03- 2020 the accused was released on bail by PW1 after ascertaining sufficient sureties.

LW3/C.Rajeshwaramma, Chemical Examiner, examined the samples and opined that the bottles are illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health in the ID arrack bottles. After receipt of analysis report and destruction proceedings, he 2 laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP

Act.

03.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence

U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) APP Act, against the accused.

04.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred as 'Cr.P.C.' for the sake of brevity).

05.When examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the allegations levelled against him. After perusing the entire material on record and on hearing both sides, a charge had been framed against the accused U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act, which was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 was examined and

Exs.P1 to P4 were marked.

07.On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material available against him, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard both sides.

a)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

PW.1 coupled with Exs.P1 to P4 clearly discloses that the contraband seized from the possession of accused is a ID liquor and he intend to sell the same in open market to gain unlawfully which contravene the provision U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act. As such, the accused is liable for punishment for the above section.

b)Per contra, the counsel for the accused argued that no property was seized from the possession of accused as alleged by prosecution. Admittedly, the 3 scene of offence where the contraband was alleged to have seized from the possession of accused was situated in a busy locality. When the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality what is the necessity for the police to secure the mediators from the police station itself. When the mediators are available at the scene of offence what prompted PW1 to scribe Ex.P1 police proceedings. The above referred circumstances clearly shows that nothing was seized from the possession of the accused as stated by the prosecution. At the same time no measurements or any amount was seized from the possession of accused to prove the alleged sale of ID liquor. As such, the prosecution failed to establish the seizure of ID liquor from the possession of accused. Hence, he requested the Hon‘ble Court to acquit the accused for the offence levelled against him.

09.After hearing both side arguments and considering the entire material on record, now the points for determination before the Court is :

“ 1. Whether the police seized ID Liquor from the possession of the accused

under the cover of police proceedings?” “2. Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P. Act?”

POINT NO.1 :

10.In order to prove the case of prosecution and to establish the seizure of ID liquor from the possession of accused, the prosecution got examined PW.1 and exhibited the documents Exs.P1 to P4. PW.1 is the SI, who participated in the raid along with his staff. PW.1 is the SI, who registered the Police Proceedings and filed the charge sheet after receipt of analysis report and destruction proceedings.

11.In order to prove the case of prosecution one of the SI, Aspari PS, who received credible information about the accused with regard to possession and selling of ID liquor, examined as PW.1 who deposed in his evidence that “on09-03-2020, he along with LW1 and 2 left from police station reached at the outskirts of Thangaradona village 4 and found the accused surrounded by people. On Seeing them, the accused tried to skulk away, but they could apprehend the accused. On enquiring , the accused revealed his identity and confessed that the said can contains ID arrack. The accused purchased ID liquor from unknown persons in JM Thanda and came to sell the same in his village at higher price. On verification, they found about 05 liters of ID arrack in the can with accused. He drew required samples and seized the liquor and sealed and labelled and arrested the accused under cover of police proceedings and then the accused, seized property were brought to the police Station for further proceedings”.

Basing on the strength of Ex.P1 occurrence report, PW.1 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.35/2020, U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act was registered and forwarded the original FIR to the Court and copies to all concerned. After receipt of Ex.P3 analysis report. P.W.1 laid charge sheet against the accused.” While cross examination PW.1 stated that “PW.1 did not mention in which hand the accused caught hold the said can in question. The scene of offence was situated in a residential locality. In his presence,

PW.1 did not examine any of the person who purchased the ID arrack from the accused and also did not examine any of local person in that vicinity and did not seize any contraband and any amount from the possession of the accused. PW.1 did not obtain his signature on the occurrence report. The scene of offence was surrounded by number of residential houses and not mention the house number In Ex.P1, he did not mention the boundaries of the scene of offence. Ex.P1 is silent in which hand the accused hold the contraband. He did not secure any local person in that locality at the time of preparation of Ex.P1.”

12.PW.1 who is the Sub Inspector of Police deposed in his evidence “on the strength of Ex.P1 Police proceedings, he registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.35/2020 U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act and forwarded original FIR to the Court and copies to all concerned. He also sent sample bottle to the chemical analysis. He served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice on accused. After receipt of chemical analysis report and destruction proceedings, he laid charge sheet against the accused.” 5

13.Before going into the merits in the case of prosecution it is pertinent to mention the important provisions basing on which the entire case is rests.

SECTION 7-A Prohibition of production etc., of arrack:-

The production, manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase, sale and transport of arrack is hereby prohibited.

SECTION 8 Punishment for buying, selling, consumption etc., of liquors:

Whoever,-

(e) Contravenes the provisions of Section 7A shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend upto five years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees ten thousand but which may extend upto rupees one lakh.

SECTION 55 of AP Excise Act : Power to search without warrant

Whenever the Commissioner or a Collector or any police officer not below the rank of an officer-in-charge of a police station or any Prohibition and Excise Officer not below the rank of an Excise Sub- Inspector has reason to believe that an offence under Section 34, Section 35, Section 36, Section 37 or Section 37-A has been, is being or is likely to be, committed and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity of escape or of concealing evidence of the offence, he may after recording the grounds of his belief,_ (a) at any time by day or by night enter and search any place and seize anything found therein which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act; and

(b) detain and search and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person found in such place whom he has reason to believe to be guilty of such offence as aforesaid.

Section 100(4) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person

about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

The above referred provisions clearly discloses that if any police officer wants to 6 seize any articles from the possession of suspected person, he must follow the procedure as contemplated U/Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C. If he fails to secure any independent mediator he must prepare a report as per Sec.55 of AP Excise Act and proceed with the preparation of Special Report. The offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP

Act is made cognizable offence and once the Excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the Excise Officials can never say that they are not the police officials. If any Excise police officer failed to follow the above said procedure the entire proceedings undertaken by him are null and void and same cannot be taken into consideration to believe the search and seizure.

The special report drafted by PW.1 is nothing but the confessional statement of accused. As such, the said report is hit by the provisions U/Sec.25 and 27 of Indian

Evidence Act. In those circumstances, the prosecution must establish the recovery of contraband from the possession of accused by placing cogent evidence before the court.

14.Coming to the present case on hand, the case of prosecution is that, while they received credible information for excise offences they found the accused in possession of can containing five liters of ID liquor. During the course of interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed before them that the said ID liquor was purchased for selling the same for higher price. When such is the case, the Police Officials are at liberty to intercept the said person by following proper procedure. As per the analysis report marked under Ex.P3 the contraband seized from the possession of accused is a ID

Liquor. As such, the Police Officials has every authority to question the possession of

ID liquor by the accused, as it is a prohibited one. The only question remained before the Court is whether the said ID liquor was seized from the possession of accused by following proper procedure.

15.Now, the clinching issue before the court is whether the said contraband was seized from the possession of accused by following the proper procedure. As per the 7 testimony of PW.1 the scene of offence was situated in a busy locality. There is every possibility to secure any independent mediator at the time of preparing the police proceedings under Ex.P1 soon after the detection of accused with ID liquor. As per the evidence of PW.1, he tried for the independent mediators in the nearby vicinity, but none came forward to act as a mediator. At the same time no notice was served on the person who refused to act as mediator. The police officer has got power to summon any person U/Sec.175 of Cr.P.C. to secure his presence at the time of any enquiry. But

Ex.P1 is silent with regard to the details of the person who refused to act as mediator.

As could be seen from Ex.P1 police proceedings, there is no mention with regard to the efforts made by PW.1 to secure any independent mediators in the vicinity of scene of offence. Without verifying the contents in Ex.P1 police proceedings, PW.1 gave evidence before this Court. It creates a doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the preparation of Ex.P1 report at the scene of offence as alleged by the prosecution. As such, it is clear that the Police officials failed to secure any independent mediator at the time of preparation of Ex.P1 report though it was prepared in a busy locality. As such, the evidence of PW.1 is not trustworthy and the visit of scene of offence by the Police officials is also doubtful. There is every possibility to prepare the said Police proceedings in the police station itself for their statistical purpose. The entire cross examination goes to show that visit of PW.1 along with other office staff to the scene of offence is doubtful. PW.1 did not make any endeavour to secure any independent mediators in that locality. At the same time, PW.1 registered the case and laid charge sheet basing on Ex.P1 Police Proceedings. Hence his evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution. As such, the Police officials fail to follow the provisions as contemplated U/Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C. In this regard I find force in the contention of accused. Ex.P1 Police Proceedings is also silent with regard to purpose of purchasing the ID liquor in question by the accused. During the course of investigation, PW.1 did not make any endeavour to know about the purpose of purchasing of the ID liquor. It clearly shows that the entire investigation done by the investigating officer is a table 8 investigation without collecting sufficient material to constitute the offence against the accused. In view of the aforementioned reasons, I am not believe the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the visit of scene of offence and seizure of ID liquor from the possession of accused under Ex.P.1. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

POINT NO.2 :

16.In view of the answers point No.1, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

17.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any is ordered destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 30 th day of October, 2023.

Sd/- P.Ramana Reddy

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADONI.

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ALUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1: S.Nagendra None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1: Police proceedings dt.09-03-20290 -Nil- Ex.P.2: Original F.I.R. Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis report Ex.P.4: Destruction Panchanama

M.Os.MARKED

-Nil-

Sd/-PRR

PJCJ,Adn, FAC.JMFC,Alur 9

I

CALENDAR AND JUDGEMENT

IN THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ALUR

C.C.NO.35/2022

1Date of offence09.03.2020 2Date of complaint09.03.2020 3Date of apprehension of accused09.03.2020 4Date of release on bail of accused-- 5Date of commencement of trial09.06.2023 6Date of close of trial13.10.2023 7Date of Judgment 30.10.2023

ComplainantS.I. of Police, Aspari PS in Cr.No.35/2020 of Aspari PS.

AccusedB.Guntappa Gari Lalappa, Age 36 years, S/o Usenappa, Resident of Tangaradona Village, Aspari Mandal.

OffenceThe possession of I.D arrack.

Section of Law Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 and Sec.269 of IPC.

FindingAccused is found not guilty

Sentence or In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable orderU/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any is ordered destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- P.RamanaReddy

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADONI.

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ALUR

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-cum- Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ADONI.

Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

Tuesday, 17TH day of October, 2023

O.S.NO.292/2019

Between :

B.Viswanatha Reddy :: Plaintiff.

And:

1.V.Sarana Basavana Gowd

2.V.Bheemanna Gowd …Defendants.

This suit is coming before me on 16.10.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Suneetha, Smt.G.Kirshnaveni, Advocates for the plaintiff and Sri. Y.R.Mallikarjuna Advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the defendants and their men, servants, and relatives etc., from interfering in any manner with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

The averments of plaint in nutshell as follows ::

2. It is submitted that, the plaint schedule property has acquired by the plaintiff through a registered gift deed dt.27.04.77. Since the date of execution of the said gift deed he has been in possession and enjoyment over the said property.

He also mutated his name in revenue records and obtained necessary pattadar pass book. The defendants have no right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property. They are interfering with the possession of the plaintiff with a malafied intention to grab the same. On 18.08.2019 at 11.30 a.m. when the plaintiff along with some labours were present in the plaint schedule property, the defendants came there along with their men and tried to trespass into the same. By that time the plaintiff resisted the act of defendants with the help of neighbouring land owners. The plaintiff apprehending danger to the plaint schedule property in the hands of defendants. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to 2 file the suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants to protect the plaint schedule property from their hands.

3.After receipt of summons the defendants appeared before this court through their counsel and filed written statement.

4. The brief averments stemming out from the written statement of defendants as follows:-

The defendants denied all averments mentioned in the plaint in verbatim.

They further submitted that, the plaintiff is permanent resident of Dasarakodu village whereas the plaint schedule property was situated in Upparahal village.

The plaintiff is no other than the husband of the own elder sister of defendants.

The father of defendants bequeathed the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff at the time of marriage of his sister. Since the date of above said gift deed the defendants are cultivating the same and used to give produce to the plaintiff either by way of cash or in kind till 2009. Thereafter, the plaintiff alienated the said property to one Rama Krishna Reddy by way of an agreement of sale and delivered possession of the same. Since the date of agreement of sale the said

Rama Krishna Reddy was in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

The defendants were present at the time of negotiation of sale of plaint schedule property. The 2nd defendant also acted as one of the attestor to the agreement of sale. Due to internal family disputes the plaintiff developed grudge against the defendants and filed this suit in order to harass them. The plaintiff fully aware with regard to the alienation of plaint schedule property to one Rama Krishna

Reddy who was in possession of the same. By suppressing the said sale the plaintiff filed this suit to harass the defendants by one way or other. The plaintiff also suppressed the relationship between them. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit. The plaintiff approached this court by suppressing the real facts and as such he is not entitled for any injunction.

5.Basing on the averments in the plaint and written statement the following issues were settled for trial :

1. Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the of plaint schedule property on the date of filing of this suit?

3

2. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of Sri.R.Ramakrishna Reddy as a necessary party to the suit?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ?

4. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined PWs.1 and 2 and exhibited the documents Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of defendants D.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked.

6. Heard both sides.

7.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed his chief affidavit by reiterating all the averments mentioned in the plaint and same is treated as his chief examination. He also exhibited the documents under Ex.A.1 is the gift deed 27.04.1977 executed by Narayana Reddy in my favour. Ex.A.2 is the pattadar pass book issued by Revenue authorities. Ex.A.3 is the 1-B

Namoona. Ex.A.4 is the No.3 adangals. Ex.A.5 is the 1-B Namoona 28.01.2022

Ex.A.6 is the No.3 adangal dt.28.01.2022. He also examined PW.2 who is third party to the proceedings to speak about the possession of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. P.Ws.1 and 2 were cross-examined by the counsel for defendants, but nothing was elicited to disprove the contention of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the possession of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property except some denials.

8. In order to prove the allegations mentioned in the written statement, the 2nd defendant filed chief affidavit by reiterating all the averments mentioned in the written statement and the same is treated as chief examination of D.W.1 and no documents are marked. D.W.1 was also cross-examined by the counsel for plaintiff.

9. On scrutiny of entire evidence and documents available on record the very case of plaintiff is that, by virtue of Ex.A.1 gift deed he came into possession of plaint schedule property. The defendants are nothing to do with the said property. Due to internal family disputes they are making efforts to trespass into plaint schedule property without any manner of right. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit seeking permanent injunction against the 4 defendants. Whereas the main case of defendants is that the plaintiff alienated the plaint schedule property to one Rama Krishna Reddy under an agreement of sale. The said Rama Krishna Reddy also mutated his name in revenue records by virtue of agreement of sale and he has been in possession and enjoyment over the same. The defendants also acted as mediators at the time of sale transaction between the plaintiff and above Rama Krishna Reddy. Due to existing family disputes the plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants without any cause of action. Hence the defendants requested the court to dismiss the suit.

Issue No.2 :

10. My predecessor in office framed this issue whether the suit is bad for non joinder of R.Rama Krishna Reddy as one of the defendant. This being a simple suit for injunction there is no need to implead the above said Rama Krishna

Reddy as one of the defendant in this suit. As per the averments in the plaint there is no cause of action against the above said Rama Krishna Reddy. The only allegation of defendants is that the plaint schedule property was alienated by the plaintiff to the above said Rama Krishna Reddy under an agreement of sale. This court is not going to declare the rights of plaintiff basing on the gift deed relied upon by him. The only question for consideration before the court is whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as on the date of filing the suit by virtue of Ex.A.1 gift deed and whether there is any interference from the side of defendants to disturb the possession of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. As such there is no need to implead the above said person as one of the defendant in this suit. My predecessor in office un-necessarily framed this issue which is not at all relevant to dispose off the present suit. Accordingly issue No.2 is answered.

Issue Nos.1 and 3:

11. This being a suit for permanent injunction the plaintiff must approach this court with clean hands by disclosing all the material facts pertaining to the plaint schedule property in order to get positive orders from this court. In this case there is no dispute from the side of defendant with regard to the title of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The only dispute is that the plaintiff had alienated the said property to one Rama Krishna Reddy under an agreement of 5 sale. For which there is no evidence before the court to accept the contention of defendants. In order to establish his possession over the plaint schedule property the plaintiff had examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and also exhibited the documents Ex.A.1 to A.5. All the documents clearly goes to show the possession of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. During the course of cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 nothing was elicited to discard the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the possession of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. At the same time it is a well settled principle that the title follows possession. Likewise in this case there is no dispute with regard to the title of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. As such the title of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property automatically followed his possession, unless and until whether there is any contra evidence from the side of defendants. But there is no such evidence from the side of defendants to disbelieve the evidence of plaintiff with regard to his possession over the plaint schedule property. As such the plaintiff establish his possession over the plaint schedule property by examining P.Ws.1 and 2 and by marking Ex.A.1 to A.5.

12. Coming to the case of defendants the contention of defendant is two fold.

As seen from the averments in the written statement one Rama Krishna Reddy has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff sold away the plaint schedule property to the above said Rama Krishna

Reddy under an agreement of sale. Basing on the agreement of sale he also mutated his name in revenue records and continue his possession over the said property. The defendants also acted as mediators at the time of sale transaction and the second defendant also attested the agreement of sale. Except the above said bold allegation there is no piece of document before the court to support their contention. Without producing any kind of evidence it is not proper to accept the contention of defendants. But during the course of evidence the defendants took u turn and stated that they are in possession of the plaint schedule property which was entrusted to them by Rama Krishna Reddy. For which also there is no clear evidence from their side. The duel nature of defendants clearly shows that there is no truth in their contention in respect of the plaint schedule property. As such this court is not inclined to believe the contention of defendants with regard to their possession over the plaint schedule property as contended during the course of evidence. As per their contention in the written statement one Rama Krishna Reddy was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for which also there is no 6 evidence before the court. The cause of action for filing the present suit is the defendants are making efforts to trespass into the plaint schedule property.

Without any interference there is no necessity for the plaintiff to approach this court by way of this suit. The filing of present suit itself clearly goes to show that the plaintiff has been appending danger in the hands of defendants as he was not residing where the plaint schedule property is situated. Taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff there is every possibility for the defendants to trespass into the plaint schedule property. All the documents produced by the defendants clearly indicates the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. In the above referred circumstances the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed in the suit to protect the plaint schedule property from the hands of defendants.

Accordingly issue Nos.1 and 3 are answered.

Issue No.4:

In view of the answers to the issue Nos.1 to 3 the suit is liable to be decreed.

13. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants and their men, servants and relatives from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17th day of October, 2023.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Adoni.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants :

P.W.1 : B.Viswanatha Reddy D.W.1 : V.Bheemanna Goud P.W.2 : Abdul Rahiman 7

Documents marked

For Plaintiffs :

Ex.A.1 : Gift deed 27.04.1977 executed by Narayana Reddy in my favour.

Ex.A.2 : Pattadar pass book issued by Revenue authorities.

Ex.A.3 : 1-B Namoona.

Ex.A.4 : No.3 adangals.

Ex.A.5 : 1-B Namoona Dt. 28.01.2022

Ex.A.6 : No.3 adangal 28.01.2022.

For Defendants: None

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Adoni.

8 7.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ADONI.

Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

Tuesday, 17TH day of October, 2023

O.S.NO.292/2019

Between :

B.Viswanatha Reddy S/o.B.Veera Redddy, Hindu, Aged about 72 years, Agriculturist, Resident of Basarakodu village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool Dist. :: Plaintiff.

And:

1.V.Sarana Basavana Gowd S/o.Narayana Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 60 years, resident of Upparahal village, Kowthalam Mandal, Kurnool Dist.

2.V.Bheemanna Gowd S/o.Narayana Reddy Agriculturist, Hindu, Aged about 55 years, Resident of Upparahal village, Kowthalam Mandal, Kurnool.…Defendants.

The is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the defendants and their men, servants, and relatives etc., from interfering in any manner with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit. . The cause of action for the suit arose on 18.08.2019 when the defendants tried to trespass into the schedule mentioned property and the schedule property mentioned property and the schedule property situated at Upparahal village, Kowthalam Mandal, Kurnool District which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Hence this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Plaint presented on 22.08.2019 and filed on 22.08.2019. suit is valued as Rs.20,000/- and C.F.of Rs.1,386/- is paid U/Sec.26 (c )of APCF & Suits Valuation Act.

This suit is coming before me on 16.10.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Suneetha, Smt.G.Kirshnaveni, Advocates for the plaintiff and

Sri. Y.R.Mallikarjuna Advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over 10 for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

2. that that the defendants, their men, be and are hereby restrained by means of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

3. that the defendants also do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.5,588/- towards the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 17th day of October, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Adoni

SCHEDULE

Kurnool Registration District, Kosigi Sub-Registration District, Kowthalam Mandal, Upparahal village, Agricultural land with the following particulars.

1.SY.No.179-C2Extent Ac.1.00.

Boundaries : East and North : Land belongs to Sarana Basavana Gowd and Bheemanna Gowd;

West : Land belongs to Sadhu Ramanna ; South : Badinehal Rastha.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Adoni.

MEMO OF COSTS

For plaintiffFor defendants

1. Stamp on plaintRs. 1,386-00 --

2. Stamp on vakalatRs. 2-00 2-00

3. Process feeRs. 100-00 --

4. Advocate fee (Sr)Rs. 3,000-00-Nil- (Not certified)

5. Advocate fee (Jr)Rs. 1,000-00

6. Typing charges Rs. 50-00 --

7. Writing charges Rs. 50-00 -- ---------------------------------------------------- Total:Rs. 5,588-00 2-00 -----------------------------------------------------

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Adoni.

11 12

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ADONI.

Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

Tuesday, 21st day of November, 2023

O.S.NO.220/2021

Between :

G.Kistappa :: Plaintiff.

And:

G.Giri Kumar :: Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 20.11.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. V.Sriramulu Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. Y.Devraj Advocate for the defendant, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,63,400/- being the principal and interest due on a pronote, dt.26.02.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.95,000/- repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs of the suit.

The brief averments of the plaint as follows:

2.It is submitted that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.95,000/- from the plaintiff on 26.02.2018 and executed a promissory note for his necessities on the even date agreeing to repay the same along with interest at 24% per annum. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the amount along with accrued interest. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit against the defendant.

3.After receipt of summons from this Court, the defendant appeared before this Court through his counsel and filed written statement.

4.The brief averments stemming out from the written statement of the defendant as follows :

The defendant denied all the averments mentioned in the plaint in verbatim. He further submitted that, no consideration was passed to him under 2 the suit promissory note. The plaintiff has no financial capacity to pay the amount under the suit promissory note. The plaintiff and defendant are close friends. Some misunderstandings cropped up between them. Keeping the said misunderstandings in mind the plaintiff created the suit promissory note by forging the signature of defendant with the help of other stake holders . The signature on the suit promissory note was not belongs to him. There is no need for the defendant to borrow any amount from the plaintiff. The suit promissory note is a created and fabricated document . There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. Hence, the defendant requested this Court to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the averments in the plaint and written statement, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 26.02.2018 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined PWs.1 and 2 and exhibited the document Ex.A1. On behalf of defendant D.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked.

7.Heard both sides.

Issue Nos.1 & 2:

8.In order to prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff filed his chief affidavit by reiterating all the averments mentioned in the plaint and same is treated as chief examination of PW.1. He also exhibited the document under Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note dated 26.02.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. In order to prove the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and passing of consideration under it, he also examined PW.2 who is the scribe of

Ex.A1 promissory note. They categorically deposed in their evidence with regard to the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note and passing of consideration to the defendant in their presence. While cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 nothing was elicited with regard to execution of promissory note and passing of consideration under it and to prove the allegations mentioned in the written statement except some denials.

3

9.In order to prove the allegations in the written statement, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and reiterated all the averments mentioned in the written statement. While cross-examination he stated that ”he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff. The signature on Ex.A.1, vakalath, and written statement was not belongs to him”.

10.On scrutiny of the entire evidence and documents available on record, the main case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had borrowed an amount of

Rs.95,000/- in the presence of scribe and executed Ex.A1 promissory note on the even date mentioned in it in favour of the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated demands made by him, the defendant failed to pay any amount under EX.A.1.

Hence, the present suit. Whereas, the contention of the defendant is that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff by executing Ex.A.1 promissory note. The signature on the Ex.A.1 was not belongs to him. The plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend such huge amount under Ex.A.1. Keeping the misunderstandings between him and plaintiff Ex.A.1 was brought into existence by forging his signature with the help of scribe. Hence, the defendant requested the court to dismiss the suit.

11.In order to prove the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and exhibited the document Ex.A1. He also examined PW.2 who is the scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note. They categorically deposed with regard to the presence of all the stake holders at the time of execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and passing of entire consideration to the defendant. By examining PWs.1 and 2 and marking Ex.A1, the plaintiff discharged his burden with regard to the execution of Ex.A1 pronote by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.The counsel for defendant cross examined

PWs.1 & 2 at length. But nothing was elicited to disprove the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and passing of consideration under it, except some denials.

The plaintiff discharged his burden by examining PWs.1 and 2 and by marking

Ex.A1 with regard to the passing of consideration and execution of Ex.A1 pronote by the defendant. Now the burden shifts on to the shoulders of defendant to establish the allegations mentioned in the written statement to deny the relief to the plaintiff.

12. The core contention of defendant is that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff by executing Ex.A.1 promissory note. As per the averments in 4 the written statement Ex.A.1 promissory note is a created and forged document.

As per the contention of defendant the said promissory note was created by the plaintiff by forging the signature of defendant keeping some misunderstandings between them. Except the said bald allegation in the written statement there is no piece of evidence before the court to accept the same. As seen from the written statement the particulars of the misunderstandings between the plaintiff and defendant were not mentioned. For the first time during the course of cross- examination of the plaintiff it was came into light that there is a boundary dispute between the plaintiff and defendant. As per the cross-examination of D.W.1 the land of defendant was situated four or five lands away from his land. When such is the case the aspect of boundary dispute does not arise as contended by the defendant. For the sake of defence only that it was put forth during the course of cross-examination for the first time. Except the said cross-examination there is no supporting evidence from the side of defendant to establish the aspect of civil dispute among them. During the course of cross-examination the defendant categorically admitted that he did not initiate civil proceedings to redress his grievance against the plaintiff with regard to the alleged boundary. In the absence of any such evidence this court is not inclined to accept the contention of defendant with regard to the circumstances forced to create Ex.A.1 by the plaintiff. At the same time it is an admitted fact that both plaintiff and defendant are close friends and belongs to same village. In those circumstances there is every possibility to borrow the amount by the defendant from the plaintiff bunderEx.A.1 promissory note. In order to post pone the payment due under

Ex.A.1 promissory note. The defendant might have set up a false defence and same cannot be taken into consideration. At the same time the said cross- examination is not reflected from the written statement. As such the said cross- examination has no evidentiary value to place any reliance on it. In this regard this court is not inclined to accept the contention of defendant with regard to boundary dispute raised during the course of cross-examination.

13. The other contention of defendant is that the signature on Ex.A.1 does not belongs to him. The said signature was forged by the plaintiff in order to harass the defendant by one way or other keeping the misunderstandings in mind. But, there is no evidence to that effect to believe the contention of defendant. During the course of cross-examination the defendant categorically admitted that he did not initiate any proceedings to take the Ex.A.1 promissory note to the hand writing expert. If really the contention of defendant is true and correct he did not 5 kept quite without initiating any proceedings against the plaintiff with regard to the signature on Ex.A.1. No prudent man would kept quite without initiating any proceedings when a false claim is initiated against him. Except the allegations mentioned in the written statement there is no positive evidence on record to support the said allegations. As such the said allegations are mentioned in order to avoid the debt due under Ex.A.1 to the plaintiff. At the same time the cross- examination of the defendant itself sufficient to come to a proper conclusion with regard to the truth in his contention. As seen from the said cross- examination the defendant bluntly denied the signature on the vakalath, written statement along with the signature on Ex.A.1. It clearly shows the negative attitude of defendant towards the plaintiff. He was not in a position to identify his own signature. As such the evidence of defendant is not trustworthy and same cannot be taken into consideration with regard to the signature on Ex.A.1. There is no necessity for the plaintiff to create Ex.A.1 by forging the signature of defendant. The non initiation of any proceedings from the side of defendant also support the contention of plaintiff. In view of the afore mentioned reasons this court is not inclined to believe the allegations mentioned in the written statement. The said allegations are mentioned by the defendant without any basis and to drag the proceedings for some more time and in order to trouble the plaintiff by one way or other. Hence, this court is not inclined to believe the case of defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed in the suit. Accordingly, the issue Nos.1 & 2 are answered.

Issue No.3:

14.In view of answer to issue Nos.1 and 2, this suit shall be decreed.

In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,63,400/- with subsequent interest @12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter @6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of

Rs.95,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 21st day of November, 2023.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1/K.Kistappa D.W.1/G.GiriKumar P.W.2/H.Jaganatha Reddy 6

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1/06.02.2017 Original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff For Defendant: NIL

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

.

7

Plaint presented on 26.07.2021 Plaint numbered on 28.07.21

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ADONI.

Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

Tuesday, 21st day of November, 2023

O.S.NO.220/2021

Between :

G.Kistappa S/o. G.Mahalingappa, Business, Hindu aged about 60 years, Santhekudlur village, Adoni. :: Plaintiff.

And:

G.Giri Kumar S/o.G.Eranna, Hindu, Aged about 49 years, Business, H.No.16/203, Raya Nagar, Adoni. :: Defendant

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,63,400/- being the principal and interest due on a pronote, dt.26.02.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.95,000/- repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs of the suit. Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.1,63,400/- and Court fee of Rs.4,126/- is paid under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act. This suit is coming before me on 20.11.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. V.Sriramulu Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. Y.Devraj Advocate for the defendant, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court doth order and decree:

1. that the defendant is hereby directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,63,400/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal sum of Rs.95,000/-; and.

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,293/- towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court this the 21st day of November, 2023.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Adoni. .

8

MEMO OF COSTS

S.NoParticularsDefendant

Plaintiff

1.Vakalat2-00-

2.Plaint Fees 4,126-00-

3.Process65-00-

5. Advocate fee Nil--

6.Typing charges 50-00-

7.Writing charges50-00- Total4,293-00

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Adoni. .

Note: The parties are hereby directed to apply for return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as soon as possible within three years as the record will liable to be destroyed three years after the date of decree of order.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ADONI.

Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

Wednesday, 18th day of October, 2023

O.S.NO.421/2021

Between :

E.Sree Ramulu Gupta :: Plaintiff. And:

1.C.T.Nizamuddin (died) rep by Lrs. 2.Nooriniisha 3.Tehereen 4.Sana:: Defendants

All are residents of H.No.1/203/55, ABHB Colony, Adoni-518302.

At present residing at Vasavi Nagar, Gudise Krishnamma House, Adoni.

This suit is coming before me on 18.10.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. B.Khalandar Basha Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. T.L.V.Subramanya Sharma, Sri.Moinuddin Patel, Sri.S.Vishnu Kashyap Advocate for the defendants, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.5,12,400/- being the principal and interest due on a pronote, dt.09.01.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/- repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs of the suit.

The brief averments of the plaint as follows:

2.It is submitted that the defendant had borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 09.01.2019 and executed a promissory note on the even date agreeing to repay the same along with interest at 24% per annum. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the amount along with accrued interest. Then the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dt.17.11.2021 to the defendant. But, the defendant received the said notice on 24.11.2021 and failed to pay the amount due under the promissory note. Hence, the suit. During the 2 pendency of suit the 1st defendant died by leaving behind defendants 2 to 4 are his legal heirs. As such they are added as per orders in

I.A.No.290/2022.

3.After receipt of summons from this Court, the deceased 1st defendant appeared before this Court through his counsel and filed written statement and same was adopted by his legal heirs i.e., D.2 to D.5.

The brief averments stemming out from the written statement of the defendant as follows :

4.The defendant denied all the averments mentioned in the plaint in verbatim. He further submitted that, he never borrowed any amount and never executed any promissory note as alleged in the plaint. The signature on the promissory note is forged one. In order to damage the reputation of defendant the plaintiff filed this suit with all false and frevilous allegations. The defendant has no necessity to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff. Hence, the defendant requested this Court to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the averments in the plaint and written statement, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 09.01.2019 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined PW.1 and exhibited the document Exs.A1 to Ex.A.4. On behalf of defendant none were examined and no documents were marked.

7. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. There is no representation on behalf of the defendant. Hence, treated no arguments.

Issue Nos.1 & 2:

9.In order to prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff filed his chief affidavit by reiterating all the averments mentioned in the plaint and same is treated as chief examination of PW.1. He also exhibited the documents under Exs.A1 to A.4. They are Ex.A.1 is the promissory note executed by 3 defendant in his favour. Ex.A.2 is the office copy of legal notice dt.

17.11.2021 got issued by me through counsel for the defendant.Ex.A.3 is the postal acknowledgment. Ex.A.4 is the encumbrance certificate. Even after granting sufficient time and also imposing of costs, the defendant did not choose to turn up before the court to cross-examine P.W.1 and to prove the allegations mentioned in the written statement. As such this court set him exparte treating that he has no interest to proceed further and to establish the allegations mentioned in the written statement. As seen from the written statement the defendant completely denied the signature on Ex.A.1 promissory note. But till today he did not initiate any proceedings to establish his contention. It clearly shows that for the sake of defence only the said aspect was mentioned in the written statement without any basis. At the same time the defendant did not move his little finger to cross-examine P.W.1 to prove the allegations mentioned in the written statement. As such the entire evidence of P.W.1 is un-challenged.

The evidence of P.W.1 juxtposed Ex.A.1 to A.4 the plaintiff proved the averments in the plaint against the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the decree against the estate of deceased 1st defendant who lost his breath during pendency of the proceedings. Even after impleading defendants 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of deceased 1st defendant, they did not choose to file any Addl. Written statement. They simply filed a memo by adopting the written statement of deceased 1st defendant. As such it is clear that D.2 to D.4 have no separate contention against the plea of the plaintiff. In view of the afore mentioned reasons the plaintiff is entitled for decree against the estate of deceased 1st defendant. Accordingly issue

Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

Issue No.3:

14.In view of answer to issue Nos.1 and 2, this suit shall be decreed.

In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the estate of 1st defendant lying in the hands of defendants 2 to 4 for a sum of Rs.5,12,400/- with subsequent interest @12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter @6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of

Rs.3,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 18th day of October, 2023

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1 : E.Sree Ramulu Gupta- None -

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : Promissory note executed by defendant in his favour.

Ex.A.2 : Office copy of legal notice dt. 17.11.2021 got issued by me through counsel for the defendant.

Ex.A.3 : Postal acknowledgment.

Ex.A.4 : Encumbrance certificate.

For Defendant: NIL

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

.

5

Plaint presented on 20.01.2021 Plaint numbered on 20.01.2021

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS (EXCISE)-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

ELURU.

Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class For Trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act -cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

Tuesday, the 29th day of November, 2022

O.S.NO.15/2021

Between :

Katakamsetti Vibheshana Rao, s/o Sri Ramamurthy, Hindu, Male, 66 years, Agriculture, r/o D.No.7B-6-15, Eastern street, Eluru, W.G. District, Eluru, JCJC.

6 :: Plaintiff. And:

Narisetti Aadi Babu, s/o Anjaneyulu, Hindu, Male, 39 years, Business, r/o D.No.12-99, Yetigattu, Gavaravaram, Sanivarapupeta, Grama panchayat, Eluru, JCJC. :: Defendant.

Suit for recovery of Rs.2,68,667/- being the principal and interest due on pronote, dt.12.09.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- repayable with interest at 24% p.a and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is

Rs.2,68,667/- under S.50(1) of APCF and SV.Act on which a Court fee of

Rs.5,126/- is paid under S.20, Sch.-I, Article-1(c) of the said act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 12.09.2019 at Eluru, when and where respectively the suit pronote was executed by the defendant and within the jurisdiction of this court.

This suit is coming before me on 28.11.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and

Sri.Y.Suresh, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court doth order and decree:

1. that the defendant is hereby directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,68,667/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal sum of

Rs.2,00,000/; and

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.13,478/- towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court this the 29th day of November, 2022.

Special Judicial Magistrate of

First Class for trial of cases under

A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act at Eluru-cum-IV Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Eluru, W.G.Dt.,

MEMO OF COSTS

S.NoParticularsPlaintiffDefendant 7

1.Vakalat2-00-

2.Advocates welfare fund --

3.Plaint Fees5,126-00-

4.Process--

5.Advocate Fees8,350-00-

6.Writing & Typing Charges--- Total 13,478-00

SJMFC(E)-CUM-

IV AJCJ,ELURU.

Note: The parties are hereby directed to apply for return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as soon as possible within three years as the record will liable to be destroyed three years after the date of decree of order.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ALUR.

Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Adoni. FAC.Junior Civil Judge, Alur.

Friday, the 13th day of October, 2023

O.S.NO.51/2017

Between :

Silar Bi, W/o Diwan Vali, Muslim, 45 years, agriculturist, r/o H.No.3/65, Tangaradona village, Aspari mandal, Kurnool District.::: Plaintiff

And

1.Suban, S/o Ibrahim Sab, Muslim, aged 27 years, agriculturist, r/o near Nagalabavi Chenu, Tangaradona village, Aspari mandal, Kurnool District.

2.Mabu Basha Alia Silar Sab, S/o Ibrahim Sab, Muslim, aged 25 years, Agriculturist, r/o near Nagalabavi Chenu, Tangaradona village, Aspari mandal, Kurnool District. ::: Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 13-10-2023 for plaintiff’s evidence in the presence of Sri. L.K.Jeevan Singh, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff to Against the defendants to grant permanent injunction restraining them from in any way interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint as follows :

It is submitted that the originally the plaint schedule property was purchased by one Shaik Sab in the name of defendants who are his grand children of his daughter under a registered sale deed dt.21-12-1995. Later the said property was sold away to the plaintiff for the welfare and interest of the minors by the said Shaik

Sab to the plaintiff under a sale deed, dt.1-6-2020. Since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property without any interruption. While so the father of defendants filed a suit O.S.No.138/2000 against the plaintiff and her father viz., Shaik Sab seeking permanent injunction and same was dismissed on 28-9-2005. As such the defendants lost their legal remedy to claim the suit schedule property either filing declaration or for recovery of 2 possession. Basing on the sale deed the plaintiff also mutated her name in revenue records. Thereafter, after attaining majority the defendants without having any manner of right making efforts to interfere with the possession of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, resulting the present suit.

3. After receipt of summons the defendants appeared before the court through their counsel and filed written statement.

4. The brief averments stemming out from the written statement of defendants as follows:

The defendants filed written statement by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint. They further submitted that without obtaining the permission of the court, the grandfather of the defendants sold away the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. As such, the said sale transaction is not valid under law. The father of defendants also filed a suit against the plaintiff and her father. Hence, there are no bonafides on the part of the plaintiff in obtaining the sale deed, hence the defendants requested the court to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the averments in the plaint and written statement the following issues were settled for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property ?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction?

3. To what relief?

6. During the course of the trial, P.W.1 was examined on behalf of plaintiff and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. Burt the defendants did not appear

before the court to cross examine P.W.1 to establish their defence, as pleaded in

the written statement. As such, this court set them exparte and posted the matter for judgment.

7. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. No representation on behalf of defendants. Hence treated no arguments.

8.Issue Nos.1 and 2:- In order to prove the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff filed her chief affidavit by reiterating the averments mentioned in the plaint and same is treated as chief examination of P.W.1. She also exhibited documents under Exs.A.1 to A.9. They are – Ex.A.1 is pattadar pass book. Ex.A.2 is 3 adangals for the fasali 1426. Ex.A.3 is ROR stands in the name of plaintiff.

Ex.A.4/1-06-2000 is original sale deed executed by the Shaik Moddin San in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A.5/21-12-1995 is original sale deed stands in the name of defendants. Ex.A.6 is served copy of plaint in O.S.No.138/2000. Ex.A.7 is suit register extract in O.S.No.138/2000. Ex.A.8 is subsidy granted by the government.

Ex.A.9 is office copy of written statement in O.S.No.138/2000. The defendants did not turn up before the court to cross examine P.w.1 and to establish the allegations mentioned in the written statement. To establish her possession, P.W.1 had produced Exs.A.1 to A.9. All the documents produced by the plaintiff clearly goes to show that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property, as on the date of filing the present suit. Contra to the contention of plaintiff, there is no evidence before the court to brush aside the entire contention of plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. In the absence of defendants, this court set them exparte treating that they have no interest to proceed further in this case. In the absence of any evidence from the side of defendants, this court can safely conclude that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as on the date of filing the present suit. As such, she is entitled for the relief as prayed in the suit. This being a suit for simple injunction, this court is not going to venture into deep with regard to the interest of minors in the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

9.Issue No.3: In view of answer to issue Nos.1 and 2, this suit shall be decreed.

10.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs, granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants and their men from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of October, 2023.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni. FAC.Junior Civil Judge, Alur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

P.W.1: Diwan Vali-None- 4

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Pattadar pass book

Ex.A.2: Adangals for the fasali 1426

Ex.A.3: ROR stands in the name of plaintiff

Ex.A.4/1-06-2000: Original sale deed executed by the Shaik Moddin San in favour of plaintiff

Ex.A.5/21-12-1995: Original sale deed stands in the name of defendants

Ex.A.6: Served copy of plaint in O.S.No.138/2000

Ex.A.7: Suit register extract in O.S.No.138/2000

Ex.A.8: Subsidy granted by the government

Ex.A.9: Office copy of written statement in O.S.No.138/2000

For Defendants: -Nil-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni. FAC.Junior Civil Judge, Alur.

5