Sri P.Ravi Sankar

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SOMPETA

Present:- Sri. P.RAVI SANKAR

Junior Civil Judge, Palasa (FAC) Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta.

Monday, this the 13th day of June, 2022

O.S.No.43 of 2018

Between:

Bendalam Jogi Ramayya, S/o. Late Yandayya, aged about 85 years, Agriculturist, Door No.2-98, Pedda veedi, Palasapuram village, Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. … Plaintiff.

And :

1) Bharathi Manayiko, D/o. Devendra Manayiko, W/o. Tarini Kesavo, agd about 35 years, Hindu, Household duties, R/o. Pedda Meliyaputtuga village, Post Jagati, Kaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District.

2) Lalitha Manayiko, D/o. Devendra Manayiko, aged about 31 years, Hindu, Household durties, rest do; … Defendants

This suit is coming on 22-04-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Venkata Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri G.S.V.V. Kumar, Advocate for Defendants, upon hearing on both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his right, title and possession over the suit schedule property and also consequential relief of permanent injection, restraining the defendants, from ever interfering/trespassing into the suit schedule property and costs and other reliefs.

2.The brief averments of plaint are as follows:

(a) The plaintiff submits that he purchased plaint schedule property and some other properties from Manayiko Devendra, S/o. Late Trinadh of

Peddaymeliyaputti village under registered sale deed dated 24.11.2008 for a consideration of Rs.90,000/-. Originally plaint schedule properties and some other properties in Palasapuram village are self acquired properties of

Manayiko Devendra, S/o. Late Trinadu of Peddameliyaputti village, Kaviti

Mandal. The plaitiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and other properties since date of the purchase under the registered sale deed dated 24.11.2008. The revenue authorities recognized possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and mutated the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass book and title deed in the name of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties and some other properties. While things stood so the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff by name Bendalam Swapna @ Suguna, W/ o. Dharmaraju filed a petition u/sec. 125 of Cr.P.C, against her husband on the file of Principal Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sompeta for maintenance.

The said petition ended with a compromise and according to the compromise the plaintiff gave landed properties an extent Ac.0.35 cents in Sy.No.226/6 and Ac.0.31 cents in Sy.No.226/4, purchased by him under the registered sale deed dated 24.11.2018. Now the defendants are spreading rumours in the village that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties and trying to trespass into the plaint schedule properties. The defendants have nothing to do with the plaint schedule properties, hence, the suit.

3.The defendant Nos.1 and 2 field their written statement and denied all the allegations of the plaintiff pleaded in the plaint:-

(a)The defendants submits that the plaint schedule properties and some other properties belongs to them and same are their ancestral properties. The total extent of properties approximately Ac.12.00 cents of

Kaviti and Sompeta Mandal are ancestral property of defendants.

Approximately the property an extent of Ac.10.50 cents situated in

Peddameliyaputti village of Jagathi revenue village, Kaviti Mandal. The father of the defendant's Devendra Manayiko neglected to maintained the defendants and their mother since long time i.e., more than 30 years without providing any shelter and food. At that time the defendants were minors and their mother Chintamani Manayiko filed a suit agianst Devendra Manayiko i.e. father of the defendants on behalf of the minor daughters for partition and separate possession of present suit schedule properties and other properties into 3 equal shares on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's

Court, Sompeta which is numbered as OS.No.52/1997. The defendant's mother filed a suit for properties more than Ac.12.00 cents which includes the plaint schedule properties. The Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta passed a preliminary decree in favour of the defendants and against their father in the year 2000. The defendants filed a petition in IA.No.91/2001 in

OS.No.52/1997 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Sompeta to pass a

final decree in the terms of preliminary decree. In the above said petition

IA.No.91/2001 an advocate commissioner was appointed, who divided the

properties into metes and bounds and passed a final decree. In the above said final decree the plaint schedule properties fell to the share to the defendants. Subsequently, the defendants filed an EP.No.6/2018 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge's Court, Sompeta in OS.No.52/1997 in which the Hon'ble

Senior Civil Judge's Court directed for delivery of plaint schedule properties

and some other properties to the defendants. Accordingly, the Field Assistant of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Sompeta delivered the plaint schedule properties and other properties to the defendants on 05.04.2018 in the presence of revenue authorities and other villages. The above facts very well known to the plaintiff and others. During the pendency of final decree the plaintiff obtained a nominal sale deed dated 24.11.2008 by colluding with their father without paying any consideration. The father of the defendants is habitual drunkened person of caused loss to the defendants. Therefore, the registered sale deed dated 24.11.2008 obtained by the plaintiff from the father of the defendants Devendra Manayiko is of no value. The other pleadings of the plaintiff that he gave some property to his daughter-in-law is noway concerned to the facts of the case and even it is true it is also another collusion between plaintiff and his daughter-in-law and same is not binding on the defendants. The transaction under registered sale deed dated 24.11.2008 between the plaintiff and Devendra Manayiko i.e., father of the defendants is a sham and nominal document and same is hit by the principle lis-pendency as per section 52 of Transfer of Property Act and the said sale is not confer any title to the plaintiff. So the suit for declaration is not maintainable. Therefore, prayed the court is dismissed without costs.

4.Basing on the above rival pleadings the court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the Manayiko Devendra executed Registered sale deed

dated 24.11.2008 in favour of plaintiff for plaint schedule

properties and some other properties?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as a owner of plaint schedule property?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction against defendants?

4) Whether this suit is hit by section 52 of transfer of Property Act?

5) If so, to what relief?

5.The issue Nos.1 and 4 clubbed together and taken up at the first instance to answer for the sake of convince and to avoid reputation.

6.Issue Nos.1 and 4:

1. Whether the Manayiko Devendra executed Registered sale deed

dated 24.11.2008 in favour of plaintiff for plaint schedule properties

and some other properties? And

4. Whether this suit is hit by section 52 of transfer of Property Act?

(a)To prove the case the plaintiff Bendalam Jogi Ramayya examined himself as PW.1 and got examined PW.2 Pandi Ramarao who is the one of attestor of the registered sale deed dated 24.11.2008 and PW.3 Bendalam

Dharmaraju who is the son of plaintiff Bendalam Jogi Ramayya and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of the registered sale deed

dated 24.11.2008 executed by Manayiko Devendara in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A2 is the Pattadar Pass book issued in the name of plaintiff, Ex.A3 is the

Copy of the Adangal. The plaintiff has filed is chief affidavit as PW.1 reiterating the averments of plaint as it is. The plaintiff as PW.1 deposed that he purchased the plaint schedule properties and some other properties from

Devendra Manayiko of Peddaymeliyaputti village under a registered sale deed dated 24.11.2008 for a consideration of Rs.90,000/- and since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently the daughter-in-law of PW.1 by name Bendalam Swapna @ Suguna filed a petition u/sec. 125 of Cr.P.C against her husband claiming maintenance. The said petition is ended with a compromise and according to the compromise, the plaintiff gave landed property an extent of Ac.0.35 cents in Sy.No.226/6 and an extent of Ac.0.31 cents in Sy.No.226/4 and some other properties to his daughter-in-law towards her permanent alimony and since then the said

Bendalam Swapna has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. While things stood so the defendants are spreading rumors in the village stating that they are absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and trying to trespass into the same. The defendants have nothing to do into the plaint schedule properties.. The defendants claiming the suit schedule properties by collusion with their family members without any right over the plaint schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right and title over the plaint schedule properties and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction.

(b)PW.2 Pandi Ramarao in his chief affidavit deposed that he is one of the attestor of the registered sale deed dated 24.11.2008. The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule properties and some other properties from

Devendra Manayiko under registered sale deed dated 24.11.2008 and since then the plaintiff has been possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaint schedule property is a wet land which is an extent of Ac.0.34 cents. The defendants has been spreading rumors in the village that they are absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties and trying to trespass into the same.

(c)PW.3 Bendalam Dharmaraju who is the son of plaintiff in his chief affidavit deposed that the plaint schedule properties and some other properties of Peddameliyaputti village were self acquired properties of

Devendra Manayiko, he and his father and other family members did agriculture in the plaint schedule properties. His father Jogi Ramayya purchased the paint schedule properties under registered sale deed dated 24.11.2008, prior to purchase they were cultivated the suit schedule properties as a tenant. After the purchase, pattadar pass book and title deed issued in the name of Jogi Ramayya and plaint schedule properties in their possession and enjoyment since more than 30 years. The defendants are nothing to do with the plaint schedule properties. PW.1 in his cross examination stated that he do not know whether the mother of the defendants filed a suit for partition against their father in the year 1997 and same was decreed in their favour. He is not included the said Devendra

Manayiko as a party in the suit. Devendra Manayiko used to collect yields of the property when he cultivated. He do not know whether the defendants filed a final decree petition and the present suit schedule properties allotted to the defendants by the court and delivered the possession of the same to the defendants through the court in the presence of revenue officers and other villagers. PW.2 in his cross examination stated that he is not verified the documents with the vendor of Ex.A1. He do not know whether the defendants filed the suit against their father before the Hon'ble Senior Civil

Judge's Court, Sompeta. He do not know survey number and patta number of

the documents of Ex.A1. Plaintiff is in possession and cultivation of the property covered under Ex.A1 prior to his purchase as a tenant. He do not know whether the defendants obtained a decree for the plaint schedule properties and other properties of Palasapuram and Meliyaputti village. He do not know whether sale certificate issued by the court on NJ stamps in favour of the defendants. PW.3 in his cross examination stated that he do not know whether his father has seen documents with Devendra Manayiko to show that the plaint schedule properties purchased by Devendra Manayiko.

He do not know about suit filed by the children of Devendra Manayiko against him claiming the properties. He do not know whether the Hon'ble

Senior Civil Judge's Court granted a preliminary decree and final decree in

favour of the defendants and also delivered the possession of the properties to the defendants by the court amen.

(d)To prove the case the defendant Nos.1 and 2 examined as D.Ws.1 and 2 by filing their chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination reiterating the averments of their written statement as it is. The defendants got examined their mother Chintamani Manayiko as DW.3. D.Ws.1 and 2 in their chief examination affidavit deposed that the plaint schedule properties and some other properties are their ancestral properties. The land an extent of

Ac.12.00 cents in Kaviti and Sompeta Mandal are their ancestral properties and an extent of Ac.10.50 cents approximately has situated at

Peddameliyaputti village of Jagathi revenue village, Kaviti Mandal. The father of the defendants neglected the defendants and their mother for more than 30 years without providing any shelter and food and etc., at that time they mother Chintamani Manayiko filed a suit on behalf of the defendants as a guardian as OS.No.52/1997 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Sompeta against their father Devendra Manayiko for partition of properties into 3 equal shares, in which plaint schedule properties are included in the above suit. The suit in OS.No.52/1997 was decereed in the year 2000 and the defendants filed a petition in IA.No.91/2001 on 07.01.2001 to pass a final decree in their favour in the terms of preliminary decree. The Hon'ble Senior

Civil Judge's Court, Sompeta appointed an Advocate Commissioner and

divided properties mentioned in the OS.No.52/1997 into 3 equal shares and the plaint schedule properties and some other properties fell to the share of defendants. The defendants filed EP.No.6/2018 in OS.No.52/1997 to deliver the vacant possession of the properties fell to their share and accordingly the field assistant of the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Sompeta delivered the properties including the plaint schedule properties which fell to the share of the defendants in the presence of revenue authorities and family members on 05.04.2018. The above facts are known to the plaintiff and others. During the pendency of the final decree petition the father of the defendants and plaintiff colluded together and obtained a nominal document i.e., registered sale deed dated 21.11.2008 without any consideration to cause loss to the defendants and their mother. The other allegations of the plaintiff that he gave some extent of land to his daughter-in-law is noway concerned to the facts of the case and even if it is true, it is also another collusion between the plaintiff, father of the defendants and the daughter-in-aw of the plaintiff and same is not binding on the defendants. The registered sale deed dated 21.11.2008 and other transaction between the plaintiff and his daughter-in- law is clearly hit by the principles of lis-pendency, as per section 52 of

Transfer of Property Act.

(e) In the cross examination DW.1 stated that she was present at the time of execution of EP warrant by the court amen. It is true no survey number and patta number and also extent mentioned Ex.B2 and Ex.B3. The plaintiff and his brother cultivated the lands of their father. Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are marked through DW.1 Ex.B1 is the certified copy of order and decretal order in final decree in IA.No.91/2001 in OS.No.52/1997. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of the deliver warrant, Ex.B3 is the certified copy of the delivery proceeding along with the schedule. DW.2 in her cross examination stated that the plaintiff is cultivating the lands since 20 years prior to his purchase.

DW.3 Chitamani Manayiko in her chief affidavit deposed that she filed suit against her husband on behalf of her minor daughters. The plaint schedule properties and some other properties belongs to her family ancestral properties. The total extent of properties I.e, more than Ac.12.00 cents in

Kaviti and Somepeta Mandals are family ancestral properties. The land an extent of Ac.10.50 cents situated in Peddameliyaputti village and Jagathi

Revenue village. Devendra Manayiko neglected to maintain her and her daughters i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 2 for more than 30 years without any shelter and food. At the time she filed a suit as OS.No.52/1997 against her husband Devendra Manayiko for partition of properties into 3 equal shares in which the plaint schedule properties were also included, on the file of Senior

Civil Judge's Court, Somepeta. The Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's Court passed

preliminary decree in favour of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and against her husband in the year 2000. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a final decree petition on 17.01.2001 in IA.No.91/2001 in OS.No.52/1997. The Hon'ble

Senior Civil Judge's Court, Sompeta appointed an Advocate Commissioner,

who divided the properties into 3 equal shares and plaint schedule properties and other properties fell to the share of the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The

Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's Court, Sompeta passed a final decree in

IA.No.91/2001 in OS.No.52/1997 in the terms preliminary decree. The

defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed an EP.NO.6/2018 on file of Senior Civil Judge's

Court, Sompeta for deliver of properties fell to their share and accordingly the field assistant of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Sompeta delivered the properties including the plaint schedule property to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 15.04.2018 in the presence of revenue authorities and villagers. The above facts are very well known to the plaintiff. During the pendency of final decree proceedings, the husband of DW.3 and plaintiff colluded together and created nominal document i.e., sale deed dated 24.11.2008 without paying any consideration. The transaction between the plaintiff and his daughter-in- law with a compromise in a petition u/sec.125 of Cr.P.C filed by the daughter- in-law of plaintiff's is not biding on the defendant nos.1 and 2. The transaction under a registered sale deed dated 24.11.2008 and also the transaction between the plaintiff and his daughter-in-law is hit by the principles of lis pendency as per Section 52 of Transfer Property Act. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of right, title and for consequential relief of permanent injunction is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the plaintiff in the cross examination DW.3 put suggestion that plaintiff Bendalam Jogi Ramayya is not shown as a party in OS.No.52/1997 and also EP.No.6/2018. Devendra Manayiko the husband of DW.3 sold the land at Palasapuram to Benadalam Jogi Ramayya for studies of her children and also for their welfare. The paint schedule properties were allotted to the share of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in a decree passed by the court. The lands in

Palasapuram were fell into share of Devendray Manayiko as per decree.

DW.3, her husband and her children sold property to the plaintiff.

(f)The above said evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the evidence of

D.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, it is clister clearly establishing that the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property and some other properties from Devendra Manayiko under a registered sale deed dated 24.11.2008 i.e., Ex.A1. The evidence of PW.2 who is the one of the attestor of Ex.A1 is also proved about the execution of

Ex.A1 registered sale deed dated 24.11.2008 by Devendra Manayiko in favour of the plaintiff Beladam Jogi Ramayya. The evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are also clearly establishing that DW.3 filed a suit OS.No.52/1997 on behalf of her minor daughters i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 2 who are minors at that time against her husband Devendra Manayiko for partition and the separate possession of joint family properties, in which includes the plaint schedule properties. The suit OS.No.52/1997 was decreed preliminarly in the year 2000. After that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a final decree petition IA.No.91/2001 to pass a final decree in the terms of preliminary decree. After that a final decree was passed in the terms of preliminary decree in which the plaint schedule properties and other properties were fell to the share of defendants. Ex.B1 is the order and decreetal order in IA.No.91/2001 in OS.No.52/1997. Subsequently the defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed EP.No.6/2018 in OS.No.52/1997 for delivery of separate possession of the properties fell to their share as per orders in final decree in IA.No.91/2001. Accordingly, on 04.07.2018 the court amen delivered the possession of the properties fell to the share of defendant

Nos.1 and 2 in which the plaint schedule properties were included Ex.B2 is the proceedings of the field assistant of VI Additional District Court, Sompeta.

Ex.B3 is the certified copy of petition in EP.No.6/2018 in IA.No.91/2001 in

OS.No.52/1997. So as per the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.B1 to

Ex.B3 shows that a suit for partition was pending since in the year 1997 and same was ended on 04.07.2018. As per the pleadings and evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A1, the plaintiff purchased property from Devendra

Manayiko on 24.11.2008 which is nothing but a transaction during the pendency of the final decree proceedings in IA.No.91/2001. By the date

Ex.A1 i.e., on 24.11.2008 Devendra Manayiko has no absolute right to sell the plaint schedule properties and other properties individually as the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were also having joint rights along with Devendra

Manayiko over the properties mentioned under Ex.A1. PW.1 in his pleadings and evidence pleaded that he has no knowledge about the pendency of the suit OS.No.52/1997 and also final decree proceedings in IA.No.91/2001 and also EP.No.6/2018 for the deliver and possession of the properties fell to the share of the defendants. The plaintiff is not permitted to plead ignorance about the pendency of the proceedings i.e., pendency of the suit

OS.No.52/1997 and also final proceedings in IA.No.91/2001, since the plaintiff

as PW.1 in his cross examination categorically admitted that he was cultivating the plaint schedule properties and some other properties as a tenant prior to execution to sale deed under Ex.A1. Further the learned counsel for the plaintiff in the cross examination of DW.3 put suggestions that “the land in the Palasapuram were fell to he share of her husband

Devendra Manayiko as per the decree”. DW.3, her husband and her children sold the property to the plaintiff. The above suggestions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff are quite contra to the pleadings and averments of plaintiff and his witnesses. The plaintiff and his witness pleaded ignorance about the pendency of the suit, final decree proceedings and allotment of shares. The suggestions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is also one way are other clearly establishing that the plaintiff have full knowledge about the pendency of the proceedings in OS.No.52/1997 in IA.No.91/2001 and

EP.No.6/2018. So the above facts clearly establishing that the plaintiff

purchased the plaint schedule properties and some other properties under

Ex.A1 from Devendra Manayiko during the pendency of the suit and other proceedings in OS.No.52/1997 and in IA.No.91/2001.

As per section 3(27) Transfer of Property Act which reads as follows.

“A transferee of an immovable property may be fastened with the constructive notice of any prior transaction affecting the title of the transferor, if he wilfully refrains from making any enquiry in order to avoid acquiring knowledge of the transferor's title or if he does not make any enquiry when the circumstances are such as would lead a prudent and reasonable person to embark on an enquiry regarding the title of the transferor. But a subsequent transferee cannot be fixed with constructive notice of the prior transaction, where the circumstances do not require him to make any enquiry.”

As per section 52 of Transfer of Property Act which read as follows:

“Transfer of property pending suit relating therein. - During the (pendency) in any court having authority (within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or established beyond such limits) by (the Central Government (***), of (any) suit or proceeding (which is not collusive and) in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose. (Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceedings shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order, and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force.)

7.The learned counsel for the defendant relied upon the following decisions:

(a)In between K. Venkatasubba Reddi Vs. Bairagi Ramaiah reported in 1993 (3) ALT 210 where in it is held at para No.11 that: Thus, the plaintiff must succeed by establishing is own title, by adducing satisfactory evidence and he cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendant's caste. In the instant case, the respondent-plaintiff failed miserably to establish his title to the disputed site. His own title deed Ex.B1 does not support his case. The site purchased under Ex.B1 does not extend to the entire extent of the site shown in plaint 'A' schedule which includes the disputed site. Therefore, the plaintiff has to be non-suited. The appellate Court has committed error in decreeing the suit by deviating from the settled principles, that in a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must succeed in establishing his title irrespective of the question whether the defendant has proved his case or not. There is no need to refer to the other discussion held by the appellate Court. Both the questions of law have been answered thus.

(b)In betweenYeluri Vijayabharathi Vs. Yeluri Manikyamma reported in (A.P) 1998(1) where in it is held at para No.9 that: Therefore, even assuming that the plaintiffs are in possession of Ac.1.35. Cents of land more than what they got under the partition deed Ex.B1, that will not give them any legal basis to file a suit for injunction. Such suit for injunction will be opposed to settled law when the title itself is not established as a legal basis as held in Nagarpalika's case and also in view of the settled that a co-sharer cannot maintain a suit against the other co-sharer. In this case, it may be that plaintiffs are enjoying the right and interest in regard to the disputed portion of the land along with the other defendants or any other person regarding which the Court cannot and could not have given the relief of permanent injunction. It may also be emphasised that no Court can decide beyond the scope of a suit for permanent injunction and if the parties are entitled for any other relief in regard to the disputed land, such rights in law are open to them to agitate and get such relief but not in a suit for permanent injunction.

(c)In between Venkatarao Anantdeo Joshi and others V. Sau. Malatibai and others reported in 2003(1) ALT 32(SC) where in it is held at para

Nos.8,9 that: (8)At the time of hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the plea of tenancy raised by Baburao is on the face of it, begous so as to defeat the rights of the appellants which are crystalised at the time of passing of the preliminary decree. Presuming that pending the suit for partition, even if batai patra is executed, it would not confer any rights on Baburao as it is hit by principles of lis pendens. In any case, as the preliminary decree becomes final, it was not open for Baburao to raise such contention at the time of passing of final decree for partition. (9)With regard to lis pendens, learned counsel for the appellants rightly referred to the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.51/1973 and contended that presuming that the so-called batai patra was at all executed by Anantdeo, it was not open to him to execute the same pending disposal of the suit filed by Appellant No.1 for partition of the property. In that suit, appellant No.1 and his mother had challenged the transfer of land out of survey No.60/A and also for partition of the suit property. By elaborate judgment and order, the suit filed by the appellants was decreed to the extent that they were entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit properties. The court has also directed mesne profits. Till the date of the decree, it was contended by Anantdeo that he was in possession of portion of the suit land and remaining portion was in possession of Malatibai, in view of sale deed in her favour. It has also been specifically contended that for some time, property was in possession of Baburao prior to marriage of Shakuntala Bai and then in possession of one Pandurang Saokar and lastly it was in possession of Malatibai and himself. The Court specifically arrived at the conclusion that Anantdeo was in possession of the suit property and so-called transfer was without any legal and family necessity as alleged and, therefore, appellants were entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit property. In the Revenue Records also, there is no mutation in favour of Baburao. Further, so called compromise decree in Civil Suit No.288 of 1981 against Anantdeo and Malatibai would not confer any title against the appellant.

The above decisions relied by the learned counsel for the defendants are clearly applicable to the facts of the present case on hand.

8.Basing on the above foregoing discussions, facts and circumstances of the case this court held that the transaction under Ex.A1 in which the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule land and some other land from Devendra Manayiko are certainly under purview or- definition of lis- pendency as envisiged u/sec. 52 of Transfer of Property Act. Hence, the plaintiff did not get any perfect title over the plaint schedule property as his vendor has no perfect and valid title by the date of Ex.A1. Accordingly issue

Nos.1 and 4 are answer in favour of the defendants and as against the plaintiff by holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff is hit by section 52 of

Transfer of Property Act and the plaintiff could not get perfect, valid title under registered sale deed dated 24.11.2008 executed by Devendra

Manayiko over the plaint schedule properties and some other properties.

9. Issue Nos.2 and 3:

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as a owner of plaint schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction against defendants?

(a)In view of the answers given in issue Nos.1 and 4 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants, these issues are also answered in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and against the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration as a owner of the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction restraining the defendants as by the date of filing of the suit the suit schedule properties and other properties delivered to the possession of the defendants as per proceedings of the field assistant in Ex.B2 and hence the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties as on the date of filing of the suit.

10.Issue No.5:

To what relief. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 13th day of June, 2022.

Junior Civil Judge, Palasa FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW.1 :Bendalam JogiramayyaDW.1 : Lalitha Manayiko

PW.2 :Pandi RamaraoDW.2 : Bharathi Manayiko

PW.3 :Bendalam DharmarajuDW.3 : Chintamani Manayiko

Documents marked

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A.1:Certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 24.11.2008 executed by Manayiko Devendara in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A.2:Pattadar Pass book issued in the name of plaintiff.

Ex.A.3:Copy of the Adangal obtained from Mee-Seva;

For Defendants:

Ex.B.1:Order and decreetal order in final decree IA.91/2001 in

OS.52/1997;

Ex.B.2:Certified Copy of the delivery warrant;

Ex.B.3:Certified copy of the delivery proceeding along with schedule;

Junior Civil Judge, Palasa FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta.

CC.105/2022 ///1//

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SOMPETA

Present:- Sri. P.RAVI SANKAR

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Palasa (FAC) Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Sompeta.

Friday, this the 20th day of May, 2022

C.C.No.105 of 2022

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mandasa P.S.

Complainant

And :

Koribilli Madhava Rao @ Madhu, S/o late Krishna Rao, aged 32 years, Caste Palli, Jinagaveedi, Baruva village, Sompeta Mandal, Occupation: Labour works.

ACCUSED

This case is coming on 13-05-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State; and of Sri.N.S.Vijaya Kumar and Sri G.Ravindranadh, Advocates for accused ; and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.173/2021 Under Sections 457, 380 of I.P.C., of

Mandasa Police Station against accused.

2.The Brief facts of the prosecution case are :

On 20.11.2021 at 9.00 a.m., PW.1-Bunagapu Kesava Rao went to

Mandasa Police Station and submitted a written report alleging that he is working as priest of Annapurna Saitha Kashi Visweswara Swamy

Temple at Ambugam village since six years. As usual course of his poojas, he went to the Temple early morning at 5.00 a.m., on 20.11.2021 and opened the gate lock and lock of Nandi gudi and switched on the light. He noticed that some culprit broke opened the

CC.105/2022 ///2//

locks of sanctum (Garbhagudi) and also broke open the southern side door lock, removed C.C.,camera cable and took the DVR box and committed theft of silver plate, Setagopam, Uddarana Pancha Patra and Harathi plate. Basing on the complaint of PW.1-Bunagapu Kesava

Rao, PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa registered a case in Cr.No.173/2021 under Section 457 and 380 of I.P.C., of

Mandasa P.S. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence i.e., Annapurna Saitha Kashi Visweswara Swamy Temple at

Ambugam village. He observed the scene of offence, drawn the rough sketch of scene of offence, prepared scene observation panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e., PW.2-Tirunagaru Savarayya and LW.7-

Gujjala Kurma Rao. On 26.11.2021, PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa received information about the accused and secured the presence of mediators i.e., PW.3-Balivada Usha Rani and

LW.9-Rokalla Ram Murthy and went to Kothapalli Bus stop on N.H.16

High way road and arrested the accused. The accused in the interrogation PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa in the presence of mediators stated that he committed theft at

Annapurna Saitha Kashi Visweswara Swamy Temple at Ambugam village by break open the lock with iron rod and committed theft of s silver plate silver plate, Setagopam, Uddarana Pancha Patra and

Harathi plate along with C.C. Camera box and the same were kept under the bridge of Mahendratanaya river on National High Way. The accused took PW.2-Tirunagaru Savarayya, PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub

Inspector of Police, Mandasa and LW.9-Rokalla Ram Murthy to the bridge of Mahendratanaya river on N.H.16 and voluntarily produced

M.O.1 to 4 from a gunny bag. Then PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of

Police, Mandasa arrested the accused and seized M.O.1 to 4 from the possession of the accused. After completion of the all formalities, he

CC.105/2022 ///3//

forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial custody and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet before the Court.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable Under

Sections 457, 380 of IPC against accused.

4.On the appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to him U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and was examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation against him and charges framed for the Section 457, 380 of IPC, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5.During the course of trial, Prosecution cited 10 witnesses and examined LWs 1, 6, 8 and 10 (Bunagapu Kesava Rao, Tirunagaru

Savarayya, Balivada Usha Rani and K.Venkatesh, S.I., of Police) as PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.7 and M.Os.1 to 4. The remaining witness that is LW's.2 to 5 (Gangetla Hirambo, Majji Babu Rao,

Gangetla Krishna Rao and Majji Vykunta Rao), LW.7-Gujjala Kurma Rao and LW.9-Rokalla Ram Murthy were given up by the prosecution.

6.After completion of trial, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and incriminating material were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied and reported no defence. No

Exhibits were marked in “D” series.

7.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused for the offence under Section 457 and 380 of I.P.C. as framed beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT :

Whether the prosecution has proved the charges against

the accused for the offence under Section 457 and 380 of

I.P.C. as framed beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PW.1-

Bunagapu Kesava Rao who is the defacto complainant, PW.2-

CC.105/2022 ///4//

Tirunagaru Savarayya who are the mediator for the scene observation panchanama, PW.3-Balivada Usha Rani is the mediator at the time of arrest of the accused, seizure of M.Os.1 to 4 and recording of statements of accused. PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police,

Mandasa is the investigating officer in this case.

10.PW.1-Bunagapu Kesava Rao in his evidence deposed that he is working as priest of Annapurna Saitha Kashi Visweswara Swamy

Temple at Ambugam village since six years. On 20.11.2021 at about 5.00 a.m., in usual course, he went to the Temple to perform daily pooja. He opened the main gate of the Temple and entered into the premises, he found open the southern door and also doors of sanctum (garba gudi) and found that connection of CC cameras were cut off.

Immediately he made a phone call to the committee members and villagers of Ambugam and after their arrival, he entered into the sanctum of temple of DVR (CC camera) bod, silver plate, silver setagopam, silver Uddarana Panchapatra and Harathi plate. After that he went to Mandasa P.S., and submitted his report. Ex.P.1 is the report of PW.1-Bunagapu Kesava Rao. On the same day, at about 9.00 a.m,

PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa came to the

Annapurna Saitha Kashi Visweswara Swamy Temple at Ambugam village and observed the scene of offence. On 26.11.2021 at about 11.00 a.m., he received information about the recovery of silver ornaments, which were thefted at Annapurna Saitha Kashi Visweswara

Swamy Temple at Ambugam village. PW.1-Bunagapu Kesava Rao identified M.O.1 to 4 i.e., thefted silver items in Test Identification

Parade conducted by PW.3-Balivada Usha Rani and LW.9-Rokalla Ram

Murthy. The evidence of PW.1-Bunagapu Kesava Rao is corroborated by PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa that PW.1-

Bunagapu Kesava Rao came to the Police Station on 20.11.2021 at

CC.105/2022 ///5//

9.00 a.m., and submitted a written complaint. Basing on it, PW.4-

K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa registered a case in

Cr.No.173/2021 of Mandasa P.S. for the offences under Section 457 and 380 of I.P.C. Ex.P.6 is the First Information Report. After that, he visited the scene of offence i.e., Annapurna Saitha Kashi Visweswara

Swamy Temple at Ambugam village and observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators i.e., PW.2-Tirunagaru Savarayya and

LW.7-Gujjala Kurma Rao and drawn rough sketch of scene of offence and prapared scene observation panchanama. Ex.P.7 is the rough sketch of scene of offence. The evidence of PW.1-Bunagapu Kesava

Rao and PW.4-K.Venkatesh, S.I., of Police are corroborated by PW.2-

Tirunagaru Savarayya.

11.PW.2-Tirunagaru Savarayya deposed that on 20.11.2021 at about 8.30 a.m., while he was present along with PW.7 at Annapurna

Saitha Kashi Visweswara Swamy Temple at Ambugam village, PW.4-

K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa came to them and asked to act as mediators for the preparation of scene observation panchanama and drafting of scene of offence. PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub

Inspector of Police, Mandasa observed the scene of offence in the presence of PW.2-Tirunagaru Savarayya and LW.7-Gujjala Kurma Rao and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and drafted scene observation panchanama. Ex.P.2 is the scene observation panchanama.

12.The evidence of PW.1-Bunagapu Kesava Rao and 2 did not establish that accused is the person who entered into the sanctum of

Annapurna Saitha Kashi Visweswara Swamy Temple at Ambugam village during the intervening night of 19.11.2021/20.11.2021 by break open the lock of the doors and committed theft of CC cameras and silver ornaments of the God Shiva. The evidence of PW.1-

CC.105/2022 ///6//

Bunagapu Kesava Rao and 2 is only establishing that there was a theft committed by unknown person by break open the lock of the sanctum and took away the CC cameras and silver ornaments.

13.The remaining evidence is the evidence of PW.3-Balivada

Usha Rani and 4. PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa deposed that on 26.11.2021 at about 6.30 a.m., he received information about the accused. Immediately he secured the mediators i.e., PW.3-Balivada Usha Rani and LW.9-Rokalla Ram Murthy and went to Kothapalli Bus stop. The accused on seeing the Police at Kothapalli

Bus stop. The accused on seeing the Police at Kothapalli Bus stop tried to ran away. PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa detained the accused with the help of his staff and during the course of his interrogation by PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police,

Mandasa in the presence of mediators, the accused revealed his identity particulars and gave a statement/confession that he committed theft of silver articles in the Temple of Annapurna Saitha

Kashi Visweswara Swamy Temple at Ambugam village and now the thefted articles in his possession and hence on seeing the Police he tried to ran away. The accused further stated that he kept thefted articles under a bridge at Mahendratanaya river. The accused took

PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa and mediators to the bridge of Mahendratanaya river and produced M.O.1 to 4 from a white gunny bag. Then, PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police,

Mandasa seized M.O.1 to 4 and arrested the accused in the presence of mediators under cover of arrest and seizure panchanama. The evidence of PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa is corroborated by PW.3-Balivada Usha Rani.

14.PW.3-Balivada Usha Rani deposed that on 26.11.2021 at about 6.30 a.m., while he was present at Haripuram village, she

CC.105/2022 ///7//

received a phone call from PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police,

Mandasa that he received information about the accused who committed theft at Annapurna Saitha Kashi Visweswara Swamy

Temple at Ambugam village and asked her to come to Kothapalli Bus stop to act as mediator. After that, she went to Kothapalli Bus stop along with LW.9-Rokalla Ram Murthy and PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub

Inspector of Police, Mandasa and other constables. They found the accused and on seeing the Police was tried to ran away. Immediately, the accused caught hold the accused and brought before PW.4-

K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa. The accused during the course of interrogation of PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police,

Mandasa in the presence of PW.3-Balivada Usha Rani and LW.9-Rokalla

Ram Murthy gave a statement that he committed theft of silver ornaments at Annapurna Saitha Kashi Visweswara Swamy Temple at

Ambugam village and hided the thefted articles under bridge near

Mahendratanaya river. PW.3-Balivada Usha Rani drafted confessional statement of the accused. Ex.P.3 is the confessional statement of the accused, dated 26.11.2021. After that the accused took PW.4-

K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa, LW.3 and other constables to the bridge of Mahendratanaya river and produced M.O.1 t 4 from a gunny bag. Then PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police,

Mandasa seized M.O.1 to 4 and arrested the accused under cover of arrest and seizure panchanama. Ex.P.4 is the arrest and seizure panchanama. On the same day, at 11.00 a.m., PW.3-Balivada Usha

Rani and LW.9-Rokalla Ram Murthy conducted Test Identification parade in which PW.1-Bunagapu Kesava Rao identified M.O.1 and 4 as they are thefted silver articesl of Annapurna Saitha Kashi Visweswara

Swamy Temple at Ambugam village. Ex.P.5 is the Test Identification

Panchanama, dated 26.11.2021.

CC.105/2022 ///8//

15.The evidence of PW.3-Balivada Usha Rani and PW.4-

K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa with regard to statement/confession of accused under Ex.P.3 that the accused committed theft of M.O.1 to 4 by entering into Sanctum (Garbagudi) of

Annapurna Saitha Kashi Visweswara Swamy Temple at Ambugam village by break open the lock of the doors is not admissible in evidence. Since the statement of accused, which is made in presence of PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa though PW.3-

Balivada Usha Rani and LW.9-Rokalla Ram Murthy were present is not admissible in evidence as the same is hit by Section 25 of Indian

Evidence Act, which reads as follows.

25. Confession to police officer not to be proved . —No confession made to a police officer1, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. —No confession made to a police officer1, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

16.The remaining portion of evidence that PW.4-K.Venkatesh,

Sub Inspector of Police, Mandasa recovered M.O.1 to 4 from the possession of the accused at a bridge of Mahendratanaya river of

N.H.16 Highway in the presence of PW.3-Balivada Usha Rani and LW.9-

Rokalla Ram Murthy is admissible and the same is established that accused was in possession of thefted articles i.e., M.O.1 to 4 and the same were seized by PW.4-K.Venkatesh, Sub Inspector of Police,

Mandasa under cover of arrest and seizure panchanama i.e., Ex.P.4.

17.Under the above circumstances a presumption under Section 114 (a) of Indian Evidence Act can be drawn, which reads as follows:

Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Court may presume existence of certain facts. —The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private

CC.105/2022 ///9//

business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

Illustrations The Court may presume—

(a) That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession;

18.Further, Section 411 of I.P.C., which reads as follows:

411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property. —Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

19.So, basing on the above foregoing discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution established the guilty of accused for the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C., and the prosecution has not proved the guilty of accused for the offences under Section 457, 380 of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubts.

20.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. The accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court this the 20th day of May, 2022.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS

PALASA. FAC ADD. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SOMPETA.

Quantum of Sentence:-

When the accused is questioned regarding the quantum of sentence and anything he wish to say for which the accused submitted that he is having old mother aged about 60 years who is depending entirely on him and prayed the Court to take lenient view

CC.105/2022 ///10//

while imposing sentence. Further it is not a fit case to release the accused on admonition of probation of offenders Act, since it is alleged against the accused that he was entered into the sanctum (Grabhagudi) of Annapurna Saitha Kashi Visweswara Swamy Temple at

Ambugam village by broke open the locks.

Considering the plea of the accused and also value of recovered the stolen properties i.e., M.O.1 to 4 from the possession of accused, the following sentence may meets the ends of justice. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of for Six months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence u/sec. 411 of I.P.C.

In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and he is convicted

U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C., and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.

500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) for the offence under Section 411 of

I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The remand period is set off as per

Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code i.e., accused in judicial custody from 26.11.2021 to till to day (176 days). M.Os.1 to 4, which are given to PW.1-Bunagapu Kesava Rao-Bunagapu Kesava Rao is made absolute after appeal time is over. The accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under Sections 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court this the 20th day of May, 2022.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS

PALASA. FAC ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SOMPETA.

CC.105/2022 ///11//

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: -

PW-1Buragapu Kesava RaoNil PW-2Tirunagari Savarayya

PW-3Balivada Usha Rani PW-4K.Venkatesh, S.I., of Police

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1Report given by PW.1-Bunagapu Kesava Rao. Ex.P2Scene observation panchanama, dated 20.11.2021. Ex.P3Confessional statement of the accused, dated 26.11.2021. Ex.P4Mediators report, dated 26.11.2022. Ex.P5Test Identification Parade panchanama, dated 26.11.2021. Ex.P6First Information report in Cr.No.173/2021. Ex.P7Rough sketch of the scene of offence. For Defence: Nil

Material objects

M.O.1 : Silver plate. M.O.2 : Silver Setagopam. M.O.3 : Silver Uddarana Pancha Patra. M.O.4 : Harathi Plate.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS

PALASA. FAC ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SOMPETA.

CC.105/2022 ///12//

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SOMPETA

Present:- Sri. P.RAVI SANKAR

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Palasa (FAC) Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Sompeta.

Friday, this the 20th day of May, 2022

C.C.No.105 of 2022

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mandasa P.S.

Complainant

And :

Koribilli Madhava Rao @ Madhu, S/o late Krishna Rao, aged 32 years, Caste Palli, Jinagaveedi, Baruva village, Sompeta Mandal, Occupation: Labour works.

ACCUSED

Date of Offence :19.11.2021/20.11.2021

Date of Complaint or Report :20-11-2021

Date of Apprehension of Accused :26-11-2021

Whether the accused is in jail or bail :Accused is in judicial custody till to day.

Date of Commencement of trial :01-04-2022

Date of closing trial :29-04-2022

Date of Sentence or Order :20-05-2022

Offence under section:U/Sec.457, 380 of I.P.C.

Finding of Judge:Found Guilty for the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C., and found not guilty for the offences under Section 457, 380 of I.P.C.

Explanation for delay:There is no delay.

Sentence or order:- In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. The accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

CC.105/2022 ///13//

Quantum of Sentence:-

When the accused is questioned regarding the quantum of sentence and anything he wish to say for which the accused submitted that he is having old mother aged about 60 years who is depending entirely on him and prayed the Court to take lenient view while imposing sentence. Further it is not a fit case to release the accused on admonition of probation of offenders Act, since it is alleged against the accused that he was entered into the sanctum (Grabhagudi) of Annapurna Saitha Kashi Visweswara Swamy Temple at

Ambugam village by broke open the locks.

Considering the plea of the accused and also value of recovered the stolen properties i.e., M.O.1 to 4 from the possession of accused, the following sentence may meets the ends of justice. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of for Six months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence u/sec. 411 of I.P.C.

In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and he is convicted

U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C., and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.

500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) for the offence under Section 411 of

I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The remand period is set off as per

Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code i.e., accused in judicial custody from 26.11.2021 to till to day (176 days). M.Os.1 to 4, which are given to PW.1-Bunagapu Kesava Rao-Bunagapu Kesava Rao is made absolute after appeal time is over. The accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under Sections 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1s t CLASS

PALASA. FAC ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SOMPETA.

Copy to The Hon'ble Ist Addl. District and Sessions Judge's Court, Srikakulam.

//1//

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SOMPETA

Present:- Sri. P.RAVI SANKAR

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Palasa (FAC) Prl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Sompeta.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of August, 2022

C.C.No.137 of 2022

Between:

State Represented by the Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector of Police, Sompeta. Complainant

And :

1) Mallarapu Appanna, Son of Rajayya, aged 32 years, SC by caste, Resident of Chinnapattusali veedhi, Sompeta Mandal.

2) Shaik Najeer, Son of late Jerina Begum, aged about 38 years, BC-A, Resident of Seethamandiram street, Sompeta. Accused

This case is coming on 05.08.2022 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State; and of Sri K.Govinda Rao, Advocates for accused No.1 and 2; and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau, Sompeta fled charge sheet in CR.No.210/2020 Under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 against accused No.1 and 2.

2.The Brief facts of the prosecution case are :

On 16.06.2020 at about 5.00 a.m., PW.2-S.Dharmarao, Inspector,

S.E.B., Sompeta along with staf were conducting raids to detect the excise ofences and when they reached at Buragam village, Kanchili mandal, found two persons were coming on motor cycle, on suspicion, they stopped the motor cycle and found one polythene bag on motor cycle in between two persons. On that the accused stated that polythene bag is having I.D. liquor in it. PW.2-S.Dharmarao, Inspector, //2//

S.E.B., Sompeta deputed PW.1-J.Srinivas, S.E.B., P.C., Sompeta for securing mediators in the village, but in vain. Then, PW.2-

S.Dharmarao, Inspector, S.E.B., Sompeta questioned the accused, then they stated their names and identity particulars, then PW.2-

S.Dharmarao, Inspector, S.E.B., Sompeta verifed the bag and found 150 I.D., liquor sachets in it, each contains 100 m.l., of I.D. liquor. On verifcation of the motor cycle of the accused No.1, which is Hero

Honda Splendor plus motor cycle baring No.OR 07 N 0625, he stated

that the said vehicle was registered in his name, but he does not have the vehicle records. On interrogation, the accused stated that they purchased the I.D. liquor from an unknown person at Odisha. Then,

PW.2-S.Dharmarao, Inspector, S.E.B., Sompeta took two sample sachets as a sample from the contraband for the purpose of chemical analysis, sealed, seized the crime vehicle and afxed identifcation slips duly signed by PW.2-S.Dharmarao, Inspector, S.E.B., Sompeta and other staf under cover of occurrence report, drafted there and then basing on occurrence report and returned to station, PW.2-

S.Dharmarao, Inspector, S.E.B., Sompeta registered as a case in

CR.No.210/2020 under Section 7-A read with 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1995 and later arrested the accused and served 41-A Cr.P.C.

notice to the accused and released them on personal bail bond. During the course of investigation, PW.2-S.Dharmarao, Inspector, S.E.B.,

Sompeta sent the sample along with seized property liquor to the

Government Chemical Examiner, REL, Visakhapatnam for analysis.

After due analysis, the chemical examiner has opined that the sample sent in Cr.No.210/2020 vide CE No.2537/2020, dated 21.11.2020 that

Sl.No.21051 “Illicit Distilled Liquor with percentage of proof of

Hydrometer of alcohol is 73.0 UP”. PW.2-S.Dharmarao, Inspector,

S.E.B., Sompeta produced the property except samples along with //3// proposals before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,

Srikakulam for confscation and destruction of the contraband and issued proceedings vide R.C.No.654/2020/SEB/SKL, dated 20.10.2020 of APES/SEB/PLS and destroyed the property as per the Orders of the

Deputy Commissioner, SEB, Srikakulam. After completion of the investigation, LW.5-T.Venkatappalanaidu, Inspector of Prohibition and

Excise Police Station, Sompeta fled a charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the ofence under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995.

3. The case was taken on fle for the ofence Under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

4. On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the ofence under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 read over and explained the contents to the accused No.1 and 2 in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution cited 5 witnesses and examined LW.1 and LW.4 as PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P.6 and M.O.1 and 2. The remaining witness that is LWs 2, 3 and 5 (Sri

P.Ramu, SEB, P.C., Sompeta, Sri D.Suryarao, SEB PC., Sompeta and Sri

T.Venkatappalanaidu, Inspector, S.E.B., Sompeta) were given up by the prosecution.

6.After completion of trial, accused No.1 and 2 were examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and incriminating material were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied and reported no defence. No Exhibits were marked in“D” series.

7.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

//4//

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the charge against

the accused No.1 and 2 for the ofence under Section 7(A)

read with 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, as framed

beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:-

To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PW.1-J.Srinivas,

Prohibition and Excise Constable and PW.2-S.Dharmarao, Proh & Excise

Inspector.

9.PW.1- J.Srinivas, Prohibition and Excise Constable in his evidence deposed that on 16.06.2020 at about 5.00 a.m., he along with PW.2-S.Dharma Rao, Inspector, S.E.B., Sompeta and LW.2-P.Ramu and LW.3-D.Surya Rao, Excise Constables of Sompeta went to Buragam village of Kanchili Mandal to detect Excise ofences and conducting route watch. At that time they found the accused No.1 and 2 coming towards them on a motor bike by keeping 4 plastic bags on their bike.

They stopped them and asked about the 4 plastic bag. A.1 and A.2 stated that 4 plastic bags contains I.D. arrack sachets. After that,

PW.2 send him to Buragam village to secure mediators and accordingly he went to Buragam village and enquired for the mediators, but none were come forward. Then, he returned to the scene of ofence and informed the same to PW.2. Then, PW.2 opened the bag and found 150

I.D. arrack sachet each sachet contains 100 m.l., PW.2 drawn 8 sachets i.e., 2 sachets from each bag for chemical examination and remaining were seized under cover of occurrence report and he put his signature on occurrence report and the signature shown to him on the occurrence report is of him. Ex.P.1 is the occurrence report. After that they along with the accused No.1 and 2 and seized property came to

S.E.B., Sompeta.

10.PW.2-S.Dharma Rao, Inspector, S.E.B., Sompeta in his evidence deposed that on 16.06.2020 while he was conducting //5// patrolling along with his staf i.e., PW.1-J.Srinivas, LW.2-P.Ramu, LW.3-

D.Suryarao, Excise constables of Sompeta at Buragam railway gate and they noticed accused No.1 and 2 coming on a motor bike by holding a polythene bag on their motor bike. He stopped accused No.1 and 2 with the help of his staf and questioned them about the polythene bag on their motor bike. A.1 and A.2 replied that the polythene bag have I.D. arrack sachets and then he send PW.1 to

Buragam village to fetch mediators after 15 minites PW.1 returned back and stated to him that none were come forward to act as mediators. After that he opened the polythene bag and found 150 I.D.

arrack sachets each sachets contains 100 m.l. of I.D. arrack. Then, he seized above said I.D. arrack and motor bike under cover of occurrence report and before that he has drawn two I.D. arrack sachets from each bag for chemical analysis, he afxed the label which having the signature of accused No.1 and 2, PW.2 and his staf and then he arrested the accused No.1 and 2 stating that having possession or selling the I.D. arrack sachets is ofence. Then they brought accused No.1 and 2 along with seized I.D. arrack and motor bike to the Prohibition and Excise P.S., Sompeta. He has registered a case basing on the occurrence report in CR.No.210/2020 under Section 7(a) read with 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and submitted copies of F.I.R. to all concerned ofcers. Ex.P.2 is the F.I.R., dated 16.06.2020. He has released the accused No.1 and 2 after serving notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice and he has send samples two sachets for chemical analysis under letter of advice to the chemical examiner of Prohibition and Excise, Regional Prohibition Excise

Laboratory, Visakhapatnamk. The chemical examiner submitted his report opining that “the samples are illicity Distilled Liquor., unft for

Human consumption and injurious to health. Ex.P.3 is the letter of //6// advice. Ex.P.4 is the report of Government chemical examiner of

Prohibition and Excise, Regional Prohibition Excise Laboratory,

Visakhapatnam. He has submitted a requisition to the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam for the destruction of remaining seized I.D.

arrack. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam vide its Order, dated 23.01.2021 permitted to destruct the seized arrack. Ex.P.5 is the attested copy of the Orders of the Superintendent of Police,

Srikakulam, dated 23.01.2021 and after that he destructed the seized arrack under cover of Panchanama, dated 23.01.2021. Ex.P.6 is the attested copy of destruction panchanama and he has received two sample sachets from Prohibition Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam.

M.O.1 and 2 are arrack sample sachets. On his transfer, after completion of investigation his successor LW.5-T.Venkatappalanaidu,

Inspector of S.E.B., Sompeta fled charge sheet before the Court and he knows the signature of LW.5 and the signature shown to him on the charge sheet is the signature of LW.5-T.Venkatappalanaidu, Inspector of S.E.B.

11.PW.2-S.Dharma Rao, Inspector, S.E.B., Sompeta did not depose that he destructed the remaining I.D. arrack in the presence of mediators, except the oral evidence of PW.2 and destruction panchanama has no other evidence of independent witness about the destruction of remaining I.D. arrack seized from the possession of the accused No.1 and 2. The above act of PW.2 is create a cloud with regard to the very seizure of I.D. arrack seized from the possession of the accused. Further except the evidence Pws.1 and 2 who are ofcial of Prohibition and Excise Department, there is no other independent witnesses evidence against the accused that, PW.2 seized I.D. liquor from the possession of the accused while they were carrying. As per //7//

Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP prohibition Act 1995, which reads as follows:

7. Prohibition of selling, buying and consumption of liquor -

The selling, buying, being in possession and consumption of liquor, otherwise that in accordance with the provisions of this Court, or as the case may be, the Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act, 1968 (Act 17 of 1968) is hereby prohibited.

7A. Prohibition of Production etc., of arrack – The production, manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase, sale and transport of arrack is hereby prohibited.

8-C. Penalty for Conspiracy: When two or more persons agree-

(a) to commit any ofence punishable under this Act, or

(b) to commit breach of condition(s) of licence, permit etc., each of such person shall on convicted be liable for the punishment in the same manner as if he had abetted such ofence.

12.Further, P.Ws.1 and 2 did not follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. to seize the liquor bottles from the possession of the accused. Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:

“Before making a search under this chapter, the ofcer 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 situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or his willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue in order in writing to them or any of them so to do”.

13.The learned counsel for accused relied upon the following decisions.

 In between Pothabathula Abbulu Vs. The State of Andhra

Pradesh in Crl.Revision Case No.1758 of 2005, dated 06.07.2021 of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Amaravathi, wherein it is held at para No.6 that:

//8// “Even if local panch witnesses were not called at the time of recovery panchanama, it would not amount to non-compliance with sub-Sec.(4) or (5) of Sec.100 Cr.P.C., in view of presumption under illustration (e) of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act”.  In between Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (Andhra Pradesh), wherein it it is held para No.5 that:

5.Adverting to the same, the ofence under Section 34 of the A.P. Excise Act is made cognizable ofence and once the excise ofcials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable ofence, they become police ofcials and the excise ofcials can never say that they are not the police ofcials. When once they become police ofcials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedingsisinadmissible.Moreover,Ex.P.5 panchanama is hit by Section 25, 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The beneft if any arise due to the invalidity of the investigation only goes to the accused and once the Ex.P.5 is hit by Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a ft case where the accused be given the beneft of doubt. Both the Courts have not looked into the evidence from proper angle. The conviction and sentence awarded is, therefore, liable to be set aside due to the illegality of the proceedings drafted. Moreover, only one sample of sachet was produced before the Court and not all the sachets seized and it is for the prosecution to establish that all the samples of sachets seized contain. I.D. Liquor and it is not proved.

14.The above decision aptly applicable to the present case on hand, since the investigating ofcer has not followed procedure as laid down under Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C., at the time of seizure of arrack from the possession of accused and alleged confession of accused about possession of I.D., arrack as per the occurrence report is not admissible in evidence as per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

//9//

15.Basing on the above foregoing discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that, it is not safe to attribute the ofence against the accused as alleged by the pros ecution basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are ofcers of

Prohibition and Excise Department. Hence, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to acquittal under beneft of doubt.

16.In the result, accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the ofence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. prohibition Act 1995 and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure

Code. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 and sureties if any shall continue for a period of 6 months and shall stands canceled after 6 months, if no appeal is preferred. M.Os.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open Court, this the 10th day of August,

2022.

Sd/- Sri. P. Ravi Sankar

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1s t CLASS

PALASA. FAC PRL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SOMPETA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: -

PW-1J.Srinivas, Proh. & Excise ConstableNil PW.2S.Dharma Rao, Proh.&Excise, Inspector.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1Occurrence report. Ex.P2First Information Report, dated 16.06.2020. Ex.P3Letter of advise. Ex.P4 Report of Regional Chemical Laboratory, Visakhapatnam.

Ex.P5Attested copy of order of Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam dated 23.01.2021. Ex.P6Attested copy of destruction panchanama.

//10//

For Defence: Nil

Material objects

M.O.1 and 2: two sample liquor bottles.

Sd/- Sri. P. Ravi Sankar

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1s t CLASS

PALASA. FAC PRL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SOMPETA.

//1//

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SOMPETA

Present:- Sri. P.RAVI SANKAR

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Palasa (FAC) Prl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Sompeta.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of August, 2022

C.C.No.83 of 2022

Between: State Represented by the Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector of Police, Sompeta. Complainant

And :

1) Ponduru Papa Rao, S/o late Dharma Rao, aged 35 years, Caste Sri Saina, Resident of Telukula street, Sompeta village and mandal.

2) Gedala Madava Rao, S/o late Janiki Rao, aged 32 years, Caste Sri Saina, R/o Sri Saina street, Sompeta village and mandal. Accused

This case is coming on 05.08.2022 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State; and of Sri S.Bhaskara Rao and Sri D.Joga Rao, Advocates for accused No.1 and 2; and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau, Sompeta fled charge sheet in Crime No.178/2020 Under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 against accused No.1 and 2.

2.The Brief facts of the prosecution case are :

On 17.05.2020 at about 4.00 p.m., during the course of route watch conducted by PW.2-S.Dharmarao, Inspector, S.E.B., Sompeta along with staf PW1-J.Srinivas, Constable, S.E.B., Sompeta, LW,2 to 4 found the accused No.1 and 2 at Jalantrakota village limits of Kanchili mandal and they were coming with motor cycle having with two polythene bags, on seeing the raid party in uniform they perturbed. On suspicion, PW.2-S.Dharmarao, Inspector, S.E.B., Sompeta with the help of his staf detained them. On questioning the contents of polythene //2// bags they replied that the bags contained I.D. liquor. Then, PW.2-

S.Dharmarao, Inspector, S.E.B., Sompeta sent PW.1-J.Srinivas,

Constable, S.E.B., Sompeta for securing mediators and then PW.1-

J.Srinivas, Constable, S.E.B., Sompeta returned after some time and stated that no willing mediators are available. Thereafter, PW.2-

S.Dharmarao, Inspector, S.E.B., Sompeta verifed the two bags of the accused persons and found each bag containing 30 liters of I.D. liquors and total found 60 liters of I.D. liquors. On interrogation they stated that they purchased I.D. liquor from one unknown person in Odisha state of Gongapuram village in Hill area to sell the I.D. liquors for highest price in his village. Then, PW.2-S.Dharmarao, Inspector,

S.E.B., Sompeta took two sample bottles each bottle 180 m.l., from the above properties for the purpose of chemical analysis. The sample bottles and the bags with the remaining I.D. liquor got sealed and identifcation slips duly signed by the raid party and the accused No.1 and 2 person were afxed on them. PW.2-S.Dharmarao, Inspector,

S.E.B., Sompeta arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2 and seized the property under cover of occurrence report drafted at the scene of ofence. PW.2-S.Dharmarao, Inspector, S.E.B., Sompeta returned to

Station and he registered the case as in CR.No.178/2020 under Section 7-A read with 8(e) of A.P.P. Act, 1995 and issued a notice under

Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Further, PW.2-S.Dharmarao, Inspector, S.E.B.,

Sompeta during the course of investigation, sent the sample bottles to the Chemical Examiner, Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for analysis and the remaining property to the Superintendent of Police. PW.2-

S.Dharmarao, Inspector, S.E.B., Sompeta during the course of investigation, sent the vehicle confscation proposals to the

Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam for confscation Orders. The chemical examiner after due analysis of samples and opined in his //3// report vide C.E.No.1139/2020, dated 04.07.2020 that the samples at

S.No.8913 and 8914 I.D. liquor with 70.9 U.P. The remaining contraband destroyed in the presence of the mediators and Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Palasa (FAC) on 31.10.2020 vide Orders

Rc.No.654/2020/SEB/SKL, dated 20.1.2020 of Superintendent of Police,

Srikakulam. After completion of the investigation, PW.2- S.Dharmarao,

Inspector of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Sompeta fled a charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the ofence under

Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995.

3. The case was taken on fle for the ofence Under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

4. On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the ofence under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 read over and explained the contents to the accused No.1 and 2 in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution cited 5 witnesses and examined LW.1 and LW.5 as PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P.6 and M.O.1 and 2. The remaining witness that is LWs 2 to 4 (Smt

G.Puspavathi, Prohibition and Excise Constable, D.Marka Rao, BMPP-III,

Sompeta and D.Surya Rao, BMPP-III, Sompeta) were given up by the prosecution.

6.After completion of trial, accused No.1 and 2 were examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and incriminating material were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied and reported no defence. No Exhibits were marked in“D” series.

7.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

//4//

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the charge against

the accused No.1 and 2 for the ofence under Section 7(A)

read with 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, as framed

beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:-

To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PW.1-J.Srinivas,

Prohibition and Excise Constable and PW.2-S.Dharmarao, Proh & Excise

Inspector.

9.PW.1- J.Srinivas, Prohibition and Excise Constable in his evidence deposed that on 17.05.2020 at about 04.00 pm, he along with LW.5-G.Pushpavathi, LW.3-D.Markarao, LW.4-D.Surya Rao, Excise constables of Sompeta and PW.2-S.Dharmarao, Inspector, S.E.B.,

Sompeta went to Jalantharakota junction on NH-16 highwayto detect excise ofences. While they were conducting route watch they found the accused No.1 and 2 coming towards them on a motor bike by keeping gunny bag on their bike and then they stopped them and asked about the gunny bag. A.1 and A.2 stated that gunny bags contains I.D. arrack. After that PW.2-S.Dharma Rao, Inspector,

Prohibition and Excise send him to Jalantharakota village to secure mediators and accordingly he went to Jalantharakota village and enquired for the mediators, but none were come forward. Then, he returned to the scene of ofence and informed the same to PW.2. Then,

PW.2 opened the bag and found two polythene covers with ID arrack each. Each cover contains 30 liters of I.D. arrack. PW.2 drawn 180 m.l.

arrack in a bottle from each bag for chemical examination and remaining arrack and motor bike were seized under cover of occurrence report. He put his signature on occurrence report, the signature shown to him on the occurrence report is of him. Ex.P.1 is the occurrence report, dated 17.05.2020. After that they along with //5// the accused No.1 and 2 and seized property came to Special

Enforcement Bureau, Sompeta.

10.PW.2-S.Dharma Rao, Inspector, S.E.B., Sompeta in his evidence deposed that on 17.05.2020 at about 4.00 a.m., while he was conducting patrolling along with his staf i.e., PW.1-J.Srinivas, LW.2-

G.Pushpavathi, LW.3-D.Marka Rao, LW.4-D.Surya Rao, Excise constables of Sompeta at the Jalantharakota junction, they noticed accused No.1 and 2 coming on a motor cycle by holding a gunny bag on their motor bike. He stopped accused No.1 and 2 with help of his staf and questioned them about the bag on their motor bike. A.1 and

A.2 replied that the gunny bag have I.D. arrack, then, he sent PW.1 to

Jalantharakota junction to fetch mediators, after 15 minitues PW.1 returned back and stated to him that none were come forward to act as mediators. After that he opened the gunny bag and found two polythene covers each bag contains 30 liters of I.D. arrack. Then, he seized above said I.D. arrack and motor bike under cover of occurrence report and before that he have drawn 180 m.l. of I.D.

arrack on two 180 m.l. bottles i.e., one bottle from each bag for chemical analysis, he afxed the label which having the signatures of accused No.1 and 2 stating that having possession or selling the I.D.

arrack is ofence. Then, they brought accused along with seized I.D.

arrack and motor bike to the Prohibition and Excise P.S., Sompeta. He has registered a case basing on the occurrence report in

CR.No.178/2020 under Section 7(a) read with 8(e) of A.P.P. Act, 1995 and submitted copies of F.I.R. to all concerned ofcers. Ex.P.2 is the

F.I.R., dated 17.05.2020. He has released accused No.1 and 2 after serving notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice. He has sent sample bottles for chemical analysis under letter of advice to the chemical examiner of Prohibition and Excise, Regional Prohibition Excise //6//

Laboratory, Visakhapatnam. The chemical examiner submitted his report opining that “the samples at Sl.No.8913 and 8914 are illicitly

Distilled Liquor, unft for consumption and injuries to health. Ex.P.3 is the letter of advice. Ex.P.4 is the report of Government Chemical

Examiner of Prohibition and Excise, Regional Prohibition and Excise

Laboratory, Visakhapatnam. He has submitted a requisition to the

Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam for the destruction of remaining seized I.D. arrack. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam vide its

Order, dated 20.10.2020 permitted to destruct the seized arrack.

Ex.P.5 is the attested copy of Orders of the Superintendent of Police,

Srikakulam, dated 20.10.2020. After that he destructed the seized arrack under cover of panchanama, dated 31.10.2020. Ex.P.6 is the attested copy of destruction panchanama. He has received two sample bottles from Prohibition and Excise, Regional Prohibition Excise

Laboratory, Visakhapatnam. M.O.1 and 2 are 180 m.l. sample bottles.

After completion of investigation he fled charge sheet.

11.PW.2-S.Dharma Rao, Inspector, S.E.B., Sompeta did not depose that he destructed the remaining I.D. arrack in the presence of mediators, except the oral evidence of PW.2 and destruction panchanama has no other evidence of independent witness about the destruction of remaining I.D. arrack seized from the possession of the accused No.1 and 2. The above act of PW.2 is create a cloud with regard to the very seizure of I.D. arrack seized from the possession of the accused. Further except the evidence Pws.1 and 2 who are ofcial of Prohibition and Excise Department, there is no other independent witnesses evidence against the accused that, PW.2 seized I.D. liquor from the possession of the accused while they were carrying. As per Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP prohibition Act 1995, which reads as follows:

//7//

7. Prohibition of selling, buying and consumption of liquor -

The selling, buying, being in possession and consumption of liquor, otherwise that in accordance with the provisions of this Court, or as the case may be, the Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act, 1968 (Act 17 of 1968) is hereby prohibited.

7A. Prohibition of Production etc., of arrack – The production, manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase, sale and transport of arrack is hereby prohibited.

8-C. Penalty for Conspiracy: When two or more persons agree-

(a) to commit any ofence punishable under this Act, or

(b) to commit breach of condition(s) of licence, permit etc., each of such person shall on convicted be liable for the punishment in the same manner as if he had abetted such ofence.

12.Further, P.Ws.1 and 2 did not follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. to seize the liquor bottles from the possession of the accused. Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:

“Before making a search under this chapter, the ofcer 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 situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or his willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue in order in writing to them or any of them so to do”.

13.The learned counsel for accused relied upon the following decisions.

 In between Pothabathula Abbulu Vs. The State of Andhra

Pradesh in Crl.Revision Case No.1758 of 2005, dated 06.07.2021 of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Amaravathi, wherein it is held at para No.6 that:

“Even if local panch witnesses were not called at the time of recovery panchanama, it would not amount to non-compliance with sub-Sec.(4) or (5) of Sec.100 Cr.P.C., in view of presumption under illustration (e) of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act”.

//8//  In between Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (Andhra Pradesh), wherein it it is held para No.5 that:

5.Adverting to the same, the ofence under Section 34 of the A.P. Excise Act is made cognizable ofence and once the excise ofcials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable ofence, they become police ofcials and the excise ofcials can never say that they are not the police ofcials. When once they become police ofcials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedingsisinadmissible.Moreover,Ex.P.5 panchanama is hit by Section 25, 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The beneft if any arise due to the invalidity of the investigation only goes to the accused and once the Ex.P.5 is hit by Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a ft case where the accused be given the beneft of doubt. Both the Courts have not looked into the evidence from proper angle. The conviction and sentence awarded is, therefore, liable to be set aside due to the illegality of the proceedings drafted. Moreover, only one sample of sachet was produced before the Court and not all the sachets seized and it is for the prosecution to establish that all the samples of sachets seized contain. I.D. Liquor and it is not proved.

14.The above decision aptly applicable to the present case on hand, since the investigating ofcer has not followed procedure as laid down under Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C., at the time of seizure of arrack from the possession of accused and alleged confession of accused about possession of I.D., arrack as per the occurrence report is not admissible in evidence as per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

15.Basing on the above foregoing discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that, it is not safe to attribute the ofence against the accused as alleged by the pros ecution basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are ofcers of //9//

Prohibition and Excise Department. Hence, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to acquittal under beneft of doubt.

16.In the result, accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the ofence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. prohibition Act 1995 and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure

Code. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 and sureties if any shall continue for a period of 6 months and shall stands canceled after 6 months, if no appeal is preferred. M.Os.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open Court, this the 10th day of August,

2022.

Sd/- Sri. P. Ravi Sankar

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1s t CLASS

PALASA. FAC PRL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SOMPETA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: -

PW-1J.Srinivas, Proh. & Excise ConstableNil PW.2S.Dharma Rao, Proh.&Excise, Inspector.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1Occurrence report 17.05.2020. Ex.P2First Information Report, dated 17.05.2020. Ex.P3Letter of advise. Ex.P4 Report of Regional Chemical Laboratory, Visakhapatnam. Ex.P5Attested copy of order of Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam dated 20.10.2020. Ex.P6Attested copy of destruction panchanama. For Defence: Nil

Material objects

M.O.1 and 2: two sample liquor bottles.

Sd/- Sri. P. Ravi Sankar

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1s t CLASS

PALASA. FAC PRL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SOMPETA.

O.S.No.78 of 2017

Dt.04.07.2022

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SOMPETA

Present:- Sri. P.RAVI SANKAR

Junior Civil Judge, Palasa (FAC) Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta.

Monday, this the 4th day of July, 2022

O.S.No.78 of 2017

Between:

Pondara Ram Prasad, S/o Bheemayya, aged 45 years, Coolie Door No.1-1, resident of B.C.Colony, Baruva village, Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. Plaintiff..

And :

1. Perumalla Varabhusana Rao, S/o Narayana, aged 55 years, Cultivation, Door No.6-0, R/o B.C. colony, Baruva village, Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District.

2. Perumalla Kesava Rao, S/o Narayana, aged 50 years, Door No.3-5, Employee, Rest -do-., Defendants.

This suit is coming on 13-05-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Jagannayikulu and Smt S.Asha Jyothi, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri G.Sailendra, Advocate for Defendants No.1 and 2, upon hearing on both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their agents, associates, relatives and friends from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief runs as follows.

The plaintiff submits that the plaint schedule property is belongs to him and the land to an extent of Ac.2.00 Cents in Survey No.255/4P of Baruva village acquired by the Government of Andhra Pradesh from Veerapu Venkata Rao of

Baruva village in the year 2002 to distribute the site for weaker sections who are the house less poor. The Government issued patta in the name of plaintiff’s wife

O.S.No.78 of 2017

Dt.04.07.2022

Pondara Lilly recognizing that she was a house less poor under bearing Patta

No.HSR No.39/03 for an extent of Ac.0.03½ Cents, dated 29.09.2003. The

Government delivered the above said Ac.0.03½ Cents site to the wife of the plaintiff after demarcating the same. At present the wife of the plaintiff whereabouts not known and the plaintiff filed the present suit as he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff having obtained the possession over the site and have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property ever since the date of patta granted. After that the plaintiff constructed a goat shed in the plaint schedule property and keeping goats in the said shed since 2003. The original patta issued in the name of wife of plaintiff was misplaced. The defendants are lawless people, capable of translating their threats into action. The defendants who are aware that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, but they have been proclaiming that they would tried to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment knowingfully well that their threatened action is illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction. The defendants with a dishonest intention to have a wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the plaintiff are trying to interfere with the right of the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is not in possession to resist the brutal force of the defendants. The plaintiff is a poor and village man and not capable to resist the mighty of the defendants. Unless the defendants are restrained by way of permanent injunction from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff shall sustain great and irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated in any form.

Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand, the Defendant No.1 filed his written statement and 2nd defendant adopted the same. The Defendant No.1 in the written statement,

O.S.No.78 of 2017

Dt.04.07.2022 denied all the allegations of the plaintiff made in the plaint and the averments of the written statement runs as follows:

3(a). A house site patta was given to one Pondara Lilly to the site to an extent of Ac.0.01 Cent in Survey No.255/4P along with others. The plaintiff falsely stated in his plaint that a patta was issued for Ac.0.03 ½ Cents in the name of

Pondara Lilly and constructed a house therein. At present the plaint schedule property is a vacant site, either the plaintiff or his wife constructed any goat shed in it. The 1st defendant submits that he got appointed as a Deputy Tahsildar in the year 1995 and promoted to Tahsildar in the year 2004 and now he is working as

Deputy Collector since 2014 at Guntur. The 1st defendant succeeded the dry land to an extent of Ac.1.48 Cents in Survey No.255/1 of Baruva village. The

Government authorities in due recognize of the right and title of the 1st defendant mutated his name in the revenue records. The land of the 1st defendant is situated towards North of the land in Survey No.255/4P. In view of his employment, the 1st defendant used to go away from his native village Baruva and the 2nd defendant who is his brother used to look after the said land. The plaintiff developed to get evil idea to grab the land of the 1st defendant in Survey No.255/1 filed the present suit with false and frivolous allegation. There is no iota of truth in the allegations of the plaintiff that a patta was granted to his wife over the plaint schedule property. There is no land as described in the patta filed by the plaintiff or as stated in the suit schedule on ground. The plaintiff invented a theory of granting patta of Ac.0.03 ½ Cents and constructed a goat shed only to file the present suit. The plaintiff made a false claim before the Court and he neither title nor possession over the alleged plaint schedule property. The suit is engineered to grab the property of the 1st defendant situated in Survey No.255/1. The 1st defendant is a Government employee and the 2nd defendant being a respectable person and the alleged statement of the plaintiff that the defendants are lawless persons is highly derogatory and diminished the respect of the defendants in the

O.S.No.78 of 2017

Dt.04.07.2022 society. The plaintiff suppressed the true facts and filed the present suit with false allegations. The suit for injunction is not maintainable under law as the plaintiff has neither title nor possession at any time. Therefore, prays the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings of the plaintiff and written statement of the defendants, the following issues are settled for trial.

1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

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

3) To what relief?

5.To prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW.1 and also examined his villagers by name Pondara Hemaraju and Samala

Suruyanarayana as PW.2 and PW.3 and no documents got on his behalf.

6. To prove the case of the defendants, the second defendant himself examined as DW.1 and 1st defendant himself examined as DW.2 and got marked

Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4 on their behalf.

7.Heard arguments on both sides. For the sake of convenience, Issues

No.1 and 2 are answered together.

8. ISSUES NO.1 AND 2:

1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

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

To prove the case of the plaintiff, himself examined as PW.1 and got examined PW.2- Pondara Hemaraju and PW.3-Samala Suruyanarayana. PW.1 in his chief affidavit reiterated the averments of the plaint as it is and submits that the Government acquired land to an extent of Ac.2.00 Cents in Survey No.255/4P of Baruva village from Veerapu Venkata Rao in the year 2002 to issue house sites to the poor and house less persons. Accordingly, a patta was issued in the name

O.S.No.78 of 2017

Dt.04.07.2022 of the wife of the plaintiff by name Pondara Lilly under H.S.R.No.39/3 to an extent of Ac.0.03½ Cents in Survey No.255/4P, dated 29.09.2003 and delivered the possession of the same. Subsequently, the plaintiff constructed a goat shed on the site granted to his wife under a patta. Now, the wife of the plaintiff is whereabouts not known and hence the plaintiff filed the present suit as he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants who are lawless persons and capable of translate their threats into action, proclaiming that they are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The defendants are aware that the Government issued a patta in the name of the plaintiff’s wife over the plaint schedule property, which is an extent of Ac.0.03½ Cents. The plaintiff is a poor persons and not in a position to resist the threats and might of the defendants except with the assistance of the

Court by way of permanent injunction.

9.PW.2 and PW.3 i.e., Pondara Hemaraju and Samala Suruyanarayana in their chief affidavits filed in lieu of the chief examination submits that they know the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaint schedule property is the property of the wife of the plaintiff as Government issued a patta in her name after acquiring the land to an extent of Ac.2.00 Cents from Veerapu Venkata Rao of Baruva village.

The plaintiff and his wife have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff constructed a goat shed in the plaint schedule property and keeping his goats. The plaintiff is an innocent, the wife and children of the plaintiff left him alone and now whereabouts not known. PW.1 in his cross examination stated that his wife and three daughters and son deserted him about four years back and whereabouts not known. The land of the defendant is situated towards North of the plaint schedule property. Defendant No.1 is working as

Revenue Divisional Officer and Defendant No.2 is cultivating the lands,

Defendants No.1 and 2 have properties in Baruva. PW.2 in his cross examination stated that the wife of the plaintiff by name Pondara Lilly is residing at Hyderabad

O.S.No.78 of 2017

Dt.04.07.2022 along with her four children. PW.2 in his cross examination stated that he has seen the patta of PW.1 in which Ac.0.03 of land allotted.

10.On the other hand, to prove the written statement allegations, DW.1 and DW.2 examined by filing their chief affidavits in lieu of their chief examination as DW.1 and 2. DW.1 and 2 in their chief examination affidavits reiterated the averments of the written statement of the 1st defendant. DW.1 and 2 deposed that the 1st defendant have land to an extent of Ac.1.48 cents in Survey No.255/1 of

Baruva village, which is existing towards North of the plaint schedule property.

The Government authorities in due recognization of the possession of the 1st defendant mutated his name in the revenue records. The 1st defendant in view of his employment used to stay away from Baruva and now the plaintiff developed an evil idea to grab the land of the 1st defendant in Survey No.255/1 and filed the present suit with false and frivolous allegations. There is no iota of truth in the allegations of the plaintiff that a patta was granted in the name of the plaintiff’s wife over the plaint schedule property. The Government never issued patta in the name of the wife of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The

Government never issued patta in the name of the wife of the plaintiff to an extent of Ac.0.03½ Cents in Survey No.255/4P. The 1st defendant filed Ex.B.1 to

Ex.B.4 which are as follows. As per Ex.B.1, the Government issued patta in the name of Pondara Lilly i.e., the wife of the plaintiff to an extent of Ac.0.01 Cent in

Survey No.255/4P of Baruva village. Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.4 shows that the 1st defendant have land to an extent of Ac.1.48 Cents in Survey No.255/1. The learned counsel for plaintiff in the cross examination of DW.1 and 2 did not elicit any evidence to discard their evidence in toto.

11.Considering the evidence of PW.1 to 3, the evidence of DW.1 and 2 coupled with documents under Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4, it is clearly establishing that the plaintiff filed the present suit alleging that the Government issued patta in the year 2003 in the name of the plaintiff’s wife and since then he is in possession

O.S.No.78 of 2017

Dt.04.07.2022 and enjoyment of the same. Now the defendants who are lawless persons proclaiming and threatening that they will occupy the plaint schedule property and the 1st defendant having land towards North of the plaint schedule property.

The wife of the plaintiff now whereabouts not known and she deserted the plaintiff and went away along with her four children. The plaintiff except his oral evidence and oral evidence of PW.2 and 3 did not file any documents i.e., alleged patta issued in the name of his wife over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff did not made any efforts to examine the revenue authorities and sent for the documents from their office to establish that Government issued a patta to the site to an extent of Ac.0.03½ Cents in Survey No.255/4P in the name of his wife.

PW.2 in his cross examination stated that the wife of the plaintiff along with her four children now residing at Hyderabad. Under the above circumstance the plaintiff has no local-standi to file the present suit as he pleaded that the patta was issued in the name of his wife. As per law, wife and husband are not one person and they are different persons. On the other hand, the defendants proved by examining themselves as DW.1 and 2 by filing documents under Ex.B.1 that the Government issued a patta in the name of Pondara Lilly i.e., the wife of the plaintiff to the site to an extent of Ac.0.01 Cent in Survey No.255/4P.

12.Basing on the above foregoing discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his primafacie possession over the plaint schedule property and further he has no local standi to file the present suit as his wife Pondara Lilly is now alive and residing at Hyderabad and she is a patta holder as per the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has no balance of convenience in his favour and if the injunction is not granted he will not suffer any irreparable loss and injury. Accordingly, Issues No.1 and 2 are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants by holding that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit

O.S.No.78 of 2017

Dt.04.07.2022 and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to grant the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for.

13. ISSUE NO.3 To what relief?

In view of the answers given in Issues No.1 and 2 as against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants No.1 and 2, this Court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to grant the relief as prayed for in the plaint.

In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court this the 4th day of July, 2022.

Junior Civil Judge, Palasa FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW.1 :Pondara Ram PrasadDW.1Perumalla Kesava Rao

PW.2 :Pondara HemarajuDW.2Perumalla Varabhusana Rao

PW.3 :Samala Suryanarayana

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

- No documents are marked on behalf of the plaintiff -

For Defendants:

Ex.B.1:Copy of Patta issue register maintained by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sompeta to show that the patta was granted only for Ac.0.01 Cents to Pondara Lilly, dated 20.11.2007.

Ex.B.2:FMB for the field cover by Survey No.255 of Baruva, dated 23.11.2007 obtained from Meeseva.

Ex.B.3:1-B register for Survey No.255/1 to show that the land is the name of the Defendant No.1, dated 23.11.2007 obtained from Meeseva.

Ex.B.4:Adangal for the S.No.255/1 to show that the land is in the name of the defendant No.1, dated 23.11.2017 obtained from Meeseva.

Junior Civil Judge, Palasa FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta.

O.S.No.78 of 2017

Dt.04.07.2022