Ms.patlolla Tejasri

1 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: SANGAREDDY.

Present: Smt. P. Tejasri, III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

MONDAY, THE 20 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025.

OS.No. 109 OF 2013

Between: Smt. Jubeda Sultana W/O Mohd, Mahamood, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Household, R/O H.No. 16-9-406/3/13, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff

And

1. Sri G.Latchi Raju S/O Rama Raju, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/O. MIG 528, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

2. Smt. Anasuya Reddy W/O B. Mohan Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, R/O H.NO.16-7-731, Osmanpura, Hyderabad.

3. Sri. Zahid Ali S/O Late Yousuf Ali, aged about 43 years, Occ. Business, R/O H.No.9-11-149/1, Motimahal Jinsi Bazaar, Golconda Fort, Hyderabad.

4. K.Sadasiva Rao S/O K. Venkateshwarulu, aged about 55 years, Occ: Business, R/O H.No.807/7, Vivekananda Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, T.S.

This suit is coming before me on 10.01.2025 for final hearing in the presence of M.S. Khan, Learned Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sir P. Ravi Kishore, Learned Advocate for the defendant 2 and 3, Defendants remained ex-parte, upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing both the counsel and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T :

1.This suit was transferred from the II Addl. Junior civil Judge’s, court

Sangareddy.

2 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

2.The suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking to declare the registered sale deed bearing doc. No. 16106/12 dt. 05.11.2012 in respect of the suit schedule plot No. 61 admeasuring an area of 200 Sq yards in sy. No. 82, situated at Muthanig village,

Patancheru Mandal, Medak District as null and void, to grant perpetual injunction retraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

The open plot bearing No. 61 admeasruing 200 Sq yards in Sy. No. 82 situated at Muthangi village, Patanceru Mandal, Medak District and bounded by:

North: Plot No. 60

South: Plot No. 62

East: 30’ Wide Road

West: Plot No. 56 hereinafter referred as the suit schedule property.

3.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the plot bearing No. 61 admeasuring 200 Sq. Yards in Sy.

No. 82, situated at Muthangi village, Patancheru Mandal. District Medak.

3 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

i. It is submitted that originally one Gandla Padmamma W/o Sadasivudu was the owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.82, admeasuring Ac.0. 18 guntas, situated at Muthangi village, Patancheru Mandal, Dist. Medak. The said Gandla

Padmamma sold the above said land to the defendant No.1 through Regd. Sale deed bearing Doc. No.2386/1994, dated. 07-07-1994. After purchase of the said land the defendant No.1 made plots in the above said land along with lands in Sy.

Nos.49 to 59, 80, 81, 83, 85 to 100 and obtained layout, sanctioned No. 12 from the

Gram Panchayat, Muthangi, and sold the said plots to various purchasers.

ii.It is submitted that she purchased the suit schedule plot through Registered sale deed bearing document No.3691/2005, dated:31-03-2005 for a valid sale consideration from the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 has delivered the vacant possession of the suit schedule plot in favour of the plaintiff on the date of

Registered sale deed. Since the date of purchase the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any let or hindrance. After purchase of the suit plot she obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat, Muthangi for construction of room and compound wall in the suit schedule plot but due to financial crises she could not construct the same. The plaintiff and her husband used to visit the suit schedule plot whenever they find time.

iii.It is submitted that on 10-02-2013 when the plaintiff and her husband as usual visited the suit schedule plot, two persons claiming to be the agents of the defendants No.2 and 3 having no manner of right title or interest over the suit plot 4 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

came to the suit schedule plot and questioned the plaintiff and her husband for moving in the suit plot and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule plot claiming that the defendants No.2 and 3 have purchased the suit schedule plot along with other plots from the defendant No.1. The plaintiff and her husband informed the said persons that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and she has been in possession of suit schedule plot and the plaintiff and her husband resisted the illegal acts of the said persons with the help of their neighbors and well-wishers and drove away the said persons with a great difficulty from suit schedule plot. While leaving the suit plot the said persons threatened the plaintiff that the defendants

No.2 and 3 would come and disposes the plaintiff in near future from the silt schedule plot.

iv.It is submitted that immediately the plaintiff rushed to the office of the District

Registrar and obtained the certified copy of the registered sale deed bearing doc

No. 16106/12 and came to know that the defendants No. 2 and 3 in collusion with the defendant No.1 and 4 created the agreement of sale in respect of Plots Nos 178, 179, 182, 157, 66/B, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 77, 80, 89, 93 116, 20, 44 and 45. The defendant No.2 and 3 herein filed suit against the defendant No.1 and 4 herein for specific performance the file of District Judge Medak at Sangareddy and the same is numbered as OS No 69/2010 and made over to V Add District

Judge Medak at Sangareddy. Subsequently the defendant No.1 and 2 did not come

forward to contest the above suit and the said suit was exparte decreed on 14-11- 2011 in favour of the defendants No.2 and 3 herein. Subsequently the defendants 5 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

No.2 and 3 herein have filed the E.P.No.23/2012 for execution of decree. The defendant No. 1 and 4 did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed as such in pursuance of the said decree the Hon'ble V Addl. District Judge Medak at

Sangareddy executed registered sale deed bearing document No.16106/12 Dt.05- 11-2012 in favour of the defendants No.2 and 3 herein. The above said decree in

O.S.No.69/2010 is collusive decree and the same is obtained by the defendants by

misrepresenting the court.

v.It is submitted that as the defendant No. 1 has already sold away the suit schedule plot in favour of the plaintiff and transferred his rights in favour of the plaintiff as such he has no right to enter into any agreement or sale in respect of the suit schedule plot with anybody. The defendant No. 1 has no right to sell the suit schedule plot again to the defendants No.2 and 3. The defendants No.2 and 3 have filed the suit ie. O.S.No.69/2010 in collusion with the defendant No.1 and 4 by suppressing the fact of already selling the suit schedule plot by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. The sale deed bearing document No. 16106/12, Dt. 05.11.2012 is illegal to the extent of suit schedule plot and no title would pass in favour of the defendants No.2 and 3 under the alleged sale deed in respect of the suit plot.

vi.It is submitted that on 24-03-2013 the plaintiff and her husband visited the suit schedule plot meanwhile defendants No.2 and 3 having no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule plot, the defendants came to the suit schedule plot and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule plot. The 6 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of the defendants No.2 and 3 with a great difficulty and drove away the defendants No.2 and 3 with the help of her husband and well- wishers. While leaving the suit schedule plot the defendants No.2 and 3 threatened the plaintiff that they will come again with full force and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule plot in near future. The plaintiff reported the matter to the concerned police but the Police advised the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court, as the matter is civil in nature. Hence, this suit.

4.On the other hand, the defendants filed written statement. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendants are as follows:

i. The defendant No.2 and 3 filed their written statements alleging that the main suit filed by the plaintiff is neither maintainable on law or on facts hence the same may be dismissed in limini.

ii. It is submitted that the Suit to declare the Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.16106/12 dated 05-11-2012 in respect of the suit schedule Plot No.

61 admeasuring an area of 200 sq. yards in Sy. No. 82 situated at Muthangi Village of patancheru Mandal, Medak Dist as null and void is not maintainable. It is pertinent to mention here that decree of the higher court cannot be reversed by the lower court as the suit schedule property was registered by the Hon'ble V Addl Dist

Judge Medak at Sangareddy in pursuance of the decree passed in OS No. 69/2010

by Hon'ble V Addl Dist Judge Medak at Sangareddy.

7 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

iii. It is submitted that Suit for Perpetual Injunction in respect of the suit schedule Plot No. 61 admeasuring an area of 200 sq. yards in Sy. No. 82 situated at Muthangi Village of patancheru Mandal, Medak Dist. Under Specific Relief Act, filed by the plaintiff is neither maintainable on law or on facts hence the same may be dismissed in limini.

iv.It is submitted that in reply to Para no. 1,3 to 7 the averments were incorrect and the actual owner of the suit schedule property i.e., Plot No. 61 admeasuring an area of 200 sq. yards in Sy. No. 82 situated at Muthangi Village of Patancheru

Mandal, Medak Dist are the defendants herein and now also the defendants are in possession of the properties. Pertaining to para no.2 the averments were correct.

It is submitted that the Plaintiffs for the purpose of the case has created a concocted story and filed this petition with an ill intention to gain wrongfully.

v.The defendants has entered into an Agreement of Sale with Gadiraju Latchi

Raju dated 6/1/2001, wherein the owner Gadiraju Latchi Raju sell the Plots in

Ramaraju Nagar Layout Survey Nos. 55,56,82 & 85 etc, in Muttangi Village,

Patancheru Mandal, Medak Dist. No.2 for a sale consideration of Rs.17,10,000/- and the Schedule of the property is been clearly mentioned and the total schedule property approximately is 12000 sq yds and the layout was approved by the

Muttangi Grama Panchayat vide Resolution NO.12 dated 23-10-91 It is further submitted by the defendants herein that subsequently after taking of advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- the vendor i.e Gadiraju Latchi Raju has not come forward to execute the Sale Deed as such the defendants has approached the appropriate 8 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

court of law and filed suit for specific performance against Gadiraju Latchi and other's vide O.S.No.69 of 2010 before the Hon'ble Spl Judge for trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-Cum-V Addl Dist & Sessions Judge, Medak, Sangareddy which was exparte decreed on dated 14.11.2011 in favour of the defendants herein asking the plaintiffs in the above stated suits to execute the sale deeds in favour of the defendants herein by taking the balance sale consideration amount even though the said persons not came forward to Honou'r the court order and as such subsequently the defendants herein has filed the E.P No.23/2012 for execution of decree and then also the said persons not came forward to execute the registered sale deed as such the Hon'ble V Addl Dist Judge Medak at Sangareddy executed registered sale deed bearing document No. 16106/12 dated 5/11/12 in favour of the defendants.

vi.It is submitted that they are not aware of the transactions between the plaintiffs and the G.Latchi Raju who is the defendant no.1 here in and with regard to the Registered sale deed of the schedule mentioned property because the plaintiffs did not come forward to raise their objections during the pendency of O.S.No.69 of 2010 before the Hon'ble V Addl Dist Judge Medak at Sangareddy and even after registering the suit schedule property in the name of the of defendants no.283 were in possession since the date of execution of the sale registered by the Hon'ble V

Addl Dist Judge Medak at Sangareddy in pursuance of the decree passed in OS

No. 69/2010 by Hon'ble V Addl Dist Judge Medak at Sangareddy..

9 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

vii.It is submitted that the they doesn't know the plaintiffs herein until they receive the summons in this case and it is a surprise to them and story of trespass into the property of the Plaintiffs with their agents and threatening them with dire consequences for dispossessing them and more so on 10-02-2013 and on 24-03- 2013 with unsocial elements were all false, fabricated and concocted. It is further submitted that they are the actual owners of the in respect of the suit schedule Plot

No. 61 admeasuring an area of 200 sq. yards in Sy. No. 82 situated at Muthangi

Village of Patancheru Mandal, Medak Dist and the documents will be filed at the time of trial.

viii.It is submit that the plaintiffs are not having any prima facie case and the defendants no 283 are having documentary as well oral evidence to support their case and as the defendants no. 283 were the actual legal owners of the schedule properties as such they cannot be restrained. It is submitted that in reply to Para 9 to 11 of the suit, it is submitted it doesn't require any reply as they show cause of action, valuation of suit, jurisdiction. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

i. Whether the plaintiff is able to prove his tittle over the suit property as being better then D2 and D3 ?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of part, cancellation of

registered sale deed doc. No. 16106/12 dt.05.11.2012 to extent of plot No.61 as

null and void ?

10 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as a prayer for in

absence of challenge to decree in O.S. No. 69/10 on the file of Hon’ble ADJ

Medak at Sangareddy?

iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of declaring

registered sale deed doc. No. 16106/12 dt. 05.11.12 as null and void partly in

absence of seeking declaration of his title over suit property?

v. To what relief?

6. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1/Smt.

Jubeda Sultana and got ExA1 to 6 marked

7.Heard both sides.

8. For better appreciation of facts and evidence discussing issue no.1 to 4 collectively

The suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking to declare the registered sale deed bearing doc. No. 16106/12 dt. 05.11.2012 in respect of the suit schedule plot No. 61 admeasuring an area of 200 Sq yards in sy. No. 82, situated at Muthanig village,

Patancheru Mandal, Medak District as null and void, to grant perpetual injunction retraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

9.To prove their case, the plaintiff No.1 herself is examined as PW1 by filing her chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of her plaint and she exhibited Ex.A1

Ex.A1: Original registered sale deed bearing No. doc. No. 3691/05, dt. 31.03.2005, 11 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

Ex.A2: CC of registered sale deed bearing No. 2386/94, dt. 07.07.1994, Ex.A3:

Original Gram panchayat receipt dt. 03.12.2005, Ex.A4: Original permission along with sanctioned plan issued by Grampanchayath Muthangi dt. 03.12.2005, Ex.A5:

True copy of registered sale deed bearing Doc. No. 16106/2012 dt. 05.11.2012.

10.The trial court generally cannot cancel part of a sale deed that was executed based on a judgment of a district court, as district court judgments are binding and have finality.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

District Court Judgments are Final:

A judgment from a District Court, unless appealed and overturned by a higher court, is considered final and binding on the parties involved.

Trial Court's Limited Authority:

Trial courts (also known as civil courts) have the authority to hear cases and render judgments, but their jurisdiction is generally limited to the specific case

before them.

11.No Power to Modify District Court Judgments:

A trial court cannot modify or cancel a part of a sale deed that was executed based on a judgment from a district court, as that would be interfering with the finality of the district court's judgment.

12 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

12.Appeals and Review:

If a party believes that the hon’ble district court judgment is incorrect or unjust or not binding on them , they have the right to appeal to a higher court (e.g., Hon’ble

High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court).

13.In view of above discussion all the issues answered against the plaintiff.

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

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20 th day of January, 2025.

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS: PW1- Jubeda SultanaNil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Original registered sale deed bearing No. doc. No. 3691/05, dt. 31.03.2005

Ex.A2: CC of registered sale deed bearing No. 2386/94, dt. 07.07.1994

Ex.A3: Original Gram panchayat receipt dt. 03.12.2005

Ex.A4: Original permission along with sanctioned plan issued by Gram panchaypat

Muthangi dt. 03.12.2005 13 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

Ex.A5: True copy of registered sale deed bearing Doc. No. 16106/2012 dt.

05.11.2012

Ex.A6: Encumbrance certificate dt. 27.02.2013

FOR DEFENDANTS:-

NIL

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

1 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: SANGAREDDY.

Present: Smt. P. Tejasri, III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

MONDAY, THE 20 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025.

OS.No. 109 OF 2013

Between: Smt. Jubeda Sultana W/O Mohd, Mahamood, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Household, R/O H.No. 16-9-406/3/13, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff

And

1. Sri G.Latchi Raju S/O Rama Raju, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/O. MIG 528, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

2. Smt. Anasuya Reddy W/O B. Mohan Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, R/O H.NO.16-7-731, Osmanpura, Hyderabad.

3. Sri. Zahid Ali S/O Late Yousuf Ali, aged about 43 years, Occ. Business, R/O H.No.9-11-149/1, Motimahal Jinsi Bazaar, Golconda Fort, Hyderabad.

4. K.Sadasiva Rao S/O K. Venkateshwarulu, aged about 55 years, Occ: Business, R/O H.No.807/7, Vivekananda Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, T.S.

This suit is coming before me on 10.01.2025 for final hearing in the presence of M.S. Khan, Learned Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sir P. Ravi Kishore, Learned Advocate for the defendant 2 and 3, Defendants remained ex-parte, upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing both the counsel and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T :

1.This suit was transferred from the II Addl. Junior civil Judge’s, court

Sangareddy.

2 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

2.The suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking to declare the registered sale deed bearing doc. No. 16106/12 dt. 05.11.2012 in respect of the suit schedule plot No. 61 admeasuring an area of 200 Sq yards in sy. No. 82, situated at Muthanig village,

Patancheru Mandal, Medak District as null and void, to grant perpetual injunction retraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

The open plot bearing No. 61 admeasruing 200 Sq yards in Sy. No. 82 situated at Muthangi village, Patanceru Mandal, Medak District and bounded by:

North: Plot No. 60

South: Plot No. 62

East: 30’ Wide Road

West: Plot No. 56 hereinafter referred as the suit schedule property.

3.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the plot bearing No. 61 admeasuring 200 Sq. Yards in Sy.

No. 82, situated at Muthangi village, Patancheru Mandal. District Medak.

3 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

i. It is submitted that originally one Gandla Padmamma W/o Sadasivudu was the owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.82, admeasuring Ac.0. 18 guntas, situated at Muthangi village, Patancheru Mandal, Dist. Medak. The said Gandla

Padmamma sold the above said land to the defendant No.1 through Regd. Sale deed bearing Doc. No.2386/1994, dated. 07-07-1994. After purchase of the said land the defendant No.1 made plots in the above said land along with lands in Sy.

Nos.49 to 59, 80, 81, 83, 85 to 100 and obtained layout, sanctioned No. 12 from the

Gram Panchayat, Muthangi, and sold the said plots to various purchasers.

ii.It is submitted that she purchased the suit schedule plot through Registered sale deed bearing document No.3691/2005, dated:31-03-2005 for a valid sale consideration from the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 has delivered the vacant possession of the suit schedule plot in favour of the plaintiff on the date of

Registered sale deed. Since the date of purchase the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any let or hindrance. After purchase of the suit plot she obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat, Muthangi for construction of room and compound wall in the suit schedule plot but due to financial crises she could not construct the same. The plaintiff and her husband used to visit the suit schedule plot whenever they find time.

iii.It is submitted that on 10-02-2013 when the plaintiff and her husband as usual visited the suit schedule plot, two persons claiming to be the agents of the defendants No.2 and 3 having no manner of right title or interest over the suit plot 4 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

came to the suit schedule plot and questioned the plaintiff and her husband for moving in the suit plot and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule plot claiming that the defendants No.2 and 3 have purchased the suit schedule plot along with other plots from the defendant No.1. The plaintiff and her husband informed the said persons that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and she has been in possession of suit schedule plot and the plaintiff and her husband resisted the illegal acts of the said persons with the help of their neighbors and well-wishers and drove away the said persons with a great difficulty from suit schedule plot. While leaving the suit plot the said persons threatened the plaintiff that the defendants

No.2 and 3 would come and disposes the plaintiff in near future from the silt schedule plot.

iv.It is submitted that immediately the plaintiff rushed to the office of the District

Registrar and obtained the certified copy of the registered sale deed bearing doc

No. 16106/12 and came to know that the defendants No. 2 and 3 in collusion with the defendant No.1 and 4 created the agreement of sale in respect of Plots Nos 178, 179, 182, 157, 66/B, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 77, 80, 89, 93 116, 20, 44 and 45. The defendant No.2 and 3 herein filed suit against the defendant No.1 and 4 herein for specific performance the file of District Judge Medak at Sangareddy and the same is numbered as OS No 69/2010 and made over to V Add District

Judge Medak at Sangareddy. Subsequently the defendant No.1 and 2 did not come

forward to contest the above suit and the said suit was exparte decreed on 14-11- 2011 in favour of the defendants No.2 and 3 herein. Subsequently the defendants 5 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

No.2 and 3 herein have filed the E.P.No.23/2012 for execution of decree. The defendant No. 1 and 4 did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed as such in pursuance of the said decree the Hon'ble V Addl. District Judge Medak at

Sangareddy executed registered sale deed bearing document No.16106/12 Dt.05- 11-2012 in favour of the defendants No.2 and 3 herein. The above said decree in

O.S.No.69/2010 is collusive decree and the same is obtained by the defendants by

misrepresenting the court.

v.It is submitted that as the defendant No. 1 has already sold away the suit schedule plot in favour of the plaintiff and transferred his rights in favour of the plaintiff as such he has no right to enter into any agreement or sale in respect of the suit schedule plot with anybody. The defendant No. 1 has no right to sell the suit schedule plot again to the defendants No.2 and 3. The defendants No.2 and 3 have filed the suit ie. O.S.No.69/2010 in collusion with the defendant No.1 and 4 by suppressing the fact of already selling the suit schedule plot by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. The sale deed bearing document No. 16106/12, Dt. 05.11.2012 is illegal to the extent of suit schedule plot and no title would pass in favour of the defendants No.2 and 3 under the alleged sale deed in respect of the suit plot.

vi.It is submitted that on 24-03-2013 the plaintiff and her husband visited the suit schedule plot meanwhile defendants No.2 and 3 having no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule plot, the defendants came to the suit schedule plot and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule plot. The 6 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of the defendants No.2 and 3 with a great difficulty and drove away the defendants No.2 and 3 with the help of her husband and well- wishers. While leaving the suit schedule plot the defendants No.2 and 3 threatened the plaintiff that they will come again with full force and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule plot in near future. The plaintiff reported the matter to the concerned police but the Police advised the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court, as the matter is civil in nature. Hence, this suit.

4.On the other hand, the defendants filed written statement. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendants are as follows:

i. The defendant No.2 and 3 filed their written statements alleging that the main suit filed by the plaintiff is neither maintainable on law or on facts hence the same may be dismissed in limini.

ii. It is submitted that the Suit to declare the Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.16106/12 dated 05-11-2012 in respect of the suit schedule Plot No.

61 admeasuring an area of 200 sq. yards in Sy. No. 82 situated at Muthangi Village of patancheru Mandal, Medak Dist as null and void is not maintainable. It is pertinent to mention here that decree of the higher court cannot be reversed by the lower court as the suit schedule property was registered by the Hon'ble V Addl Dist

Judge Medak at Sangareddy in pursuance of the decree passed in OS No. 69/2010

by Hon'ble V Addl Dist Judge Medak at Sangareddy.

7 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

iii. It is submitted that Suit for Perpetual Injunction in respect of the suit schedule Plot No. 61 admeasuring an area of 200 sq. yards in Sy. No. 82 situated at Muthangi Village of patancheru Mandal, Medak Dist. Under Specific Relief Act, filed by the plaintiff is neither maintainable on law or on facts hence the same may be dismissed in limini.

iv.It is submitted that in reply to Para no. 1,3 to 7 the averments were incorrect and the actual owner of the suit schedule property i.e., Plot No. 61 admeasuring an area of 200 sq. yards in Sy. No. 82 situated at Muthangi Village of Patancheru

Mandal, Medak Dist are the defendants herein and now also the defendants are in possession of the properties. Pertaining to para no.2 the averments were correct.

It is submitted that the Plaintiffs for the purpose of the case has created a concocted story and filed this petition with an ill intention to gain wrongfully.

v.The defendants has entered into an Agreement of Sale with Gadiraju Latchi

Raju dated 6/1/2001, wherein the owner Gadiraju Latchi Raju sell the Plots in

Ramaraju Nagar Layout Survey Nos. 55,56,82 & 85 etc, in Muttangi Village,

Patancheru Mandal, Medak Dist. No.2 for a sale consideration of Rs.17,10,000/- and the Schedule of the property is been clearly mentioned and the total schedule property approximately is 12000 sq yds and the layout was approved by the

Muttangi Grama Panchayat vide Resolution NO.12 dated 23-10-91 It is further submitted by the defendants herein that subsequently after taking of advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- the vendor i.e Gadiraju Latchi Raju has not come forward to execute the Sale Deed as such the defendants has approached the appropriate 8 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

court of law and filed suit for specific performance against Gadiraju Latchi and other's vide O.S.No.69 of 2010 before the Hon'ble Spl Judge for trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-Cum-V Addl Dist & Sessions Judge, Medak, Sangareddy which was exparte decreed on dated 14.11.2011 in favour of the defendants herein asking the plaintiffs in the above stated suits to execute the sale deeds in favour of the defendants herein by taking the balance sale consideration amount even though the said persons not came forward to Honou'r the court order and as such subsequently the defendants herein has filed the E.P No.23/2012 for execution of decree and then also the said persons not came forward to execute the registered sale deed as such the Hon'ble V Addl Dist Judge Medak at Sangareddy executed registered sale deed bearing document No. 16106/12 dated 5/11/12 in favour of the defendants.

vi.It is submitted that they are not aware of the transactions between the plaintiffs and the G.Latchi Raju who is the defendant no.1 here in and with regard to the Registered sale deed of the schedule mentioned property because the plaintiffs did not come forward to raise their objections during the pendency of O.S.No.69 of 2010 before the Hon'ble V Addl Dist Judge Medak at Sangareddy and even after registering the suit schedule property in the name of the of defendants no.283 were in possession since the date of execution of the sale registered by the Hon'ble V

Addl Dist Judge Medak at Sangareddy in pursuance of the decree passed in OS

No. 69/2010 by Hon'ble V Addl Dist Judge Medak at Sangareddy..

9 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

vii.It is submitted that the they doesn't know the plaintiffs herein until they receive the summons in this case and it is a surprise to them and story of trespass into the property of the Plaintiffs with their agents and threatening them with dire consequences for dispossessing them and more so on 10-02-2013 and on 24-03- 2013 with unsocial elements were all false, fabricated and concocted. It is further submitted that they are the actual owners of the in respect of the suit schedule Plot

No. 61 admeasuring an area of 200 sq. yards in Sy. No. 82 situated at Muthangi

Village of Patancheru Mandal, Medak Dist and the documents will be filed at the time of trial.

viii.It is submit that the plaintiffs are not having any prima facie case and the defendants no 283 are having documentary as well oral evidence to support their case and as the defendants no. 283 were the actual legal owners of the schedule properties as such they cannot be restrained. It is submitted that in reply to Para 9 to 11 of the suit, it is submitted it doesn't require any reply as they show cause of action, valuation of suit, jurisdiction. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

i. Whether the plaintiff is able to prove his tittle over the suit property as being better then D2 and D3 ?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of part, cancellation of

registered sale deed doc. No. 16106/12 dt.05.11.2012 to extent of plot No.61 as

null and void ?

10 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as a prayer for in

absence of challenge to decree in O.S. No. 69/10 on the file of Hon’ble ADJ

Medak at Sangareddy?

iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of declaring

registered sale deed doc. No. 16106/12 dt. 05.11.12 as null and void partly in

absence of seeking declaration of his title over suit property?

v. To what relief?

6. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1/Smt.

Jubeda Sultana and got ExA1 to 6 marked

7.Heard both sides.

8. For better appreciation of facts and evidence discussing issue no.1 to 4 collectively

The suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking to declare the registered sale deed bearing doc. No. 16106/12 dt. 05.11.2012 in respect of the suit schedule plot No. 61 admeasuring an area of 200 Sq yards in sy. No. 82, situated at Muthanig village,

Patancheru Mandal, Medak District as null and void, to grant perpetual injunction retraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

9.To prove their case, the plaintiff No.1 herself is examined as PW1 by filing her chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of her plaint and she exhibited Ex.A1

Ex.A1: Original registered sale deed bearing No. doc. No. 3691/05, dt. 31.03.2005, 11 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

Ex.A2: CC of registered sale deed bearing No. 2386/94, dt. 07.07.1994, Ex.A3:

Original Gram panchayat receipt dt. 03.12.2005, Ex.A4: Original permission along with sanctioned plan issued by Grampanchayath Muthangi dt. 03.12.2005, Ex.A5:

True copy of registered sale deed bearing Doc. No. 16106/2012 dt. 05.11.2012.

10.The trial court generally cannot cancel part of a sale deed that was executed based on a judgment of a district court, as district court judgments are binding and have finality.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

District Court Judgments are Final:

A judgment from a District Court, unless appealed and overturned by a higher court, is considered final and binding on the parties involved.

Trial Court's Limited Authority:

Trial courts (also known as civil courts) have the authority to hear cases and render judgments, but their jurisdiction is generally limited to the specific case

before them.

11.No Power to Modify District Court Judgments:

A trial court cannot modify or cancel a part of a sale deed that was executed based on a judgment from a district court, as that would be interfering with the finality of the district court's judgment.

12 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

12.Appeals and Review:

If a party believes that the hon’ble district court judgment is incorrect or unjust or not binding on them , they have the right to appeal to a higher court (e.g., Hon’ble

High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court).

13.In view of above discussion all the issues answered against the plaintiff.

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

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20 th day of January, 2025.

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS: PW1- Jubeda SultanaNil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Original registered sale deed bearing No. doc. No. 3691/05, dt. 31.03.2005

Ex.A2: CC of registered sale deed bearing No. 2386/94, dt. 07.07.1994

Ex.A3: Original Gram panchayat receipt dt. 03.12.2005

Ex.A4: Original permission along with sanctioned plan issued by Gram panchaypat

Muthangi dt. 03.12.2005 13 of 13

O.S. No. 109 of 2013

Ex.A5: True copy of registered sale deed bearing Doc. No. 16106/2012 dt.

05.11.2012

Ex.A6: Encumbrance certificate dt. 27.02.2013

FOR DEFENDANTS:-

NIL

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

1 of 7 CC of 2366 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES COURT

SANGAREDDY.

Present: Kum. Patlolla Teja Sri B. Pharmach, MBA, LLM

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Prohibition & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy.

MONDAY, THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

C.C.No. 2366 OF 2022

Between:-

The State through., Prohibition & Excise Station, Sangareddy. …Prosecution A N D

Molla Saleem, S/o. Late Molla Shareefuddin, Aged: 60 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Toddy seller, R/o. H.No.1-6, Suraram village, Sadasivpet Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri M. Sudhakar Goud, Learned Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer, Sangareddy, filed a charge sheet under Cr.No.124/2022 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of T.S. Excise Act 1968.

2.They alleged that on 19.09.2022, Lw.3/M. Swathi, received credible information about the illegal possession and illegally sale of toddy by Molla Saleem 2 of 7 CC of 2366 of 2022 at NH 65 road at Suraram village, then he proceeded along with staff by securing two panch witnesses i.e., LW.1/Kalali Nagaratnam and Lw2/Goundla Raju Goud are conducted raid on the illegal toddy shop at about 8.30 AM, and LW.3 searched there and found that accused was present in the hut and conducting the toddy business, LW3 recorded the search memo, and Excise officials along with accused entered into the hut and there they found four plastic cans of 20 liters capacity containing 20 liters of toddy in each can total 80 liters of toddy in the possession of accused and on search LW.3 did not found any valid license or permit to possess and possession and selling of toddy. The LW.3 drawn two sample bottles of toddy, each sample bottle containing about 400 ml of toddy approximately duly following the procedure in the presence of LW1 and LW2 and seized the two sample bottles of toddy and destroyed the remaining toddy on the spot under cover of panchanama in the presence of LWs 1 and LW.2 and arrested accused.

3.LW.3 registered a case in Cr. No.124/2022 against the accused for the offence under section 34 (a) of T.S Excise Act and took up the investigation and deposited the two ample bottles of toddy into the court along with a letter of advise to send one of the sample bottle to the Government Chemical Examiner,

Nizamabad for chemical analysis, the Government Chemical Examiner who analyzed the sample vide his report CE.No.773 of 2021, dt:21.10.2022 and opined that the sample is fermented toddy free from chloral hydrate, Diazepam. During the course of investigation, LW3 issued notice U/sec 41-A (1) Cr. P.C to accused, after 3 of 7 CC of 2366 of 2022 furnishing sureties he released on bail. After completion of investigation she filed charge sheet against accused.

4.This Court perused the documents filed along with charge sheet under section 173 of Cr.P.C and took cognizance of offence under section 34 (a) of T.S

Excise Act 1968, against the accused by this Court. On appearance of the accused copies U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. was furnished against him and he is examined

U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. A Charge for an offence U/Sec.34(a) of the Telangana Excise

Act. 1968 was framed and the contents were read over and explained to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the case of the prosecution they examined Pws.1 to PW3 only and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. After Closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C in respect of the incriminating material evidence deposed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, the accused denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

6.Heard both sides

7.The point for consideration is “ Whether the prosecution has proved

the guilt of the accused for the offence with which the accused is charge

beyond all the reasonable doubt” ?

8.Point: The panch witnesses i.e., LW.1/Kalali Nagaratnam and Lw2/Goundla

Raju Goud are examined as PW.1 and PW2, they deposed that they did not know the anything about this case and the Excise Officials obtained the signatures on 4 of 7 CC of 2366 of 2022 some blank white papers, they further deposed that they did not know contents of the same and that no confession panchanama conducted by the police no case property was recovered in their presence Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are the signatures on panchanama.

9.To prove their case the prosecution LW.3/M Swathi Prohibition and Excise

Sub inspector of police, Sangareddy who is the Investigation officer in this case, she deposited that on 19.09.2022 he received reliable information about illegal sale of toddy by the accused beside the NH65 at Suraram village, Sadasivapet mandal, he along with staff secured the presence of two panch witnesses LW1 and 2 and conducted ride on the illegal shop of accused at about 8.30 AM on 19.09.2022 and found that accused was present in the hut and running the toddy business, on enquiry with accused he revealed that he running toddy business without license, then she issued search memo to accused to enter into a hut along with 2 panch witnesses PW1 and PW2 during the search he found 4 plastic cans of 20 liters capacity contained toddy total 80 liters of toddy was found in the possession of accused in hut. On demand accused failed to produce any license or permit sale toddy he informed PW1 and 2 without having any valid license selling of toddy is an offence then he drawn the samples and conducted CH test and toddy is found free from choral hydrate however on suspect seized the two sample bottles of toddy each of 400 ml and destroyed remained toddy on the spot under cover of panchanama. She registered a case against accused under section 34(a) TS 5 of 7 CC of 2366 of 2022

Excise Act and after collecting CE report she filed a charge sheet Ex.P3 COR.

Ex.P4 panchanama, Ex.P5 search memo Ex.P6 CE report.

10.On careful perusal of evidence of Pw.1 and PW2 who are alleged to have been acted as mediators of prosecution side in this case not supported the case of the prosecution and they denied the contents mentioned in Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 are signatures on panchanama and also Pw.1 and PW2 are stated that they did not know any thing about this case and turned hostile.

11.On careful perusal of Ex.P.6 analysis report which is printed proforma including names of the tests and the result portion which shows that the sample sent to Laboratory contained toddy. Which Aiding deposition of PW3 that they sent sample to FSL.

12.From the deposition Pw1 and PW2 are recovery of toddy from accused as per seizure procedure not proved as both panch witnesses turned hostile, there is no other evidence to show that accused possessed toddy and it was seized from them according to seizure procedure.

13.As PW.1 and PW2 who are the mediators turned hostile and in such circumstances according to signature on panchanama made by the accused

before the police officer is hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. In the absence

of corroborated evidence with the sole evidence of the investigation officers it is not 6 of 7 CC of 2366 of 2022 justifiable only to rely on the evidence of investigation officer Pw3 to convict the accused for the alleged offence.

14.Therefore, basing on the evidence of PW.3 it cannot be concluded that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused. In the absence of independent testimony believing the evidence of police officer to convict the accused may lead to miscarriage of justice. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(a) of T.S.Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly, accused is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused stands cancelled subject to

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property involved in this case vide

CPR.No.363/15/2022, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 02nd day of January, 2023.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

(Proh & Excise) Offences Court Sangareddy.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

PW.1: K. Nagarathnam-NIL- PW.2: G. Raju Goud 7 of 7 CC of 2366 of 2022

PW.3: M. Swathi

Exhibits marked for

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on Panchanama -NIL- Ex.P.2: Signature of PW2 on Panchanama Ex.P.3: COR report Ex.P.4: Panchanama Ex.P.5: Search memo Ex.P.6: CE report

Material Objects marked for

NIL

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

(Proh & Excise) Offences Court Sangareddy.

1 of 6 CC of 187 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES COURT

SANGAREDDY.

Present: Kum. Patlolla Teja Sri B. Pharmach, MBA, LLM

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Prohibition & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy.

MONDAY, THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

C.C.No. 187 OF 2022

Between:-

The State through., Prohibition & Excise Station, Patancheru. …Prosecution A N D

Alakunta Yakamma, W/o. Alakunta Mallaiah, Aged: 40 years, Caste: Vaddera, Occ: Kiranashop, R/o. Block No.14, Plot No.3 Narreguda colony, Ameenpur (M), sangareddy District. … Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri M. Sudhakar Goud, Learned Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer, Patancheru, filed a charge sheet under Cor.No.01/2022 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of T.S. Excise Act 1968.

2 of 6 CC of 187 of 2022

2.They alleged that on 05.01.2022, Lw.3/A. Seetharami Reddy, P & EI, received credible information about the illegal possession and sale of IML at Kirana shop, Narreguda colony, (V), Ameenpur Mandal, then he proceeded along with staff by securing two panch witnesses i.e., LW.1/Orsu Nagaraju and Lw2/Devasari

Naresh Kumar are conducted raid on at about 6.20 PM, and LW.3 searched there and there they found 1. four bottles of Imperial blue whisky each 180 ml, 2. six bottles of Mc dowells No.1 Luxury whisky each 180 ml in the possession of accused and on search LW.3 did not found any valid license or permit to possess and possession and selling of liquor. The LW.3 drawn two samples and destroyed remaining liquor on the spot and seized sample bottles and arrested the accused under cover of panchanama in the presence of LWs 1 and LW.2.

3.LW.3 registered a case in Cor. No.01/2022 against the accused for the offence under section 34 (a) of T.S Excise Act and took up the investigation. The samples were deposited before this Court with a requisition to send one sample for analysis of chemical examiner. The Government Chemical examiner after analyzing the samples issued CE report No. 39/2022-1 dt:29.01.2022, and second sample is deposited before the Hon’ble court vide CPR.No.17/15/2022, the remaining seized property was deposited before the deputy Commissioner of Excise, Medak Division at Sagnareddy for confiscation. During the course of investigation, LW3 issued notice U/sec 41-A (1) Cr. P.C to accused, after furnishing sureties he released on bail. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused.

3 of 6 CC of 187 of 2022

4.This Court perused the documents filed along with charge sheet under section 173 of Cr.P.C and took cognizance of offence under section 34 (a) of T.S

Excise Act 1968, against the accused by this Court. On appearance of the accused copies U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. was furnished against him and he is examined

U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. A Charge for an offence U/Sec.34(a) of the Telangana Excise

Act. 1968 was framed and the contents were read over and explained to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the case of the prosecution they examined Pws.1 to PW3 only and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. After Closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C in respect of the incriminating material evidence deposed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, the accused denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

6.Heard both sides

7.The point for consideration is “ Whether the prosecution has proved

the guilt of the accused for the offence with which the accused is charge

beyond all the reasonable doubt” ?

8.Point: The panch witness i.e., LW.1/Orsu Nagaraju is examined as PW.1, he deposed that around 6 months ago Excise police obtained his signature on white paper at Patancheru PS, police not conducted any panchanama in his presence nor seized any property. Ex.P.1 is signature on panchanama.

4 of 6 CC of 187 of 2022

9.LW.2/D. Naresh Kumar is examined as PW.2, he deposed that around 10 months ago Excise police obtained his signature on white paper at Patancheru PS, police not conducted any panchanama in his presence nor seized any property and he do not know anything about this case. Ex.P.2 is signature on seizure panchanama.

10.To prove their case the prosecution PW3/N. Srinivas Prohibition and Excise

Sub inspector of police, Patancheru, who is investigating officer he deposited that on 05.01.2022 he received reliable information about illegal possession and sale of

IML at Kirana shop, Narreguda colony, Ameenpur on search Kirana shop he found 4 bottles of imperial blue wisky each 180 ml, 6 bottles of MC dowellers Luxury No.1 wisky each 180 ml he informed to the accused that without having license possession and illegal sale of liquor is an offence. Hence in the presence of PW1 and 2 drawn two samples each of brand and seized and remaining contraband under the cover of seizure panchanama. Later he registered a case against accused in COR.No.1 of 2022 under section 34(a)TS Excise Act and after collecting CE report he filed charge sheet. Ex.P3 COR. Ex.P4 panchanama. Ex.P5 search memo, Ex.P6 CE report.

11.On careful perusal of evidence of Pw.1 and PW2 who are alleged to have been acted as mediators of prosecution side in this case not supported the case of the prosecution and they denied the contents mentioned in Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 are 5 of 6 CC of 187 of 2022 signatures on panchanama and also Pw.1 and PW2 are stated that they did not know any thing about this case and turned hostile.

12.On careful perusal of Ex.P.6 analysis report which is printed proforma including names of the tests and the result portion which shows that the sample sent to Laboratory contained toddy. Which Aiding deposition of PW3 that they sent sample to FSL.

13.From the deposition Pw1 and PW2 are recovery of liquor from accused as per seizure procedure not proved as both panch witnesses turned hostile, there is no other evidence to show that accused possessed toddy and it was seized from them according to seizure procedure.

14.As PW.1 and PW2 who are the mediators turned hostile and in such circumstances according to signature on panchanama made by the accused

before the police officer is hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. In the absence

of corroborated evidence with the sole evidence of the investigation officers it is not justifiable only to rely on the evidence of investigation officer Pw3 to convict the accused for the alleged offence.

15.Therefore, basing on the evidence of PW.3 it cannot be concluded that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused. In the absence of independent testimony believing the evidence of police officer to convict the accused may lead to miscarriage of justice. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the 6 of 6 CC of 187 of 2022 considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(a) of T.S.Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly, accused is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused stands cancelled subject to

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property involved in this case vide

CPR.No.17/15/2022, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 02nd day of January, 2023.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

(Proh & Excise) Offences Court Sangareddy.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE: PW.1: Orsu Nagaraju -NIL- PW.2: Devasari Naresh Kumar PW.3: A. Seetharami Reddy

Exhibits marked for

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE: Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on Panchanama -NIL- Ex.P.2: Signature of PW2 on seizure Panchanama Ex.P.3: COR report Ex.P.4: Panchanama Ex.P.5: Search memo Ex.P.6: CE report

Material Objects marked for

NIL

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

(Proh & Excise) Offences Court Sangareddy.

1 Of 6 CC 1011 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE), FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PCR ACT-CUM - II JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, SANGAREDDY.

Present: Smt. Patlolla Teja Sri.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Prohibition & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile court, Sangareddy.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 09th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

C.C.NO. 1011 OF 2023

Between:- The State of Telangana, Through Police Station Kondapur.

...Complainant

A N D

A1.Vemula Raju S/o Vemula Kurumurthy, Aged: 32 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o Mohammadapur village of Pangal Mandal, Vanaparthy Dist.

A2.Kothagadi Ramesh S/o Papaiah, Aged: 38 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o Mallepally village, Kondapur Mandal.

...Accused

This case has come up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri. G. Sudhakar Goud learned advocate for accused, upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing both sides 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, P.S. Kondapur, has filed charge sheet in

Crime No.89 of 2023 against accused No.1 and 2 alleging that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).

2 Of 6 CC 1011 of 2023

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

On 25.05.2023 at 14.30 hrs, the complainant i.e., LW.1/V. Vasantha, came to PS Kondapur and lodged a complaint in which she stated that one builder/Raju was constructing a new house of Ramesh/A2. On 03.05.2023 at 4.30 pm, her husband namely Ramesh/deceased went to work at the new constructing house of A2, when he is working on the ladder at 16.30 hours, it was broken and deceased fell, as a result the deceased sustained spinal injuries. Immediately the deceased was shifted to Keerti hospital at

Sangareddy for necessary treatment. A1 and A2 were working with the deceased in negligent manner, without taking any precautionary measures and without a safety belt, which caused the deceased fell down and sustained injuries. While undergoing treatment the deceased was died on 25.05.2023 at 21.30 hours. Then the complainant lodged a report before the police.

3.Basing on the complaint LW.11/B. Venkaktesham registered a case in crime No.89 of 2023 for the offence under section 337 of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.11 examined and recorded the statement of LW1 and LW2. Later Lw11 along with staff visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of two panchas ie., Lw6 and

Lw7 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch.

Later they rushed to Keethi hospital, Sangareddy. The injured persons is in unconscious condition. On 26.05.2023 LW1 came to P.S and revealed that while undergoing treatment the deceased was died on 25.05.2023 at 09.30

3 Of 6 CC 1011 of 2023

hours. LW11 altered the section of law U/sec 304-A of IPC from 337 of IPC.

LW12 conducted an inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Lw8 and Lw9. The mediccal officer/LW-10 held an autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Further Lw11 served notice u/sec 41-A

Cr. P.C to accused No.1 and 2, after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused.

4.On perusal of the charge sheet and other documents filed by the police, the case is taken on file under section 304-A of IPC against the accused.

5.On appearance of accused copies of this case were furnished to accused No.1 and 2 as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.. The accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C and substance of accusation were read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial in this case the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence appearing in the case of prosecution.

7.Heard both sides.

4 Of 6 CC 1011 of 2023

8.Now the points for determination

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/Secs. 304-A of IPC against accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9.POINT:-

The case of prosecution examined is that the LW1 who is the wife of deceased was examined as PW1, Lw2 who is the father of the deceased was examined as PW2, Lw3 who is the mother of the deceased was examined as

PW3, Lw4 who is the younger brother of the deceased was examined as PW4,

Lw5 who is the sister of the deceased was examined as PW5, Lw7 who is the panch witness was examined as PW6, Lw8 and Lw9 who are the panch for inquest were examined as PW7 and PW8,

10.Pw1 is the defacto complaint in this case who set the criminal law into motion by presenting report to police as PW1. During the chief examination, she deposed that the deceased is her husband. She does not know the contents of compliant. Police not examined her and not recorded her statement.

11. PW2 and PW3 deposed that the deceased is their elder son. They did not know anything about this case. Police not examined them and not recorded their statement.

5 Of 6 CC 1011 of 2023

12. PW4 and PW5 deposed that the deceased is their elder brother. They did not know anything about this case. Police not examined them and not recorded their statement.

13. PW5 to PW7 deposed that he does not know anything about this case.

Police not conducted any panchanama in his presence. He signed on blank papers.

14. In view of hostile attitude of PW1 to PW8, the learned APPO declared them as a hostile witnesses and cross examined with the permission of the court but nothing was elicited from the PW1 to PW8 in favour of prosecution.

15.From the evidence on record, it is evident that the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The learned

APPO has given up the other witnesses. There remains nothing for the discussion in the present case except to hold that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under sections 304-A IPC beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused No.1 and 2 are entitled to acquittal. The point is accordingly answered against the prosecution.

16.In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and accordingly, They are acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the

Accused shall stands canceled after expiry of apple time.

6 Of 6 CC 1011 of 2023

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 09 th day of October, 2024.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

(Proh & Excise) Offences Court, Sangareddy. FAC:Judicial First Class Magistrate Special mobile court cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1: Vadde Vasantha NIL PW.2: Vadde Pochaiah PW.3: Vadde Yadamma PW.4: Vadde Rajesh PW.5: Vadde Laxmi PW.6: Vadde Pandu PW.7: Alluri Laxman PW.8: V. Shanker

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on complaint NIL Ex.P.2: Signature of Pw6 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.3: Signature of Pw7 on inquest panchanama Ex.P.4: Signature of Pw8 on inquest panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

(Proh & Excise) Offences Court, Sangareddy. FAC:Judicial First Class Magistrate Special mobile court cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy