Smt P Srivani

Page 1 of 9

OS No. 126 of 2018 Dt: 27/09/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT SURYAPET.

PRESENT: SMT. P. SRIVANI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SURYAPET.

O.S.NO. 126 OF 2018

(Dated the 27th day of September, 2024)

Between: Polineni Narayanamma W/o. Srinivas, Age: 42 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. H.No.1-6-141/41/16, Sri Ram Nagar, Suryapet Town and District.

… PLAINTIFF.

AND

Kunta Srimathi W/o. Malla Reddy, Age: 58 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. Venkepally village of Noothanakal Mandal, Suryapet District. … DEFENDANT

This suit coming before me on 09.09.2024 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Seenapally Someshwar, Counsel for the plaintiff, Sri K. Raghupathi Reddy, Counsel for the defendant and after having stood over for consideration today this court doth pronounce the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

1.This suit is filed for recovery of money basing on mortgage deed.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:-

The plaintiff and late Kunta Venkat Reddy were well acquainted with each other. During life time of Kunta Venkat Reddy, the son of defendant herein, out of said acquaintance late Kunta Venkat Reddy, during borrowed and received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 28.06.2013 for his family necessities and as security, executed registered mortgage deed document No.7063/2013, dated 28.06.2013 and thereby mortgaged

Page 2 of 9

OS No. 126 of 2018 Dt: 27/09/2024

the property i.e., land to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts of dry land out of

Sy.No.39, situated at Noothanakal Grampanchayat and revenue village shivaru, Noothanakal Mandal with pattadar passbook No.173422 and title deed with patta No.17.

3. Though late Kunta Venkat Reddy availed the loan and executed mortgage deed, failed to repay the money and so the plaintiff demanded him several occasions for repayment of loan amount but he dodged the matter on one pretext or the other pretext.

4. While the situation stood like this, said Kunta Venkat Reddy died on 06.10.2017 due to ill-health at Venkapally village Noothanakal Manda. The defendant i.e., the mother of Kunta Venkat Reddy, being the legal heir, enjoying the properties left by late Kunta Venkat Reddy and therefore she is under the pious obligation to discharge the debt. Therefore the plaintiff approached the father of late Kunta Venkat Reddy by name Kunta Malla

Reddy, mother of Kunta Venkat Reddy, the defendant herein so also younger brother i.e., Kunta Raghu, younger sister by name Banala

Navatha, after the death of Kunta Venkat Reddy and demanded to discharge the loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. The father, mother, brother and sister of Kunta Venkat Reddy agreed to repay the loan amount within six months but they failed. In spite of several demands, none of the legal heirs repaid the loan. Hence, the plaintiff got issued legal notice, dated 05.05.2018. In spite of receiving legal notice by sister of Kunta Venkat Reddy, did not choose to either reply or repay the money while the father, mother and

Page 3 of 9

OS No. 126 of 2018 Dt: 27/09/2024

brother of Kunta Venkat Reddy refused to receive the legal notice. Hence, the suit. By saying so, the plaintiff prayed to pass a preliminary and personal decree for Rs.4,47,200/- and pleaded to pass a composite final decree, if defendant fails to comply the preliminary decree with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization and for costs.

5. Summons held sufficient to the defendant. The defendant filed written statement.

6. As per the written statement of the defendant, she denied that late

Kunta Venkat Reddy borrowed and received and executed mortgage deed as claimed by the plaintiff and she never agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and Kunta Venkat Reddy never mortgaged the property as mentioned by the plaintiff. According to this defendant, mortgage deed is forged document and moreover late Kunta Venkat Reddy has no exclusive right over the property so as to mortgage with the plaintiff.

The defendant denied that late Kunta Venkat Reddy borrowed the money from the plaintiff as there was no family necessity to borrow the said money.

7. As per this defendant, question of pious obligation does not arise since there is no such mortgage as claiming by the plaintiff and denied that she succeeded the property of late Kunta Venkat Reddy including the present suit schedule property and they also denied that they orally agreed

Page 4 of 9

OS No. 126 of 2018 Dt: 27/09/2024

to repay the money within six months to the plaintiff as claimed by the plaintiff.

8. This defendant denied that plaintiff issued a legal notice and he refused. According to this defendant, the mortgage deed is an invented document after sudden death of late Kunta Venkat Reddy. While contending that there is no cause of action for the suit, also contended that the suit document is a rank forged and late Venkat Reddy has no exclusive right over the suit schedule property and moreover there is no such property as shown in the schedule within the boundaries given, which property is invented in a hasty manner and so she is not having any obligation to discharge the debt. By saying so, the defendant pleaded to dismiss the suit.

9. In order to settle the suit, this court framed the following issues.

1.Whether the registered mortgage deed document No.7063/2013,

dated 28.06.2013 is forged one as pleaded by the defendant in his

written statement?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree under mortgage deed?

3.Whether plaintiff is entitled for suit claim with interest as prayed for?

4.If so, to what relief?

10. In order to prove their case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1, got marked Ex.A1 to A9, so also examined one of the attestor of Ex.A1 as

PW2, her husband as PW3 and reported no further evidence. Hence, plaintiff side evidence was closed. On the other hand, the defendant though

Page 5 of 9

OS No. 126 of 2018 Dt: 27/09/2024

filed written statement, cross-examined PW1 to 3, failed to adduce evidence on his behalf in spite of giving ample opportunities of about nine months, failed to advance the arguments. Hence, treated as no evidence and no arguments on behalf of the defendant.

11. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

12. Issue No.1 to 3:

In this issue, burden lies on the defendant since he took a plea that registered mortgage deed No.7063/2013, dated 28.06.2013 is an outcome of forgery. But the defendant did not adduce evidence prior to the evidence of the plaintiff. However, the evidence of the plaintiff as PW1 coupled with

Ex.A1 to A9 clearly goes to show that the defendant’s son late Kunta

Venkat Reddy executed a mortgage deed under Ex.A1 document, which is a registered document and so it is a conclusive proof. Any oral evidence given against the registered document cannot be looked into as the documentary evidence is a conclusive proof. However the burden heavily lies on the defendant to prove contra to Ex.A1. Though the defendant gave as many suggestions to PW1 that it is a forged document and fabricated document, the defendant did not choose to send Ex.A1 to the FSL so as to get the opinion of the expert to prove their defence that the signature thereon in

Ex.A1 does not belongs to her son Kunta Venkat Reddy. PW1 denied all suggestions given by the counsel for the defendant that Ex.A1 is a fabricated document in collusion with K.Nagi Reddy and P.Srinivas the attestors of Ex.A1. Though PW1 admitted that one of the attestor is her

Page 6 of 9

OS No. 126 of 2018 Dt: 27/09/2024

husband and another attestor is her husband’s friend, it would not become a basis to say that Ex.A1 as a forged document. Though it has been elicited that son of defendant late Kunta Venkat Reddy is an unmarried one, who has no necessity for his family, it cannot be proved at this stage, after death of Kunta Venkat Reddy. Ex.A1 clearly proves that Venkat Reddy received money and executed Ex.A1 document by mortgaging the suit schedule property.

13. PW2 is an another attestor of Ex.A1 document i.e., mortgage deed.

According to him also late Kunta Venkat Reddy, who has no wife or children, one of the member of the joint family executed Ex.A1 document.

At the time of cross-examination, he denied a suggestion that late Kunta

Venkat Reddy never executed mortgage deed and never borrowed any money from the plaintiff. Though PW2 pleaded that he does not know that suit schedule property mortgaged is a joint family property, it does not bear any significance over the suit. Though time and again the defendant gave a suggestion that the signature on Ex.A1 does not belongs to Late Kunta

Venkat Reddy, there is no effort that had put by the defendant to send

Ex.A1 to the FSL to get an expert opinion. Besides this, there is no evidence placed before the court by the defendant to disprove Ex.A1 document or to prove his contentions that it is a forged and fabricated document.

14. Coming to the third witness PW3, he is the husband of the plaintiff and accordingly he supported the case of the plaintiff that the defendant’s son late Kunta Venkat Reddy borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff

Page 7 of 9

OS No. 126 of 2018 Dt: 27/09/2024

and executed Ex.A1 document, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum within one year on mortgage deed. At the time of cross- examination PW3 admitted that PW1 is his wife, PW2 is his friend and deceased Kunta Venkat Reddy belongs to Venkepally village. He pleaded ignorance that late Kunta Venkat Reddy joint family possess Ac.25-00 gts of land and so also pleaded ignorance that for convenience sake property was kept in the name of different persons of the joint family and denied that late Kunta Venkat Reddy had no family necessity to borrow the money from the plaintiff. PW3 denied all the suggestions including a suggestion that he along with PW2 colluded and prepared Ex.A1. The evidence of PW1 to 3 is clearly proving that late Kunta Venkat Reddy on receiving money of

Rs.2,00,000/- on 28.06.2013, by mortgaging his suit schedule property, registered a mortgage deed in the name of plaintiff, under Ex.A1 document but failed to repay the same. Apart from that, Exs.A2 to 9 also goes to show that the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant and other family members of late Kunta Venkat Reddy making an effort to get back her money that was lend to late Kunta Venkat Reddy but her efforts went in vain. On the other hand, there is no single piece of oral and documentary evidence produced by the defendant in this case for the reasons best known to her, in spite of giving ample opportunity from 11.12.2023 to till date i.e., for about nine months. The entire evidence of PW1 to 3, especially

Ex.A1 is proving the case of the plaintiff and hence, these issues are answered against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff as defendant

Page 8 of 9

OS No. 126 of 2018 Dt: 27/09/2024

failed to discharge the burden of proving Ex.A1 as forged document and plaintiff proved that he is entitled the suit claim as well the preliminary decree, as prayed for.

15. Issue No.4:

In the result, the suit is preliminarily and personally decreed with costs for Rs.4,47,200/- (Rs.2,00,000/- towards principal amount +

Rs.2,47,200/-towards interest amount) with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on principal amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-. The time granted for redemption for repayment of mortgage is five months.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of September, 2024.)

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SURYAPET.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

PW-1: Polineni Narayanamma PW-2: Kuncharapu Nagi Reddy PW-3: Polineni Srinivas

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:: -Nil-

Page 9 of 9

OS No. 126 of 2018 Dt: 27/09/2024

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

Ex.A-1: Original registered mortgage deed doct. No.7063/2013, dt. 28.06.2013 Ex.A-2:Office copy of legal notice dated 05.05.2018 Ex.A-3: Postal receipt, dated 05.05.2018 (Mallareddy) Ex.A-4: Postal receipt, dated 05.05.2018 (Srimathi) Ex.A-5: Postal receipt, dated 05.05.2018 (K. Raghu) Ex.A-6: Postal receipt, dated 05.05.2018 (B.Navatha) Ex.A-7: Regd. Postal cover (returned) (Mallareddy) Ex.A-8: Regd. Postal cover (returned) (Srimathi) Ex.A-9: Regd. Postal cover (returned) (K. Raghu)

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:: -Nil-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SURYAPET.

Dt: 03-10-2024

SC No. 14/2020 .. 1 of 7..

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, AT

SURYAPET

Present: SMT. P.SRIVANI

Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet (Thursday, this the 03rd day of October, 2024)

S.C. No. 14 of 2020

Complainant The State through SI of Police, Athmakur (S) Police Station. Accused A1: Kuncham Venkanna, S/o. Ramulu, Age: 50 years, Caste: Waddera, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mukkududevulapally village of Athmakur (S) Mandal. A2: Kuncham Mallaiah, S/o. Ramulu, Age: 44 years, Caste: Waddera, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mukkududevulapally village of Athmakur (S) Mandal. A3: Kuncham Saidamma, W/o. Venkanna, Age: 46 years, Caste: Waddera, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mukkududevulapally village of Athmakur (S) Mandal. A4: Kuncham Gangamma, W/o. Maisaiah, Age: 42 years, Caste: Waddera, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mukkududevulapally village of Athmakur (S) Mandal. A5: Kuncham Laxmamma, W/o. Mallaiah, Age: 40 Years, Caste: Waddera, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mukkududevulapally village of Athmakur (S) Mandal. A6: Kuncham Janaiah, S/o. Venkanna, Age: 23 years, Caste: Waddera, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mukkududevulapally village of Athmakur (S) Mandal. A7: Kuncham Kristaiah, S/o. Venkanna, Age: 22 years, Caste: Waddera, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mukkududevulapally village of Athmakur (S) Mandal. Charge u/s. 147, 148, 307, 324, 448, 427 r/w. 149 of IPC Crime No. 20/2018 Plea of Accused Not guilty Commencement 19-09-2024 of trial Conclusion of trial 19-09-2024 Finding of the Not guilty Court Sentence or In the result, A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the Order offence under section 147, 148, 307, 324, 448, 427 r/w 149 of IPC. Accordingly A1 to A7 are acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C, for the offence under section 147,

Dt: 03-10-2024

SC No. 14/2020 .. 2 of 7..

148, 307, 324, 448, 427 r/w 149 of IPC. The bail bonds of accused A1 to A7 shall stand in force till six months from today. The un-marked case property i.e., 2 sticks shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Prosecution Smt R.Akhila, Addl. Public Prosecutor conducted by Accused Sri D. Venkateshwara Rao, Advocate defended by

This case was committed by the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet vide

PRC No.74/2018

This case having come before me for hearing on 19-09-2024 in the presence of Smt. R.Akhila, Addl. Public Prosecutor, and Sri D. Venkateshwara Rao, counsel for A1 to A7, having heard and considered the record till date, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

LW14/The Sub-Inspector of Police, Athmakur (S) Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A7 for the offences under section 147, 148, 307, 324, 448, 427 r/w. 149 of IPC.

1. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

In view of the old disputes between PW1 family and her brothers-in-law family, accused who is none other than husband brothers and sisters- in-law, as ½ acre of land was given to PW1 and her husband with a condition that her in-laws must stay with her husband till their death and up to last three months they were with them and they are residing separately now. But A1 to A7 who intended to knock away the land, used to quarrel with PW1, stated that they will get ½ acre land if they kill them. In their presence, on 11-03-2018 at about 09:00 AM, while

Dt: 03-10-2024

SC No. 14/2020 .. 3 of 7..

PW1 and her husband were going to Thungathurthy to see their daughter and passed some distance, A1 to A7 with a pre-plan with an intention to kill them, attacked them with sticks, stones and beat them indiscriminately. Due to which, they were sustained injuries over the head, face and right hand. Meanwhile, LW3/Mahesh and others rescued them and then A1 to A7 trespassed into the house and damaged the house hold articles. Hence the report given by PW1.

2.Basing on the report preferred by PW1, LW13/Head Constable,

Athmakur (S) police station registered a case as in Crime No.20/2018 for the offence under section 147, 148, 307, 324, 448, 427 r/w 149 of

IPC, took up the investigation, examined and recorded the statement of

PW1, visited Area Hospital, Suryapet, examined and recorded the statement of PW2 and then visited Mukkududevulapally, examined and recorded the statements of LW3/Mahesh, LW4/B. Linga Raju and

LW5/D. Prabhakar, photographed the scene, conducted scene of offence

Panchanama in the presence of mediators LW8/M. Srinivas Reddy,

LW9/B. Mallaiah, drawn the rough sketch. On 13.03.2018, LW13/Head

Constable arrested A3 to A8 and then they were ready to confess the offence, he secured the mediators LW10/ B.Gattaiah, LW11/B.

Mallaiah, interrogated them in their presence wherein they confessed about the offence. So he arrested them and seized one stick from their house at their instance and they were remanded to judicial custody later he was released on bail. On 21.03.2018, at about 14.30 hours,

LW14/Sub-Inspector of Police apprehended A1, when he secured the same mediators LW10/ B.Gattaiah, LW11/B. Mallaiah, interrogated A1

Dt: 03-10-2024

SC No. 14/2020 .. 4 of 7..

in their presence, for which he confessed about the offence and seized one stick at the instance on A1 from his house. On 23.03.2018 at about 10.30 hours, he arrested juvenile in conflict with law K. Satheesh and K.

Sai and produced before the court and then on 27.04.2018, he visited

Mukkududevulapally and examined and recorded the statements of

LW6/I. Madhu, LW7/ K.Veeraiah. After completion of legal formalities,

SI of police filed charge sheet against accused A1 to A7and produced them before the court.

3.The Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet took the cognizance of offence under section 147, 148, 307, 324, 448, 427 r/w 149 of IPC, furnished copies to the accused and then committed the case under section 209 Cr.P.C. after following due procedure, to the Hon’ble District & Sessions Court, Nalgonda and inturn the case was sent to this court for trail.

4.After hearing the counsel for the accused and the Learned APP, when examined accused A1 to A7 under section 228 Cr.P.C, for offence under sections 147, 148, 307, 324, 448, 427 r/w 149 of IPC, they denied of committed offence and on perusal of record, this court has been framed charge under section 147, 148, 307, 324, 448, 427 r/w 149 of IPC, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5.After fixing the schedule, the prosecution examined PW1 & PW2, got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3, given up LW3/I. Mahesh, LW4/B. Linga Reddy,

LW5/D. Prabhakar, LW6/I. Madhu, LW7/K. Veeraiah, LW8/M. Srinivas

Reddy, LW9/B. Mallaiah, LW10/B. Gattaiah, LW11/B. Mallaiah,

Dt: 03-10-2024

SC No. 14/2020 .. 5 of 7..

LW12/Dr. S.Ramesh, LW13/R. Shankar Naik, LW14/P. Harikrishna and reported no further evidence. Hence prosecution evidence was closed.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, as there is no interim material found, examination under section 313 Cr.P.C, has been dispensed with and accused reported no evidence on their behalf. Hence defence evidence was closed.

7.Heard the learned prosecution and counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point for consideration is “whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence under section 147, 148, 307, 324, 448, 427 r/w 149 of IPC or not”?

9.Perused evidence of PW1 & PW2, PW1 is the defacto-complainant and injured, PW2 is the husband of PW1 who is also injured.

10.According to PW1, about six years ago while she along with her husband were coming on the bike from their fields, their bike was skidded and her husband sustained injuries. She pleaded ignorance about the case and according to her, accused is not responsible for her husband injuries, she did not report to the police. Police obtained her signatures on some papers. As PW1 retracted from her giving report to the police and being examined by the police, the learned prosecution after got marking the signature of PW1 on the report as Ex.P1, declared PW1 as unfriendly to their case, cross examined PW1 with the admission of the court and got marked the marked portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement contents of PW1 as Ex.P2, but nothing has been elicited by accused with the guilt from the mouth of PW1. Hence evidence of PW1 is no way helpful to the prosecution case.

Dt: 03-10-2024

SC No. 14/2020 .. 6 of 7..

11.Coming to the evidence of PW2, he is the husband of PW1. According to him also, about six years ago while he along with his wife were coming on the bike from their fields, their bike was skidded and he sustained injuries and he does not know anything about the case and he was never examined by the police. As PW2 turned unfriendly to their case, the learned prosecution cross examined PW2 with permission of court and got marked the marked portion of their 161 Cr.P.C. statement contents as Ex.P3. But could not get a single word against the accused that it is the accused who responsible for injuries to PW1. Hence evidence of PW2 is also no way helpful to the prosecution case.

12.In the light of above discussion, this court is of opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A7.

13.In the result, A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence under section 147, 148, 307, 324, 448, 427 r/w 149 of IPC. Accordingly A1 to A7 are acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C, for the offence under section 147, 148, 307, 324, 448, 427 r/w 149 of IPC. The bail bonds of accused A1 to

A7 shall stand in force till six months from today. The un-marked case property i.e., 2 sticks shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

(Typed to dictation, by the typist, Corrected and Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 03rd day of October, 2024).

Asst. Sessions Judge,

Suryapet

Dt: 03-10-2024

SC No. 14/2020 .. 7 of 7..

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defense:

PW1 (LW1): K. Tirumala Complainant and injured.

PW2 (LW2): K. Dasharadha Husband of PW1 and injured.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: For Defense :

Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on the report. Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C. statement contents of PW1. Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C. statement contents of PW2.

Material Objects marked:

-Nil-

Asst. Sessions Judge,

Suryapet

Dt: 30-09-2024

SC No. 457/2022 .. 1 of 5..

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, AT

SURYAPET

Present: SMT. P.SRIVANI

Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet (Monday, this the 30th day of September, 2024)

S.C. No. 457 of 2022

Complainant The State through SI of Police, Suryapet I Town Police Station. Accused Raparthi Sravan, S/o. Venkanna, Age: 30 years, Caste: Goud, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-1-45/B1, Thallagadda, Suryapet Town. Charge u/s. 307 IPC Crime No. 339/2020 Plea of Accused Not guilty Commencement 12-09-2024 of trial Conclusion of trial 12-09-2024 Finding of the Not guilty Court Sentence or In the result, accused is found not guilty for the Order offence under section 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Accordingly accused is acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C, for the offence under section 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be stand in force till six months from today. The un-marked case property i.e., broken beer bottle, one broken black colour spectacles shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Prosecution Smt R.Akhila, Addl. Public Prosecutor conducted by Accused Sri. B. Venkateshwarlu, Advocate defended by

This case was committed by the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet vide PRC

No.03/2021

Dt: 30-09-2024

SC No. 457/2022 .. 2 of 5..

This case having come before me for hearing on 12-09-2024 in the presence of Smt. R.Akhila, Addl. Public Prosecutor, and Sri. B. Venkateshwarlu, counsel for accused, having heard and considered the record till date, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

LW10/The Sub-Inspector of Police, Suryapet I Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for offence U/Sec.307 of IPC.

1. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

On 30.08.2020 at about 6:30 PM, while PW1 was present at Sri

Venkateshwara Fruit Merchant shop near Janagam Cross-Road along with his friends PW2, LW3/Renu Kumar, accused went there and attacked PW1 in view of his old grudges with beer bottle on the head resulting which, caused bleeding injury. Meanwhile PW2, LW3/Renu Kumar rescued him and accused fled away. Hence the report given by PW1.

2.Basing on the report preferred by PW1, LW9/Inspector of police registered a case as in Crime No.339/2020 for the offence under section 307 r/w 34 IPC, entrusted the case to LW10/Sub-Inspector of Police to do investigation, he investigated the case, examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at police station and then visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of PW2, LW3/T. Renukumar, secured the mediators LW4/B.

Kannabhi Ram, LW5/S. Rajesh, conducted scene of offence Panchanama in their presence, seized (2) pieces of broken beer bottle of Haywards 5000 company made, seized one broke black colour spectacles of PW1 under cover of panchanama. On 03.10.2020 he arrested the accused, when accused was about to confess the offence, he secured the mediators LW6/T. Saidulu,

LW7/A. Venu, interrogated the accused in their presence, for which accused

Dt: 30-09-2024

SC No. 457/2022 .. 3 of 5..

confessed about the offence and produced the accused before the Court after completion of legal formalities. Accused was remanded to judicial custody and later he was released on bail. After completion of investigation, the Sub-

Inspector of Police laid charge sheet against accused for the offence under section 307 of IPC.

3.The Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet took the cognizance of offence under section 307 of IPC, furnished copies to the accused and then committed the case under section 209 Cr.P.C. after following due procedure, to the Hon’ble District & Sessions Court, Nalgonda and inturn the case was sent to this court for trail.

4.After hearing the Learned prosecution and the counsel for the accused, examination of accused under section 228 Cr.P.C, for offence under sections 307 IPC, he denied of committed offence and on perusal of record, this court has been framed charge under section 307 of IPC, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5.As per the schedule fixed, the prosecution examined PW1 & PW2, got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P3, given up LW3/Renukumar, LW4/Kannabhi Ram, LW5/S.

Rajesh, LW6/T. Saidulu, LW7/A. Venu, LW8/Dr. L, Ramesh, LW9/A.

Anjaneyulu, LW10/K.Narendar Reddy and reported no further evidence. Hence prosecution evidence was closed.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, as there is no interim material found when this court examined accused under section 313 Cr.P.C, has been dispensed with and accused reported no evidence on their behalf. Hence defence evidence was closed.

Dt: 30-09-2024

SC No. 457/2022 .. 4 of 5..

7.Heard the learned prosecution and counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point for consideration is “whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence under section 307 r/w 34 IPC or not”?

9.Perused evidence of PW1 & PW2, PW1 is the defacto-complainant and injured,

PW2 is an eye witness.

10.According to PW1 evidence, about 4 years ago, he met with bike accident and he sustained head injury. Accused is not responsible for his injury, he did not report to the police, police obtained his signature on some papers. As PW1 retracted from giving report to the police and examined by the police. Hence prosecution after got marking the signature of PW1 on the report as Ex.P1, declared PW1 as unfriendly to their case cross examined PW1 with the permission of the court, got marked the marked portion of 161 Cr.P.C.

statement contents of PW1 as Ex.P2, but nothing has been elicited from PW-1 evidence. Hence, the evidence of PW-1 is not useful for the prosecution case.

11.Coming to evidence of PW2, he is an eye witness and he also sailed with PW1 and stated that, he does not know the accused and he does not know anything about the case and denied of examining by the police. The prosecution declared PW2 also unfriendly to their case, cross examined PW2 with the permission of the court, got marked the marked portion of 161 Cr.P.C.

statement contents of PW2 as Ex.P3, but could not get a single word against the accused that it is the accused who is responsible for injuries of PW1.

Hence evidence of PW2 is also no way helpful to the prosecution case.

12.In the light of above discussion, this court is of opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused.

Dt: 30-09-2024

SC No. 457/2022 .. 5 of 5..

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Accordingly accused is acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C, for the offence under section 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be stand in force till six months from today. The un-marked case property i.e., broken beer bottle, one broke black colour spectacles shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

(Typed to dictation, by the typist, Corrected and Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of September, 2024).

Asst. Sessions Judge,

Suryapet

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defense:

PW1 (LW1): T. Vedavyas Complainant and Victim.

PW2 (LW2): Md. Areef Eye witness.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: For Defense :

Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on the report. Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C. statement contents of PW1. Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C. statement contents of PW2.

Material Objects marked: -Nil-

Asst. Sessions Judge,

Suryapet

HMOP No. 70/2024 .. 1 of 5. Order Dt: 30-09-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SURYAPET

Present: Smt. P.SRIVANI,

Senior Civil Judge

Suryapet

(On this, the 30th day of September, 2024)

H.M.O.P. No. 70 of 2024

Between:

1. Gare Karunakar, S/o. Rama Swamy, Age: 38 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o. Rayaparthy village and Mandal, Warangal District, Presently R/o. Flat No.315, Apex Apartments A.C. Guards, Hyderabad.

2. Gare @ Gaddala Shirisha, W/o. Gare Karunakar, D/o. Gaddala Narsaiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Rayaparthy village and Mandal, Warangal District, Presently R/o. Thungathurthy village and Mandal, Suryapet District.

...Petitioners

This case having come before me for final hearing on 13-09-2024 in the presence of Sri. B. Prathap, Counsel for the petitioners and having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is an application filed by the petitioners U/Sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows:

1. The marriage of the petitioners was fixed on 08-05-2014 but the nearest relative of petitioner No.2 was died so marriage was postponed on 17.05.2014 and was held at R.N. Garden, Thorrur village and

Mandal, Warangal District, as per the Hindu religion. The petitioners were not blessed with the children. Thereafter, misunderstandings arose between them, due to which they have developed rivalry among

HMOP No. 70/2024 .. 2 of 5. Order Dt: 30-09-2024

themselves and so they could not reside together. Hence they are residing separately since August, 2016.

2. Thereafter the petitioner No.2 preferred a complaint against the petitioner No.1, for offence under section 498-A of IPC, 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, before police station Thungathurthy, which was registered as in Cr.No.122/2016, vide C.C.No.51/2024 and so also she filed DVC.No.02/2024 and MC.No.02/2024 against the petitioner

No.1.

3. In spite of best efforts made by the elders of both parties, they could not adjust with each other and in a panchayat that was held before elders of both parties, the petitioners declared that they cannot lead joint life and so they entered into an agreement dated 27.03.2024 for obtaining divorce where in the petitioners got compromised the criminal cases before the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Suryapet. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 agreed to pay Rs.51,00,000/- to petitioner No.2 towards her permanent and future alimony, for which petitioner No.2 agreed to forego her rights over the person and properties of the petitioner No.1. Accordingly petitioner No.1 deposited an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- in the joint account of elders of both and to pay remaining amount of Rs.26,00,000/- at the time of granting divorce. Already the petitioners exchanged their presentations, belongings and articles. Hence the petition. By saying so, the petitioners prayed to dissolve their marriage dated 17-05-2014 by way of decree of divorce.

4. Heard the Petitioners. Reconciliation failed.

HMOP No. 70/2024 .. 3 of 5. Order Dt: 30-09-2024

5. In order to prove their case, petitioners examined themselves as PW.1 & PW.2, got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and they reported no further evidence. Hence petitioner’s evidence was closed.

6. Heard the counsel for the Petitioners.

7. Now the point for consideration is“Whether there are any grounds for decree of divorce as prayed for”?

8. Perused evidence affidavit of PW1 & PW2 which is nothing but replica of their petition. According to both PW1 & PW2, their marriage was fixed on 08-05-2014 but the nearest relative of PW2 was died so their marriage was postponed and held on 17.05.2014 at R.N. Garden,

Thorrur village and Mandal, they were not blessed with the children and after two years of their marriage, differences arose between them and they could not adjust with each other and so they started residing separately since August, 2016.

9. PW1 stated that, PW2 preferred a report against PW1 for offence under section 498-A of IPC, 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, before police station Thungathurthy, which was registered as in

Cr.No.122/2016, vide C.C.No.51/2024 and so also PW2 filed

DVC.No.02/2024 and MC.No.02/2024. In spite of best efforts made by both parties, they could not join with each other and so they decided to take divorce mutually. Accordingly PW1 agreed to pay

Rs.51,00,000/- to PW2 towards the permanent and future alimony, for which PW2 agreed to waive her rights over the person and properties of PW1.

HMOP No. 70/2024 .. 4 of 5. Order Dt: 30-09-2024

10. PW1 & PW2 unanimously deposed that, already they got exchanged their presentations, belongings and articles which were given at the time of marriage. Hence this court opines that there is nothing left in the hands of the court to preserve the marital tie and there is irretrievable break down of marriage in view of continuous desertion for more than seven (07) years till date and the Ex.P3 to Ex.P7 are proving the proceedings between PW1 & PW2 which was also compromised.

11. In the above circumstances, this court is of opinion that this a fit petition to be allowed.

12. In the result, the petition is allowed and hereby dissolving the marriage of the petitioners that was solemnized on 17-05-2014 by way of decree of divorce with effect from today i.e., 30-09-2024.

(Typed to dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of September, 2024)

Senior Civil Judge,

Suryapet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:

PW.1: Gare Karunakar, Petitioner No.1 PW.2: Gare @ Gaddala Shirisha, Petitioner No.2

HMOP No. 70/2024 .. 5 of 5. Order Dt: 30-09-2024

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners:

Ex.P1:Wedding Card along with Lagna Patrika. Ex.P2:Marriage Photos (01). Ex.P3:Certified Copy of memo of understanding. Ex.P4:Certified Copy of M.C.02/2024 with terms of compromise. Ex.P5:Certified Copy of terms of compromise filed in D.V.C.02/2024. Ex.P6:Certified Copy of docket order C.C.No.51/2024. Ex.P7:Certified Copy of docket order in D.V.C.02/2024.

Senior Civil Judge,

Suryapet.

Order Dt: 01-10-2024

HMOP No. 28/2024 .. 1 of 4..

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SURYAPET

Present: Smt. P.SRIVANI,

Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet

(Dated 01st Day of October, 2024)

H.M.O.P.NO. 28 of 2024

Between:

1. Poloju Bheeshma Chary, S/o. Somaiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Private Teacher, R/o. Peda Mupparam Village, Danthalaplly Mandal, Mahaboobabad District.

2. Poloju @ Parvatham Manasa, W/o. Bheeshma Chary, Age: 24 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Peda Mupparam Village, Danthalaplly Mandal, Mahaboobabad District., Presently residing at R/o. Isthalapuram Village, Athmakur (S) Mandal, Suryapet District.

... Petitioners

This case having come before me for final hearing on 18-09-2024 in the presence of Sri. G. Madhu, Counsel for the petitioners and having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows:

1.The marriage of the petitioners was solemnized on 27-11-2020 at

Gouthami Function Hall, Nemmikal village of Athmakur (S) Mandal

Suryapet District, as per customs and usages prevailed in their community under Hindu religion. Marriage was consummated.

Immediately after the marriage, petitioner No.2 joined with the company of petitioner No.1 and they lived happily for about 3 months at the house of petitioner No.1. The petitioners were not blessed with

Order Dt: 01-10-2024

HMOP No. 28/2024 .. 2 of 4..

the children. Thereafter, differences arose between the petitioners and they were used to behave very adamantly against each other. Due to which, the relationship between the petitioners was strained and for which petitioner No.2 started staying with her parents since 03.04.2021 at Isthalapuram village of Athmakur (S) Mandal.

2.In spite of best efforts made by parents of both the petitioners, they could not adjust with each other and they could not join each other.

Finally 15 days prior to the filing of the petition, a panchayat was held in the presence of elders at Isthalapuram village where caste, common, family elders tried their level best to pacify the matter but their efforts became in vain and there was no possibility of re-union. Finally petitioner No.1 agreed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to petitioner No.2 towards her permanent and future alimony, for which petitioner No.2 agreed to forego her rights over the person and properties of the petitioner No.1.

Hence the petition. By saying so, the petitioners prayed to dissolve their marriage dated 27-11-2020 by way of decree of divorce.

3.Heard the petitioners. Reconciliation failed.

4.In order to prove their case, petitioners examined themselves as PW1 &

PW2, got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and they reported no further evidence. Hence petitioner’s evidence was closed.

5.Heard the counsel for the petitioner’s.

6.Now the point for consideration is“Whether there are any grounds for decree of divorce as prayed for”?

7.Perused evidence affidavit of PW1 & PW2 which is nothing but replica of their petition. According to both PW1 & PW2, their marriage was

Order Dt: 01-10-2024

HMOP No. 28/2024 .. 3 of 4..

solemnized on 27-11-2020. Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 i.e. wedding card, marriage photos and spouse certificate are proving the same.

8.It is unanimous evidence of PW1 & PW2 that, they lived happily for about three months after the marriage, at the house of PW1 and thereafter differences arose between them, due to which they could not adjust with each other and so the relationship was strained and since then PW2 is residing with her parents at Isthalapuram village since 03.04.2021. There is no rival contention to this aspect.

9.It is evidence of PW1 & PW2 that, several panchayats were held in order to re-unite them, but they could not adjust with each other and finally they decided to depart with consent; Where in PW1 agreed to give Rs.1,50,000/- to PW2 towards her permanent and future alimony, for which PW2 agreed to forego her rights over the person and properties of the PW1. The evidence of PW1 & PW2 clearly goes to prove that there is a continuous desertion for more than three (03) years and so also the relationship between the petitioners was strained and they could not adjust with each other and there is irretrievable break down of the marriage. This court opines that there is no chance for preserving the marital tie.

10.In the light of above discussion, this court is of opinion that this is a fit petition to be allowed.

11.In the result, petition is allowed and hereby dissolving the marriage of the petitioners that was solemnized on 27-11-2020 by way of decree of divorce with effect from today i.e., on 01-10-2024.

Order Dt: 01-10-2024

HMOP No. 28/2024 .. 4 of 4..

(Typed to dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 01st day of October, 2024.)

Senior Civil Judge,

Suryapet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:

PW1: Poloju Bheeshma Chary, Petitioner No.1. PW2: Poloju @ Parvatham Manasa, Petitioner No.2.

Exhibits marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.P1:Wedding Card, Ex.P2:Marriage Photos (03). Ex.P3:Spouse Certificate.

Senior Civil Judge,

Suryapet