P.sai Sudha

1 of 17 OS.No.15 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NIZAMABAD.

Present: P.Sai Sudha, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

Thursday, this the 16th day of April, 2026.

O.S. No. 15 of 2025

(Old OS No. 83 of 2017 on the file of Prl.JCJ Court, Nizamabad)

Between:

Smt. Padigela Padma, W/o Padigala Venkat Reddy, D/o Myaka Narayana and Myaka Anandamma, aged 38 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No: 1-73, Kaloor Village of Nizamabad Mandal and district. ...Plaintiff AND

1. Myaka Narayana, S/o Late Gangaram, Aged 62 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No:5-78, Singampally, Badsi village of Mopal Mandal of Nizamabad district.

2. Myaka Anandamma, W/o Myaka Narayana, Aged 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No:5-78, Singampally, Badsi village of Kanzar Mandal of Nizamabad district.

3. Myaka Praveen, S/o Myaka Narayana, Aged 35 years, Occ: Private service, R/o H.No:5-78, Singampally, Badsi village of Mopal Mandal of Nizamabad district.

4. Myaka Naveen, S/o Myaka Narayana, Aged 32 years, Occ: Private service, R/o H.No:5-78, Singampally, Badsi village of Mopal Mandal of Nizamabad district.

5. Myaka Pradeep, S/o Myaka Narayana, Aged 30 years, Occ: Private service, R/o H.No:5-78, Singampally, Badsi village of Mopal Mandal of Nizamabad district.

...Defendants

This suit has come up before me on 31.03.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri Sher Subhash, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.A.Ravinder, Advocate for Defendants and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 2 of 17 OS.No.15 of 2025

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking for preliminary decree of partition of suit schedule A and B properties by metes and bounds and for allotment of 1/5th share to her; for costs of the suit and for other reliefs.

2. The facts as mentioned in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:- 2.1.The defendants no.1 and 2 are parents of the plaintiff. The defendants no. 3 to 5 are her brothers. The marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized as per Hindu customs and rites prevalent in their community in the year 1995. At the time of her marriage, the plaintiff was not given any dowry and also any immovable property.

At the time of her marriage, the plaintiff was promised that she will be given property at the time of partition of joint family property as allotment of share to her at that time would hinder the career development and education of her younger brothers.

2.2. The plaintiff and her husband financially and socially supported the defendants to settle in their life. When defendant no.1 was indebted to villagers and failed to repay the debt, the husband of the plaintiff gave loan to defendant no. 1 in order to enable him to go to abroad in the year 2002 and for that the defendant no.1 alienated land in survey no. 422/A to an extent of Ac.0-27 guntas, in survey no.

3 of 17 OS.No.15 of 2025 422/AA to an extent of Ac.0-27 guntas, in survey no.422/E to an extent of Ac.0-26 guntas, i.e., total extent of Ac.2-00 at Kanjar Shivar. As passbooks were not available, gift deed vide document no. 653 of 2011 was registered in the name of the plaintiff in the year 2011 to avoid stamp duty.

2.3. The family of the plaintiff and defendants are having ancestral properties which are joint family properties. The said properties are consisting of agricultural lands comprised in Sy. no. 419/A to an extent of Ac.0-26 guntas, Sy. no. 419/AA to an extent of Ac.0-26 guntas, Sy.no.419/E to an extent of Ac.0-09 guntas,

Sy.no.419/EE to an extent of Ac.0-09 guntas, Sy.no.422/A to an extent of Ac.0-05 guntas, Sy.no.422/AA to an extent of Ac.0-05 guntas, Sy.no.422/E to an extent of

Ac.0-06 guntas, Sy. no. 423/A/P1 to an extent of Ac.0-15 guntas, Sy.no. 287/P1 to an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas, total Ac. 4-01 guntas situated at Kanzar village Shivar of Mopal Mandal, Nizamabad district and agricultural land comprised in Sy. no.418 to an extent of Ac.0-03 guntas, Sy. no. 416/U to an extent of Ac.0-12 1/4 guntas, survey no. 415/AA to an extent of Ac. 0-07 1/4 guntas, survey no.415/A to an extent of Ac.0-08 1/4 guntas, i.e., total Ac. 0-30 3/4 guntas at Kanzar village shivar of Mopal Mandal, Nizamabad district in the name of defendant no. 2. The landed properties in the name of defendant no.2 are purchased with the profits of existing properties in the name of defendant no. 1 for convenient purpose. The above properties are herein after described as suit schedule A and B properties.

4 of 17 OS.No.15 of 2025 2.4. The suit schedule A and B properties are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants. Out of total 5 shares, the plaintiff is entitled for one-fifth share as legal heir of Hindu joint family by virtue of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act.

2.5.Recently, the plaintiff has demanded for partition of the suit lands and allotment of her one-fifth share in the suit schedule properties for which defendants no.1 to 5 promised to give her at the time of her marriage. Thereafter, again on 26.02.2017, the plaintiff has called for a meeting and demanded the defendants to partition the suit schedule A and B properties. The plaintiff has learnt that defendants no.1 and 2 are trying to alienate the suit schedule properties without her consent. Having no other alternative, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the relief of partition of suit schedule properties and for allotment of her one-fifth share.

3.Written statement filed by defendants in common by traversing allegations in the plaint and interalia contending as follows:- 3.1.The relationship among the plaintiff and defendants is admitted. It is also admitted that the marriage of the plaintiff was performed in the year 1995. At the time of plaintiff's marriage, the defendants no.1 and 2 gave Rs. 1,80,000/- towards dowry besides presenting Rs. 5,00,000/-, one motorcycle and household articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/-. The defendants no.1 and 2 also presented Rs. 2,00,000/- to 5 of 17 OS.No.15 of 2025 the elder son of plaintiff and Rs. 2,00,000/- to the younger son of plaintiff at the time of their cradle ceremony. Further, the defendants no. 1 and 2 also provided treatment to the plaintiff during her pregnancy and they have borne out the expenditure incurred for her two deliveries and duly performed all formalities as per their customs and traditions.

3.2. The defendants no.1 and 2 are having agricultural lands and other properties in Kanzara village Shivar. The defendant no. 1 went to Gulf country for better education and better life of his children and he earned money there. The defendant no. 1 purchased agricultural properties and gave dowry, ornaments, articles to the plaintiff. The defendants no.1 and 2 brought up the plaintiff and defendants no. 3 to 5 and gave them a better life and decent career.

3.3.The husband of the plaintiff misguided the defendant no.1 and got executed a

Gift (settlement) deed vide document no. 653 of 2011 in favour of the plaintiff fraudulently. After coming to know the real facts, the defendant no.1 represented to concerned revenue authorities about fraudulent execution of the said deed and raised an objection for mutation of said land in plaintiff's favour. Then the defendant no. 1 filed the suit before the court against the plaintiff for cancellation of the Gift (settlement) deed and also filed an appeal before Revenue Division 6 of 17 OS.No.15 of 2025

Officer, Nizamabad by raising objection for mutation of the land and those cases are pending.

3.4. The defendant no. 1 is in possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.0-27 guntas in survey no. 422/A, an extent of Ac.0-27 guntas in survey no.422/AA, an extent of Ac.0-26 guntas in survey no. 422/E that is total Ac.2-00 gts at Kanzar shivar. The plaintiff has no right over the said land. The defendant no.

1 had purchased the suit schedule A and B properties with his own earnings from one Chakala Sayanna, Mopala Rajanna, Sirnapalli Linganna and others and got the land mutated in the name of defendant no. 2 in the year 1998-99 through ROR order no.A5/33986/98.

3.5.Further, the defendant no. 1 also purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0-09 guntas in survey no.419/E from Myaka Gangaram through registered sale deed,

dated 06.02.1986 and got the land mutated in his name in the year 1987 in revenue

records. The land to an extent ofAc.0-09 guntas in survey no. 419/U was purchased by defendant no.1 from Myaka Gangaya through registered sale deed, vide document no. 882 of 1986 dated 06.02.1986 and got his name mutated in revenue records in the year 1987. The defendant no.1 also purchased the land to an extent of

Ac.2-10 guntas in survey no. 422/A, 419/AA, 422/E from Myaka Gangaram through registered sale deed vide document no. 884 of 1986 dated 02.06.1986 and 7 of 17 OS.No.15 of 2025 got his name mutated in 1987 in revenue records. The defendant no. 1 purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0-15 guntas in survey no. 423/AA at Kanjara Shivar from one Khanapuram Gangaram through registered sale deed vide document no.2372 of 1986 dated 11-4-1986 and got his name mutated in the year 1987 in revenue records. Therefore, the suit schedule A and B properties are not ancestral properties, but they are self-acquired properties of defendant no. 1. As such the question of partition of suit schedule A and B properties and allotment of a share to the plaintiff does not arise.

3.6.The plaintiff has filed the present suit to extort money from the defendants and to grab the suit schedule properties. While working at Dubai, the defendant no.

3 has sent an amount of Rs.5,55,000/- to the husband of the plaintiff for his legal necessities. The defendant no. 3 has also sent household articles, furniture, TV,

DVD, home theater and other luxury items and also two tulas of gold to the plaintiff which worth a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The plaintiff's husband demanded additional dowry from defendants no. 1 and 2 and they have paid

Rs.6,00,000/- to him. The defendant no. 1 has also given three buffaloes worth of

Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff as per her husband's demand. The plaintiff, her husband and another person by name N. Rami Reddy called the defendant no. 3 and forcibly they have obtained the signature of defendant no.3 on two non-judicial stamp papers and then the plaintiff's husband filed a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.

8 of 17 OS.No.15 of 2025 8,54,329/- before the Honorable Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nizamabad by creating bonds.

3.7. The defendant no. 3 filed a private complaint before II Addl.JFCM,

Nizamabad against the plaintiff and her husband/Venkat Reddy and one N. Rami

Reddy regarding their illegal acts. The said complaint was referred by the court to the Rural police station, Nizamabad and they have registered a case against the plaintiff, her husband and one N. Rami Reddy for offences under sections 290, 323, 447, 448, 420 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC in crime no.323 of 2015 dated 3-8-2015. The plaintiff and her husband are wantonly harassing the defendants and blackmailing for grabbing the property. The suit is filed on false and created grounds and there are no merits in the case. Hence, in the above circumstances, the court may be pleased to dismiss the suit in the interest of justice and equity.

3.8. Memo filed by defendants no.2 to 5 adopting the written statement filed by defendant no. 1.

4. After perusing pleadings and documents on record, the following issues were settled for trial:-

(i) Whether suit schedule A and B properties are joint family properties or self-acquired properties of defendants no. 1 and 2?

9 of 17 OS.No.15 of 2025

(ii). Whether suit schedule A and B properties are liable for partition?

(iii).Whether the plaintiff is in joint possession of suit properties or not?

(iv).Whether court fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient or not?

(v).Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of suit properties as prayed for?

(vi).To what relief?

5.In the trial afforded to both parties, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 besides examining her husband as PW.2 and got marked Exs. A1 to A7. On behalf of defendants, no kind of evidence was adduced.

6.Heard. Perused entire record.

7.It is the contention of the plaintiff that the suit schedule A and B properties are joint family properties and that she is having a share in those properties. It is her further contention that at the time of her marriage, her parents have promised to give her share in the properties later, but when she demanded for her share, they refused to allot her legitimate share and hence she filed the present suit.

8.As against the above contentions, it is the contention of defendants that suit schedule A and B properties are self-acquired properties of defendant no.1 which 10 of 17 OS.No.15 of 2025 were purchased with his own hard earnings that is with the amount earned by him by working at Dubai. It is further contention of the defendants that at the time of marriage of the plaintiff, she was given dowry and whenever the husband of the plaintiff demanded money, he was given amount by them. It is also further contention of the defendants that as suit schedule A and B properties are self- acquired properties of defendant no.1, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of partition.

9.In order to prove her pleaded case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 by translating her pleading into acceptable direct evidence. She reiterated the contents of the plaint in her affidavit filed in lieu of her examination in chief. Hence, the facts are not restated to avoid repeatition of facts. In support of her contention that suit schedule A and B properties are in the name of her parents, that is defendants no. 1 and 2, she has exhibited Exs. A1 to A6/pahanies for the years 2016-17, 2013- 14, 2000-01, 1990-91, 1980-81 and 2010-11 respectively. Ex. A7 is Certified copy of market valuation certificate pertaining to suit schedule A and B properties.

10. In her cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that her marriage was performed by her paternal grandfather. When suggestions were put to her with regard to dowry and other articles presented at the time of her marriage as referred to by defendant no.1 in his written statement, PW.1 has denied those suggestions.

11 of 17 OS.No.15 of 2025

11. With regard to employment of defendant no.1 at abroad, PW.1 admitted that defendant no. 1 went to Dubai and stayed there for about 20 years and he used to visit their village now and then. PW.1 denied the suggestion that defendant no. 1 earned good money in Dubai and purchased agricultural properties besides incurring educational expenses of defendants no. 3 to 5. She also denied the suggestion that she got executed Gift settlement deed bearing no. 653/2011 in her favour under coercion. She admitted that defendant no. 1 has filed an application in the year 2016 before the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking to cancel the said gift deed. She also stated that the present suit is filed after defendant no. 1 filed the application before the Revenue Divisional Officer.

12.With regard to nature of suit schedule properties, PW.1 deposed that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and though those properties were owned and possessed by her grandfather, those properties stood in the name of defendant no.1. Having said thus, PW.1 admitted that defendant no. 1 purchased the land in Survey nos. 415/A, 415/AA, 416/EE, 416/U, 418 and 423 admeasuring

Ac.1-14 guntas from one Chakali Sayanna, one Mopal Rajanna, one Sirnapalli

Linganna and others. She also admitted that defendant no. 1 purchased the land in survey no. 419/E admeasuring Ac.0-09 guntas from one Myaka Gangaram. She also admitted that defendant no. 1 purchased Ac.0-09 guntas in survey no. 419/U from Myakala Gangaiah through a registered sale deed and also further admitted 12 of 17 OS.No.15 of 2025 that defendant no. 1 purchased a total extent of Ac 2-10 guntas in Sy. Nos. 422/A, 419/AA, 422/E from Myakala Gangaram. She further admitted that defendant no. 1 purchased 15 guntas of land in Sy. no. 423/AA from Khanapuram Gangaram through a registered document and also purchased the land in Sy. nos. 419/A, 419/AA and 287/P1 in suit schedule A and B properties were also purchased by her father defendant no. 1.

13.PW.1 denied the further suggestions that defendant no. 1 had sent an amount of Rs.5,55,000/- to her husband, sent household articles, furniture, TV, DVD and other luxury items besides giving two tulas of gold to her. She admitted that defendant no. 1 has lodged a complaint before the court and a case in crime no. 323 of 2015, dated 03-08-2015 was registered against her husband and her.

14. In support of her case, the plaintiff has examined her husband/Venkat Reddy as

PW.2. In his chief affidavit, PW.2 supported the contentions of the plaintiff in material lines. In his cross examination, PW.2 denied the suggestion that he was given 2 acres of land which is in the form of a gift to PW.1 through registered gift deed bearing document no. 653 of 2011 through fraudulent means. He stated that he does not know about ownership details of suit schedule property prior to his marriage with PW.1. He denied all the formal suggestions put to him.

13 of 17 OS.No.15 of 2025

15.On behalf of defendants, no kind of oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

16. Issues no.(i) and (iii):

As issues no. (i)and (ii)are inter-related, they are being dealt with together.

It is the contention of the plaintiff that suit schedule A and B properties are joint family properties and that she is in joint possession of suit schedule A and B properties along with defendants and when she asked for her share, the defendants refused to allot her a share in the suit property and hence she filed the present suit seeking the relief of partition.

17.As the plaintiff has filed the suit contending that suit properties are joint family properties and that herself and defendants are in joint possession, it is for the plaintiff to establish her contention. When the suit schedule properties are carefully observed, the plaintiff has shown the agricultural lands in suit schedule A and B properties which are situated in different survey numbers.

18.With regard to acquisition of suit schedule A and B properties, the plaintiff as PW.1 has admitted in her cross-examination that defendant no. 1 purchased those properties from various persons.

14 of 17 OS.No.15 of 2025

19.When Ex. A5/Pahani for the year 1980-81 is scrutinized, it is apparent that the name of Myaka Gangaram is shown as possessor in respect of the land in Sy.

no. 287, the name of Chakali Sayalu is recorded in respect of the land in Sy.no.

415/A, 415/AA, the name of Rajanna is recorded in respect of the land in Sy.nos.

416/E and 416/U, the name of Sirnapalli Linganna is recorded in respect of the land in Sy.nos. 418, the name of Rajanna is recorded in respect of the land in Sy.nos.

416/E and 416/U, the name of Myaka Gangaram is recorded in respect of the land in Sy.nos. 419/AA, 422/A.

20.On a careful scrutiny of Exs. A1 to A4 and A6/pahanies, it is discernible that the names of defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 were recorded as pattadars and possessors of the lands shown in suit schedule A and B properties.

21.In her cross-examination, PW.1 has admitted entire suggestions put to her that the defendant no.1 purchased the suit schedule A and B properties from various persons in the year 1986. Admissions are best form of evidence. The own admissions of PW.1 clearly establishes the case of the defendants that the suit schedule A and B properties are self acquired properties of defendant no.1.

Moreover, PW.1 has also admitted that her father/defendant no.1 went to abroad and worked there for 20 years. This also strengthens the case of the defendants that the defendant no.1 purchased the suit properties with his own earnings. There is no 15 of 17 OS.No.15 of 2025 evidence adduced by the plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule A and B properties are purchased by the defendant no.1 with the sale proceeds of ancestral properties. Furthermore, the evidence of PW.1 that she has filed the present suit after her father filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer to cancel the gift deed in the year 2016 shows that the plaintiff has filed the present suit only in order to make her father to come to terms with her. The entries in pahanies under

Exs. A1 to A4 and A6 clearly reveal that defendants no.1 and 2 are in the possession of suit schedule A and B properties and that the plaintiff is not in possession of those lands. Hence, on a careful consideration of evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff, this court holds that the plaintiff failed to establish that the suit schedule A and B properties are joint family properties and the admissions made by the plaintiff as PW.1 in her cross-examination establishes the case of the defendants that the suit Schedule A and B properties are self acquired properties of the defendant no.1. So also, this court holds that the plaintiff failed to establish that she is in joint possession of suit schedule A and B properties. Accordingly, issues no. (i) and (iii) are answered.

22.Issues no. (ii) and (v) :

In view of above discussion and finding given on issues no. (i) and (iii), this court holds that as suit schedule A and B properties are self-acquired properties of defendant no.1, they are not liable for partition and therefore, the plaintiff is not 16 of 17 OS.No.15 of 2025 entitled for partition of suit schedule properties as prayed for. Accordingly, issues no. (ii) and (v) are answered against the plaintiff.

23.Issue no. (iv) :

In view of above discussion on the issues pertaining to joint possession over the suit schedule A and B properties, that is to say, as the plaintiff failed to establish that she is in joint possession of suit schedule A and B properties along with the defendants, this court holds that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not sufficient.

The plaintiff is liable to pay the court fee as provided under Section 34 (1) of

Telangana Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the plaintiff.

24.Issue no. (vi) :

In view of above discussion and findings given on above issues, this court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the plaintiff.

25.I n the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed directly to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad.

17 of 17 OS.No.15 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendants

PW.1: Padigela PadmaNone

PW.2:Padigela Venkat Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff

Ex.A1: Pahani Pathrika for year 2016-17 of suit schedule A and B (2 sheets).

Ex.A2: Pahani Pathrika for year 2013-14 of suit schedule A and B (5 sheets).

Ex.A3: Pahani Pathrika for year 2000-01 of suit schedule A and B (5 sheets).

Ex.A4: Pahani Pathrika for year 1990-91 of suit schedule A and B (5 sheets).

Ex.A5: Pahani Pathrika for year 1980-81 of suit schedule A and B (6 sheets).

Ex.A6: Pahani Pathrika for year 2010-11 of suit schedule A and B (5 sheets).

Ex.A7: CC of Market Value Certificate of suit schedule property A & B dt: 07.03.2017 (4 sheets).

For Defendants

NIL

Sd/-

Prl. Senior Civil Judge Nizamabad.

1 of 15SC. No. 121 of 2024, Addl. ASJ, NZB

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

NIZAMABAD

Present: P. SAI SUDHA, Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 17th day of February, 2026.

Sessions Case No. 121 of 2024

(PRC.No.29 of 2024 on the file of III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad, in Cr.No.230/2023 of PS Town-III, Nizamabad)

Name of complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Town-III, Nizamabad.

Name of Accused :Eligeti Yadagiri S/o Hanmandlu, Aged about 37 yrs, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o Near Bhulakshmamma Temple, near Bondalagadda Kanteshwar, Nizamabad.

Date, time and place of :On 28.08.2023 at 00:00 at Kanteshwar, occurrenceNizamabad.

Charge:Under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 498-A and 306 of IPC. Hence, the accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C for said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged after lapse of six 2 of 15SC. No. 121 of 2024, Addl. ASJ, NZB months under Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. MO.1shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time or appeal is over.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri P.Laxmi Narsaiah, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad.

Accused defended by:Sri.G.Uday Krishna, Legal Aid Counsel for Accused.

This case was committed by learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Nizamabad, in PRC No.29 of 2024 (Crime No.230 of 2023 of P.S

Town-III, Nizamabad)

This Sessions case has come up before me on 27.01.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P.Laxmi Narsaiah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and Sri G.Uday Krishna, Legal Aid Counsel for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Town-III, Nizamabad filed charge sheet against the sole Accused in Crime No.230 of 2023 of Town-III Police Station,

Nizamabad for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :

2.1.The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the Accused in the year 2006. The lived happily for two years and thereafter the accused started harassing 3 of 15SC. No. 121 of 2024, Addl. ASJ, NZB his wife/deceased. The accused used to come to house in a drunken state and beat his wife/deceased. The matter was placed before the panchayat elders, but accused did not change his mentality.

2.2.On 28.08.2023 at night hours, the accused came to house in a drunken state and quarreled with deceased and beat her mercilessly. Unable to bear the torture, the deceased consumed poison and she was taken to Government Hospital,

Nizamabad. On 29.08.2023, PW1 received phone call from his niece informing him that due to harassment of accused, the deceased consumed poison and the deceased was undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Nizamabad. On knowing the same, PW.1 rushed to Government Hospital.

2.3.On 09.09.2023, the deceased was discharged from Hospital and she was taken to their house and she received treatment in the house. On 15.09.2023 at 9:00 am, she took her last breath in the house. On receiving information about the death of the deceased, her brothers and mother rushed to the house.

2.4.PW.1 lodged a report with the police to take action against the accused. On its basis, the police registered a case in Crime no. 230/2023 for offences under

Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC and issued First Information Report. During the course 4 of 15SC. No. 121 of 2024, Addl. ASJ, NZB of investigation, statements of informant and other witnesses were recorded. The place of occurrence was observed by the Investigating Officer in the presence of mediators and scene of offence panchanama was drafted and one pesticide bottle was seized. The inquest over the dead body of the deceased and the Post Mortem examination were conducted at the Government Hospital, Nizamabad and preserved viscera of deceased was sent to FSL, Hyderabad and the Post Mortem examination report was issued by the concerned Doctor.

2.5. On 16.09.2023, the accused came to Police Station and surrendered before the

Investigating Officer and the accused was said to have given disclosure statement that he had committed offence. After completion of formalities of arrest, the accused was sent to judicial custody.

2.6.After depositing the seized property i.e. the Pesticide Bottle and after receiving FSL Report and completion of entire investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences referred to above.

3.After perusing the material on record, the learned III Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Spl.Mobile), Nizamabad took cognizance of offences

5 of 15SC. No. 121 of 2024, Addl. ASJ, NZB under sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, registered the case as PRC. No.29 of 2024 and issued summons to the Accused.

4.On appearance of Accused before said Court, copies of documents were furnished to the Accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. After, considering the material on record and as the offences under section 498-A and 306 of IPC alleged to be committed by the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions, the case was committed to the Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Court,

Nizamabad and the accused was bound over.

5.The Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Court, Nizamabad has numbered the case as SC. No.121 of 2024 and the same was made over to this Court for disposal according to Law.

6.On appearance of accused before this Court, after considering the material on record and hearing, charges are framed against the accused for offences under sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 8 through whom Exs.P1 to P8 and MO.1 marked.

6 of 15SC. No. 121 of 2024, Addl. ASJ, NZB

8.After completion of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining to him incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both side. Perused entire record.

10.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused for the

offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?

11.POINT :

In the case on hand, the accused is charged for offences under Sections 498-

A and 306 of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused harassed his wife/deceased and hence she committed suicide by consuming pesticide.

Therefore, it is for the prosecution to establish that the deceased committed suicide due to harassment, inducement and abetment of the accused.

12.In order to establish the death of the deceased, the prosecution has examined

PW.1 to PW.7 and adduced documentary evidence under Ex. P1/Report, Ex.

P3/Column no. 15 in Inquest panchnama, Ex. P4/Opinion of Scientific Officer, 7 of 15SC. No. 121 of 2024, Addl. ASJ, NZB

TSFSL, Hyderabad, Ex. P5/Post Mortem Examination Report and Ex. P6/Final

Opinion Report and Ex. P7/photographs of the deceased.

13.The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, family members of the deceased, is to the effect that on 28.08.2023, the deceased consumed pesticide and she was admitted to

Government Hospital, Nizamabad. It is also their evidence that on 15.09.2023, the deceased died. The contents of Ex. P1/Report show that PW.1 informed to the police that on 28.08.2023, his sister consumed poison and she was admitted in

Government Hospital, Nizamabad and later she died on 15.09.2023.

14.The evidence of PW.4 who is cited as house owner shows that his paternal uncle is owner of the house in which the accused and the deceased resided as tenants. His evidence further shows that on receiving information about the death of the deceased, he informed the police that the house belongs to his paternal uncle.

15.The evidence of PW.5, one of panchayathdars to the inquest panchnama, is to the effect that she has acquaintance with the mother of the deceased and on receiving information about the death of the deceased, she went to the house of the deceased and there the police seized MO.1/Pesticide bottle and drafted Ex.

P2/Crime Details Form. She also deposed that inquest panchanama was also 8 of 15SC. No. 121 of 2024, Addl. ASJ, NZB conducted in her presence. Ex. P3/Column no. 15 of Inquest panchanama would reveal the opinion expressed by panchayathdars about the reason for the death of the deceased. Her evidence cannot be suspected on any ground as her version that on account of her acquaintance with the mother of the deceased, she went to the house of the deceased is quite natural.

16.The oral evidence of PW.6, the Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination report coupled with documentary evidence under Exs. P4 to P6 would establish that the deceased died due to poisoning.

17.The evidence of PW.7, Photographer, shows that he has taken Ex.

P7/photographs of the dead body of the deceased in mortuary at Government

Hospital, Nizamabad.

18.Hence, on a careful consideration of above discussed evidence adduced by the prosecution, this court holds that it is established by the prosecution that the deceased died due to poisoning. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 shows that the deceased herself consumed poisoning. Therefore, now it has to be seen whether the deceased consumed poison only at the instigation of the accused or due to act of abetment of the accused to commit suicide.

9 of 15SC. No. 121 of 2024, Addl. ASJ, NZB

19.With regard to charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, in the case on hand, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 is crucial to arrive at a proper conclusion.

20.PW.1 and PW.2, who are none other than own brothers of the deceased have equivocally deposed that the accused harassed their sister both physically and mentally and that the accused harassed the deceased by coming to house in a drunken state and beat her. It is also their evidence that several panchayaths were held in the presence of elders and that the accused was advised by panchayath elders to mend his behaviour. It is their further evidence that on 29.08.2023 their niece/PW.3 called them over the phone and informed them that on the previous night, the accused came to the house in a drunken state and beat the deceased and then the deceased consumed poison. It is their further evidence that then their sister was taken to Government Hospital, Nizamabad and on receiving information, they immediately went to the Government Hospital and after treatment for few days, their sister was discharged from the hospital. It is their further evidence that on 15.09.2023, they received information that their sister passed away and then PW.1 lodged Ex. P1/Report.

21.The evidence of PW.3, daughter of the deceased and the accused, is crucial as she is the competent person to speak about the reason for which her mother 10 of 15SC. No. 121 of 2024, Addl. ASJ, NZB committed suicide and also about alleged harassment of her mother by the accused.

PW.3 also deposed that her father/accused was addicted to drinking and he used to come to house in a drunken state and beat her mother daily. She also deposed that even on 28.08.2023 also, her father/accused came to house in a drunken state and beat her mother and unable to bear the same, her mother consumed poison. It is her further evidence that after receiving treatment at the hospital, her mother died.

22.In order to constitute the offence under Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution must establish that that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased and involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions which are : the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to commit suicide; conspiring with others to ensure that the act was carried out; or engaging in conduct (or neglecting to act) that directly led to the person taking his/her own life.

23. As could be seen from the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, it is their evidence that the accused used to harass the deceased physically and mentally. It is also their further evidence that on 28.08.2023, the accused came to house in a drunken state and beat the deceased and unable to bear the torture, the deceased consumed poison. According to PW.3, daughter of accused and deceased, on 28.08.2023, the accused came to house in a drunken state and beat the deceased and unable to bear 11 of 15SC. No. 121 of 2024, Addl. ASJ, NZB the same, she consumed poison. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 that the accused used to come to house in a drunken state and beat the deceased is not by itself sufficient to establish that the accused instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide in the absence of clinching evidence. It must be shown that the accused had intended that by his act the deceased will commit suicide, that is to say, the accused intended that in all probabilities the deceased should die.

24.The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 shows that the marriage of their sister/deceased with accused was solemnized in the year 2006 and they lived happily for two years and there after the accused started harassing the deceased.

Though several suggestions were put to PW.1 and PW.2 by learned defense counsel stating that the deceased suffered from health ailments and unable to bear the same, she committed suicide, no evidence was let in by the accused to show that the deceased suffered from severe health ailments. Hence, the said suggestions made by the accused regarding the health ailments of the deceased is of no evidence.

25.The presence of clear mens rea i.e., the intention to abet the act is essential.

Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. The prosecution has not established any cogent 12 of 15SC. No. 121 of 2024, Addl. ASJ, NZB evidence to establish that it is due to instigation of the accused, the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide. Hence, on a careful consideration of the evidence on record, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge levelled against the accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

26.With regard to the charge for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused subjected his wife/deceased to cruelty or harassment driving her to commit suicide unable to bear the harassment. Mere harassment is not sufficient to constitute cruelty.

27.In the case on hand, PW.1 and PW.2 deposed that the marriage of their sister was solemnized with the accused in the year 2006 and that they lived happily for two years and thereafter the accused harassed their sister. It is also their evidence that panchayaths were held in the presence of elders and that the elders advised the accused not to drink and the matter was settled. They have also deposed that report was lodged with the police alleging that the accused harassed their sister. However, they have not stated the names of any of panchayath elders before whom the matter was said to have been placed and when the said panchayaths were held. Even the prosecution has not examined any of the said panchayath elders in whose presence panchayaths were said to have been held. Furthermore, the prosecution has not 13 of 15SC. No. 121 of 2024, Addl. ASJ, NZB brought on record the earlier report said to have been lodged against the accused alleging that he harassed the deceased.

28.The evidence of PW.8/Investigation officer shows that he has not examined neighbours of the deceased. The investigation officer has not examined any other witness, except examining PW.1 to PW.3, in order to establish that the accused subjected the deceased to harassment and unable to bear the said harassment, she committed suicide.

29.If the version of PW.1 and PW.2, brothers of the deceased, and PW.3, daughter of accused and deceased, that the accused harassed the deceased is accepted to be true, then in the said circumstances, after the discharge of the deceased from the hospital, PW.1 and PW.2 would have taken their sister with them to their house. But, PW.1 deposed that after his sister was discharged from the hospital, they went to their village Gundaram which is not normal. If really the accused had subjected the deceased to harassment which drove her to commit suicide, then PW.1 and PW.2 being brothers of the deceased would have taken her with them to their house and they would have immediately taken action against the accused by lodging the report then itself. But, PW.1 and PW.2 have not acted in such a manner. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 is not credible.

14 of 15SC. No. 121 of 2024, Addl. ASJ, NZB

30.Hence, on a careful consideration of above discussed evidence, this court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the charge levelled against the accused for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

31.The cumulative effect of entire evidence on record is that the prosecution failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused for the offences under

Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

32. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. Hence, the accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) CrPC.

The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as provided under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time or appeal is over.

Typed directly to my dictation by stenographer grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17 th day of February, 2026.

Sd/-

FAC:Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad.

15 of 15SC. No. 121 of 2024, Addl. ASJ, NZB

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Dasam Sathish

PW2:Dasam Sandeep

PW3:Eligeti Bhavani

PW4:N.Thukaram

PW5:Gangula Sumalatha

PW6:Dr.B.V.Naga Mohan Rao.

PW7:Thokala Prasad

PW8:L.Praveen

FOR DEFENCE: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Report, dated 15.09.2023.

Ex.P2:Crime Detail Form

Ex.P3:Column no.15 of Inquest Panchanama

Ex.P4:Opinion of the Scientific officer, TSFSL, Hyderabad, dated 26.10.2023

Ex.P5:Post Mortem Examination Report, dated 16.09.2023

Ex.P6:Final Opinion Report, dated 25.01.2024.

Ex.P7:Photographs four in number along with CD.

Ex.P8:First Information Report

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS: FOR PROSECUTION

MO1: Pesticide bottle.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

Sd/-

FAC: Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

1 of 12 OS.No.101 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NIZAMABAD.

Present: P.Sai Sudha,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad.

Dated, this the 20th day of April, 2026.

O.S. No. 101 of 2019

Between: Mohammed Ismail, S/o Mohammed Abdul Sami, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 9-16-185/1A, Ahmedpura colony, Nizamabad.

…Plaintiff

AND

1. Mohammed Amjad Ali, S/o Mohammed Hasan Ali, Aged about: 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 9-4-105, Quilla Road, Nizamabad.

2. Mohammed Zia Ahmed S/o Mohammed Khaja, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 9-16-61, Ahmedpura colony, Nizamabad.

….Defendants

This suit has come up before me on 26.03.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Srinivas Raju, Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendants no.1 and 2 have remained exparte and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking to direct defendant no.1 to execute a Registered Sale Deed in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property or in the alternate to direct the defendant no.1 to return advance sale consideration of Rs.

3,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of Agreement till payment of amount; to grant perpetual injunction restraining defendant no. 2 from selling, transferring, alienating, mortgaging or creating any sort of charge over the suit schedule property; for costs of the suit and for other reliefs.

2 of 12 OS.No.101 of 2019

2.The facts as mentioned in the plaint, in brief, are as follows :- 2.1.The defendant no. 1 has offered to sell RCC roofed constructed two Mulgis i.e., shop numbers 4 and 5 bearing municipal no. 9-4-105 and 9-4-305/3 (old) and 9-4-39 (new) in ward no.9, block no.4 admeasuring 38 or 40 square yards situated at Barkatpura, Quilla road, Nizamabad for a total consideration of Rs. 11,00,000/- to the plaintiff. The said offer was accepted by the plaintiff. On 22-08-2016 the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 have entered into an Agreement of Sale and on that day the plaintiff had paid Rs. 3,00,000/- to the defendant no.1 towards advance sale consideration. The defendant no.1 had acknowledged the payment of amount by way of a separate receipt in the presence of two witnesses.

2.2.As per the terms and conditions of the said Agreement of Sale, the plaintiff has to pay remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- in two installments i.e., it was agreed that the first installment of Rs.2,50,000/- shall be paid within two months from the date of Agreement of Sale and the defendant no. 1 has to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The second and final installment of Rs. 5,50,000/- has to be paid at the time of registration of the suit schedule property in the name of the plaintiff. The said Agreement of Sale was executed on Rs.50/- worth Non-Judicial stamp paper.

3 of 12 OS.No.101 of 2019 2.3.Within two months of execution of Agreement of Sale, the plaintiff with an intention to perform his part of the contract has approached the defendant no. 1 along with a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Then the defendant no. 1 asked the plaintiff to enhance the sale consideration from Rs. 11,00,000/- to Rs. 15,00,000/- for which the plaintiff was shocked. The plaintiff requested the defendant no. 1 to receive the amount and give receipt for the same for which the defendant no. 1 told to the plaintiff that after entering into Agreement of Sale with the plaintiff several prospective purchasers approached him with a request to sell the suit schedule property for Rs. 15,00,000/- and therefore he is unable to sell the suit schedule property for Rs. 11,00,000/- to the plaintiff.

2.4.Even though the plaintiff has requested the defendant no. 1 to receive the balance sale consideration as agreed in the sale agreement, the defendant no. 1 avoided to perform his part of contract and refused to receive the part of the sale consideration.

2.5. The defendant no. 1 is under an obligation to perform his part of the contract i.e., to receive part of the sale consideration as per the terms and conditions of

Agreement of Sale, but he failed to perform his part of the contract.

4 of 12 OS.No.101 of 2019 2.6. The plaintiff came to know through reliable source that defendant no. 1 had sold out the suit schedule property to defendant no. 2 through Registered Sale

Deed. Immediately, the plaintiff obtained certified copy of said Registered Sale

Deed, dated 23-10-2017 bearing document no. 7583 of 2017 dated 23-10-2017 and he was surprised to see the sale transaction between defendants no. 1 and 2. When the plaintiff tried to approach defendant no. 1 to know about his intention regarding advance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff, he came to know that defendant no. 1 shifted his residence to Chatisgarh State.

2.7. During the subsistence of Agreement of Sale between plaintiff and defendant no. 1, the suit schedule property was sold out by defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 2 without any intimation to the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff has violated the terms and conditions of Agreement of Sale and the sale deed between defendants no.1 and 2 is illegal and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of Agreement of Sale, dated 22-08-2016 and he is ready to pay and perform his part of the contract.

2.8.The defendant no. 2 who has purchased the suit schedule property under a false Registered Sale Deed is trying to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties for his wrongful gain. On 17-08-2019, the defendant no. 2 has negotiated to sell the suit schedule property to third parties. If defendant no. 2 succeeds in his 5 of 12 OS.No.101 of 2019 illegal attempt, the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and hardship and it leads to multifarious proceedings which cannot be compensated at any stage. Hence, the plaintiff is seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant no. 2 from alienating the suit schedule property. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has no other option except to file the suit for Specific Performance of Contract and for

Perpetual Injunction.

3. In spite of sufficient service of summonses, defendants No. 1 and 2 have remained exparte.

4. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, besides examining PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused entire record.

6.Now the points that arises for determination:-

(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of specific performance of contract, dated 22-08-2016?

(ii). If not whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- from defendant No.1 together with interest as prayed for?

(iii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(iv). To what relief?

6 of 12 OS.No.101 of 2019

7. It is the contention of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 had offered to sell the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- and accordingly an Agreement of Sale was entered into on 22-08-2016. It is further contention of the plaintiff that he has paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards advance amount and it was agreed that the balance sale consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/- shall be paid in two installments, i.e., one installment of Rs. 2,50,000/- and another installment for Rs. 5,50,000/-. It is further contention of the plaintiff that when he approached the defendant No. 1 to receive first installment amount of Rs.

2,50,000/-, the defendant No.1 asked him to pay the enhanced sale consideration @

Rs. 15,00,000/- as several prospective purchasers are coming to purchase the suit schedule property at such rate. It is further contention of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 had sold the suit schedule property to defendant No. 2 through

Registered Sale Deed, dated 23-10-2017 vide document No. 7583 of 2017 during the subsistence of Agreement of Sale between him and defendant No.1.

8.In order to prove his pleaded case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 by translating his pleading into acceptable direct evidence. He affirmed all the material averments in the plaint in his affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief.

Hence, the facts are not restated to avoid repeatition of facts. In support of his contention that defendant No.1 has executed Agreement of Sale in his favour, Ex.

A1/Original Agreement of Sale, dated 22-08-2016 was exhibited. In support of his 7 of 12 OS.No.101 of 2019 further contention that defendant No. 1 had sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.2, Ex.A2/Certified copy of the Registered Sale Deed bearing document No. 7583 of 2017 was exhibited.

9.In support of his contentions, the plaintiff has examined PW.2/Javeed Khan, one of witnesses to Agreement of Sale. In his chief affidavit, PW.2 supported the material contentions made by the plaintiff.

10. Point No.(i):W hether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of specific performance of contract dated 22-08-2016?

When Ex. A1/original Agreement of Sale, dated 22-08-2016 is observed in the light of evidence of PW.1, it is apparent that the defendant No. 1 had executed the said agreement in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a total consideration amount of Rs.11,00,000/- and received advance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 22-08-2016. It is further recited in the said Sale

Agreement that the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- has to be paid in two installments, i.e., the first installment of Rs. 2,50,000/- shall be paid within two months from the date of execution of the Agreement of Sale and thereafter the final payment of Rs. 5,50,000/- shall be paid at the time of registration of the schedule property. Receipt was also filed along with said Agreement of Sale to show that plaintiff has paid Rs. 3,00,000/- to defendant No. 1.

8 of 12 OS.No.101 of 2019

11. As per oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with documentary evidence under Ex.

A1/Original Agreement of Sale, dated 22-08-2016, it emerges that it was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 that out of remaining consideration amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-, the first installment amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- shall be paid within two months from the date of Agreement of Sale, i.e., from 22-08-2016.

In this regard, the plaint is conspicuously silent as to on which date the plaintiff has approached the defendant No. 1 and requested to receive the first installment amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Mere contention by the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract is not sufficient. The plaintiff should demonstrate by his acts that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff has not issued any legal notice calling upon the defendant no.1 to receive balance sale consideration and execute a Sale deed in his favour.

12.It is pertinent to mention that as can be seen from Ex. A2/Certified copy of

Registered Sale Deed said to have been executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.2, the said sale deed was executed on 22-10-2017, which is after lapse of nearly one year two months from the date of execution of

Ex.A1/Agreement of Sale. It can be inferred that as the plaintiff has not paid the agreed amount of balance sale consideration within the period stipulated, the defendant No.1 had sold the property to defendant No.2 after waiting for a period 9 of 12 OS.No.101 of 2019 of more than one year. Therefore, in the said circumstances, the plaintiff cannot seek for enforcement of Ex.A1/Agreement of Sale in his favour.

13.The relief of specific performance is an equitable relief. As defendant No.1 executed the original of Ex. A2/Registered Sale Deed, vide document No. 7583 of 2017 in favour of defendant No. 2, the equity intervenes in favour of defendant

No.2 who had purchased the property from defendant No.1 and therefore even on this ground also the plaintiff cannot seek for enforcement of Ex.A1/Agreement of

Sale. Hence, in view of above discussion, this Court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of Specific Performance of Contract i.e., Agreement of Sale,

dated 22-08-2016 as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered against the

plaintiff.

14.Point No.(ii):W hether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- from defendant No.1 together with interest as prayed for?

The oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with documentary evidence under Ex. A1 along with receipt clearly establishes that the plaintiff has paid Rs.

3,00,000/- to defendant No.1 towards advance amount. As the defendant No. 1 has sold the suit property to defendant No.2, it is his obligation to return the advance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- paid to him by the plaintiff under Ex.A1 as it was not acted upon. Hence, this Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the 10 of 12 OS.No.101 of 2019 amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the defendant No.1 together with interest from the date of execution of Ex.A1/Agreement of Sale i.e., 22.08.2016 together with costs.

15.Though the plaintiff has claimed interest @ 24% per annum, considering the fact that said amount was given as advance towards purchase of the property, this

Court is of the opinion that charging high rate of interest is not proper. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest @ 12% per annum from the date of Agreement of Sale i.e., 22.08.2016 till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization. Accordingly, this point is answered.

16.Point No.(iii):Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

As the property was sold to defendant No.2, this Court holds that a negative relief of injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from alienating the suit schedule property cannot be granted as it is against the principle of equity. Therefore, this

Court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, point no. (iii) is answered.

17.Point No.(iv):To what relief?

In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled only for the recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- from defendant No. 1 @ 12% per annum 11 of 12 OS.No.101 of 2019 from the date of Agreement of Sale i.e., 22.08.2016 till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization. Accordingly, this point is answered.

18.In the result, the suit is party decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against defendant No.1:-

(i). thereby granting relief of recovery of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of Agreement of

Sale i.e., 22.08.2016 till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization;

(ii). that the suit in respect of relief of specific performance of contract, dated 22.08.2016 is dismissed;

(iii). that the suit in respect of relief of perpetual injunction is dismissed;

(iv). That the suit is dismissed as against defendant No.2.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court, on this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendants

PW.1: Mohammad Ismail None

PW.2:Javeed Khan 12 of 12 OS.No.101 of 2019

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff

Ex.A1: Original Agreement of Sale, dated 22.08.2016 in between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 along with receipt for Rs.3,00,000/-.

Ex.A2:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document no. 7583/2017, dated 23.10.2017 executed by the Defendant no.1 in favour of Defendant no.2.

For Defendants :

NIL

Sd/-

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad.

1 of 11 SC. No. 75 of 2023, ASJ, NZB

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Present: P. SAI SUDHA, Assistant Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 05th day of May, 2026

Sessions Case No. 75 of 2023.

(PRC.No.79 of 2022 on the file of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, in Crime.No.190 of 2022 of Nizamabad Rural Police Station)

Name of complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nizamabad Rural Police station.

Name of Accused :A1. Dhammai Muthenna @ Muthyam, S/o late Yerranna. Age: 44 yrs, Occ: Driver. R/o H.No. 3- 42/1, Mubaraknagar, Nizamabad.

A2. Dhammai Yerramma. W/o late Yerramma, Age: 61 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No. 3-42/1, Mubaraknagar, Nizamabad.

A3. Sura Mamatha, W/o Murali, Age: 37 yrs, Occ: Housewife. R/o H.No. 1-51/21. Pangra, Nizamabad.

A4. Sura Murali S/o Late Posaiah, Age: 39 yrs. Occ:Driver, R/o H.No. 1-51/21, Pangra Nizamabad.

A5. Dhammai Jagan, S/o late Yerranna, Age: 38 yrs, Occ: Private Job. R/o H.No. 3-42/1, Mubaraknagar, Nizamabad.

A6. Chennai Nagaiah, S/o late Gangaram. Age: 50 yrs, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No. 3-38/1, Mubaraknagar, Nizamabad.

A7. Chennai Nagabushanam, S/o late Gangaram, Age: 45 yrs, Occ: Private Job, Mubaraknagar, R/o H.No. 3- 38/1, Nizamabad.

A8. Dhammai Sadhana, W/o Muthanna, Age: 35 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No. 2-4-22, Kasabgalli, Nizamabad.

2 of 11 SC. No. 75 of 2023, ASJ, NZB

Date, time and place of :On 06.06.2022 at Mubharaknagar village, occurrenceNizamabad.

Charge:Under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:In the result, Accused no. 1 to 7 are found not guilty for offence under Section 498-A of IPC; and Accused no.1 and 8 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Hence, Accused no. 1 to 8 are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of Accused no.1 to 8 shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as provided under Section 437-A Cr.PC.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri P.Laxmi Narsaiah, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad.

Accused defended by:Sri G.V.Krupakar Reddy, Counsel for Accused.

This case was committed by II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, in PRC No.79 of 2022 (Crime No.190 of 2022 of Nizamabad Rural Police Station, Nizamabad)

This Sessions case has come up before me on 28.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P. Laxmi Narsaiah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and Sri G.V.Krupakar Reddy, Counsel for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Nizamabad Rural, has filed charge sheet against Accused No. 1 to 8 in Crime No.190 of 2022 of Nizamabad Rural Police 3 of 11 SC. No. 75 of 2023, ASJ, NZB

Station for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :

2.1.The marriage of Accused No.1 was solemnized with one Sumalatha i.e., daughter of PW.1. At the time of their marriage, dowry was given to Accused

No.1. They were blessed with two sons.

2.2.After two or three years of marriage, Accused No.1 started harassing his wife

Sumalatha. The deceased/Sumalatha informed to her parents about the physical and mental harassment meted out by her in the hands of her husband/Accused no.1 and his family members Accused No.2 to 7. Accused no.1 developed illicit relationship with Accused No.8 and when the deceased questioned Accused no.1 about said matter, he harassed her.

2.3.The deceased/Sumalata lodged a report at Women Police Station, Nizamabad and the police counselled Sumalatha and her husband and settled the matter. Even thereafter, Accused no.1 and his family members/Accused no.2 to 7 harassed

Sumalatha/deceased. Accused no.8 also bet deceased/Sumalatha several times.

4 of 11 SC. No. 75 of 2023, ASJ, NZB

Unable to bear the harassment of Accused no.1 to 7, Sumalatha committed suicide by hanging herself to the beam in the house with a Chunni.

2.4. On receiving information about the death of Sumalatha/Deceased, her mother PW.1 gave information to the police. On its basis, the police registered a case in Crime No.190 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of

IPC.

2.5.During the course of investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded, the Inquest over the dead body of the deceased was conducted in the presence of mediators. A requisition was given to the Doctor at Forensic Science

Department to conduct Post Mortem Examination. Further, Viscera belonging to the deceased was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis and a

Report was received stating that no poisonous substance was found in the Viscera.

The place of occurrence was observed and after receiving the Post Mortem

Examination Report. On 14.06.2022 at 1300 hours apprehended the Accused no.1 and he was produced before the Court and sent to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against Accused no.1 to 8 for the offences referred to above.

5 of 11 SC. No. 75 of 2023, ASJ, NZB

3.After considering the material available on record, the learned II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad took Cognizance of offences under

Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC against the Accused no.1 and for the offence under

Section 498-A of IPC against Accused no. 2 to 8 and registered the case as PRC

No.79 of 2022.

4.On appearance of Accused no.1 to 8 before the learned II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, copies of documents were furnished to them

as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C, and after considering the material on record and as the offence under Section 306 of IPC is exclusively triable by the

Hon’ble Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Hon’ble Prl. District and

Sessions Court, Nizamabad and the accused no.1 to 8 were bound over.

5.The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Nizamabad has numbered the case as SC.No.75 of 2023 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to Law.

6.On appearance of Accused no.1 to 8 before this Court, after considering the material on record and hearing, charges were framed against Accused no.1 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, Accused no.2 to 7 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Accused no.8 for the offence under Section 306 of 6 of 11 SC. No. 75 of 2023, ASJ, NZB

IPC read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which the

Accused no.1 to 8 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove the guilt of Accused no.1 to 8, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 through whom Exs.P1 to P9 are marked.

8.After completion of prosecution evidence, the Accused No.1 to 8 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining to them incriminating material appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides. Perused entire record.

10.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused no.1 to 8 for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

11.It is the case of the prosecution that Accused no.1 being husband of the deceased/Sumalatha and Accused no. 2 to 7 being family members of Accused no.1 subjected Sumalatha/deceased to physical and mental cruelty and unable to bear the said harassment, she committed suicide. It is further case of the 7 of 11 SC. No. 75 of 2023, ASJ, NZB prosecution that Accused no.8 developed illicit relationship with Accused no.1 and she used to beat the deceased and unable to bear the harassment Sumalatha committed suicide.

12.POINT:

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1/Sunkari Bai mother of the deceased. In her evidence, PW.1 deposed that her daughter/Sumalatha died about 3 years ago and before her death she suffered from stomach pain and headache and received treatment for those diseases. She also stated that on one day she received information from Accused no.1 that her daughter committed suicide by hanging herself. She also stated that her daughter/Sumalatha committed suicide unable to bear severe stomach pain and headache. She further stated that when she was at her daughter's house, the police came there and obtained her thumb impression on some papers. When the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor had put suggestions to her in the cross-examination,

she denied those suggestions. Ex. P1 which is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of

PW.1 was exhibited.

13.The evidence of PW.2/Sunkari Ravinder, the brother of the deceased is more or less in similar lines of evidence of PW.1. Ex. P2 which is Section 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW.2 was also exhibited.

8 of 11 SC. No. 75 of 2023, ASJ, NZB

14. PW.3/Deekshith is the son of Accused no.1 and the deceased/Sumalatha. The evidence of PW.3 is to the effect that on one day in the afternoon hours, when he returned to the house, he noticed that his mother locked the door from inside and when he informed about it to his uncles/Prasad and PW.2, they came to the house and break opened the door by using a crowbar and found that his mother committed suicide by hanging herself in the house. Even PW.3 has not supported the case of the prosecution in material particulars. Ex.P3 which is the Section 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW.3 was exhibited.

15.The evidence of PW.4, Investigation Officer relates to receipt of

Ex.P4/Report from PW.1 and registration of the case and issuance of Ex. P5/First

Information Report. His evidence further relates to visiting the place of occurrence in the presence of mediators and drafting Ex. P6/Crime Detail Form and conducting

Inquest Panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. His evidence further relates to submitting a requisition for conducting

Post Mortem Examination and issuance of Ex.P8/Post Mortem Examination

Report. His evidence also shows that the Viscera of the deceased was sent to

Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and Ex. P9/FSL Report was received.

16.In his cross-examination, PW.4 denied the formal suggestions put to him.

9 of 11 SC. No. 75 of 2023, ASJ, NZB

17.In the case on hand, Accused no.1 to 7 were charged for the offence under

Section 498-A of IPC whereas Accused no.1 and 8 were charged for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. In order to attract the offence under Section 498-A of

IPC, it is for the prosecution to establish that Accused no.1 to 7 subjected the deceased to mental and physical cruelty which is likely to drive her to commit suicide. In the case on hand, PW.1 who is none other than mother of the deceased,

PW.2/brother of the deceased and PW.3/son of the deceased have not deposed about alleged harassment of the deceased by Accused no.1 to 7. It is significant to note that according to the case of the prosecution that Accused no.8 is not a relative of

Accused no.1. It is alleged that Accused no.8 was having illicit relationship with

Accused no.1. Even otherwise, the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to establish that Accused no.1 to 7 subjected the deceased to harassment. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the charge levelled against

Accused no.1 to 7 for the offence under section 498-A of IPC.

18.With regard to the charge levelled against Accused no.1 and 8 for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that unable to bear the harassment of Accused no.1 and 8, the deceased committed suicide. But in the case on hand, there is no evidence on record to show that it is by virtue of alleged harassment of the deceased by Accused no.1 and 8, she has committed suicide.

10 of 11 SC. No. 75 of 2023, ASJ, NZB

There is nothing brought on record to establish that Accused no.1 and 8 abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against Accused no.1 and 8 for the offence under

Section 306 of IPC.

19.Hence, on a careful consideration of entire evidence on record, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of Accused no.1 to 7 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and the guilt of Accused no.1 and 8 for the offence under section 306 of IPC. Accordingly, the point is answered.

20.In the result, Accused no. 1 to 7 are found not guilty for offence under

Section 498-A of IPC; and Accused no.1 and 8 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Hence, Accused no. 1 to 8 are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of Accused no.1 to 8 shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as provided under Section 437-A Cr.PC.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in open Court, on this the 5 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Assistant Sessions Judge Nizamabad.

11 of 11 SC. No. 75 of 2023, ASJ, NZB

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Sunkari Bai

PW2:Sunkari Ravinder

PW3:Damai Deekshith

PW4:G.Limbadri

FOR DEFENCE:

NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

Ex.P2:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex.P3:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex.P4:Report

Ex.P5:Original First Information Report

Ex.P6:Crime Details Form.

Ex.P7:Relevant portion of Inquest Panchanama at column no.15

Ex.P8:Post Mortem Examination Report

Ex.P9:FSL Report

FOR DEFENCE:

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Sd/-

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

1 of 10 OS. No.115 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NIZAMABAD.

Present: P. Sai Sudha,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad.

Wednesday, this the 6th day of May, 2026.

O.S. No. 115 of 2019

Between:

Atkuri Ravi Kumar, S/o Mallappa, Aged 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 6-12- 17, MV Colony, Dharmaram (B) village, Mandal Dichpally, Nizamabad District.

...Plaintiff AND

Malka Swamy, S/o Gangaiah, Aged 42 years, Occ: Tractor Driver, R/o ARP Camp, Beside Rice Mill, Ambam village, Yedpalli Mandal, Nizamabad District.

...Defendant

This suit has come up before me on 15.04.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri T.Gangadhar, Advocate for plaintiff and Defendant remained exparte and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- from the defendant together with interest and costs for the suit.

2. The facts as mentioned in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:- 2.1.The plaintiff is resident of Dharmaram village, Dichpally Mandal,

Nizamabad. The plaintiff is having Ac.2-00 gts of land in Ambam village shivar 2 of 10 OS. No.115 of 2019 and ARP camp, which is a hamlet of Ambam village. There is acquaintance between plaintiff and defendant and out of said acquaintance, the defendant requested the plaintiff to lend a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for his personal necessity.

Later, the defendant went to the house of plaintiff several times and requested to lend money stating that the money was required for his necessity.

2.2.The mother of the plaintiff was having some amount with her, which she got out of sale proceeds of her husband's assets and some money from her another son

Raj Kumar, who is attestor to the document. The plaintiff has taken said amount from his mother and lent an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the defendant on 05.06.2018. On receiving the said amount, the defendant executed the Promissory

Note, which was attested by Raj Kumar Atkuri, i.e., brother of the plaintiff. The

Promissory Note was scribed by one person who followed the defendant and it was also attested by one V.Sanjeev and one Jangudu Yellaiah.

2.3.Thereafter, when the plaintiff requested the defendant to repay the money, the defendant failed to repay the amount. Prior to the suit transaction also, the plaintiff has lent an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the defendant, which was repaid in

principal and interest. So with that belief, the plaintiff had lent Rs. 5,00,000/- to the

defendant in order to enable him to overcome the difficulty. As the defendant failed 3 of 10 OS. No.115 of 2019 to repay the amount, the plaintiff has issued a lawyer's notice on 31.01.2019, which was received by the defendant on 4.02.2019. As the defendant failed to repay the amount within agreed time, the defendant assured that he will sell away his property i.e., house number 5-21/1 consisting of two rooms and open place and this plot is in an area of 3012.18 square yards and in this area there are two rooms with 187 square feet plinth area, situated at ARP camp.

2.4.When the plaintiff has lent Rs. 2,00,000/- previously, he got registered a mortgage deed in his name showing the name of the wife of the defendant as a mortgagee and certified copy of the said mortgage deed is filed. The said mortgage was redeemed and the said document is also filed herewith.

2.5.When that amount was given, the said plot was in the name of the wife of the defendant Malka Jyothi and now the defendant got executed a Gift Deed in his favor and as such the plot is in the name of the defendant. As the defendant failed to repay the amount to the plaintiff, the present suit is filed for recovery of the amount.

3.On receiving notice, the defendant entered into appearance and filed his written statement traversing allegations in the plaint and contending as follows:

4 of 10 OS. No.115 of 2019 3.1.It is contended by the defendant that he has borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and repaid said amount together with interest @ Rs. 56,000/- that is in total he paid Rs. 2,56,000/- to the plaintiff and got released the mortgaged property vide Registered document no. 7126/2018, dated 06.09.2018 that too prior to the agreed date 10.07.2019 to redeem the mortgage loan. Since then, the plaintiff bore grudge against the defendant and his family and challenged to take revenge. In order to take revenge against the defendant and in order to grab the property, the plaintiff created a false bogus Promissory Note, dated 05-06-2018 and forged his signature and filed this suit. It is also contended by him that he has not borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and he has also not executed the suit

Promissory Note in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.After perusing the pleadings and documents on record, the following issues were settled for trial:

(i) Whether the suit Promissory Note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

(iii) If so, to what relief?

5 of 10 OS. No.115 of 2019

5.In the trial afforded to both parties, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 besides examining PW.2 and got marked Exs. A1 to A6. On behalf of defendant, no kind of evidence was adduced.

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Perused entire record.

7.It is the case of the plaintiff that there is prior acquaintance between him and the defendant and that out of said acquaintance, when the defendant requested to lend Rs. 2,00,000/-, he has lent an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the defendant which was repaid by him. It is further contended by him when the defendant again requested to lend a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to meet his personal necessities, he has lent said amount on 05.06.2018 and on receiving the same, the defendant has executed the suit Promissory Note. It is further contended by him that when he requested the defendant to repay the amount, he failed to do so and hence he has issued lawyer's notice dated 31-01-2019 which was received by the defendant and as the defendant failed to repay the amount borrowed, he filed the present suit.

8.In order to prove his pleaded case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 by translating his pleading into acceptable direct evidence. He reiterated the contents of the plaintiff in his affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief. In support of 6 of 10 OS. No.115 of 2019 his contention that the defendant has executed Promissory Note on 05.06.2018 in his favour on receiving an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same together with interest, Ex.A1/Original Promissory Note, dated 05-06-2018 was exhibited. Ex.A2/Office copy of lawyer's notice, dated 31-01-2019 was also exhibited in order to show that he has issued a legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to repay the amount before filing the present suit.

Ex.A3/Acknowledgment card was exhibited to show that the said legal notice was served on the defendant. Ex.A4/Certified copy of Registered mortgage deed vide document no. 4259/2017 and Ex.A5/Certified copy of Registered Release deed vide document no. 7126/2018 were exhibited in order to show that there was prior transaction between him and defendant under which the property in the name of defendant's wife was mortgaged to him.

9.PW.2/A. Raj Kumar, brother of the plaintiff, who is one of attestors to

Ex.A1/Promissory Note was examined. In his chief affidavit, PW.2 supported the material contentions of the plaintiff regarding the suit transaction.

10.In spite of several opportunities, the defendant failed to turn up and he has not chosen to cross-examination. After the counsel for the defendant has reported 7 of 10 OS. No.115 of 2019 no instructions from the defendant, notices were sent to the defendant by this Court twice. Inspite of receiving the said notices, the defendant has not chosen to contest the suit. PW.1 and PW.2 were not cross-examined by the defendant.

11.Issue no. (i) :

When the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of plaintiff is carefully scrutinized, it is apparent that there is prior acquaintance between the plaintiff and the defendant and further in the year 2017, there was a monetary transaction between the plaintiff and defendant under which the property in the name of the wife of the defendant was mortgaged under the original of Ex.A4 mortgaged deed and after repayment of the amount, a released deed under original of Ex.A5 was also executed. Even in his written statement the defendant has pleaded that he has borrowed Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and repaid the amount.

12.With regard to suit transaction, it is the evidence of PW.1 that on 05.06.2018, the defendant having received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for his personal necessity has executed Ex. A1/Promissory note. It is also apparent from recitals of Ex.

A1/Promissory Note that it was executed by the defendant in the presence of the 8 of 10 OS. No.115 of 2019 witnesses that is PW.2 and another. When the plaintiff has adduced evidence clearly showing that the defendant has received amount and executed the suit

Promissory Note, the defendant who has taken the defense that his signature was forged on Ex.A1/Promissory Note has not adduced any rebuttal evidence. Even he has not chosen to cross-examine PW.1 and PW.2 and thereby the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Moreover, if at all the defendant has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and he has not executed Ex.

A1/Promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, then on receiving lawyer's notice, dt.

31.01.2019 issued by the plaintiff, the defendant would have issued a reply denying the contentions of the plaintiff and he would have taken steps to prove that his signature was forged on Ex. A1/Promissory note, but he failed to do so. Hence, on a careful consideration of evidence on record and in view of foregoing reasons, this

Court holds that Ex.A1/Promissory Note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly, issue no. (i) is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

13.Issue no.(ii):

In view of above discussion and finding given on issue no.(i), this Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for.

Accordingly, issue no. (ii) is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

9 of 10 OS. No.115 of 2019

14.Issue No.(iii) :

The plaintiff has claimed the recovery of suit amount together with interest @ 24 % per annum. In fact, according to the plaintiff, the defendant has borrowed the amount for his personal necessities and considering the occupation of the defendant, this court holds that the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff is not appropriate. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of transaction and occupation of the defendant, this court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount together with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6 % per annum till realization. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

15. In the result, the suit is partly decreed with costs in favor of plaintiff thereby granting the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Laksh Fifty

Thousand Only) together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization.

Typed directly to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 6 th day of May, 2026.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

10 of 10 OS. No.115 of 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendant

PW1: Atkuri Ravi KumarNone

PW2:A.Raj Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff

Ex.A1: Original Promissory Note, dated.05.06.2018

Ex.A2:Office copy of Lawyer’s notice, dated.31.01.2019

Ex.A3:Original Acknowledgment card, dated.04.02.2019

Ex.A4:Certified copy of Mortgage deed, Doc.No.4259/2017, dt.11.07.2017

Ex.A5:Certified copy of Release deed, Doc.No.7126/2018 dt.06.09.2018

Ex.A6:Certified copy of the E.C dated.11.09.2019

For Defendant

NIL

Prl. Senior Civil Judge Nizamabad.