Ms. P.samyuktha

APNE0F0002732020

Presented on : 16-10-2020 Registered on : 16-10-2020 Decided on : 27-02-2026 Duration : 5 years, 4 months, 11 days

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION): AT:

SULLURPET :: SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Present: Miss P. SAMYUKTHA ,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpeta.

Dated, this the 27th day of February, 2026

OS.No.43/2020

Between:

Vatambeti Munikrishnaiah @ Vatambedu Munikrishnaiah, S/o late Jagadeeswara Pillai, Aged about 51 Years, R/o Meezuru Village & Post, Doravarisatram Mandal, SPSR

Nellore District.... Plaintiff

And

1.Vatambedu Munisubramanyam, S/o Vatambedu Munuswamy @ Munuswamy Pillai, Aged about 40 Years,

2.Vatambedu Munuswamy @ Munuswamy Pillai, S/o Doraswamy Pillai, Aged about 65 Years,

Both are residents of Isukamitta, Near railway substation, Sullurpet Town and Mandal, SPSR

... Defendants

Nellore District.

This suit coming for final hearing before me on 13-02-2026 in the presence of Sri S. Sreeramulu Yadav- Advocate for the plaintiff, and of Sri. A. Raja Manikyam – Advocate for the defendants No.1 and 2, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following— // JUDGMENT //

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

1

Fair in OS.No.43/2020, dt.27-02-2026

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The Plaintiff submits that the suit schedule property in Khatha No.213,

S.No. 140-P1 and extent of Ac.2.00 cents of Meezuru village of D.V. Satram

Mandal assigned by government to the plaintiff on 12.01.2004 in FDC No.2/1414 as he is land less poor person and also he obtained Pattadhar Pass Book and

Title Deed on 19.11.2004 and his name is also mutated in revenue records. As such plaintiff became absolute owner of plaint schedule property and he is in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. He also paid cist.

(ii) The plaintiff further submits that plaintiff also availed crop loan in

State Bank of India, Sullurpet Branch in account bearing no.11069786071, KCC no.0031811885673 and raising paddy crops in it regularly in rainy season. As such original title deed is in the custody of said bank.

(iii)The plaintiff further submits that total extent of the land in S.No.140 is an extent of Ac.12.44 cents, out of it an extent of Ac.2.00 cents was allotted to plaintiff, an extent of Ac.2.22 cents was allotted to Vatambedu Munihari, an extent of Ac.2.00 cents was allotted to Vatambedu Latha, an extent of Ac.0.50 cents was allotted to Vatambedu Suseelamma, an extent of Ac.1.00 cents was allotted to

Vatambedu Vasanthamma and an extent of Ac.1.00 cents was allotted to

Vatambedu Munisubramanyam who is 1st defendant herein.

(iv)The plaintiff further submits that defendants are financially sound and numerically strong and highhandedly encroached into the remaining land of nearly

Ac.3.72 cents in S.No.140 and now also trying to grab the plaint schedule property through their political influence and muscle power.

(v)The plaintiff further submits that while so on 06.09.2020 at about 5.30 pm when plaintiff is doing agriculture works 1st and 2nd defendants came with their men and tried to interfere with possession and enjoyment of suit schedule 2

Fair in OS.No.43/2020, dt.27-02-2026 property of plaintiff and also 1st defendant came with a stick to bet the plaintiff saying that to vacate the land and plaintiff could not enter into the land otherwise they will bet the plaintiff in the mean time one Pakam Veeraswamy, S/o

Veeraraghavaiah intervened. Then they openly proclaimed that they will dispossess the plaintiff from plaint schedule property for which they are no way connected to suit property are trying to grab the suit property for wrongful gain.

Therefore plaintiff lodged a complaint against the defendants before SHO of D.V.

Satram P.S. & Tahsildar D.V. Satram true copies of the same were filed herewith.

(vi)The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is unable to resist the high handed acts of defendants. The defendants are having political influence and muscle power and backed by anti social elements. As such plaintiff is unable to resist the high handed acts of defendants and constrained to file this suit. Plaintiff is having prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, balance of convenience is also in favor plaintiff and if injunction is not granted plaintiff will be put to serious loss and hardship. Hence plaintiff constrained to file this suit. Hence the Suit.

3.After receipt of summons, Defendant No.1 filed written statement and adoption memo filed by Defendant No.2 through their advocate Sri. A. Raja

Manikyam.

4. Brief averments of the written statement filed by the Defendant

No.1:-

This defendant No.1 denies all the allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein to be true and put the plaintiff to strict proof of the same

(ii)The defendant submits that basically the Survey No.140 of Meejuru

Village is an extent of Ac.12-44 cents of dry land pertaining to Government. So far the Government has not allotted any type of patta to the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself made this fake patta and filed this false suit for wrongful gain by showing 3

Fair in OS.No.43/2020, dt.27-02-2026 wrong boundaries. The plaintiff showed in the plaint schedule boundaries that eastern boundary is S.No. 123 pertaining to Vakati Subramanyam Reddy and others, but actually his eastern boundary is his wife’s land by name Vatambeti

Latha. The patta which is in the name of Vatambeti Latha is also a fake patta.

The plaintiff voluntarily showed his eastern boundary is S.No.123, which this defendant is in cultivation and it is own patta of his grand father. This plaintiff suppressed the facts and filed this false suit and hence he is not entitled to any discretionary relief of permanent injunction or temporary injunction.

(iii)The defendant further submits that the Survey No.140 of Meejuru

Village is not sub-divided so far, for that this defendant is filing FMB (Field

Measurement Sketch) Mee-Seva copy, which is nothing but Certified copy and the same is very clear.

(iv)The defendant further submits that neither the plaintiff nor the plaintiff’s wife Smt. Latha are cultivating any land covered by S.No.140 of Meejuru

Village. Whereas, this defendant and his brother by name Munihari are cultivating

Ac.4-49 cents in the said Survey No.140 of Meejuru Village, in support of that this defendant is filing enjoyment sketch given by the Mandal Surveyor of Meejuru

Village of Doravarisatram Mandal. This defendant also filed a suit for Permanent

Injunction against some 23 persons in the year 2016 vide OS.No. 95/2016 on the file of this court against some third persons for the same Survey No. 140 of

Meejuru Village when the third persons tried to enter and interfere in the said land.

Further this defendant also filed the rough sketch of cultivating and non cultivating parts of land covered by S.No.140 of Meejur Village and the same may be taken into consideration along with this written statement.

(v)The defendant further submits that these defendants are bonafide cultivators of the land covered by S.No.140 of Meejuru Village of D.V. Satram

Mandal, and they are not encroaching the land pertaining to the plaintiff and his 4

Fair in OS.No.43/2020, dt.27-02-2026 family members, further they are also not encroaching the vacant land covered by the same survey number of Meejuru Village. Further the plaintiff voluntarily showed wrong boundaries with a second thought that he wants to grab some portion of the land in S.No.123 which belong to the defendants, further the entire boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule are wrong and mentioned the same with an ulterior motive, for which he is not entitled for any discretionary relief of injunction. Further the said survey number of Meejuru Village is already adjudicated and the same comes under Res-judicata. Further there is no prima facie case, no balance of conveyance and there is no irreparable loss to the plaintiff if injunction is not granted by way of temporary or permanent.

(vi)The defendant further submits that the plaintiff is a news reporter and he used his power and obtained a fake patta and created fake sub-divisions in the

S.No. 140 of Meejuru Village of D.V. Satram Mandal.

(vii)The defendant further submitted that there is no cause of action for filing the suit, since the defendant are entering into the alleged land covered by

S.No.140-P1, and not interfering with the vacant land covered by same Survey

Number, further he has not filed any plaint plan, thus he cheated the court and diverted the matter in a wrong route and suppressed all the material facts and hence he is not entitled for any discretionary relief of permanent or temporary injunction and hence the suit may be dismissed with costs.

(viii)The defendant further submits that the plaintiff voluntarily filed this suit against the defendants with a view to encroach the land belonging to the defendants in S.No.123, which is in the name of the grand father of the 1st defendant and father of the 2nd defendant, hence the plaintiff did not came to the court with clean hands and is not entitled for the benefit of any permanent or temporary injunction which is a discretionary relief. Hence prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

5

Fair in OS.No.43/2020, dt.27-02-2026

5.The plaintiff in support of his contentions got examined PW1 and

PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. On the other hand, DW1 to DW3 were examined on behalf of the defendants and got marked Ex.B1 to B7.

6.Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the record.

7.Now the point for determination is that:

1. Whether the eastern boundary of plaint schedule property is true?

2. Whether there is sub division in S.No.140 of Meejuru Village?

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

4. To what relief?

POINT:-

Issue Nos.1 :-

8.The important question to be decided in this suit is with regard to the eastern boundary in dispute which is paramount in identifying the suit scheduled property for proper adjudication. The burden of proving the correctness of the eastern boundary rests upon the plaintiff who filed the suit seeking the relief of in- junction. In a suit for permanent injunction, particularly where title is disputed and subdivision is in dispute, clear identification of the suit property is crucial. Unless the identity and boundaries are established with certainty, the Court cannot grant equitable relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff’s case is that he was as- signed Ac.2.00 cents in Survey No.140-P1 and that the eastern boundary of his land is Survey No.123 belonging to one Vakati Subramanyam Reddy. However, on careful scrutiny of the documentary and oral evidence serious inconsistency regarding the existence of Survey No.140/P1 itself became questionable and consequently, the correctness of the eastern boundary.

9.Firstly, Ex.A1, the D-Form Patta, which is the fundamental document of assignment of the land in favour of the plaintiff mentions only Survey No.140 6

Fair in OS.No.43/2020, dt.27-02-2026 measuring Ac.2.00 cents. There is no mention of any subdivision such as 140/P1.

If the Government had assigned a specific sub division, it would clearly be re- flected in the assignment patta itself which is a material detail about the specific land assigned in his favour. Further on careful perusal of Ex.A2, the Original pat- tadar passbook contains the mention of “140/P1,” but it is can be observed that “P1” is written in pencil which draws attention to the authenticity of such an entry.

An official revenue document is expected to contain permanent entries, whereas, a pencil entries raises suspicion regarding its authenticity. Moreover, The plaintiff has not produced any official proceedings showing lawful subdivision of Survey

No.140 into 140/P1. No revenue authority has been examined to prove when and how such subdivision was effected. In the absence of proof of official subdivision of the survery number the description of the property as 140/P1 becomes doubt- ful.

10.Furthermore, the oral evidence on the side of the plaintiff is also in- consistent. PW1 states that the eastern boundary is Survey No.123 and the west- ern boundary is Pulicat Lake. However, PW2 gives an entirely different version during the cross examination, stating that the eastern boundary is Pulicat Lake and the western boundary is land of Durgaiah which is a material inconsistency in identification of the suit scheduled property. It is important that the boundary recitals must be consistent and clear otherwise the discretionary relief of injunc- tion cannot be given on uncertain suit scheduled boundaries. Moreover, it is cru- cial to note that PW1 admitted in cross-examination that Survey No.140 is not yet subdivided. This admission directly contradicts his pleading that the survery no 140 was allotted as 140/P1 in his favour. If no subdivision has been officially ef- fected, the very basis of identifying a specific portion abutting Survey No.123 does not stand strong. Without subdivision, Survey No.140 remains a larger undivided extent of Ac.12.44 cents, and the plaintiff must show by cogent evidence where 7

Fair in OS.No.43/2020, dt.27-02-2026 exactly within that extent his 2.00 acres lies which is nothing but the suit sched- uled property.

11.On the other hand, DW1 and DW2 have categorically denied the plaintiff’s boundary version. They contend with the strength of their own pattas in

Survey No.140 and denied that the eastern boundary is as pleaded by the plain- tiff. It can be clearly seen that the defendants denied the case of the plaintiff from its roots and denied their evidence, from their cross examination no evidence has been elicited from them in support of the plaintiff’s case regarding the eastern boundary. It is also significant that no commissioner’s report or official survey number demarcation has been placed before the Court to identify the exact physi- cal identification of the alleged 140/P1 suit scheduled property. In disputes involv- ing survey numbers and sub divisions, especially when subdivision itself is in question, official demarcation carries plays an important role. In suits for injunc- tion, the Court must be satisfied that the property is clearly identified and that the plaintiff is in possession of that specific, identifiable property for which the discre- tionary relief of injunction is claimed. When the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 does not clearly establish subdivision, and when oral evidence regard- ing boundaries is contradictory, the plaintiff cannot be said to have discharged the burden of proving the correctness of the eastern boundary.

12.Upon overall consideration of the absence of subdivision in Ex.A1, the pencil entry of “P1” in Ex.A2, the admission of PW1 in cross examination that

Survey No.140 is not subdivided, and the material contradiction between PW1 and PW2 regarding boundaries of the suit scheduled property this Court is con- strained to hold that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the eastern boundary of the plaint schedule property is Survey No.123 as pleaded by him. Accordingly, it is can be concluded that the plaintiff has not proved that the eastern boundary of 8

Fair in OS.No.43/2020, dt.27-02-2026 the plaint schedule property is true, and at this juncture the identity of the suit property remains uncertain.

Issue No.2, 3:-

13.Now, another important aspect for deliberation is whether there is sub division in S.No.140 of Meejuru Village. The defendant has pleaded that Survey

No.140 of Meejuru Village was already the subject matter of adjudication in O.S.

No.95 of 2016, and that the said suit was decreed in their favour. They have marked Ex.B3 certified copies of the decree and judgment in the said suit in sup- port of their contention. On that basis, it is argued that the suit in hand is barred by the principle of res judicata and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. At this point it is necessary to analyse the applicability of the said doctrine under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For the applicability of the said doctrine, certain conditions must be satisfied such as (i) the matter directly and substantially in is- sue in the subsequent suit must have been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (ii) the former suit must have been between the same parties or between parties claiming under them; (iii) the matter must have been heard and fi- nally decided by a competent court. From the evidence of DW1 and DW2, it is ad- mitted that the present plaintiff was not a party to O.S. No.95 of 2016. DW1 him- self admits that the plaintiff in the present suit was not a party to that earlier suit and that the decree therein would not bind him. The decree in O.S. No.95 of 2016 was obtained against certain third parties in respect of a portion of Survey No.140 measuring Ac.3.22 cents. Therefore, the essential requirement of identity of par- ties is absent. In the absence of the present plaintiff being a party to the former suit, or claiming under a party, the principle of res judicata does not operate against him. A judgment between parties binds only the parties and their privies, but not third parties; as such, it cannot operate against a stranger to the earlier 9

Fair in OS.No.43/2020, dt.27-02-2026 proceedings. Therefore, the decree in O.S. No.95 of 2016 does not bar the present suit on the ground of res judicata.

14.However, the marking of the decree and judgment in O.S. No.95 of 2016 cannot be brushed away as irrelevant. Though it may not operate as res ju- dicata, it is a circumstance that demonstrates that disputes regarding Survey

No.140 were earlier litigated and that the defendants had attained an injunction decree in respect of a portion of the same survey number. This fact lends some weight to the defendants’ assertion of possession over portions of Survey No.140, particularly when read in conjunction with their plea that they are cultivating spe- cific extents of land in the said Survey Number. Moreover, the present suit is con- fined to the plaintiff’s alleged portion of Ac.2.00 cents described as 140/P1 as to whether the plaintiff has established his right to claim permanent injunction. In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must prove that he has lawful posses- sion of the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit and there is interfer- ence by the defendants.

15.In the present case, there is serious dispute with regard to the identity of the suit scheduled property. The subdivision of Survey No.140 into 140/P1 has not been sufficiently proved by the plaintiff. Ex.A1 reflects only Survey No.140 without subdivision. Ex.A2 contains the “P1” in written in pencil. Moreover, PW1 admitted that Survey No.140 is not yet subdivided as such there are several mate- rial contradictions between PW1 and PW2 regarding the boundaries. The eastern boundary itself has not been properly established. When identity of the property is uncertain,then possession cannot be proved on an uncertain property . Further, the defendants have produced evidence showing their earlier decree in respect of a Survey No.140 and have contended to have possession over certain extents in the said survey number. Though the decree does not bind the plaintiff, it reveals ongoing disputes and rival claims within the same survey number. In such circum- 10

Fair in OS.No.43/2020, dt.27-02-2026 stances, where title is clouded, subdivision is clearly uncertain due to inconsistent boundaries and possession is also disputed due to which a mere suit for bare in- junction is not the appropriate remedy. When the plaintiff’s title and identity of property are under cloud, the proper course would be to seek declaratory relief along with consequential relief. Therefore, the plaintiff has nevertheless failed to establish clear identity and lawful possession of a definite, demarcated portion of

Survey No.140. In view of the above discussions, consequently, he cannot be said to have proved his claim for the discretionary relief of permanent injunction.

Issue No.4:-

In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 27 th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- P. Samyuktha,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Sullurpet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined on behalf of Plaintiffs

PW1: Vatambeti Munikrishnaiah

PW2: Dudala Venkatesh

Witness Examined on behalf of Defendants

DW1: V. Munisubramanyam

DW2: Vatembeti Muni Hari

DW3: V. Babu Pillai

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiffs

Ex.A1: Original D-Form Patta issued in the name of plaintiff, dated 12-01- 2004

Ex.A2: Original Pattadar Passbook stands in the name of the plaintiff,

dated 19-04-2004

Ex.A3: Original Cist Receipt paid by plaintiff, dated 14-07-2020

Ex.A4: No.3 Adangals issued through Meeseva for Fasli 1429, dated 10- 12-2019

Ex.A5: No.3 Adangals issued through Meeseva for Fasli 1430, dated 14- 09-2020

Ex.A6: 1B Namuna issued through Meeseva – 3 in number, dated 25-04- 2016, 03-12-2023, 14-09-2020 11

Fair in OS.No.43/2020, dt.27-02-2026

Ex.A7: Land Title deed and pattadar passbook issued through Meeseva,

dated 15-05-2018

Documents marked on behalf of Defendants

Ex.B1: Mee-Seva Copy of Filed Measurement Sketch for Sy.No.:140 of Meejuru Village of D.V. Satram Mandal

Ex.B2: Settlement Register issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, DV Satram for Sy.No:123 stands in the name of Vakati Subramanaya Reddy and others

Ex.B3: Certified copy of Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.95/2016 on the file of PJCJ Court, Sullurpeta, dated 25.09.2018

Ex.B4: Office copy of legal notice, dated 24.09.2020 got issued by the defendant

Ex.B5: Office copy of Reply notice got issued by the plaintiff dated 08.10.2020

Ex.B6: Postal receipts (5 in number)

Ex.B7: Served Postal Acknowledgments (3 in number)

Sd/- P. Samyuktha,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Sullurpet.

12

APNE0F0004732021

Presented on : 08-10-2021 Registered on : 08-10-2021 Decided on : 27-02-2026 Duration : 4 years, 4 months, 19 days

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION): AT:

SULLURPET :: SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Present: Miss P. SAMYUKTHA ,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpeta.

Dated, this the 27th day of February, 2026.

OS.No.105/2021

Between:

Vemasani Bujjamma, W/o Veeraswamy Naidu, Aged about 50 Years, Agriculturist, Residing at Thaneyali Village, Doravarisatram Mandal,

SPSR. Nellore District.... Plaintiff

And

Gandamaneni Dasarada Rama Naidu @ Dasaiah Naidu, S/o late Munuswami Naidu, Aged about 63 Years, Thaneyali Village,

Doravarisatram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.... Defendant

This suit coming for final hearing before me on 12.02.2026 in the presence of Sri M. Soma Sekhar - Advocate for the plaintiff, and of Sri. P. Malakondaiah, Advocate for Defendant, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following— // JUDGMENT //

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff submits that originally the suit schedule mentioned landed property comprising an extent of Ac 2-07 cents in S. No.18-3 of Thaneyali Village lands belonged to oneMenakuru Venkata Krishna Reddy, son of late China Rami 1

Fair in OS.No.105/2021, dt.27.02.2026

Reddy of Thaneyali Village and he was the original pattadar and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same as the absolute owner.

(ii)The plaintiff submits that the said original pattadar Menakuru Venkata

Krishna Reddy sold the schedule mentioned landed property in favour of the plaintiff on 11-04-2010 for a valuable consideration of Rs.2,07,000/- on execution of an unregistered sale latter and also delivered possession of the suit schedule land in favour of the plaintiff on the date of sale itself. Since then the plaintiff along with her husband is in possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner. Subsequently the plaintiff got the said unregistered sale transaction ratified through the Tahsildar, Doravarisatram Mandal by paying the required stamp duty and registration fee before the office of Sub-Register, Sullurpet as contemplated under section of the AP Records in Right and Pattadar Pass Book

Act and obtained 13(b) and 13(c) ratification forms. Thus the plaintiff acquired clear and absolute title over the schedule mentioned landed property. The name of the plaintiff is also mutated as pattadar in the 1 B and as enjoyer in the No.3 adangals. The plaintiff submits that the defendant is in no way concerned with the suit schedule landed property. He got certain lands towards east of the suit schedule land.

(iii)While so the defendant herein raised a boundary dispute in the month of April, 2021, alleging that his land was merged in the suit schedule land and made a demand to surrender a portion of suit schedule land towards east. As the defendant is highly influenced in the locality, the plaintiff, in order to clarify the said allegations of the defendant, got the appointment of Mandal Surveyor by paying challan on 26-04-2021 and got his land surveyed on 01-05-2021 and got confirmed that no portion of the land of the defendant is merged with the plaint schedule property. The defendant was absent on the date of survey, though he was previously informed about the visit of the surveyor. Even after the survey 2

Fair in OS.No.105/2021, dt.27.02.2026 work the defendant did not agree with the survey work and started attempts to disposes the plaintiff from the plaint schedule land. Day before yesterday when the plaintiff was getting the suit land ploughed, the defendant came to the suit schedule land with his Hench-men and tried to obstruct the ploughing work of the plaintiff and threatened the plaintiff to surrender a portion of suit schedule land towards east for which, the plaintiff made a protest. In result there was some altercation and it is only on the intervention of the neighbouring land owners, the defendant left the suit schedule land threatening that he would dispossess the plaintiff and occupy a particular portion of the suit land towards east. Since then the defendant is gathering the support of some anti-social elements. As the defendant is powerful and bent upon violence, the plaintiff apprehends danger to her person and property. Hence the Suit.

3.After receipt of summons, Defendant filed written statement through his advocate.

4. Brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant :-

The defendant denies all the allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein to be true and put the plaintiff to strict proof of the same.

(ii)The defendant submits that the total extent of S.No.18-3 of Thaneyali

Village is Ac.2.07 cents of wet land and the same originally belonged to Battepati

Venkata Subba Reddy. He sold the said extent of Ac.2.07 cents i.e., the plaint schedule land to Kurugonda Ramakrishnama Naidu under the sale deed dated 16-10-1971 registered as Doc.No.1302/1971 for a valid consideration. The

Kurugonda Ramakrishnama Naidu paid the entire sale consideration and was put in possession of the said land on the date of the said sale itself. Thus, since 16- 10-1971 the said Kurugonda Ramakrishnama Naidu was the owner of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiff is claiming that the plaint schedule land and he stood as the one of the attestor to the above said deed in favour of Kurugonda 3

Fair in OS.No.105/2021, dt.27.02.2026

Ramakrishnama Naidu. Thus, it is clear that the said land absolutely belongs to

Kurugonda Ramakrishnama Naidu and Menakuru Venkiata Krishna Reddy is not owner of the said land at any point of time. Plaintiff is wrongly claiming that she purchased the plaint schedule land under the alleged sale letter in the year 2010 from the said Menakuru Venkata Krishna Reddy himself had no right or title to the plaint schedule land the alleged sale letter do not convey any title to the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land. Even otherwise the Tahsildar, D.V. Satram Mandal did not follow the procedure the contemplated under AP Rights in Land and

Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (Amended Act, 1989) before issuing 13(b) & (c) forms in favour of the Plaintiff. Certified copy of the said sale deed dated 16-10- 1971 registered as Doc.No.1302/1971 is filed herewith and its contents may be read as part and parcel of the Written Statement.

(iii)The Defendant further submits that he purchased eastern side

Ac.0.45 cents out of the plaint schedule property from Kurugonda

Ramakrishnama Naidu in the year 1980 under a possessory agreement of sale and since then the respondent is possession and enjoyment of the said extent of eastern side Ac.0.45 cents out of the plaint schedule land with absolute rights and is cultivating the same since then. The original owner is no more, Later, his son by name Kurugunda Murali Naidu also executed possessory sale agreement in the name of this Defendant. The name of the defendant is also updated int he

Revenue Records and the defendant is also paying cist to the said land. Certified copy of the adangals obtained under the RTI Act and the original available cist receipts showing the payment of the cist in respect of the said Ac.0.45 cents of land in S.No.18/3 are filed herewith and its contents may be read as part and parcel of this Written Statement.

(iv)The Defendant further submits that the Plaintiff is never in the possession of the plaint schedule property and the Plaintiff by managing the 4

Fair in OS.No.105/2021, dt.27.02.2026

Revenue authorities had created ROR Certificates and based on it obtained 1B & adangals for the present year in her name and got filed the present suit with all false allegations to encroach into the plaint schedule property by obtaining temporary injunction order.

(v)Later, the defendant made representation dated. 08-11-2021 before

RDO., Naidupeta, stating that for cancellation of New ROR Certificates issued by the then Tahsildar, Doravarisatram, in favour of the Plaintiff for fasali.1430 an extent of Ac.0.45 cents (out of Ac.2.07 cents) which is pending for enquiry. On the direction of RDO., Naidupeta, the defendant made representation dated.06-12- 2021 to the Tahsildar, Doravarisatram, stating that the alleged 1-B and No.3 adangals may be entered in dispute register further not to issue any certificate in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff already filed the suit before Principle Junior

Civil Judge, Sullurupeta. The Plaintiff has not come up with clean hands before

this court. The said documents are sham and nominal documents it does not create any right to the Plaintiff at any point of time.

(vi)The Defendant submits that the Plaintiff is not having any prima-facie case in her favour and the balance of convenience is also not in her favour. If

Permanent injunction is granted in favour of the Plaintiff the defendant would be put to serious loss and hardship. There are no merits in the above stated plaint in supra. The Present Plaint is filed by the Plaintiff with all false untenable grounds and documents. Either the Plaintiff or her alleged vendors have no right or title to the Plaint schedule land. It is therefore prayed that the suit may be dismissed with exemplary costs U/S 35-A of C.P.C.

5.The plaintiff in support of her contentions got examined PW1 and

PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. On the other hand, on 31.10.2025, Defendant called absent. Defendant did not adduce evidence despite giving several conditions and imposing costs. On perusal of the docket, as it is posted for last 5

Fair in OS.No.105/2021, dt.27.02.2026 and final chance. In view of the above circumstances the evidence of defendant is treated as Nil.

6.Heard the arguments of the plaintiff counsel. Arguments of the counsel for defendant is treated as nil.

7.Now the point for determination is that:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of

suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed for?

3. To what relief?

POINT:-

Issue Nos.1 and 2:-

8.The Plaintiff filed this suit for the relief of permanent injunction for re- straining the defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoy- ment of the suit schedule property. The pleadings of the Plaintiff shows that Origi- nally the suit schedule property belongs to one Menakuru Venkata Krishna Reddy of Thaneyali Village and was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Later the said Menakuru Venkata Krishna Reddy sold the said property to the plaintiff on 11-04-2010 for Rs.2,07,000/- on execution of unregistered sale letter. Since then the plaintiff and her husband were in possession and enjoyment as absolute own- ers. Subsequently the plaintiff got the said unregistered sale transaction ratified through the Tahsildar, Doravarisatram Mandal and obtained 13(b) and 13(c) ratifi- cation forms and obtained absolute title over the suit schedule property and mu- tated her name as Pattadar in 1B and as enjoyer in No.3 adangal.

9.It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has no manner of right, or title over the suit schedule property, but as the defendant is highly influenced person in the locality, the plaintiff got surveyed the suit schedule land through the

Mandal Surveyor which was not agreed by the defendant and that the defendant 6

Fair in OS.No.105/2021, dt.27.02.2026 tried to interfere with the Plaintiff’s possession by coming to the land along with

Hench-men and tried to obstruct the plouging work and threatened to surrender a portion of suit schedule land towards east.

10.On the other hand, the defendant pleaded that originally the suit schedule land in S.No.18-3 of Thaneyali Village to an extent of Ac. 2.07 cents of wet land belonged to Battepati Venkata Subba Reddy and he sold the said land to

Kurugonda Ramakrishnama Naidu under the sale deed dated 16.10.1971 and ever since then 16-10-1971, the said Kurugonda Ramakrishnama Naidu was the owner of the plaint schedule land. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff has wrongly claimed that she purchased the plaint schedule land from Menakuru

Venkata Krishna Reddy in the year 2010 and the said Menakuru Venkata Krishna

Reddy has no right or title over the plaint schedule land.

11.The defendant further submits that he purchased eastern side

Ac.0.45 cents out of the plaint schedule property from Kurugonda Ramakrish- nama Naidu in the year 1980 under a possessory agreement of sale and since then the respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the said 0.45 cents of land and is cultivating the same since then. The defendant further submits that the original owner was no more and his son Kurugonda Murali Naidu also executed possessory sale agreement in the name of the defendant.

12.In support of her case, the Plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and to support her case, and one Malichi Polaiah is exam- ined as PW2.

13.On perusal of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, Ex.A1 is the

Original impounded sale deed dated 11.04.2010 executed by Menakuru Venkata

Krishna Reddy in favour of plaintiff along with Forms 13(b) and (c) bearing No.

RSB1012000462933. Ex.A2 is the Mee-seva Copy of 1-B, dated 14.08.2021 is- sued by the Tahsildar, DV. Satram for S.No.18-3 stands in the name of plaintiff.

7

Fair in OS.No.105/2021, dt.27.02.2026

Ex.A3 is the Mee-seva copy of Pattadar adangal for fasali 1430, dated 14.08.2021 by the Tahsildar, DV. Satram for S.No. 18-3 stands in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A4 is the Mee-seva copy of Encumbrance Certificate, dated 25.08.2021. Ex.A5 is the

Certified copy of the fair adangal obtained under RTI Act for S.No.18-3. Ex.A6 is the Certified copy of No.3 adangals (8 in number) for the fasalies 1408, 1409, 1415, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1421, 1423 obtained under RTI Act with endorsement for

S.No.18-3.

14.In a suit for permanent injunction, the Plaintiff is required to prove her lawful possession as on the date of the suit and the threat of interference by the defendant.

15.The Plaintiff as PW1 reiterated her case that the suit schedule prop- erty land was assigned to her under a valid Original impounded sale deed dated 11.04.2010 executed by Menakuru Venkata Krishna Reddy in favour of plaintiff along with Forms 13(b) and (c) bearing No. RSB1012000462933 and that she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment carrying out cultivation ever since.

She relied upon Ex.A2 Mee-Seva Copy of 1-B, dated 14-08-2021, Ex.A3 Mee-

Seva copy of Pattadar adangal all of which stand in her name and have been is- sued by the Revenue Authorities. In the cross-examination of PW1 by council for

Defendant except putting a bare suggestion that Exs.A1 to A3 were fabricated and created, the defendant could not elicit any material to discredit these docu- ments or the testimony of PW1. She was not confronted with any contradictory revenue record, nor was any official register to prove that no such patta was is- sued in her name. Likewise, PW2, who supported the plaintiff’s case regarding her possession and her agricultural activities, also withstood the cross-examina- tion without any material being extracted in favour of the defendant. Thus, the cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s witnesses did not result in any substantive material to doubt the authenticity of Ex.A1 to A6 or to discredit the Plaintiff’s claim 8

Fair in OS.No.105/2021, dt.27.02.2026 of lawful possession. Mere suggestions unsupported by any documentary evi- dence, does not amount to proper proof of their contention and cannot sufficiently rebut the Plaintiff’s documentary evidence and their consistent testimony before the court.

16.On the other hand, defendant though contends that Plaintiff is wrongly claiming the plaint schedule land under the alleged sale letter in the year 2010 from the said Menakuru Venkata Krishna Reddy as he himself had no right or title to the plaint schedule land the alleged sale letter do not convey any title to the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land. The defendant did not file any docu- ment to prove his contention by way of filing the sale letter or any documents to show his possession over the suit scheduled property which Invites an adverse in- ference as per Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act that the production of such records would have supported the Plaintiff’s version rather than the defendants’ contentions.

17.Further, from the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2, the plaintiff’s case remains unrebutted and unshaken in the cross-examination. There is nothing on record to discredit her version that she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the properties from the date on 11-04-2010 after execution of an unregistered sale latter.

18.In view of the above, the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff, coupled with the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the defendant, clearly establishes that the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing the suit.

19.The defendant, though filed a written statement alleging that

S.No.18-3 of Thaneyali Village is Ac.2.07 cents of wet land and the same origi- nally belonged to Battepati Venkata Subba Reddy. He sold the said extent of 9

Fair in OS.No.105/2021, dt.27.02.2026

Ac.2.07 cents i.e., the plaint schedule land to Kurugonda Ramakrishnama Naidu under the sale deed dated 16-10-1971 registered as Doc.No.1302/1971 for a valid consideration and that the documents filed by the plaintiff are not genuine, has not entered the witness box nor examined any witness in support of his plea. Despite being afforded several opportunities by the Court, the defendant failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate their case .

20.It is a settled principle of law that when a party who asserts a fact fails to enter the witness box, an adverse inference has to be drawn against such party under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act as laid down in Vidhyadhar v.

Manikrao and Another, (1999) 3 SCC 573), The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the defendant does not step into the witness box to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s evidence remains unchallenged and has to be ac- cepted.

21.In the present case, the Plaintiff has established her possession through oral evidence supported by documentary evidence. The defendant has neither set up any right nor adduced any evidence to justify his alleged interfer- ence as he remained absent. A person who is a stranger to the property and who has no right, title or interest therein cannot interfere with the lawful possession of another. The evidence of the plaintiff remains wholly unchallenged and undebut- ted, as the defendant, despite having ample opportunity, failed to produce any contradictory evidence. The documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff stands corroborated by the oral assertions along with revenue records, which have not been contradicted by any evidence before the court. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, the version put forth by the plaintiff appears consistent, credi- ble, and nearer to truth, and therefore, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the same.

10

Fair in OS.No.105/2021, dt.27.02.2026

22.If the defendant has got any case, they would come and contest the case by way of positive evidence. But they did not do so. Therefore, it can be safely held that the defendant have no good case as alleged by him.

Issue No.3:-

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land / property.

Typed to dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 27 th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- P. Samyuktha,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Sullurpet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined on behalf of Plaintiffs

Pw1: Vemasani Bujjamma

Pw2: Malichi Polaiah

Witness Examined on behalf of Defendant

- None -

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiffs

Ex.A1: Original impounded sale deed dated 11.04.2010 executed by Menakuru Venkata Krishna Reddy in favour of plaintiff along with Forms 13(b) and (c) bearing No. RSB1012000462933 Ex.A2: Mee-seva Copy of 1-B, dated 14.08.2021 issued by the Tahsildar, DV. Satram for S.No.18-3 stands in the name of plaintiff Ex.A3: Mee-seva copy of Pattadar adangal for fasali 1430, dated 14.08.2021 by the Tahsildar, DV. Satram for S.No. 18-3 stands in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A4: Mee-seva copy of Encumbrance Certificate, dated 25.08.2021.

Ex.A5: Certified copy of the fair adangal obtained under RTI Act for S.No.18-3. Ex.A6: Certified copy of No.3 adangals (8 in number) for the fasalies 1408, 1409, 1415, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1421, 1423 obtained under RTI Act with endorsement for S.No.18-3.

Documents marked on behalf of Defendant

- Nil -

Sd/- P. Samyuktha,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Sullurpet.

11

APNE0F0006072017

Presented on : 12-12-2017 Registered on : 12-07-2018 Decided on : 27-02-2026 Duration : 8 years, 2 months, 15 days

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) – CUM -

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SULLURPETA

Miss. P. SAMYUKTHA,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) – cum -

Judicial Magistrate of I Class: Sullurpet

Dated this the 27th day of February, 2026

C.C.No.68/2018

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Tada Police Station… Complainant

Versus

P. Murugan, S/o Pitchaiah Devara, Aged about 41 yrs, Perumal kovil threru, North Hariyanayakapuram, Mukkadalvali, T.Q.

Thirunelvali, Dist, Tamil Nadu State....Accused

Pralayakaveri Lokesh Varma S/o Dhana Sekhar, aged 32 yrs, Ramapuram village, Tada Mandal, SPSR Nellore Dist....Deceased

This case coming for final hearing before me on 26.02.2026 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and of Sri S.A. Kareem,

Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tada Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.303/2017 for the offence U/Sec. 304(A)

IPC.

2. Prosecution case in nut shell:-

(i) On 11.12.2017 at about 06.30 hours the deceased return back to home after completion of Sabarimala pilgrimage tour. Later he removed the "Ayyappa mala".

On the same day at about 16.20 hours he was going to Gummidipudi on his motor cycle bearing No. TN 05 AL 0182 (unicorn) to bring homely essential commodities on the way reached at the opposite old wine shop on NH-16 (Nellore Chennai lane) the 2 CC.No.68/2018, Dt.27.02.2026 accused driver of trailer lorry bearing No: TN 28 AR 3272 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and proceeding towards Chennai side, in order to over take the deceased motor cycle and all of sudden turned to extreme left side, in this drawback the trailor lorry was hit the motor cycle and fell on the road, the rear wheel of trailor lorry run over upon the head of deceased, as a result of which the head was broken vital brain contents came out and died on the spot. The Motor cycle belongs to the deceased was badly damaged. LWs 5 to 7 / Vinayakam, Pudi

Sudhakar, Sayyad Basha have witnessed the occurrence. Later L.Ws 1 to 4 / P.

Savithri, B. Meghala, K. Hemavathi, E. Babu learnt the occurrence of offence and rushed to the spot.

(ii)Basing on the report of LW1, LW14 / Sub-Inspector of police, Tada PS registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 303/2017, U/S. 304(A) IPC of Tada Police

Station and submitted FIR’s to all the concerned officers. During the course of investigation, LW14 Sub-Inspector of police, Tada PS visited the scene of offence, drafted scene observation report and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and conducted autopsy over the dead body. Then LW8 produced the accused driver along with vehilce records and LW14 verified the vehicle records, driving license of the accused and later arrested the accused and explained the reasons of his arrest as contemplated under section 50 Cr.P.C. and produced him

before the court. LW13 / Motor vehicle inspector inspected the crime vehicle and

issued MVI Report. Hence the charge sheet.

3. This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence

U/Sec.304(A) IPC and issued summons to the accused.

4.As per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Nellore in

Dis.No.3684, dated 29.06.2018, this case was transferred from the court of Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sullurpet to the court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Sullurpet.

3 CC.No.68/2018, Dt.27.02.2026

5. On the appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. was furnished and he was examined U/Sec.251

Cr.P.C. for the offence U/Sec.304(A) IPC, the substance of acquisition leveled on him was read over, explained to the accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution to prove its case got examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. The evidence of LW4-E. Babu, LW5-Vinayakam (died), LW7-

Sayyad Basha, LW8-Michael Nivin, LW10-E. Palani, LW11-P. Suresh, LW13-V.

Jayaprakash, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sullurepta, was given up by the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C explaining about incriminating material appearing against him from prosecution side witnesses and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, evidence on defence side is closed.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/Sec.304(A) of IPC?

Evidence of prosecution:-

10.According to the evidence of PW1 / P. Savithri, she deposed that on 11.12.2017 during morning hours her son lokesh went to Ayyapa swamy temple and returned to their house. On the same day during evening hours she came to know that her son lokesh went to his junior peternal uncle and taken his motor cycle. She further came to know that while he was proceeding on the said motor cycle at 4:20pm, one lorry came in high speed and dashed on the back side of the motor cycle. The back side of said lorry ran over the head of her son. Due to which her son’s head got damaged severely and he died on the spot. Immediately on coming to know the same through her villagers she rushed to the scene of offence and found the dead body of 4 CC.No.68/2018, Dt.27.02.2026 her son. She further, observed the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.3272 belongs to

Chennai. The motor cycle also got damaged she saw the driver of crime vehicle. She could not identify the driver of crime vehicle at present due to lakh of memory. She knows the name of the driver of the crime vehicle when he was enquired by others as

Murugan. His age was approximately 40 years to her knowledge. The crime vehicle lorry is a container lorry. subsequently she went to Tada police station. There police drafted her report in Telugu on her saying in Tamil language. Further, the contents of said report was read over to her in Tamil language. She affixed her LTI on the said written report. Police examined her. PW1 identified Ex.P1 written report along with her

LTI, dated:11.12.2017. The learned APP confronted the contents of Ex.P1 by reading with Tamil language.

11.PW2 B. Meghala who is the sister of deceased has deposed that she does not know the accused and that she does not know anything about this case.

PW2 turned hostile and that Ex.P2 is her 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

12. PW3 K. Hemavathi has deposed that her brother died in a road accident and that she does not know how the accident occurred and who is responsible for the accident. PW3 turned hostile and that Ex.P3 is her 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

13.PW4 P. Sudhakar has deposed that In the year 2017 in the evening at about 5 pm while he was present in his home near Ramapuram bus stop he heard a loud sound. Immediately he went to the spot and observed that the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and was already dead. He observed there was a lorry. He cannot state the registration number of said lorry but it belongs to Tamilnadu state. He has not observed the driver of the lorry. He came to know that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident caused by the lorry.

14.PW5 Pudi Raghavan has deposed that on 12-12-2017 Tada police called me to act as mediator and went to Ramapuram National highway road. He observed one damaged motor bike adjacent to divider and one Chicken shop was there at the scene of offence. In his presence scene observation report was prepared by the police 5 CC.No.68/2018, Dt.27.02.2026 and he put his signature on it. Later he went to government hospital, Sullurpet and observed the dead body of deceased and conducted inquest in his presence. Police drafted inquest report. He put his signature on inquest report. Witness identified his signature on scene observation report and inquest report. Ex.P4 is the scene observation report and Ex.P5 is the inquest report.

15.PW6. I. Ramanaiah, CAS, PHC has deposed that on 12-12-2017 he conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased and issued Ex.P6 post mortem report and opined that the death is due to haemorrhage and shock due to

RTI.

16.PW7 . D. Venkateswara Rao, SI of police, Tada PS has deposed that on 11-12-2017 at 6 pm while he was present in police station PW1 came to police station with a written report. Basing on the said report he registered a case in Cr.No.303/2017 u/sec. 304A IPC and issued Ex.P7 FIR and submitted original FIR to court and copies to all concerned. Then he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, observed the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P8 rough sketch and Ex.P9 scene observation report, held Ex.P10 inquest over the dead body of decease. Then on 13-12-2017 at 8 am while he was present in the police station

LW8 Michael Nivin produced the accused and surrendered before him and confirmed him as accused in this case and verified the driving licence of the accused and vehicle documents. Then, on the same day he sent a requisition to the MVI inspector,

Sullurpet to inspect the vehicle. On 15-12-2017 he received postmortem certificate from government hospital, Sullurpet. On 24-12-2017 he received Ex.P11 motor vehicle inspector report and on 11-01-2018 after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

Appreciation of evidence:-

17.On perusal of evidence of PW.1, who is the defacto complainant, he did not support the prosecution case and that he came to know that her son met with an accident while he was going to his junior paternal uncle on a motor cycle and that she 6 CC.No.68/2018, Dt.27.02.2026 cannot identify the driver of crime vehicle at present due to lack of memory and that she admitted at one stage of her cross examination that she never saw the manner of incident. Hence the evidence of PW1 is only a hearsay evidence. Further PW2 and

PW3 who are the sisters of the deceased turned hostile and they did not depose any incriminating evidence against the accused and they do not know the accused and that they do not know anything about the facts of the case. Hence the evidence deposed by PW1 to PW3 did not supported the prosecution case as to the manner of accident, who committed it, address particulars and identity of accused.

18.As seen from the evidence of PW4 P. Sudhakar, while he was present at his home, he heard a loud sound, upon which he went to the spot and observed the deceased was dead and that he has not observed the driver of the lorry. Hence his evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution and did not support the case of prosecution. Further, at the request of police only, PW5 who acted as a mediator and put his signature on Ex.P4 scene observation report and Ex.P5 inquest report and he cannot read Telugu language and that he does not know the contents of Ex.P4 and

Ex.P5 and that his details are not mentioned in Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. Moreover, police did not issue any written notice to him to act as a mediator. Hence the evidence of PW5 also did not support the case of prosecution. Further PW6 issued post mortem report and opined that the death is due to heamorrhage and shock due to RTI.

19.The investigation also suffers from notable deficiencies which can be seen in the testimony of PW7, the Investigating Officer where he admits that he did not mention the crime vehicle number in FIR, did not put his signature beneath the signature of PW1 in the 161 Cr.P.C.Statement, did not mention date in 161 Cr.P.C.

statements of witnesses, did not mention the date beneath his signature in rough sketch, did not examine the names of person shown in the rough sketch and did not mention the nature of shop of PW4 in his statement and that the scene of offence is a busy locality and that no mahazar was prepared at the time of surrender of accused.

He further admits that MVI did not visit the scene of offence as the vehicle was kept 7 CC.No.68/2018, Dt.27.02.2026 already in the police station, such evidence shakes the chain of circumstances and cause discrepancy to the prosecution’s attempt to prove negligence or rashness on part of the accused.

20.Most importantly, there is no clear and cogent evidence has been placed to establish the exact manner in which the tractor was driven. There is no evidence explaining of the scene of occurrence. In offence under Section 304-A IPC, the fact that an accident occurred alone is not sufficient the prosecution must clearly prove that the accused’s conduct which amounted to criminal rashness or negligence. On an overall consideration of the oral and documentary evidence particularly the absence of clear proof of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused coupled with the unexplained delay in FIR and the material lapses in investigation, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused caused the death of the deceased by a rash or negligent act or that he caused hurt to

PW3 as a result of his acts.

21.Hence, for the reasons assigned above, this Court holds that, the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence Under section 304-A of IPC. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal, even if there is an iota of doubt the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.304(A)

IPC and he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- P. SAMYUKTHA,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution

Pw1:P. Savithri

Pw2:B. Meghala

Pw3:K. Hemavathi

Pw4:P. Sudhakar 8 CC.No.68/2018, Dt.27.02.2026

PW5:Pudi Raghavan

PW6:Dr. I. Ramanaiah, CAS, PHC

PW7:D. Venkateswara Rao, SI of police, Tada

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Defence

- NONE -

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution

Ex.P1:Written report of PW1, dated 11.12.2017

Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2

Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

Ex.P4:Scene observation report

Ex.P5:Inquest report

Ex.P6:Post mortem report

Ex.P7:FIR

Ex.P8:Rough sketch

Ex.P9:Scene observation report

Ex.P10:Inquest report

Ex.P11:Motor vehicle Inspector report.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence - Nil -

Sd/- P. SAMYUKTHA,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet, //True copy//

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet,

9 CC.No.68/2018, Dt.27.02.2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of:NELLORE

CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, SULLURPET

Date ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport/ApprehereleaseCommence-close ofsentence/ complaintn-sion ofon bailment of trialtrialorder accused 11.12.201711.12.2017-----05.11.201902.02.202627.02.2026

Explanation for the delay and remarks:

This case was taken on file on 31.01.2018. As per the proceedings of the Hon’ble

Principal District Judge, Nellore in Dis.No.3684, dated 29.06.2018, this case was

transferred from the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sullurpet to the court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpet. On 17.08.2018, on appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him and charges were framed against the accused and posted for trial. On 05.11.2019, PW1 was examined and got marked Ex.P1. On 22.06.2023, PW2 and PW3 were examined and got marked Ex.P2 and P3. On 06.11.2025, PW4 was examined. On 27.11.2025, PW5 and PW6 were examined and got marked Ex.P4 to Ex.P6. On 02.02.2026, PW7 was examined and marked Ex.P7 to Ex.P11. On 10.02.2026, the evidence of LW4-E. Babu, LW5-Vinayakam (died), LW7-Sayyad Basha, LW8-Michael Nivin, LW10-E. Palani, LW11-P. Suresh, LW13-V. Jayaprakash, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sullurepta, was given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the prosecution evidence was closed. On 17.02.2026, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. On 26.02.2026 heard arguments on both sides. On 27.02.2026 judgment is pronounced. Hence the delay

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No.68/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION) – CUM - JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SULLURPETA

Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tada police station

Description of the Accused : P. Murugan, S/o Pitchaiah Devara, Aged about 41 yrs, Perumal kovil threru, North Hariyanayakapuram,Mukkadalvali,T.Q. Thirunelvali, Dist, Tamil Nadu State.

Offence:U/Sec.304-A IPC.

Finding:Accused is found not guilty for the above said offence.

Sentence:In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.304(A) IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/- P. SAMYUKTHA,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet, //True copy//

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet,

IN THE COURT OF THE

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: NAIDUPETA.

Present:- Kum. P.Samyuktha,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Naidupeta.

Friday, the Thirty Fifth (25th ) day of April, 2025.

CC No. 269 of 202 1

Between:

State : SEB Inspector Naidupeta. … Complainant

And

Marripudi Gopikrishna, s/o.Venkata Rao, Age 35 years, Caste by Kamma, R/o.thurpunaidupalem village, Tanguturu Mandal, Prakasam District. … Accused

This case coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri B.Suresh, Advocates for the accused and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Naidupeta has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.29/2021 for the offence punishable Under Section 34(a)1(i) of A.P. Excise Act.

2.The prosecution case in nutshell is as follows:

On 04.03.2021, during the course of raids conducted by LW.1 /

Sk.Md.Abdul Zaleel along with his staff, reached left side of road, Near Sub

Registrar Office, Juvvalapalem cross road, Naidupeta Municipality, at about 4.30 AM where they found a male person was in possession of two white 2 CC No.269/2021 colour plastic bags in his hands, trying to escape on seeing them and detained him. They caught hold the accused and on enquiry the accused confessed that the bag contains liquor bottles. On that, LW2 / S.Babu

Sathish was deputed to Juvvalapalem village for securing mediators and later, he returned along with LW.6 / N.Bharathi and LW.7 / B.Tejairam, who are working as Ward Women Protection Secretary, Volunteer of

Juvvalapalem. In their presence, LW.1 verified the said bags and found it containing 51 bottles in which the said first plastic bag containing 31 liquor bottles of 8 PM Rare Blend of Indian Whiskey & Malts each 1000 ml and 20 bottles of Old Admiral VSOP Brandy each 1000 ml Heals were torn – 51 bottles. On keen verification of the said bottles, the labels displaying the heal code numbers were found to have been torn away and they were found pasted with labels with printed matter thus “for sale in Karnatka only”, drew one bottle as sample from each bag, sealed and labeled it, seized the remaining property, arrested the accused under a cover of mediatornama drafted on the spot. Later, LW.1 sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner,

Guntur for analysis and received Analysis report, who opined that the sample is “Indian Liquor”. After completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 34(a)1(i) of A.P. Excise Act, and summons were issued to the accused.

4.After appearance of accused before the Court, copies of all 3 CC No.269/2021 documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207

Criminal procedure Code.

5. On consideration of entire material on record, accused is examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code, a charge under section 34(a)1(i) of A.P. Excise Act is framed against him, explained the substance of accusation to the accused in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, cited eight witnesses, amongst they examined three witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 3 and got exhibited

Exs.P1 to P5 and Mos.1 and 2 marked .

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined

Under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the available incriminating material on record, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard arguments from Both counsels.

9.Now the Point of determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the

guilt of accused for the offence under Section

34 (a)1(i) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

10.To prove the offence under Section 34 (a)1(i) of A.P. Excise Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein he was transporting, exporting, importing, manufacturing, collecting or possessing 4 CC No.269/2021 any intoxicants in contravention of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 or without any license or permit granted or issued under this Act.

11.According to the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3, on 04-03-2021 at about 04.45 a.m. he along with PW.2, LW.3, LW.4 from SEB Station,

Naidupeta and when he reached Juvvalapalem cross roads which is nearer to Sub-Registrar Office he found one male person with two bags carrying in his two hands. On seeing them in uniform, he tried to escaped from them.

With the help of staff of PW.3, they stopped him and on questioning him, he replied that the both bags carrying by him contains liquor bottles. Then

PW.3 deputed LW.2 for securing mediators and after some time he came back with two mediators i.e., PW.1 and LW.7 / Tejairam. Then in the presence of PW.1 and LW.7, he searched the bags and found liquor bottles in both bags in which one bag contains 31 bottles of 8 PM Rare Blend of

Indian Whiskey each 1 liter bottle and another bag contains of 20 bottles of

Old Admiral VSOP brandy each 1 liter, all the EAIL numbers were torned away. They observed from the bottles that they were purchased from

Karnataka State and on questioning the said person revealed his name as

Marripudi Gopi Krishna, son of Venkata Rama along with other details. On further questioning, the said person replied that the said bottles were purchased from the state of Karnataka for selling the said bottles in his native place. They identified the said liquor bottles are non duty paid liquor bottles. Later, they drew each one bottle from two brands for the purpose of 5 CC No.269/2021 FSL and affixed labels on both sample bottles and contraband which was duly signed by me, PW.1, LW.7 and the accused person. On further questioning by him the said Marripudi Gopi Krishna was not able to submit any valid permits or licenses before them. After informing the grounds of arrest they arrested him at the scene of offence. Then on his dictation PW.2 drafted the mediatornama at the scene of offence and after that PW.1, LW.7 and himself and his staff and the accused person signed on the said mediatornama at the scene of offence. Witness identified the mediatornama along with the signature his signature and the signature of LW.7 and the accused (Ex.P1 is marked as Mediatornama through PW.1.) The entire proceedings was completed by 05.45 a.m. on the same day at about 07.45 a.m. PW.3 registered the said mediatornama as the case in Cr.No.29/2021

U/Sec.34 (a) (1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act and he issued FIR, same is marked as

Ex.P2. On the same day he produced the accused before this Court along with remand report praying for Judicial remand and the court had sent the accused for Judicial remand. On 04-03-2021, he sent the sample bottles to

FSL along with requisition, MO.1 is 8 PM Rare Blend of Indian Whiskey and

MO.2 is the Old Admiral VSOP brandy. Ex.P3 is the requisition form sent to

FSL. On 15-05-2021, he received FSL report vide RC No.666/2021 opining that the samples MOs.1 and 2 are Indian liquor. Ex.P4 is the FSL analysis report. On 12-06-2021 vide RC No.84/2021/A1 the office of Superintendent of Police, Nellore issued destruction orders for the contraband seized in this case and a copy of orders is submitted before Honourable court and it is 6 CC No.269/2021 entered in S.No.34. Ex.P5 is the destruction proceedings of the office of

Superintendent of Police. After concluding the entire investigation and completing it he filed charge sheet against the accused U/Sec.34 (a) (1) (i) of A.P. Excise Act. The accused was possessing, carrying , trying to sell non duty paid liquor which shall not be sold in Andhra Pradesh but only

Karnataka as it is identified as Non-duty paid liquor and as seen from the record the accused does not have valid permits, licenses for carrying the

Karnataka liquor into the state of Andhra Pradesh and thus he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

12.The evidence of the prosecution witnesses were tested by way of cross examination to check its credibility and reliability of the prosecution case. On 04.03.2021, at about 5.00 a.m., LW.2 came to them and requested them to act as mediators and they went to Juvvalapalem cross roads where they saw accused with two plastic bags containing one bag contains 31 bottles of 8 PM Rare Blend of Indian Whiskey each 1 liter bottle and another bag contains of 20 bottles of Old Admiral VSOP brandy each on liter and drafted mediatornama and attested their signature as a mediators.

13.During the course of cross examination, PW.1 admitted that she alone went to the scene of offence and she do not know where and when the liquor bottles were manufactured. She stated that she did not see any symbols on those bottles. She admitted that she was informed that those bottles belong to Karnataka state by the C.I/LW1. Ex.P1 was drafted for one 7 CC No.269/2021 full page and she do not know if they used carbon paper. She stated that she do not know what those bottles are made up of. Further stated that she can not say the shape of the bottles. She stated that she was informed about the details of duty paid and non duty paid liquors by LW1 / CI of police and she does not know about it before that. Further stated that she did not see any identification card belonging to the accused. She admitted that she was shown the accused in this case outside the court. Further she stated that she did not obtain permission from her higher officials to act as mediator as she was not called during office hours. No doubt, when the search, seizure and scribe is in open place, there is no mandatory requirement to secure the independent mediators of the locality but to prove their case beyond an iota of doubt, it is expected that the police officials should have made sincere efforts to secure independent mediators to show their impartial investigation. No doubt, the acts of police officials in discharge of their official duties are presumed to be correct unless contrary is proved.

14.In support of this contention, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for complainant relies upon the following decisions :

Kripal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No.(5) 2100 of 2008, dt.15.2.2019, where in it was held :

“…. That there is no legal proposition to say that evidence produced by police officials is unworthy of acceptance without the support of an independent witnesses.

8 CC No.269/2021

There is no such legal proposition that the evidence of police officials should be supported by the independent witnesses.”

Gorusu Nagaraju, S/o. Appa Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2018 O A.I.R (SC) 1897, 2018 (1) A.L.D (Crl.) 904 (SC), where in it was held :

“……. It is well settled principal of criminal law that some minor contradictions or inconsistency in evidence cannot affect the material evidence and such contradiction or inconsistency cannot be made basis to discard the whole evidence as unreliable…….”

Varindra Kumar Case, date of decision : February, 2019,

before the Honorable Supreme Court of India, where in it was held :

“…. the criminal justice delivery system can’t be allowed to veer exclusively to the benefit of the offender, thereby making it an unidirectonal exercise and proper course of balancing the rights of the accused and that of the prosecution.

Individual rights of accused are undoubtedly important. But equally important in societal interest for bringing the offender to book and for the system to sent right message to all in the society be if the law abiding citizen or the potential offender.

Human Rights are not only of the accused but, extent part also the victim, the symbolic manner of member of the society as a potential victim and the society as a whole ….”

15.Sec. 100(4) of Cr.P.C reads thus:

“Before making a search, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place 9 CC No.269/2021 to be searched is situated or of any other locality, if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them to do so”

16.So, as can be understood from the said provision, that the presence of two respectable local inhabitants of that locality is required when search is being conducted in closed premises. The term “two respectable local inhabitants” indicates that the presence of local inhabitants shall be secured while conducting search and not otherwise. If at all, the officer conducting such search fails to secure the presence of such local inhabitants for any reason, then he can go for an alternative i.e., securing the presence of some Government officials.

17.As can be seen from the evidence, PW.3 who has deputed to secure the presence of mediators, there was not even an effort to show that he made any such attempt to secure the presence of “ local inhabitants” as mediators and on failure to do so, he opted to secure the presence of

Mahila police as mediator, itself indicates that she is attending to some of the duties of her area people and in such case securing her as a mediator serves no purpose and is not in strict compliance of the said provision under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. of course, when search is being made in an open place, there is no such requirement of the presence of two respectable local inhabitants but when the excise officials chose to have the presence of mediators; it should have been in accordance with the provision of law 10 CC No.269/2021 which is missing in the present case.

18.With regard to the alleged confessional statement of the accused before PW.3, the same is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act and is inadmissible in evidence. Further, PW.3 has stated that he has not verified the place in Karnatka from which the liquor bottles were brought by the accused as seals were already removed. He stated that they did not very the bags before the mediators arrive. He further stated that he did not issued any written notices to the mediators. He admitted that the liquor bottles will be available in AP. He stated that he drafted Ex.P1 drafted at the scene of offence by using carbon paper 1+1, but he do not remember how drafted Ex.P1. Further stated that they did not mentioned the names of the mediators however he mentioned their designations. He stated that the 2nd mediator is signed as Teja Kiran, He has not filed any proof to show that the 2nd mediator as tejairam. Further he stated that he did not gathered any CC footage to show that the accused got down at the RTC bus stand.

Moreover, in the circumstances in which the accused was caught as per the version of the prosecution, the accused was in possession of 51 bottles of 1 ltr in two carry bags in both the hands. Each bottle would be about 1 kg as stated by the witnesses, which is around 51kgs in two hands. In such situation it is defenatly a challenging task for a person to carry 51kgs without a vehicle to transport the same. Whereas, the prosecution did not whisper anything about the usage of any vehicle which creates a question 11 CC No.269/2021 about an ordinary person carrying 51 liquar bottles without any help on a road.

19.There is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to establish that the accused possessed contraband. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a)1(i) of A.P. Excise Act.

20.For the above discussion, this Court feels that prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence alleged against her.

21.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.34(a)1(i) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The accused shall execute a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- and it shall remain in force for a period of six months as required Under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure

Code.

MOs.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 25th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-P.SAMYUKATHA,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Naidupeta.

12 CC No.269/2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: -None- PW1 : N.Bharathi, GMSS

PW2 : N.Bhaskar, Head constable

PW3 : M.Abdul Zaleel, Inspector of Police P & E

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :-

Ex.P1 : Mediatornama/Mahazarnama

Ex.P2 : First Information Report.

Ex.P3 : Requisition, dated 13.7.2020.

Ex.P4 : Analysis report.

Ex.P5 : Destruction orders.

FOR DEFENCE:- -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1: One Sample bottle. MO.2: One Sample bottle. Id/-P.S., JFCM, Naidupeta.

// TRUE COPY //

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Naidupeta.

1 Fair in EP No.64/2018 in OS No.106/2016, Dt.28.02.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

AT::SULLURPETA

Present: Miss P. SAMYUKTHA,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpet.

Dated, this the 28th day of February, 2026

EP.No. 64/2018 in

O.S.No. 106/2016

1. Shaik Silar, S/o late Mirza Saheb (died)

2. Shaid Akbar, S/o late Shaik Silar...Petitioner/Decree Holder

Vs

Inukonda Muniramaiah ...Respondent /Judgment Debtor

This execution petition is coming for final hearing before me on 27.02.2026 in the presence of Sri. P. Lakshmaiah, Advocate for the Decree Holder and of Sri A. Kiran Kumar, Advocate for Judgment Debtor and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivers the following:-

O R D E R // //

The DHR filed the present Execution petition under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC seeking delivery of possession of vacant land Under for realization of the decree.

2. Brief facts of the affidavit filed along with the execution petition:

The DHR submits that he obtained a decree against the JDR in the above suit for the decree schedule property. He submits that the above JDR did not obey the decree within time granted by this court and also did not hand over the vacant possession of the decree schedule property to him as per the orders by this court. He submits that the above JDR preferred an appeal on the file of Hon'ble VII- Additional

District Judge court, Gudur which was numbered as A. S. No.35/2018 where no stay is

pending. He submits that to realise the fruits of the decree it is just and necessary to order delivery of the decree schedule property and he will file a separate petition for recovery of arrears of rent in the above case. He therefore prayed this Court to order delivery of vacant possession of the decree schedule property to him under Order XXI

Rule 35 for realization of the decree.

2 Fair in EP No.64/2018 in OS No.106/2016, Dt.28.02.2026

3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the JDR are as follows.:

The JDR denies all the allegations made by the DHR in the affidavit, except those that are specifically admitted to be true.

(ii)The JDR submits that the DHR is falsely contending that as if the JDR did not pay arrears and continued to pay periodical enhanced rent with all false and concocted allegations and prayed by the DHR before this court in the above case in

OS No.106/2016. In such situation the JDR filed his detailed written statement before

the court to prove his genuinety of the above case. But the DHR obtained fraudulent decree by suppressing the material facts as detailed in the written statement. At that time, the JDR preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble VII Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Gudur against the Decree and Judgment pronounced by this court in

OS No. 106/2016 and it was numbered as AS No. 34/2018 and the same was pending

for disposal on merits before the Hon'ble appealate court.

(ii)Further, the JDR submits that the DHR is collecting the enhanced rents from the

JDR till today. But the DHR intentionally filed the above vexatious frivolous EP before this court. To suppress the real state of facts done by the JDR. Therefore the EP is groundless and the EP is liable to be dismissed with costs of JDR. The JDR is hereby filing this counter listed mentioned documents to substantiate his defence averments and craves leave of the Court to read the averments thereof as part and parcel of this counter. Thus the above EP is devoid of merits.

(iii)Under these facts and circumstances he prays the Court to dismiss the EP with costs of JDR as the same is vexatious, frivolous and is devoid of merits and in the interest of justice.

4.Heard the learned counsel for DHR and the learned counsel for JDR. Perused the record.

5.Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the DHR is entitled for the Order of delivery warrant under Order

XXI Rule 35 CPC?

3 Fair in EP No.64/2018 in OS No.106/2016, Dt.28.02.2026

Point:-

6.Perused the record. This is an execution petition filed by the Decree Holder against Judgment Debtor for seeking delivery of vacant possession of the execution petition schedule property Under Order XXI Rule 35 as per the judgment and decree given in OS No. 106/2016, dated :18.01.2018.

7.The decree holder pleaded that the judgment debtor willfully did not obey the decree and judgment passed in his favour in OS No. 106/2016 and did not hand over the delivery of vacant possession of the EP schedule property within the given time by this Court and did not allow him to get the fruits of the decree in the aforesaid suit.

8.On the other hand, the judgment debtor has taken several pleas that the decree holder obtained the decree and judgment in OS No.106/2016 by way of fraudulent means and by suppressing material facts as mentioned in his written statement. He also submitted that he preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble VIIth Additional District and Sessions Court, Gudur challenging the Decree and Judgment in OS No.106/2016 and the same was numbered as AS No. 34/2018. He also submits that the Decree

Holder filed this execution petition on false, vexatious and frivolous grounds.The

Judgment Debtor pleads that the DHR is collecting the enhanced rents from the JDR till date and the same is not mentioned by the DHR and therefore this execution petition is groundless and prayed to dismiss the same.

9.In support of the case of the Decree Holder, the Decree Holder himself entered into the witness box and filed his chief evidence affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. The contents of the chief affidavit of the Decree Holder is nothing but reiteration of the contents of his execution affidavit. No documents were filed and marked on behalf of the decree holder to establish non-delivery of vacant possession of the execution petition schedule property as ordered against the Judgment Debtor.

10.During the course of cross-examination of PW1/Decree Holder, it was elicited that the PW1 admitted that appeal is pending against the Judgment in OS No.

4 Fair in EP No.64/2018 in OS No.106/2016, Dt.28.02.2026 106/2016 on the file of Hon'ble VII Additional District Judge Court, Gudur. He further states that no stay is granted in the said appeal. It was further elicited during the cross-examination of PW1 that the judgment debtor did not pay rents regularly during the pendency of the suit till the pronouncement of the Judgment. PW1 went on to testify that he received the rents paid by the judgment debtor before the court. The counsel for the judgment debtor tried to elicit that as the appeal is pending, this EP is not maintainable.

11.On the other hand, the judgment Debtor entered into the witness box and got examined himself as RW1. He filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and the contents of the evidence affidavit of RW1 is nothing but the reiteration of the contents of his counter.

12.During the cross examination of RW1, it was elicited that he does not remember the contents of his chief affidavit and he admitted that the contents of his chief affidavit are the contents of the suit and the same was disposed on merits and thereafter he preferred an appeal and the same is also decreed against the JDR and thereafter he approached the Hon'ble High Court and that there is no stay granted by the Hon'ble

High Court. The JDR also denied that he harassed DHR, but DHR harassed him. At present he states that they have not executed any rental agreement for the EP schedule property. Moreover he also admitted that at present the room rents are very high in the surrounding areas of the EP schedule property. He denied that the EP schedule property is in demolished stage. He denied that DHR also assured him that after construction of new rooms, one room will be allotted to the JDR. He denied that without paying rents he is using the same and he is liable to vacate the EP schedule property as per the decree. He further testified that his family is depending upon the income arising out of the room in the EP schedule property.

13.Subsequently EA No. 5/2025 and EA No. 6/2025 were filed on 01.01.2024, as per the orders in EA No. 5/2025 and EA No. 6/2025 dated: 7.04.2025 the evidence of 5 Fair in EP No.64/2018 in OS No.106/2016, Dt.28.02.2026

RW1 was recalled for the purpose of marking of documents of RW1. RW1 was recalled on 15.05.2025 for the purpose of marking of the documents on his behalf.

The following documents were marked as Exhibits on behalf of the JDR.

Ex.R1: Mee-Seva Certificate of Labour Department issued by the Government of

Andhra Pradesh standing in the name of the JDR / petitioner / defendant and in the name and style of Sholay hair dresses, dated 06.01.2025.

Ex.R2: Original demand notices of electricity bills of EP schedule property dated 02.12.2024, 01.10.2024 and 02.01.2025.

14.During the cross examination of RW1 on the said documents, it was elicited that he obtained Ex.R1 in the that year dated 06.01.2025 and JDR states that he obtained the said certificate every year. JDR further admitted that he did not file previously obtained certificates along with his counter or even on that day. JDR admitted that the address door number of EP schedule property mentioned in the petition and the address door number of the property marked by him are different. However he denied that he produced before this court the details of a different property. He further states that he lives by conducting business in that shop for a long time. He does not know the door numbers mentioned in the EP schedule property in the documents produced by him and in the addresses provided by him in EP No. 64/2018. He further admitted that the Hon'ble Appellate Court confirmed the decree of this court. RW1 further denied that he downloaded the receipts from online and filed before this court. He denied the suggestion that he is residing in the wakf board property illegally without paying any rent and even after several reminders he did not vacate the property. He denied that for a small shop in Sullurpeta Bazaar the rent will be Rs.10,000. He denied that without complying the conditions he is residing illegally in the EP schedule property.

He even denied that he is staying illegally in the EP schedule property and the directions of the court should be implemented.

6 Fair in EP No.64/2018 in OS No.106/2016, Dt.28.02.2026

15.On perusal of the affidavit filed by the decree holder and the counter filed by the judgment debtor and after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, It can be clearly seen that there is no dispute that a decree for delivery of possession was passed in OS No. 106 of 2016, as the existence of the said decree is admitted by both the parties. The judgment debtor does not dispute the passing of the decree, but his contention is that the the said decree and judgment was obtained on fraudulent grounds. As such, an appeal was pending before the appellate court. It can be observed that the DHR examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the contents of his execution affidavit. However, no independent witness or document was marked on his behalf. But it is a known fact that in case of an execution for delivery of possession, the decree itself is the most crucial document that rests with the decree holder. The burden on the decree holder is limited to the extent of establishing the existing Decree and whether such decree is executable or not and whether the said decree was complied as per the directions of the decree given by the court.

16.There is no dispute with regard to the fact that during the cross examination of

PW1, it was admitted that an appeal was pending against the decree and judgment in

OS 106/2016. However, it was categorically stated by PW1 that no stay was granted

and that the pendency of the appeal does not render the EP not maintainable in the absence of any stay order. While on the other hand the JDR examined himself and he reiterated the contents of his counter and taken the plea of suppression of the material facts and obtaining the decree and judgment in OS No.106/2016 by fraudulent means.

17.At this juncture, it is important to note that during the cross-examination of RW1, it was admitted that the decree passed in OS No.106/2016 was confirmed by the

Hon’ble appealate court. Moreover, no stay has been granted either by the Hon'ble VI

Additional District Judge Court, Gudur or by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh

during the said time. It was also admitted during the cross-examination of RW1 that he is conducting business in the EP schedule property and that his family is dependent 7 Fair in EP No.64/2018 in OS No.106/2016, Dt.28.02.2026 upon the income arising from the EP schedule property which shows that the EP schedule property is in the possession of the JDR even after the confirmation of the judgment and decree in OS No.106/2016.

18.On perusal of the documents marked by RW1, Ex.R1 and Ex.R2, it shows that the JDR is having business and receiving electricity bills in respect of the said business. It does not confer any right on the JDR to continue his possession in the E P

Schedule property.

19.It is important to note that during the further cross examination of RW1, he admitted that there are discrepancies regarding the door number mentioned in the EP schedule property and the address reflecting in the documents produced by him. He also admitted that he has not filed the certificates for the earlier years along with his counter and neither did he bring them to the court during the date of the said examination which creates doubt with respect to the relevancy of the said documents to the EP schedule property.

20.The next and the most important contention of the judgment debtor is regarding the fraud and suppression of material facts which is unsupported by any material evidence from his side and no separate proceedings were initiated for setting aside the decree on the ground of fraud. Moreover, it is a settled principle that the Executing

Court cannot go behind the decree to decide the merits of the decree and judgment in

OS 106/2016. On the other hand, the contention that the DHR collected the rents does

not stop the DHR from seeking the execution of the said decree and judgment.

21.From the above discussion, it is clear and the decree holder has established that the decree and judgment in OS 106/2016 is confirmed by the appealate court and there is no stay pending. Moreover, JDR is admittedly in possession of the EP schedule property. And the objections raised by the JDR are devoid of merit, without any substantial proof of the same. As such, there is no bar for execution of the 8 Fair in EP No.64/2018 in OS No.106/2016, Dt.28.02.2026

Decree. As such Decree Holder is entitled for delivery of Vacant possession of EP schedule property.

In the result, the execution petition is allowed. Issue Delivery warrant for delivery of EP schedule property to the Decree Holder on payment of process. No orders as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 28 th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- P. Samyuktha,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SULLURPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined on behalf of Plaintiff

PW1: Shaik Akbar

Witness Examined on behalf of Petitioner/DHR

RW1: Inukonda Muniramaiah

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff - Nil -

Documents marked on behalf of Respondent/JDR

Ex.R1 : Mee-Seva Certificate of Labour Department issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh standing in the name of the JDR / petitioner / defendant and in the name and style of Sholay hair dresses, dated 06.01.2025.

Ex.R2 : Original demand notices of electricity bills of EP schedule property

dated 02.12.2024, 01.10.2024 and 02.01.2025.

Sd/- P. Samyuktha,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SULLURPET.