Paladi Purushottam Rao

O.S.No. 488/2009, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: JANGAREDDIGUDEM.

Present: Sri P.Purushotham Rao, Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem. Friday, 28th day of December, 2018.

O.S.No.488/2009

Between

1. Kambhampati Veera Lakshmi, W/o. Ganga Raju, 50 years, Hindu, Female, Properties, Jangareddigudem.

2. Kambhampati Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Ganga Raju, 50 years, Hindu, Male, Properties, Jangareddigudem.

3. Kambhampati Satyanarayana, S/o. Ganga Raju, 30 years, Hindu, Female, Properties, Jangareddigudem.

4. Kambhampati Satyavathi, W/o. Sri Rama Murthy, 70 years, Hindu, Female, Properties, Jangareddigudem.

5. Kambhampati Satyanarayana, S/o. Sri Rama Murthy, 42 years, Hindu, Male, Properties, Jangareddigudem.

6. Kambhampati Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Sri Rama Murthy, 40 years, Hindu, Male, Properties, Jangareddigudem.

7. Kambhampati Kasthuri, W/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, 55 years, Hindu, Female, Properties, Jangareddigudem.

8. Kambhampati Venkata Naga Atchyutha Lakshmi Narayana Gupta, S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, 35 years, Hindu, Male, Properties, Jangareddigudem.

9. Kambhampati Srinivas, S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, 40 years, Hindu, Male,

Properties, Jangareddigudem. ... Plaintiffs

And

Kancharla Lakshmayya, S/o. Chellayya, Hindu, Male, 62 years, Business, Jangareddigudem. … Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 14.12.2018 for hearing in the presence of Sri M.S.N.M. Ramesh, Advocate for Plaintiff, and in the presence of Sri N. Rambabu, advocate for defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking vacant possession of ABA1 portion of plaint plan and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant for

O.S.No. 488/2009, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

2 removal of the staircase, pial, pillar and extended portion of slab constructed by the defendant in PQRS portion of plaintiffs 1 to 9, failing which the plaintiffs shall get the removal of the encroached portions and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments in the plaint are that:

a)Late Kambhampati Lakshmayya got the property shown as ABCD and PQRS in the plaint plan in a partition took place on 02.10.1941. As per the deed, the measurement on east is 33 yards, the measurement of the south east 12 yards, the measurement on west is 36 yards and the measurement on north is 16 yards. The northern boundary for the plaint plan property is the property of

Paladugula Lakshmayya to some extent on west and the remaining is the site left over by the family member of Kambhampati Lakshmayya for ingress and egress to the main road as there was no other way to reach the road from the plaint plan property by them. The family members of Kambhampati Lakshmayya left 9 feet width of passage site from their site starting from AB line to reach the northern road. The passage i.e., PQRS of plaint plan left over by the family members was not divided with an intention to keep it joint for the purpose of ingress and egress of all the family members. The passage/PQRS of plaint plan is the exclusive passage of the family members of the plaintiffs. No other person has any right in the PQRS passage.

b)There was a registered partition among the plaintiffs on 06.06.2003.

as per the registered partition deed the item no. 1 of plaint plan is the property fell to the share of plaintiffs 4 to 6. Item no.2 is the property fell to the share of plaintiffs 7 to 9. Item no. 3 fell to the share of plaintiffs 1 to 3 in ABCD area. The plaintiffs among themselves kept 7 feet width of passage from south to north to reach main road through PQRS. The plaintiffs took possession of their respective shares and they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same in their own right and also got some other properties under registered partition deed dt. 06.06.2003. The present suit is concerned with the portion shown as

O.S.No. 488/2009, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

3

ABCD in the plaint plan only which is shown as item no. 4 in the A-schedule. Item no. 2 in the B-schedule and item no. 2 in the C-schedule of the registered partition deed dt. 06.06.2003. All the three items are shown in the ABCDE in the plaint plan.

c)The property to the north of item no. 3 of plaint plan originally belongs to one Paladugula Lakshmayya and now it is in possession of the defendant Kancharla Lakshmayya. The plaintiffs are not awayre how the defendant got title over the property to the north of ABCD property. The defendant started constructing a building in the site to the north of ABCD. The defendant while constructing the building encroached into the site of plaintiffs 1 to 3 to a width of 4 feet on its north which is shown as ABA-1 in the plaint plan.

The plaintiffs took measurement of their site and found that the defendant encroached 4 feet width of land of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and constructed a building in it. The defendant encroached an extent of 11 sq. yds. of site shown as

ABA1 of plaint plan of the plaintiffs 1 to 3.

d)The defendant while constructing building encroached into PQRS joint passage exclusively owned by all the plaintiffs and constructed staircase and one pillar in support of it and also pial and extended the slab area into the

PQRS portion. The plaintiffs ever since the defendant started construction have been protesting and demanding the defendant not to make any construction in

PQRS portion and not to encroach any area of plaintiffs 1 to 3. The defendant constructed staircase, pillar, pial etc., in PQRS joint lane of the plaintiffs. So, all the plaintiffs jointly filed the present suit against the defendant for removal of encroachments seeking order of mandatory injunction. The defendant by single act of construction of building also encroached into part of the site of plaintiffs 1 to 3 on their north and so the plaintiffs 1 to 3 also got cause of action to sue the defendant for removal of encroachment and for vacant possession of ABA1 area through process of law. The item no. 1 of plaint plan is the property of

O.S.No. 488/2009, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

4 plaintiffs 4 to 6. Item no. 2 of plaint plan is the property of plaintiffs 7 to 9 and item no. 3 of the plaint plan is the property of plaintiffs 1 to 3 respectively adjoining to one another, which is combinedly shown as ABCD in the plaint plan. So, as single schedule for entire property of the plaintiffs is herewith filed.

3.Per contra, the defendant filed written statement:

a)Denying all the averments in the plaint specifically and further contended that he constructed his building well within his boundaries of the property acquired buy him. He never encroached into any part of the plaintiffs site much less AB, A1 portion and PQRS as alleged by the plaintiffs. He constructed his building by obtaining necessary sanctions from his village panchayat in his own site. The plaintiffs have no right to seek for the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of staircase, pial, pillar and alleged extended portion of the slab in the area described as PQRS in the plaint plan besides removal of constructions alleged to be made in AB, A1 portion and for vacant possession of AB, A1 of the plaint plan.

b)He further submitted that the area shown as PQRS in the plaint plan is not the joint and exclusive portion of the plaintiffs and the area shown as AB,

A1 is the exclusive property of defendant and the plaintiffs have no right to seek for any relief. Either himself or his predecessor in interest are not a party to the partition deed of the plaintiffs either in the year 1941 or 2003. Therefore, even if there are any recitals adverse to him, they are not binding on him. Himself and his predecessors in interest had and have been in continuous peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the property and therefore, the defendant has perfected his title to the property covered under the registered settlement deed

dt. 15.04.1992 under which he acquired the property and therefore, the plaintiffs

are not entitled to seek for any relief in respect of the plaint schedule property.

c)The defendant further submitted that there is no cause of action to file the suit and the alleged cause of action is not correct. He reserves his right to

O.S.No. 488/2009, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

5 file additional written statement as and when new facts are came into light. The valuation of the plaint is not correct and the suit has to be dismissed on this ground alone. The plaint schedule and plaint plan are not correct and the plaintiffs did not come to the court with clean hands. His name was wrongly mentioned in the plaint as Kancharla Lakshmayya instead of Kancharla

Lakshmana Rao. Prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Upon perusal of pleadings and documents filed the following

Issues are framed for trial.

1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for vacant possession of the plaint schedule property as prayed for? and

2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for?

3.To What relief?

5.During course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs1, 2 are examined and Exs. A1 to A3 marked. On behalf of defendant, DW1 was examined and Exs. B1 to B3 marked.

6.Heard arguments on both sides. The defendant filed written arguments.

FINDINGS:

7.ISSUE NO.1:

a)It is the pleadings of the plaintiff that in the registered partition deed executed on 06.06.2003, item no. 1 fell to the share of plaintiffs 4 to 6. Item no. 2 fell to the share of plaintiffs 7 to 9. Item no. 3 fell to the share of plaintiffs 1 to

3. In the ABCD area the plaintiffs among themselves they got 7 feet width of passage from south to north to reach the main road through PQRS.

b)It is also pleadings of the plaintiffs that the property to the north of item no. 3 of Plaint Schedule Property originally belongs to one Late Paledugula

Laxmaiah which is now in possession of Kancharla Laxmaiah i.e. defendant. The defendant started constructing building in the site to the north of ABCD proper try. The defendant encroached into site of plaintiffs 1 to 3 to a width of 4 feet on

O.S.No. 488/2009, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

6 its north which is shown as ABA1 in the plaint plan and constructed building in it by encroaching 11 square yards. The defendant encroached into PQRS joint passage exclusively own by all the plaintiffs and constructed a stair case and one pillar in support of staircase and also pial and extended the slab area into the PQRS portion.

c)The relief sought by the plaintiffs are (1) orderi9ng for vacant possession of ABA1 portion by the defendant to the plaintiffs (2) mandatory injunction directing the defendant for removal of the stair case, pial, pillar and extended portion of slab constructed by defendant in PQRS portion of plaintiffs 1 to 9.

d)It is the main argument of the defendant that the suit for possession and mandatory injunction is not maintainable without seeking relief of declaration of title by the plaintiff. He placed reliance on the judgment in the case between Ananthala Sudharkar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Died) by LRs and

Others (2008 4 SCC 594).

e)On behalf of plaintiffs PWs 1, 2 are examined. Ex.A1 to A3 marked.

On behalf of defendant, DW1 examined and Exs. B1 to B3 marked. Ex. B1 is marked through PW1. It is registered sale deed dt. 22.01.1929.

f)2nd plaintiff examined as PW1. PW1 in his cross examination admitted that contents of Ex.B1 are true. He further admitted that defendant can approach main road from western side only and there is no way on eastern side. He also admitted that 1st item in Ex.B1 consists of 437 sq. yds. and 2nd item consists of 355 sq. yds. of vacant site. He further admitted that on east and north of his site there was land of P. Laxmaiah. He further admitted that K. Laxmaiah has acquired the property in Ex.B1 and such property is subject matter of Ex.A1,

A2. He further admitted that plaint schedule property on north is bounded by the defendant and that he has not mentioned in the plaint schedule that northern

O.S.No. 488/2009, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

7 side is a road. He further admitted that in Ex.A2 the total extent is shown as 1071.3 sq. yds. and it is not recited in Ex.A2 how the total land is acquired by K.

Laxmaiah. He also admitted that defendant has got land on west of point A shown in the plaint plan. He further admitted that as Ex.B1, the northern boundary of 2nd schedule for 355 sq. yds. is shown as way passing from west to north.

g)6th plaintiff examined as PW2. PW2 in his cross examination admitted that the present suit pertains to the land purchased by his grandfather late Kambampati Lakshmaiah in the year 1929. He further admitted that there are two schedules in the said document. 1st schedule is to an extent of 437 sq.

yds. and 2nd schedule is 355 sq. yds., totaling 792 sq. yds. He further admitted that as per the sale deed executed in 1929 for the 1st schedule the northern boundary is shown as compound wall of Kancherla Lakshmaiah/defendant. He further admitted that he has not perused the plaint plan till today. He does not know the total extent of plaint schedule property but he knows the share of his land i.e., 134 sq. yds.

h)It is the contention of the plaintiff that defendant encroached into the site of plaintiffs 1 to 3 to a width of 4 feet on its north. It is shown as ABA1 in the plaint plan. Item no. 3 of plaint plan fell to the share of plaintiffs 1 to 3 i.e., c- schedule/item no. 2 in the registered partition deed dt. 06.06.2003.

i)Plaintiff has to prove that he was in possession of ABA1 portion of plaint plan and that defendant encroached to a width of 4 feet on its north. As per the document Ex.A1, the extent of ABCD is 483 sq. yds. as per Ex.A2 the

ABCD is 382 sq. yds. The southern and eastern side boundary of Ex.A1, A2 are tallying with each other as well as southern side. But as per Ex.A2 the linear measurements to western side is 34.3 yards. As per Ex.A1, it is 36 yards but the plain shown by the plaintiffs it is 33 yards on the western side. So, there is suppression of material fact on the face of plaint plan itself. It is the contention of

O.S.No. 488/2009, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

8 defendant that plaint plan is not correct. Hence, the contention of defendant is tenable.

j)It is the admission of PWs 1 and 2 that total extent of land purchased by Khambampati Lakshmaiah in Ex.B1 is 792 sq. yds. and the extent of

Ex.A1 is not tallying with Ex.B1. So, there is clear cloud on the title of the plaintiffs itself.

k)The learned counsel for the defendant relied upon a decision reported in 2012 (4) ALT 569 at para 41, 42.

41. Hence whether the defendants could claim protection under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, when the plaintiff did not file any suit for cancellation of Ex.B1 sale deed; Whether he can say that it is a void document after a period of 22 years; Whether he can argue that no consideration was passed thereunder or that there was an oral agreement between the parties contra to the recitals of Ex.B1; Whether he can dispute the recitals of Ex.A.29 and Ex.B.1 in the absence of any specific plea; Whether revenue authorities have passed orders without following due procedure or principles of natural justice, as alleged by the defendants. These are the important questions that arise for consideration. Thus, it is clear that there is serious title dispute between the parties. However above referred questions cannot be answered in a simple suit for injunction. I am convinced that there is a serious dispute with regard to the title of the property and this Court has to follow the decisions of the Apex Court and the Apex Court, in the above referred case, has categorically held that in the case where there is a serious dispute with regard to the title, the parties have to file a suit for declaration of title. I hold accordingly.

42. Since the relief of declaration is not sought and since there is no pleading with regard to oral agreement that Ex.B.1 is a nominal document though in certain circumstances where the stand of one another is clear and there is sufficient evidence to decide the issues and where consequential findings have to be given, probably in those circumstances in the absence of any plea the Court may consider the evidence and decide the real dispute between the parties. But, as it is observed in the above para when the plaintiff has not pleaded seeking declaration of his title and the suit is filed for bare injunction the Courts are not bound to examine the complicated issues in detail.

l)In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of possession as prayed for. Hence, issue no.1 is answered against the plaintiffs.

O.S.No. 488/2009, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

9

8.ISSUE NO. 2:

a)It is the contention of the plaintiff that defendant constructed stair case, pial, pillar and extended portion of slab in PQRS portion of plaint plan. So, it is the burden on the plaintiff to show that he has got title or right over PQRS passage and constructions were made by the defendant in it. As per Ex.B1 item no. 1 eastern side boundary is 33 yards site of Padmanabhuni Jagannadham site and house which is sold to Khambati Lakshmaiah. As per the admission of

PWs 1, 2 the extent of Ex.A1 is not correctly tallying with Ex.B1. So, there is no cloud on the title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to prove by documentary evidence that defendant has constructed staircase, pial and slab by encroaching into PQRS passage.

b)The learned counsel for defendant relied upon a decision reported in 2014 (6) ALT 813 at para 10, 11.

10. The very fact that the relief of perpetual injunction, that too, for removal of an existing structure, discloses that the defendants in such a suit had already assumed possession and made construction. It is only when the Court holds that the person who made the construction, which is sought to be removed, did not have the right upon it, that the relief of mandatory injunction can be granted as a consequential step. Unless the question as to the mutual rights of the parties vis--vis the property, on which the construction which is said to be removed is raised, the whole adjudication becomes imperfect.

11. Things would have been different altogether, had the appellants herein not disputed the claim of the respondents that EFGC is a public lane. When the appellants categorically stated that there is no such lane and the said portion is part of their lane, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to seek the relief of declaration, in that behalf. The trial Court ought not to have undertaken adjudication unless such a declaration was prayed for.

c)He also relied upon another decision reported in 2012 (4) ALT 569 at para 37.

37. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in the case between Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and others, 2008 4 SCC 594wherein the Apex Court formulated general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, which are as follows:-

(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a

O.S.No. 488/2009, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

10 consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.

(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.

(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar (AIR 2005 SC 4004)]. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.

(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.

d)Hence, the mandatory injunction without the relief of declaration is not maintainable in the circumstances of the case. Hence, plaintiffs are not entitled for mandatory injunction. Hence,suit is dismissed.

9.ISSUE NO. 3:

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

Typed to dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of December, 2018.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDIGUDEM.

O.S.No. 488/2009, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: PW1: T. Lakshmana Rao.DW1: K. Nataraj. PW2: K. Lakshmana Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Original registered partition deed dt. 02.10.1941. Ex.A2: Original registered partition deed dt. 06.06.2003. Ex.A3: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt. 08.10.1919. FOR DEFENDANT: Ex.B1: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt. 22.01.1929.

Ex.B2: CC of registered sale deed dt. 08.10.1919 executed by Paladugula Lakshmayya and his son in favour of Paladugula Rathamma. Ex.B3: CC of registered settlement deed dt.15.10.1992 executed by Kancherla Gurramma in favor of Kancherla Lakshmayya.

J.C.J.-CUM-J.M.F.C.

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

Present

Sri M.V.S. PRABHAKAR,

Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class.

Friday, the 27th day of April 2018.

M.C.No.26/2017.

Between:

1. Pothula Dhanalakshmi, W/o. Pulla Rao, Hindu, female, aged 30 years, r/o. Rallapudi, Kukkunoor Mandal, W.G.Dt.

2. Pothula Bhavana Preethi, D/o. Pulla Rao, Hindu, female, aged 7 years, mother’s protection, r/o. Rallapudi, Kukkunoor Mandal, W.G.Dt.

(2nd petitioner being minor, represented by mother and natural guardian i.e. 1st petitioner) …Petitioners.

And

Pothula Pulla Rao, S/o. Sathrugnudu, Hindu, male, aged 35 years, Lorry Driver, r/o. Kukkunoor, W.G.Dt.

… Respondent.

This case is coming on 25.04.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri U. Yesubabu, counsel for the petitioners and of Sri M. Mohan Rao, counsel for the respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This application has been filed by the petitioners against the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance of

Rs.8,000/- per month to each of the petitioners 1 and 2 besides costs.

2.The brief facts of the petition are that the 1st petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed in the year 2007. At the time of marriage, the parents of the 1st petitioner have given Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent towards dowry, gifted 5 sovereigns of gold, Rs.30,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams and also gave

Rs.30,000/- to the parents of the respondent towards marriage expenses.

Immediately after marriage, the 1st petitioner has joined the respondent to

Page 1 of 10

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

lead marital life along with household articles worth Rs.30,000/-. During wedlock, the couple were blessed with the 2nd petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent used to harass 1st petitioner both physically and mentally demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents’ house on the instigation of his family members and driven out the petitioners from the marital house in September 2015. The petitioners have no means and they have been eking out their livelihood on the mercy of mother of the 1st petitioner. The respondent is working as lorry driver and earning Rs.30,000/- per month and having own house worth Rs.4,00,000/- in his village. The respondent is also doing money lending business and earning money and he is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners and pray to allow the petition.

3.On the other hand, the respondent has filed counter denying the material averments specifically mentioned in the petition and submitted that no formalities were followed at the time of marriage and he bore all the formalities and married the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner has developed disinterest towards the respondent and did not take care of him and she lived with the respondent only for three months. The 1st petitioner herself left the company of the respondent voluntarily and the efforts made by the respondent for their reunion went in vain. The respondent is not having any movable and immovable properties and he is a daily labour and earning

Rs.150/- per day and he has to look after the welfare of his old aged mother.

He further submits that his left leg was fractured in an accident and now he is not attending to any work. The 1st petitioner is having RCC building in her village and she is doing private job and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. As the 1st petitioner has voluntarily left the company of respondent, the petitioners are not entitled for any maintenance and prays to dismiss the petition.

Page 2 of 7

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

4.On behalf of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner herself was examined as

PW-1 and examined PW-2 and no documents were marked on their behalf.

On behalf of the respondent, the respondent himself was examined as RW-1, examined RWs-2 and 3 and no documents were marked.

5.Now the points for determination are?

1. Whether the respondent has willfully neglected the petitioners?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for maintenance as prayed for?

6.P O I N T No.1:To prove the case of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner herself was examined as PW-1 and reiterated all the contents mentioned in the petition. She further stated that during wedlock, she was blessed with the 2nd petitioner. She further deposed that at the time of marriage, her parents have given Rs.1,00,00/- to the respondent towards dowry, Rs.30,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams and also presented 3 sovereigns of gold jewellery. She further deposed that after the birth of 2nd petitioner, the respondent started harassing her to bring additional dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/- and when she expressed her inability, the respondent beat her and poured kerosene and tried to kill her. The mother of the respondent instigated the respondent and about two years back, the respondent necked out her from the marital house without providing proper food and raiment and as there is no other go, she is residing with her parents.

7.In the cross-examination, she admitted that her parents have got no assets and she has got two elder sisters and two elder brothers. She has further admitted that she has no proof of document for the dowry given to her parents in law and she has resided with the respondent for only three years. From the admission of PW-1 that she has not filed any document in respect of dowry and other paraphernalia, her evidence to that extent

Page 3 of 7

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

cannot be believed, more particularly, when she admitted that her parents have got no assets.

8.When the evidence of PW-2, who is third party is perused he also deposed that the marriage of 1st petitioner with the respondent was performed at Lord Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Dwaraka Tirumala as per

Hindu Customs and Rites and he attended the marriage. The respondent was addicted to drinking alcohol and beat the 1st petitioner and demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents’ house and tried to kill the 1st petitioner by pouring kerosene. In November 2015, the respondent beat the 1st petitioner black and blue and necked out from the marital house, resulting which, she is residing with her parents. He further deposed that he along with one P. Babu, Mutyala Rao convened meeting and tried to facify the dispute but the respondent did not turn up. He further deposed that at the time of marriage, the father of the 1st petitioner gave

Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent and also gave 3 sovereigns of gold jewellery, Rs.30,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams and household articles worth Rs.30,000/-.

9.In the cross-examination, he admitted that he was not present when marriage talks were going on between the parents of the 1st petitioner and respondent. He cannot say the exact date of mediation. This witness was suggested that due to ill health, the respondent is unable to attend any work and at the instance of 1st petitioner, he is deposing falsehood and he has no knowledge with regard to facts of the case. Of course, the witness has denied the same. Even though the witness has stated with regard to dowry and other paraphernalia, as admitted by PW-1, there is no proof of document for the same and as such the evidence of this witness to that extent cannot be believed.

10.On the other hand, to disprove the contention of the petitioners, the respondent himself was examined as RW-1 and deposed that no dowry was

Page 4 of 7

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

given to him and for the last one year, he is not attending to any work as his knee was fractured in an accident and he never demanded any additional dowry from the 1st petitioner and he was never addicted to vices. As he has no means to pay separate maintenance to the petitioners, he prays to dismiss the petition and further stated that the 1st petitioner is earning

Rs.150/- per day as daily wage labour. This witness was suggested that at the time of marriage, his parents in law have given Rs.1,00,000/- dowry,

Rs.30,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams to his sister and Rs.30,000/- to him towards household articles and that he demanded the 1st petitioner to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and neglected the petitioners. Of course, the witness has denied all the suggestions.

11.To support the contention of the respondent, RW-2, who is his grandmother was examined. She deposed that no dowry was given to the respondent by the parents of the 1st petitioner and the 1st petitioner used to reside 20 days in her parents’ house even after her marriage and the respondent is unable to attend for any work as he met with an accident.

She admitted in the cross-examination that she cannot say the date of accident. She denied a suggestion that at the time of marriage of 1st petitioner, her parents have given dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-, 5 sovereigns of gold jewellery, Rs.30,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams and household articles worth Rs.30,000/- and the respondent owns a lorry and doing money lending business and earning Rs.50,000/- per month.

12.To support the case of respondent, his mother was examined as RW-3 and she also deposed in the same lines almost as that of RW-2. In the cross- examination, this witness was suggested that at the time of marriage of the respondent, the parents of the 1st petitioner have given Rs.1,00,000/- dowry, 5 sovereigns of gold jewellery, household articles worth Rs.30,000/- and

Rs,.30,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams and the respondent owns a lorry and doing money lending business and earning Rs.30,000/- per month

Page 5 of 7

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

and without providing proper food, they have driven out the petitioners from the marital house. Of course, the witness has denied all the suggestions.

13.When the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 on one side and the evidence of

RWs-1 to 3 on the other side is perused, it is oath against oath. One fact is proved that the 1st petitioner and her parents have failed to prove that dowry and paraphernalia was given to the respondent and his parents as there was no such documentary proof. The contention of the 1st petitioner is that she was driven out from the marital house. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that the 1st petitioner herself left his company. No married woman will leave the company of her husband unless there was untold misery subjected by her husband. Even assuming for a moment, the contention of the respondent is true that the 1st petitioner herself left his company without reasonable ground, the recourse left to him is to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. But, in the case on hand, admittedly, the respondent has maintained silence all the while till the petitioners filed this case seeking maintenance. Hence, it can safely be presumed that due to negligence of the respondent only, the petitioners are constrained to reside away from the company of the respondent.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.

14.P O I N T No.2: The 1st petitioner contends that the respondent owns a lorry and doing money lending business. But, to that extent, the petitioners have not filed any proof of document. The 1st petitioner is unable even to depose about the lorry number owned by the respondent. Hence, the evidence of the petitioners that the respondent owns a lorry cannot be believed. Even though, the 1st petitioner has deposed that the respondent is doing money lending business and earning Rs.30,000/- per month, there was no proof of document for that also and as such the contention of the petitioners on that aspect cannot be believed. Even though the respondent

Page 6 of 7

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

deposed that the 1st petitioner is attending for coolie work and earning

Rs.150/- per day, there was no evidence to that extent. Hence, his version cannot be accepted.

15.The next serious contention of the respondent is that he met with an accident and unable to attend for any work. If that was so, the respondent ought to have file X-Ray at least to that extent. But except his oral evidence, there was no proof of document or he examined any medical officer to establish his contention. Therefore, as rightly argued by the learned counsel

for the petitioners, the contention of the respondent that he met with an

accident is a story created for the purpose of this case. Hence, the version of the respondent on this aspect cannot be believed. Even though, it is a fact that the petitioners have failed to prove that the respondent owns any assets, it is duty of the respondent to provide some maintenance to the petitioners, since his negligence has been established towards the petitioners. The very purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution but not to penalize the respondent. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent has not paid even a single pie to the petitioners after filing of this petition. Hence, he is liable to pay some maintenance to the petitioners from the date of filing of the petition. Considering financial status of both parties including the income of the respondent, this court is of the view that the following amount would meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, this point is also answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.

16.In the result, the petition is allowed in part and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1500/- per month to the 2nd petitioner towards their maintenance from the date of filing of this petition i.e. from 25-07-2017 besides costs of Rs.1,000/-.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of April 2018.

Page 7 of 7

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDYGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: - FOR RESPONDENT:-

PW-1:P. Dhanalakshmi. RW-1:P. Pulla Rao.

PW-2:S. Rama Rao.RW-2:M. Subbamma.

RW-3:P. Ramadevi.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS : -NIL.

FOR RESPONDENT : -NIL.

J.M.F.C. JRG.

Page 8 of 7

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

Page 9 of 7

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: JANGAREDDIGUDEM.

Monday, the 28th day of December, 2018. Present: - Sri P. Purushotham Rao, Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem.

C.C.No.22/2012 (Old No. 1645/2006)

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of police,

Jangareddigudem. ... Complainant

And

Botta Naga Vigneswara Rao, S/o. Somaraju, Male, Hindu, 25 years, Cultivation, Sobhanadripuram, Hamlet of Kethavaram,

Jangareddigudem (M). ... Accused

This case is coming before me on 24.12.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Ms. N. Pragathi, Assistant Public Prosecutor, advocate for

Complainant, and of Sri G. Koteswara Rao, D.R.V.Krishna Rao, advocates for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Jangareddigudem police station filed charge-sheet in Cr.No. 215/2001 for the offence U/s.420 IPC and U/s.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused after investigation made upon the private complaint filed by the complainant referred under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C.

2.The brief averments of the prosecution case is that:

a)The accused has acquaintance with the complainant and used to obtain hand loan. On 25.08.2001 the accused requested PW1 to advance an amount of Rs. 81,000/- towards hand loan to meet his personal expenses and promised to repay the same within one month. Accordingly, PW1 gave an amount of Rs. 81,000/- to the accused in the presence of PW2 and LW3/G.

Satyanarayana, but the accused failed to repay the same within one month.

After several demands, the accused issued Ex.P6/cheque bearing no. 036383 on 27.10.2001 for an amount of Rs. 81,000/- drawn on Coastal Bank,

CC No. 22/2012, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

2

Jangareddigudem in favour of complainant. On that, he presented the said cheque in his account/Andhra Bank, Jangareddigudem, but the same was returned due to funds insufficient in the account of accused on 03.11.2001. The accused with an intention to deceive PW1 issued cheque. PW1 got issued registered notice to the accused on 07.11.2001 to pay the entire cheque amount within 15 days, it was served on 09.11.2001 but the accused neither gave reply nor made payment. Thus, the accused committed the offence U/s.138 of

N.I. Act and Sec. 420 IPC. The accused knowing fully well that he had no sufficient amount in his account, issued cheque to the complainant and induced him to believe that the accused has paid the full amount of the hand loan.

b)The private complaint is referred to police for the offence U/s.156 (3) Cr.P.C. who registered the case in Cr.No. 215/2001, U/s.420 IPC and sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. During the course of investigation,

PW3/investigating officer examined PW1 and other witnesses and obtained the bank account opening form which is having admitted signatures of the accused from the Coastal Bank. The sample signatures and alphabetical combination of writing of accused taken in the Hon’ble Court and the questioned document i.e., the cheque issued by the accused and the some signed document were sent to FSL, Hyderabad along with the document containing the admitting writing of the accused for comparison. The hand writing expert opined that the signatures found on the questioned document i.e., cheque issued by the accused were compared with that of the samples signatures of the accused and opined that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures and writing marked S1 to S42 also wrote the red enclosed signature marked Q1 but did not write the red enclosed writing marked Q2. During the course of investigation, on 09.03.2002 at 8 a.m. the accused were arrested and sent for judicial custody. On completion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet.

CC No. 22/2012, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

3

3.The case was taken on file against the accused U/s.420 IPC and

Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate of 1st

Class, Jangareddigudem. Later, this case record was transferred to this court as per proceedings of the Hon’ble District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru in Dis.No.

8592, dt: 06.10.2012.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C, examined under Sec.239

Cr.P.C., charge framed U/s. 420 IPC, read over and explained, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, out of 6 listed witnesses the prosecution has examined PWs1 to 3, got marked Exs.P1 to P9. Prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses.

6.The accused was examined U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence, for which he denied as false and reported no defence.

7.Heard arguments on both the sides. It is argued by the learned

A.P.P. that prosecution has proved that accused having issued cheque intentionally did not honour the cheque and committed cheating. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that it is for the prosecution to prove that there is legally enforcible debt under the cheque, but prosecution failed to prove it. When there is no legally enforcible debt under the cheque, and when the cheque is obtained fraudulently on the pretext of providing loan from B.C. Corporation , the accused is not liable for the charged offence.

8.Now, the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused U/s.420 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

9.POINT :

a)The essential ingredients of Sec. 420 IPC are: (i) cheating; (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any

CC No. 22/2012, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

4 valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security, and (iii) mens rea of the accused at the time of making inducement.

b)Making a false representation is one of the essential ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. In order to bring a case for the offence of cheating, it is not merely satisfactory to prove that a false representation had been made, but it is further necessary to prove that the representation was false to the knowledge of the accused and was made in order to deceive the complainant.

c)PW1 testified that the accused is having money transactions with him prior to this case also and accordingly on 24.03.2001 the accused requested him to provide Rs.1,00,000/-and on the next day he paid Rs.81,000/- i.e., on 25.03.2001 towards hand loan in the presence of PW2 and G. Satyanarayana. It is the complaint of PW1 that the accused requested him to provide Rs.81,000/- on 25.08.2001 and accordingly he gave the amount in the presence of PW2 and

G. Satyanarayana. So, there is no consistency in the evidence of PW1. It is the case of complainant that on 25.08.2001, accused borrowed Rs. 81,000/- but in his evidence he deposed that on 24.03.2001 accused requested him to give money and on 25.03.2001 he paid the amount and in discharge of such debt accused issued cheque dishonestly knowing that it has no funds in the account.

Thus, the version of PW1 in his complaint that on 25.08.2001 he paid the amount to accused becomes doubtful. According to PW1 he paid the amounts towards hand loan to the accused and PW2 witnessed such transaction.

d)It is the testimony of PW2 that the accused has to pay the amounts to PW1 i.e., Rs. 81,000/- and he further deposed that in his presence only PW1 paid amount to the accused. When PW1 himself did not state the correct date of lending amount the evidence of PW2 that he was present at the time of transaction of giving hand loan of Rs.81,000/- without obtaining any document

CC No. 22/2012, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

5 from accused as collateral security is not trustworthy. PW3/investigating officer categorically stated about his sending the signature on the cheque for hand writing expert and opined that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures are marked S1 to S42 also wrote the red enclosed signature marked

Q1 Thus prosecution proved the signature on the cheque belongs to the accused.

e)Prosecution has to prove that there is legally enforcible debt to be discharged under Ex.P6 cheque and has to prove that the accused is having fraudulent and dishonest intention to deceive at the time of borrowing the amounts itself. According to PW1, he lent amounts to the accused two or three times and he returned it. From his own testimony, PW1 failed to prove that he lent Rs.81,000/- on 25.08.2001 towards hand loan as his evidence is not inconsistent with his own complaint.

f)From the material available on record, it does not bear that there was culpable intention right at the beginning i.e., the promise was made but there was an intention to cheat. Even otherwise the fact that the cheque issued was dishonest by itself does not constitute the offence of cheating. There is no criminal liability for the offence U/s.420 IPC.

10.In the result, accused is found not guilty and thereby acquitted

U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s. 420 IPC. The bail bonds if any of accused shall be cancelled and the sureties are discharged after lapse of 6 months.

Typed to dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of December, 2018.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDIGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1:D.V.S.S.Rama RajuNone PW2:U. Krishnam Raju. PW3:B. Ramakrishna.

CC No. 22/2012, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

6

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR DEFEMNCE:

Ex.P1Complaint of PW1.Nil Ex.P2FIR Ex.P3Cheque return memo Dt. 02.11.2001. Ex.P4Registered notice got issued by PW1, Dt. 07.11.2001. Ex.P5Postal acknowledgment from the accused. Ex.P6Original cheque issued by accused, Dt. 27.10.2001. Ex.P7Account opening form of the accused at Coastal Bank, Jangareddigudem. Ex.P8Sample signatures of accused obtained before the court. Ex.P9Expert opinion from APFSL, Hyderabad, Dt. 08.07.2003.

J.C.J.-CUM-J.F.C.M.

CC No. 22/2012, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

7

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF WEST GODAVARI

Calendar of cases tried by Sri P. Purushotham Rao, Junior Civil Judge, Jangareddigudem, for the month of December, 2018.

C.C.NO.22/2012 (Old C.C.No. 1645/2006)

Date of offence: 27.10.2001

Complaint: 26.12.2001

Apprehension of accused: --

Remand Period if any : --

Release on bail: --

Commencement of trial: 30.10.2018

Closing of trial : 04.12.2018

Sentence or order: 28.12.2018

Reasons for delay: Transfer of the case from Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Jangareddigudem and due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the complainant: State: Sub-Inspector of police, Jangareddigudem police station in cr.no. 215/2001. Name of the accused : Botta Naga Vigneswara Rao, S/o. Somaraju, Male, Hindu, 25 years, Cultivation, Sobhanadripuram, Hamlet of Kethavaram, Jangareddigudem (M). Offence: U/s.420 IPC and U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

Plea of the Accused : Not guilty

Finding: Not guilty

O R D E R:

Accused is found not guilty and thereby acquitted U/s.248 (1)

Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s. 420 IPC.

The bail bonds if any of accused shall be cancelled and the sureties are discharged after lapse of 6 months.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDIGUDEM.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

C.C.No.307/2017, JMFC, JRG

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

C.C.No.307/2017

Date of OffenceComplaiApprehensiReleaseCommenceClose ofSentenc nt oron ofd on bail-triale or reportaccusedment ofOrder trial Prior to 03-04-16----24-04-1824-04-1827-04-18 03-04-16

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station.… Complainant.

And

Description of the accused:

S.No.Name of theFather/AgeCallingReligionResidencMandal accusedHusbandYearse name

1.Kunapamula Siddayya35BusinesHinduJangareddJangaredd Venkateshsii Gudemgudem

Offence :Staling and retransmitting of Network Channels without having any license or authority punishable u/s. 63 of Indian Copy Right Act. Plea of the :Not guilty. accused inding of the Court :Not guilty. Sentence or order :The accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.63 of Indian Copy Right Act and he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months.

Explanation for theThis c This case was taken on file on 28-02-2017 and numbered: delayas above C.C. After furnishing copies of documents, the accused was examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C on 29-04-17. As there is delay in producing the witnesses by the prosecution, PWs-1 to 3 were examined on 24-04-18 and the evidence of prosecution was closed on the same day, trial was closed and arguments were heard. On 27-04-2018 judgment was delivered. Hence, the delay. `

Sd/- MVS PRABHAKAR

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jangareddigudem

// TRUE COPY//

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDIGUDEM.

Copy submitted to:

The Honourable First Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Page 1 of 4

C.C.No.307/2017, JMFC, JRG

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDIGDUEM

Present: - Sri M.V.S. PRABHAKAR,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Friday, the 27th day of April 2018.

C.C.No.307/2017

Between:

State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station. …. Complainant

And

Kunapamula Venkatesh..…. Accused

This case is coming on 24.04.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri U. Yesu Babu, counsel for the accused and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.95/2016 for the offence u/s. 63 of

Indian Copy Right Act, 1957.

2.The brief facts that emanates from the charge sheet are that the accused is Proprietor of J.C. Cable Network, Jangareddigudem. He has been unauthorisedly staling and retransmitting the ETV Network Channel through their HITS Platform through M/s. Noida Software Technology Park Limited (JAIN HITS) from March 2016. On 03-04-2016 at 9-30 a.m. on a report given by PW-1, A. Ananda Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem has registered the same as a case in Cr.No.95/2016 for the offence u/s. 63 of

Indian Copy Right Act, 1957 and investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of PWs-1 to 3 and

K. Hanumantha Kumar. Subsequently, M. Kesava Rao, Sub Inspector of Police,

Jangareddigudem Police Station has took up further investigation and he set free the accused as he complied with the notice issued u/s. 41-A of

Page 2 of 4

C.C.No.307/2017, JMFC, JRG

Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Cognizance of offence under section 63 of Indian Copy Right Act was taken against the accused.

4.When the accused appeared before Court, he was furnished with copies of documents and examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. He denied the accusation.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, PWs-1 to 3 were examined and Exhibits

P-1 to P-4 were marked. On behalf of the defence no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

6.As there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, examination of the accused under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now, the point for determination is: -

Whether the Prosecution has proved its case against the

accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/s.63

of Indian Copy Right Act?

9.P O I N T : In this case, the prosecution has cited as many as 6 witnesses but examined only PWs-1 to 3, since the evidence of other witnesses was given up by the learned A.P.P.

10.When the evidence of PW-1, who is the defacto complainant, is perused he testified that he does not know the accused and anything about facts of the case. Though Ex.P-1 is his signature, he stated that he does not know its contents and at the instance of police, he signed on it.

11.When the evidence of PWs-2 and 3 is perused, they have categorically deposed that they do not know the accused and anything about facts of the case. As PWs-1 to 3 have resiled from their earlier versions, they were declared as hostile by the learned APP and were cross-examined at length.

But nothing was elicited in her cross-examination to advance the case of prosecution. As the main witnesses have resiled from their earlier versions,

Page 3 of 4

C.C.No.307/2017, JMFC, JRG they were declared as hostile by the learned APP and were cross-examined at length. But nothing was elicited in her cross-examination to advance the case of prosecution. Hence, the learned APP has given up the evidence of other witnesses, as no purpose would be served by examining them. Even assuming for a movement, if they were examined, there would be no progress in the case of the prosecution. From the evidence of PWs-1 to 3, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence under Section 63 of Indian

Copy Right Act.

12.In the result, I found the accused not guilty for the offence u/s.63 of

Indian Copy Right Act and he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of April 2018.

Sd/- M.V.S. PRABHAKAR

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDYGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: - FOR ACCUSED:- PW-1:N. Sivaramakrishna. -None- PW-2:P. Ganesh. PW-3:B. Venkata Ramana.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: -

Ex.P-1:-: Signature of PW-1 on report given to police. Ex.P-2:-: Portion marked in 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-1. Ex.P-3:-: Portion marked in 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-2. Ex.P-4:-: Portion marked in 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-3.

Page 4 of 4

C.C.No.307/2017, JMFC, JRG

FOR ACCUSED: - NIL.

ILD/-M.V.S.P.

J.F.C.M.,

JRG

// TRUE COPY //

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JANGAREDDIGUDEM.

Page 5 of 4

C.C.No.307/2017, JMFC, JRG

Page 6 of 4

O.S.No. 220/2018, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: JANGAREDDIGUDEM.

PRESENT: Sri P. Purushotham Rao, Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem. Friday, the 28th day of December, 2018.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.220/2018

Between:

State Bank of India, Koyyalagudem.

Rep. by its Branch Manager. ... Plaintiff

And

1. Dharmula Bodamma, W/o. Nagaraju, 62 years, Hindu, Female, Cultivation, D.No. 4-47, Reddyganapavaram, Buttaigudem (M).

2. Komaram Bojji, S/o. Siramayya, 60 years, Hindu, Male, Cultivation, D.No. 1-12,

Atchiyapalem, Koyyalagudem (M). ... Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 14.12.2018 for hearing in the presence of Sri P. Udaya Bhanuji, Advocate for plaintiff, and the defendants set ex parte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit for recovery of loan amount of Rs. 1,18,644/- by the plaintiff’s bank/State Bank of India represented by its Branch Manager against the defendants.

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

a.The plaintiff is a nationalized bank and having its branch at

Koyyalagudem village. The 1st defendant approached the bank and requested for sanction of Rs. 1,00,000/- as crop loan under cash credit loan facility and submitted loan application. The 1st defendant agreed to repay the amount after harvesting the crop with interest @ 7% p.a., with half yearly rests within one year and in default to pay the amount with interest subject to variation of rate from time to time as per R.B.I. guidelines. The 2nd defendant

O.S.No. 220/2018, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

2 agreed to stand as guarantor for the said loan. The loan was sanctioned by the plaintiff’s bank and the defendants acknowledged the loan arrangement letter agreeing for the terms of the bank.

b.On 20.07.2012 the 1st defendant executed hypothecation agreement and 2nd defendant executed deed of guarantee. Both the defendants agreed to pay all incidental charges including inspection, legal and other expenses and also agreed to abide by the conditions of the documents executed by them. The 1st defendant opened account with the plaintiff’s bank and withdrawn the loan amount through that account bearing no. 62238521068. The plaintiff’s bank and its officials demanded the defendants for repayment, but defendants postponed the payment on one pretext or other. The 1st defendant executed revival letter on 15.06.2015 duly acknowledging the debt and it is binding on the 2nd defendant also till the debt is completely discharged. The plaintiff’s bank got issued demand notice dt.18.07.2017 to the defendants demanding them to repay the amount, even then they have not discharged the debt. The outstanding due as per account statement of the defendants with interest applied up to 30.11.2016 is

Rs.1,03,004/-. The subsequent interest is Rs.14,540/- and other expenses are

Rs.1100/-. Hence, the suit is for total sum of Rs.1,18,644/-. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the suit amount with subsequent interest and costs. It is further pleaded that the 1st defendant is not entitled to the benefit of Act 4/38, 7/77, 45/87 r/w 2/90 or any other Act. The usurious loans

Act has no application. The rate of interest is fair and reasonable as per guidelines of RBI and prayed to decree the suit.

3.Summons were served to the defendants and failed to appear

before this court, hence, they were set ex parte.

O.S.No. 220/2018, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

3

4.During the course of trial, the Assistant Branch Manager of plaintiff’s bank examined as PW1 and he reiterated the pleadings of plaint in his chief affidavit in support of his claim. He got filed Exs. A1 to A7.

5.Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is ‘Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim’?

7.POINT:- a.P.W.1 filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief and the same was taken on file as evidence in chief of P.W.1. In such chief affidavit examination, he reiterated the averments of the plaint that 1st defendant requested the bank for arrangement of crop loan and made application under

Ex.A1 and having agreed for the terms and conditions and rate of interest of the bank. The 2nd defendant agreed to furnish guarantee. The plaintiff’s bank arranged loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the 1st defendant and and accordingly executed Ex.A2/letter of arrangement. The 1stdefendant executed

Ex.A3/Hypothecation agreement and the 2nd defendant stood as a guarantor by executing deed of guarantee under Ex.A4. The loan amount was disbursed through the account maintained by the plaintiff’s bank in the name of 1st defendant. The 1st defendant executed revival letter under Ex.A5 duly acknowledging the debt and it is binding on the 2nd defendant also. The plaintiff’s bank made several demands, but the defendants committed default as such it got issued registered legal notice under Ex.A6 and failed to discharge the debt. As per the loan account statement of 1st defendant under Ex.A7, the amount due by the time of filing of the suit is Rs.1,18,644/- and accordingly the plaintiff’s bank proved its claim.

b.The defendants having received summons and failed to appear

before this court to challenge the case of plaintiff. So, there is no contest on

O.S.No. 220/2018, Dt. 28.12.2018, JCJ, JRG

4 behalf of defendants. On the other hand, the plaintiff’s bank examined its

Assistant Branch Manager and exhibiting Exs. A1 to A7 categorically proved the debt to be payable by defendants to it. From the above discussion, the plaintiff’s bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally for a sum of Rs.1,18,644/- with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of suit till realization.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28th day of December, 2018.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDIGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS: PW1: K. Srinivas.None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Loan application, Dt. 20.07.2012. Ex.A2: Letter of arrangement, dt. 20.07.2012. Ex.A3: Hypothecation agreement executed by 1st defendant, Dt. 20.07.2012. Ex.A4: Deed of guarantee executed by 2nd defendant, Dt. 20.07.2012. Ex.A5: Revival letter executed by defendants, Dt. 15.06.2015. Ex.A6: Office copy of notice issued to defendant Dt. 18.07.2017. Ex.A7: True copy of account copy.

FOR DEFENDANTS: Nil

J.C.J.-CUM-J.M.F.C.