PVS Surya Narayana Murthy
Senior Civil Judge
Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex · Jogulamba Gadwal · Telangana
Based on 6 recent ordersPVS Surya Narayana Murthy, Senior Civil Judge, is posted at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex, Jogulamba Gadwal, Telangana, India. 6 court orders on record since 2017. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles SC, OS, H cases.
Featured Judgments
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GADWAL
FRIDAY THIS, THE 2 nd DAY OF JUNE, 2017.
PRESENT:- Sri PVS.Surya Narayana Murthy,
Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal.
O.S.No.56 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
1.Md.Momin S/o Chanda Abdul Rahaman Sab, aged: 45 years, Occupation: Agriculture and tailor, R/o Gadwal
2.Md.Khavi S/o K.Dastagiri Sab, aged: 42 years, Occupation: Agriculture and business, R/o Gadwal town.
…Plaintiffs.
And
1.Smt.Habeebunissa W/o Md.Kaleem, aged: 32 years, Occupation: Housewife, R/o H.No.6-4-46/1, Mominmohalla, Gadwal Town.
2.Md.Kaleem S/o Abdul Rahaman Sab, aged: 38 years, Occupation: agriculture, R/o H.NO.6-4-46/1, Mominmohalla, Gadwal Town. …Defendants.
Claim:- Suit for cancellation of registered Gift deed No.6327/2007,
dated 28.08.2007 and for perpetual injunction restraining the
defendants from alienating the plot NOs 1 to 10 and 4/A in Sy.No.673 paiki situated in the limits of Gadwal Sivar.
*** This Suit coming before me for final hearing on 01.06.2017 in the presence of Sri G.Sudhakar, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri A.Vasantha
Rao and Sri S.D.Ramulu, Advocates for defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 seeking cancellation of the registered gift deed vide No.6327/2007, dated 28.8.2007 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant by declaring it as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering in the plaint schedule plots.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- 2
Garidi Buchanna, Garidi Chinna Yenkatanna and Garidi Chinna Ramulu are the owners of the land in an extent of Ac.8.19 guntas covered by
Sy.No.673 situated in Gadwal town. The said Garidi Buchanna has executed
GPA vide No.8/1993 in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 to look after the affairs of land in an extent of Ac.5.09 guntas in Sy.No. 637 and also to convert the land into plots and to sell the same. Garidi Chinna Yenkatanna and Ramulu executed GPA 14/1993 in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 to look after the affairs of the land in an extent of Ac.3.10 guntas in Sy.No.673. In pursuance of the above two GPAs the plaintiffs have right to look after the affairs of the said land. Later, the plaintiffs converted the said land into plots in the name and style of Indira Nagar after obtaining permission vide LP No.138/1994. Later, the plaintiffs have executed sale deeds byalienatingsome plots.
Subsequently, plaintiffs came to know that the 2nd defendant who is no manner of right what so ever executed gift deed in favour of his wife 1st defendant vide NO.6327/2007. The plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule plots and the defendants have no manner of right. Hence this suit.
3.The defendants 1 and 2 have filed written statement denied the plaint averments and contended as follows:-
The original pattedar Garidi Chinna Yenkatanna and not Garidi Chinna
Ramulu and the LP 138/1994 is not an authenticated document. An extent of Ac.0.25 guntas in Sy.No.673 situated at Gadwal has purchased by the 2nd defendant under a registered sale deed vide NO.1316/2000 along with
Md.Saleem. Subsequently, 2nd defendant executed gift deed vide
No.6327/2007 in favour of 1st defendant to the extent of his share. Thus, the gift deed is valid. One of the executants of GPA No.14/1993 namely
Garidi Chinna Yenkatanna died on 23.02.2002, as such, the said GPA is lapsed on 23.2.2002. The GPA vide No.8/1993 has been cancelled by the original pattedar. The suit is barred by limitation. The executants of GPA 3 namely Garidi Buchanna, Garidi Chinna Yenkatanna and Garidi Chinna
Ramulu have not been made parties. Hence suit is bad for non joinder of parties. It is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled on 4.12.2009 by the then officer
1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction?
2Whether the registered gift deed dated 28.8.2007 is liable to be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?
3.To what relief?
(a). The following additional issue framed on 21.6.2013
1.Whether the original GPAs of plaintiffs has been destroyed?
5.During trial, 1st plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1. One
K.Prabhakar, S.Kishore Kumar and Sub Registrar, Gadwal were examined as
PWs 2 to 4. EXs.A1 to A18 are marked. After closure of the plaintiff side evidence, 2nd defendant himself got examined as DW.1 and got marked
Exs.B1 to B8.
6.Heard the arguments.
The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that Garidi
Buchanna has executed GPA vide No. 8/1993 in favour of the plaintiffs and,
Garidi Chinna Yenkatanna and Garidi Chinna Ramulu have executed GPA vide No. 14/93 in favour of the plaintiffs, as such, the plaintiffs have right over the land in an extent ofAc.8.19 guntas in Sy.No.673. According to him, the plaintiffs in pursuance of GPAs have obtained plan approval and converted the said land into house plots and sold the some plots by executing registered sale deeds. He has further submitted that the 2nd defendant is one of the attestors in all the sale deeds and the plaintiffs were in possession of the schedule plots. According to him, sale deed vide 4
No.1316/2000 never executed by the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 with the collusion of the Sub Registrar fabricated the said document. He has further submitted that the original GPAs were burnt in the fire accident and whereabouts of the original owners not known to the plaintiffs and hence the plaintiffs could not examine the original owners. He has prays to decree the suit.
a)Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants has submitted that suit of the plaintiffs as framed is not maintainable as they did not file the original GPA nor obtained permission to file the suit in the capacity of power of attorney holders by filing an application under Rule 32 of Civil Rules
Practice. According to him, before filing of the suit by the plaintiffs one of the principals of GPA died and hence the GPA vide 14/93 was lapsed. He has further submitted that the plaintiffs being power of attorney holders of the original owners sold the schedule plots to the 2nd defendant and one Saleem under Ex.B1 sale deed and delivered possession. He has further submitted that Ex.B1 document along with other documents sent to the handwriting expert for comparison and hand writing expert gave opinion that the thumb impression in both the documents are identical. According to him, the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the suit. He prays to dismiss the suit.
7. Additional issue, dated 21.06.2013
The specific version of the plaintiffs is that there was a fire accident in the shop of the 1st plaintiff and the original GPAs and other documents were burnt in the said fire accident and hence they could not produce the original
GPAs. The version of the defendants is that the Garide Buchanna has cancelled the GPA vide No.8/93 by executing the document No.16/09 and that one of the executants in GPA No.14/93 namely Chinna Yenkatanna died on 23.02.2002 and hence the said GPA was lapsed.
5
a)PW.1 has deposed that the original GPAs were burnt in the fire accident happened in the tailor shop and to prove the same he has produced the FIR and final report in crime No.100/97. Ex.A14 is the certified copy of FIR along with complaint and Ex.A15 is the final report. On perusal of the contents of FIR therein it is mentioned that the documents pertaining to the lands were burnt. There is no specific averment in Ex.A14 that the original GPAs were burnt. PW.1 has admitted during his cross examination that he has not specifically mentioned in the complaint that the GPAs executed by Garide Buchanna, Yenkatanna and Ramulu were burnt in the said fire accident. It was suggested to PW.1 that the amount of the plots which were sold by the plaintiffs were not paid to the original pattadars as such they have taken away the original GPAs. PWs 2 and 3 are the purchaser of the plots. Absolutely there is no concrete material produced by the plaintiffs to show that the original GPAs were burnt in the tailor shop of PW.1. Hence, basing on the available material, it is doubtful to hold that the original GPAs vide NO.8/93 and 14/93 were burnt in the fire accident.
This issue is answered accordingly.
8.ISSUE No.2:-
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for cancellation of the gift deed vide
NO.6327/07. Admittedly, Garidi Buchanna, Garidi Chinna Yenkatanna and
Garidi Chinna Ramulu owned Ac.8.19 guntas in Sy.No.673 of Gadwal town and they have executed GPA vide No.8/93 and 14/93 in favour of the plaintiffs. The material on record reveals that in pursuance of the said power of attorney the plaintiffs converted the said land into plots after obtaining permission and also sold some plots.
(a).This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for cancellation of the gift deed section 31 of Specific Relief Act deals with cancellation of document which reads thus:
6 31: When cancellation may be ordered:
(1) Any person against whom a written instrument if void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding, may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable, and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.
(2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian
Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the Court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.
(b). A careful perusal of section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, it is crystal clear the plaintiffs who are seeking the cancellation of the gift deeds have to establish that if the gift deed is not canceled, it will cause loss to them. The specific version of the plaintiffs is that Garide
Buchanna, Garide Chinna Venkatanna and Chinna Ramulu were the original pattadars of the land covered by Sy.No.673 and they have executed the original of Exs.A1 and A2 GPAs in favour of the plaintiffs.
Ex.A1 is the certified copy of GPA vide No.8/93. As seen from Ex.A1,
Garide Buchanna gave GPA to the plaintiffs herein to look after the affairs of Ac.5.09 of land in Sy.No.673 and to alienate the plots to the prospective purchasers. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of GPA. This document discloses that Garide Chinna Yenkatana and Garide Chinna
Ramulu gave GPA to the plaintiffs to look after the affairs of the land in an extent of Ac.3.10 guntas in Sy.NO.673. Thus, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the agents of Garide Buchanna, Yenkatanna and Chinna Ramulu but they could not derive any title over the land in Sy.No.673.
(c).Exs.A4 to A10 are the certified copies of sale deeds shows that the said original owners through their agents i.e., plaintiffs sold the plots to third parties. PWs 2 and 3 have purchased the plots from the original 7 owners represented by their GPA holders i.e., plaintiffs. Thus, their evidence is not of a much use to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have produced Exs.A12 and Ex.A13 i.e., copies of pahanies. In both the documents the names of the plaintiffs are not find place. Except Exs.A1 and A2 there is no other document standing in the name of the plaintiffs exhibited to show that they have right over the schedule properties.
Exs.A1 and A2 are the power of attorney and no title could be derived by the plaintiffs under those documents.
(d).The specific version of the defendants is that the original owners represented by their GPA holders i.e., plaintiffs have sold Ac.0.25 guntas of land to the 2nd defendant and one Mohd.Saleem under a registered sale deed vide No.1316/2000. Ex.B1 is the original sale deed vide
NO.1316/2000. DW.1 has clearly and categorically deposed that he along with Mohd.Saleem has purchased Ac.0.25 guntas in Sy.No.673 under the sale deed vide NO.1316/2000. They have specifically taken plea in the written statement about the purchase of Ac.0.25 guntas under sale deed vide NO.1316/2000. The plaintiffs have denied the execution of EX.B1. It can be seen from the record that the original thumb impression register maintained by the Sub Registrar, called for and exhibited as Ex.A18 and said register along with Ex.B1 and admitted thumb impressions of the plaintiffs sent to the finger print expert who opined that the thumb impression found on Ex.B1 compared with the admitted thumb impression which were identical. Thus, the evidence of
DW.1 coupled Ex.B1 shows that the DW.1 along with one Salim has purchased Ac.0.25 guntas in Sy.No.673. Ex.B2 to B6 also supports the version of the defendants that the name of the 2nd defendant mutated and 1st defendant obtained construction permission.
8
(e). PW.4 is the Sub Registrar, Gadwal has produced Ex.A18 after receipt of the summons. The specific version of DW.1 is that the original GPA vide No.8/93 was cancelled by the Garide Buchanna by executing the
Ex.B7 cancellation deed. Ex.B7 is the cancellation of the power of attorney dated 16.06.2009. This document discloses that the Garide
Buchanna executed the said document and cancelled the GPA vide
NO.8/93. Ex.B7 registered in accordance with the Indian Registration
Act. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit on 4.08.2009. Ex.A1 GPA was cancelled by executing Ex.B7 by Garide Buchanna on 16.6.2009.
So, Ex.A1 GPA was cancelled by the principal much prior to the filing of the present suit.
(f).The further version of the DW.1 is that one of the executants of
GPA vide No.14/93 namely Yenkatanna died on 23.02.2002. PW.1 in his cross examination has admitted that pattedar of the land Garide
Yenkatanna died 5 to 6 years back. Ex.B2 is the death certificate issued by the Gadwal Municipal Commissioner. This document discloses that
Garide Chinna Yenkatanna died on 23.2.2002. If one of the principal’s died, the power of attorney given by him is in-fractious. The Ex.A1 was cancelled by Garide Buchanna by executing Ex.B7 and Ex.A2 lapse due to death one of its executants Garide Chinna Yenkatanna. Thus, the
Exs.A1 and A2 were not in force by the date of filing of the suit.
(g).The plaintiffs claims that they were power of attorney holders of
Garide Buchanna, Yenkatanna and Ramulu. So the plaintiffs ought to have shown the names of the original pattadars namely Garide
Buchanna, Garide Venkatanna and Garide Chinna Ramulu represented by the plaintiffs as power of attorney holders in the plaint cause title.
The plaintiffs ought to have put their signatures in the plaint by mentioning Garide Buchanna, Chinna Yenkatanna and Ramulu represented by their GPA holders plaintiffs 1 and 2. But as seen from 9 the plaint the plaintiffs 1 and 2 have filed the suit in their individual capacity. The defendants counsel submitted that plaintiffs have not obtained permission by filing petition Under Rule 32 of Civil Rules
Practice. The plaintiffs counsel has submitted that the original pattedars authorized the plaintiffs to engage counsel and file the suit etc., in the court and hence they need not obtain any permission. No doubt, as seen from the Ex.A1 it is mentioned that the pattadars gave authorization to plaintiffs to file the suit but that doesn’t mean the plaintiffs can file the suit in their individual capacity without referring the names of the principals. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs as framed is not maintainable for the above reasons.
(h) The version of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No.2 executed gift deed in favour of the 1st defendant i.e., original of Ex.A11. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are not the parties to EX.A11 document. In the year 2009 the defendants field the written statement and taken a plea that the original pattadars through the GPA holders sold Ac.0.25 guntas under sale deed vide No.1316/2000, dated 13.6.2000. So, the claim of the defendant NO.2 is that he along with one Saleem purchased the land from the pattadars represented by the plaintiffs. What are the steps taken by the plaintiffs about the Ex.B1 sale deed is not explained. Thus, for the above reasons this court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs have miser ably failed to prove their right over the schedule property by the date of the filing of the suit. Thus, it cannot be held that the original of
Ex.A11 is null and void.
(i)In the citation reported in
AIR 2007 Allahabad 163
In between
Smt.Kailashu W/o Badam Singh
Vs.,
10
Smt.Anandi Devi W/o Shanker Lal
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that a person who is having no interest in the property had no locus-standi to challenge the sale. Para 12 of above citation is extracted as follows:
12. “Once it is held that plaintiff Smt.Anandi did not have any title or any interest under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act to challenge the sale deed, the enquiry whether the sale deed was a sham transaction and whether any sale consideration was paid was not relevant. A person having no interest in the property had no locus- standi to challenge the sale”.
In view of the principles enunciated in the above citation and in the light of observation of this court above paras that the plaintiffs failed to prove their right over schedule property, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. This issue is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.
9.ISSUE No.1:-
The plaintiffs also seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men from ever interfering with the possession of plaintiffs over the schedule plots. So the plaintiffs are required to establish their lawful possession by the date of suit. The plaintiffs have not produced any municipal records to show that they were in possession of the schedule plots. On the other hand, the evidence of
DW.1 coupled with the EXs.B3 to B6 shows that the name of DW.1 mutated and the Sarpanch accorded permission to the 1st defendant to make construction in plot Nos. 1 to 10 and 4A in Sy.No.673.
Furthermore, this court already observed in issue No.2 that the GPA vide
NO.8/93 was cancelled by the original pattadar by executing Ex.B7 and one of the executants of GPA vide No. 14/93 died and hence it was lapsed. Thus, the plaintiffs have no longer agents of original pattadars.
Hence, for the above reasons this court is of the opinion that the 11 plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction. This issue is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.
10.ISSUE No.3:
In view of the findings in issues 1 and 2 and additional issue No.1 the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Copyist, after transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 2nd day of June, 2017.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GADWAL.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:
PW.1 Md.Momin DW.1 Md.Kaleem PW.2 K.Prabhakar PW.3 S.Kishore Reddy PW.4 V.Sitharam
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1 is certified copy of GPA in Doc.NO.8/93 Ex.A2 is certified copy of GPA in Doc.No.14/93 Ex.A3 is letter dated 5.2.2009 Ex.A4 is certified copy of registered sale deed doc.No.2453/1995 Ex.A5 is certified copy of registered sale deed doc.No.2544/1995, Ex.A6 is certified copy of registered sale deed doc.No.1380/1997 Ex.A7 is certified copy of registered sale deed doc.No.1690/1997 Ex.A8 is certified copy of registered sale deed doc.No.873/1998 Ex.A9 is certified copy of registered sale deed doc.No.1579/1998 Ex.A10 is certified copy of registered sale deed doc.No.2703/2000 Ex.A11 is certified copy of registered gift deed doc.No.6327/2007 Ex.A12 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2005-06 Ex.A13 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2006-07 Ex.A14 is certified copy of FIR No.100/2007, dated 29.12.1997 Ex.A15 is certified copy of final report Ex.A16 is certified copy of sale deed document No.1378/1997 Ex.A17 is certified copy of sale deed document No.1787/1997 Ex.A18 is original thumb impression in volume No.59, pertaining to the said two persons at page No.5
DEFENDANT: Ex.B1 is original sale deed No.1316/2000, dated 11.6.1997 Ex.B2 is original death certificate of Chinna Yenkatanna issued by the commissioner Ex.B3 is original mutation proceedings issued by the Sarpanch, Chenugonipally, dated 1.10.2007 Ex.B4 is original construction permission NO.C/21/2008, dated 26.11.2008 Ex.B5 is original challan No.10403, dated 24.11.2008 Ex.B6 is original title deed No.167007 issued by RDO Gadwal, dated 24.5.2010 Ex.B7 is original registered cancellation of plaintiff GPA No.8/8/1993, dated 12 6.4.1993 Ex.B8 is original ROR.No.C/1634/2009, dated 24.12.2009.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GADWAL.
Comp.by
Read by
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GADWAL
FRIDAY THIS, THE 2 nd DAY OF JUNE, 2017.
PRESENT:- Sri PVS.Surya Narayana Murthy,
Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal.
O.S.No.56 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
1.Md.Momin S/o Chanda Abdul Rahaman Sab, aged: 45 years, Occupation: Agriculture and tailor, R/o Gadwal
2.Md.Khavi S/o K.Dastagiri Sab, aged: 42 years, Occupation: Agriculture and business, R/o Gadwal town.
…Plaintiffs.
And
1.Smt.Habeebunissa W/o Md.Kaleem, aged: 32 years, Occupation: Housewife, R/o H.No.6-4-46/1, Mominmohalla, Gadwal Town.
2.Md.Kaleem S/o Abdul Rahaman Sab, aged: 38 years, Occupation: agriculture, R/o H.NO.6-4-46/1, Mominmohalla, Gadwal Town. …Defendants.
Claim:- Suit for cancellation of registered Gift deed No.6327/2007,
dated 28.08.2007 and for perpetual injunction restraining the
defendants from alienating the plot NOs 1 to 10 and 4/A in Sy.No.673 paiki situated in the limits of Gadwal Sivar.
*** This Suit coming before me for final hearing on 01.06.2017 in the presence of Sri G.Sudhakar, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri A.Vasantha
Rao and Sri S.D.Ramulu, Advocates for defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 seeking cancellation of the registered gift deed vide No.6327/2007, dated 28.8.2007 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant by declaring it as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering in the plaint schedule plots.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- 2
Garidi Buchanna, Garidi Chinna Yenkatanna and Garidi Chinna Ramulu are the owners of the land in an extent of Ac.8.19 guntas covered by
Sy.No.673 situated in Gadwal town. The said Garidi Buchanna has executed
GPA vide No.8/1993 in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 to look after the affairs of land in an extent of Ac.5.09 guntas in Sy.No. 637 and also to convert the land into plots and to sell the same. Garidi Chinna Yenkatanna and Ramulu executed GPA 14/1993 in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 to look after the affairs of the land in an extent of Ac.3.10 guntas in Sy.No.673. In pursuance of the above two GPAs the plaintiffs have right to look after the affairs of the said land. Later, the plaintiffs converted the said land into plots in the name and style of Indira Nagar after obtaining permission vide LP No.138/1994. Later, the plaintiffs have executed sale deeds byalienatingsome plots.
Subsequently, plaintiffs came to know that the 2nd defendant who is no manner of right what so ever executed gift deed in favour of his wife 1st defendant vide NO.6327/2007. The plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule plots and the defendants have no manner of right. Hence this suit.
3.The defendants 1 and 2 have filed written statement denied the plaint averments and contended as follows:-
The original pattedar Garidi Chinna Yenkatanna and not Garidi Chinna
Ramulu and the LP 138/1994 is not an authenticated document. An extent of Ac.0.25 guntas in Sy.No.673 situated at Gadwal has purchased by the 2nd defendant under a registered sale deed vide NO.1316/2000 along with
Md.Saleem. Subsequently, 2nd defendant executed gift deed vide
No.6327/2007 in favour of 1st defendant to the extent of his share. Thus, the gift deed is valid. One of the executants of GPA No.14/1993 namely
Garidi Chinna Yenkatanna died on 23.02.2002, as such, the said GPA is lapsed on 23.2.2002. The GPA vide No.8/1993 has been cancelled by the original pattedar. The suit is barred by limitation. The executants of GPA 3 namely Garidi Buchanna, Garidi Chinna Yenkatanna and Garidi Chinna
Ramulu have not been made parties. Hence suit is bad for non joinder of parties. It is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled on 4.12.2009 by the then officer
1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction?
2Whether the registered gift deed dated 28.8.2007 is liable to be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?
3.To what relief?
(a). The following additional issue framed on 21.6.2013
1.Whether the original GPAs of plaintiffs has been destroyed?
5.During trial, 1st plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1. One
K.Prabhakar, S.Kishore Kumar and Sub Registrar, Gadwal were examined as
PWs 2 to 4. EXs.A1 to A18 are marked. After closure of the plaintiff side evidence, 2nd defendant himself got examined as DW.1 and got marked
Exs.B1 to B8.
6.Heard the arguments.
The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that Garidi
Buchanna has executed GPA vide No. 8/1993 in favour of the plaintiffs and,
Garidi Chinna Yenkatanna and Garidi Chinna Ramulu have executed GPA vide No. 14/93 in favour of the plaintiffs, as such, the plaintiffs have right over the land in an extent ofAc.8.19 guntas in Sy.No.673. According to him, the plaintiffs in pursuance of GPAs have obtained plan approval and converted the said land into house plots and sold the some plots by executing registered sale deeds. He has further submitted that the 2nd defendant is one of the attestors in all the sale deeds and the plaintiffs were in possession of the schedule plots. According to him, sale deed vide 4
No.1316/2000 never executed by the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 with the collusion of the Sub Registrar fabricated the said document. He has further submitted that the original GPAs were burnt in the fire accident and whereabouts of the original owners not known to the plaintiffs and hence the plaintiffs could not examine the original owners. He has prays to decree the suit.
a)Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants has submitted that suit of the plaintiffs as framed is not maintainable as they did not file the original GPA nor obtained permission to file the suit in the capacity of power of attorney holders by filing an application under Rule 32 of Civil Rules
Practice. According to him, before filing of the suit by the plaintiffs one of the principals of GPA died and hence the GPA vide 14/93 was lapsed. He has further submitted that the plaintiffs being power of attorney holders of the original owners sold the schedule plots to the 2nd defendant and one Saleem under Ex.B1 sale deed and delivered possession. He has further submitted that Ex.B1 document along with other documents sent to the handwriting expert for comparison and hand writing expert gave opinion that the thumb impression in both the documents are identical. According to him, the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the suit. He prays to dismiss the suit.
7. Additional issue, dated 21.06.2013
The specific version of the plaintiffs is that there was a fire accident in the shop of the 1st plaintiff and the original GPAs and other documents were burnt in the said fire accident and hence they could not produce the original
GPAs. The version of the defendants is that the Garide Buchanna has cancelled the GPA vide No.8/93 by executing the document No.16/09 and that one of the executants in GPA No.14/93 namely Chinna Yenkatanna died on 23.02.2002 and hence the said GPA was lapsed.
5
a)PW.1 has deposed that the original GPAs were burnt in the fire accident happened in the tailor shop and to prove the same he has produced the FIR and final report in crime No.100/97. Ex.A14 is the certified copy of FIR along with complaint and Ex.A15 is the final report. On perusal of the contents of FIR therein it is mentioned that the documents pertaining to the lands were burnt. There is no specific averment in Ex.A14 that the original GPAs were burnt. PW.1 has admitted during his cross examination that he has not specifically mentioned in the complaint that the GPAs executed by Garide Buchanna, Yenkatanna and Ramulu were burnt in the said fire accident. It was suggested to PW.1 that the amount of the plots which were sold by the plaintiffs were not paid to the original pattadars as such they have taken away the original GPAs. PWs 2 and 3 are the purchaser of the plots. Absolutely there is no concrete material produced by the plaintiffs to show that the original GPAs were burnt in the tailor shop of PW.1. Hence, basing on the available material, it is doubtful to hold that the original GPAs vide NO.8/93 and 14/93 were burnt in the fire accident.
This issue is answered accordingly.
8.ISSUE No.2:-
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for cancellation of the gift deed vide
NO.6327/07. Admittedly, Garidi Buchanna, Garidi Chinna Yenkatanna and
Garidi Chinna Ramulu owned Ac.8.19 guntas in Sy.No.673 of Gadwal town and they have executed GPA vide No.8/93 and 14/93 in favour of the plaintiffs. The material on record reveals that in pursuance of the said power of attorney the plaintiffs converted the said land into plots after obtaining permission and also sold some plots.
(a).This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for cancellation of the gift deed section 31 of Specific Relief Act deals with cancellation of document which reads thus:
6 31: When cancellation may be ordered:
(1) Any person against whom a written instrument if void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding, may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable, and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.
(2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian
Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the Court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.
(b). A careful perusal of section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, it is crystal clear the plaintiffs who are seeking the cancellation of the gift deeds have to establish that if the gift deed is not canceled, it will cause loss to them. The specific version of the plaintiffs is that Garide
Buchanna, Garide Chinna Venkatanna and Chinna Ramulu were the original pattadars of the land covered by Sy.No.673 and they have executed the original of Exs.A1 and A2 GPAs in favour of the plaintiffs.
Ex.A1 is the certified copy of GPA vide No.8/93. As seen from Ex.A1,
Garide Buchanna gave GPA to the plaintiffs herein to look after the affairs of Ac.5.09 of land in Sy.No.673 and to alienate the plots to the prospective purchasers. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of GPA. This document discloses that Garide Chinna Yenkatana and Garide Chinna
Ramulu gave GPA to the plaintiffs to look after the affairs of the land in an extent of Ac.3.10 guntas in Sy.NO.673. Thus, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the agents of Garide Buchanna, Yenkatanna and Chinna Ramulu but they could not derive any title over the land in Sy.No.673.
(c).Exs.A4 to A10 are the certified copies of sale deeds shows that the said original owners through their agents i.e., plaintiffs sold the plots to third parties. PWs 2 and 3 have purchased the plots from the original 7 owners represented by their GPA holders i.e., plaintiffs. Thus, their evidence is not of a much use to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have produced Exs.A12 and Ex.A13 i.e., copies of pahanies. In both the documents the names of the plaintiffs are not find place. Except Exs.A1 and A2 there is no other document standing in the name of the plaintiffs exhibited to show that they have right over the schedule properties.
Exs.A1 and A2 are the power of attorney and no title could be derived by the plaintiffs under those documents.
(d).The specific version of the defendants is that the original owners represented by their GPA holders i.e., plaintiffs have sold Ac.0.25 guntas of land to the 2nd defendant and one Mohd.Saleem under a registered sale deed vide No.1316/2000. Ex.B1 is the original sale deed vide
NO.1316/2000. DW.1 has clearly and categorically deposed that he along with Mohd.Saleem has purchased Ac.0.25 guntas in Sy.No.673 under the sale deed vide NO.1316/2000. They have specifically taken plea in the written statement about the purchase of Ac.0.25 guntas under sale deed vide NO.1316/2000. The plaintiffs have denied the execution of EX.B1. It can be seen from the record that the original thumb impression register maintained by the Sub Registrar, called for and exhibited as Ex.A18 and said register along with Ex.B1 and admitted thumb impressions of the plaintiffs sent to the finger print expert who opined that the thumb impression found on Ex.B1 compared with the admitted thumb impression which were identical. Thus, the evidence of
DW.1 coupled Ex.B1 shows that the DW.1 along with one Salim has purchased Ac.0.25 guntas in Sy.No.673. Ex.B2 to B6 also supports the version of the defendants that the name of the 2nd defendant mutated and 1st defendant obtained construction permission.
8
(e). PW.4 is the Sub Registrar, Gadwal has produced Ex.A18 after receipt of the summons. The specific version of DW.1 is that the original GPA vide No.8/93 was cancelled by the Garide Buchanna by executing the
Ex.B7 cancellation deed. Ex.B7 is the cancellation of the power of attorney dated 16.06.2009. This document discloses that the Garide
Buchanna executed the said document and cancelled the GPA vide
NO.8/93. Ex.B7 registered in accordance with the Indian Registration
Act. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit on 4.08.2009. Ex.A1 GPA was cancelled by executing Ex.B7 by Garide Buchanna on 16.6.2009.
So, Ex.A1 GPA was cancelled by the principal much prior to the filing of the present suit.
(f).The further version of the DW.1 is that one of the executants of
GPA vide No.14/93 namely Yenkatanna died on 23.02.2002. PW.1 in his cross examination has admitted that pattedar of the land Garide
Yenkatanna died 5 to 6 years back. Ex.B2 is the death certificate issued by the Gadwal Municipal Commissioner. This document discloses that
Garide Chinna Yenkatanna died on 23.2.2002. If one of the principal’s died, the power of attorney given by him is in-fractious. The Ex.A1 was cancelled by Garide Buchanna by executing Ex.B7 and Ex.A2 lapse due to death one of its executants Garide Chinna Yenkatanna. Thus, the
Exs.A1 and A2 were not in force by the date of filing of the suit.
(g).The plaintiffs claims that they were power of attorney holders of
Garide Buchanna, Yenkatanna and Ramulu. So the plaintiffs ought to have shown the names of the original pattadars namely Garide
Buchanna, Garide Venkatanna and Garide Chinna Ramulu represented by the plaintiffs as power of attorney holders in the plaint cause title.
The plaintiffs ought to have put their signatures in the plaint by mentioning Garide Buchanna, Chinna Yenkatanna and Ramulu represented by their GPA holders plaintiffs 1 and 2. But as seen from 9 the plaint the plaintiffs 1 and 2 have filed the suit in their individual capacity. The defendants counsel submitted that plaintiffs have not obtained permission by filing petition Under Rule 32 of Civil Rules
Practice. The plaintiffs counsel has submitted that the original pattedars authorized the plaintiffs to engage counsel and file the suit etc., in the court and hence they need not obtain any permission. No doubt, as seen from the Ex.A1 it is mentioned that the pattadars gave authorization to plaintiffs to file the suit but that doesn’t mean the plaintiffs can file the suit in their individual capacity without referring the names of the principals. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs as framed is not maintainable for the above reasons.
(h) The version of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No.2 executed gift deed in favour of the 1st defendant i.e., original of Ex.A11. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are not the parties to EX.A11 document. In the year 2009 the defendants field the written statement and taken a plea that the original pattadars through the GPA holders sold Ac.0.25 guntas under sale deed vide No.1316/2000, dated 13.6.2000. So, the claim of the defendant NO.2 is that he along with one Saleem purchased the land from the pattadars represented by the plaintiffs. What are the steps taken by the plaintiffs about the Ex.B1 sale deed is not explained. Thus, for the above reasons this court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs have miser ably failed to prove their right over the schedule property by the date of the filing of the suit. Thus, it cannot be held that the original of
Ex.A11 is null and void.
(i)In the citation reported in
AIR 2007 Allahabad 163
In between
Smt.Kailashu W/o Badam Singh
Vs.,
10
Smt.Anandi Devi W/o Shanker Lal
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that a person who is having no interest in the property had no locus-standi to challenge the sale. Para 12 of above citation is extracted as follows:
12. “Once it is held that plaintiff Smt.Anandi did not have any title or any interest under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act to challenge the sale deed, the enquiry whether the sale deed was a sham transaction and whether any sale consideration was paid was not relevant. A person having no interest in the property had no locus- standi to challenge the sale”.
In view of the principles enunciated in the above citation and in the light of observation of this court above paras that the plaintiffs failed to prove their right over schedule property, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. This issue is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.
9.ISSUE No.1:-
The plaintiffs also seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men from ever interfering with the possession of plaintiffs over the schedule plots. So the plaintiffs are required to establish their lawful possession by the date of suit. The plaintiffs have not produced any municipal records to show that they were in possession of the schedule plots. On the other hand, the evidence of
DW.1 coupled with the EXs.B3 to B6 shows that the name of DW.1 mutated and the Sarpanch accorded permission to the 1st defendant to make construction in plot Nos. 1 to 10 and 4A in Sy.No.673.
Furthermore, this court already observed in issue No.2 that the GPA vide
NO.8/93 was cancelled by the original pattadar by executing Ex.B7 and one of the executants of GPA vide No. 14/93 died and hence it was lapsed. Thus, the plaintiffs have no longer agents of original pattadars.
Hence, for the above reasons this court is of the opinion that the 11 plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction. This issue is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.
10.ISSUE No.3:
In view of the findings in issues 1 and 2 and additional issue No.1 the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Copyist, after transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 2nd day of June, 2017.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GADWAL.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:
PW.1 Md.Momin DW.1 Md.Kaleem PW.2 K.Prabhakar PW.3 S.Kishore Reddy PW.4 V.Sitharam
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1 is certified copy of GPA in Doc.NO.8/93 Ex.A2 is certified copy of GPA in Doc.No.14/93 Ex.A3 is letter dated 5.2.2009 Ex.A4 is certified copy of registered sale deed doc.No.2453/1995 Ex.A5 is certified copy of registered sale deed doc.No.2544/1995, Ex.A6 is certified copy of registered sale deed doc.No.1380/1997 Ex.A7 is certified copy of registered sale deed doc.No.1690/1997 Ex.A8 is certified copy of registered sale deed doc.No.873/1998 Ex.A9 is certified copy of registered sale deed doc.No.1579/1998 Ex.A10 is certified copy of registered sale deed doc.No.2703/2000 Ex.A11 is certified copy of registered gift deed doc.No.6327/2007 Ex.A12 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2005-06 Ex.A13 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2006-07 Ex.A14 is certified copy of FIR No.100/2007, dated 29.12.1997 Ex.A15 is certified copy of final report Ex.A16 is certified copy of sale deed document No.1378/1997 Ex.A17 is certified copy of sale deed document No.1787/1997 Ex.A18 is original thumb impression in volume No.59, pertaining to the said two persons at page No.5
DEFENDANT: Ex.B1 is original sale deed No.1316/2000, dated 11.6.1997 Ex.B2 is original death certificate of Chinna Yenkatanna issued by the commissioner Ex.B3 is original mutation proceedings issued by the Sarpanch, Chenugonipally, dated 1.10.2007 Ex.B4 is original construction permission NO.C/21/2008, dated 26.11.2008 Ex.B5 is original challan No.10403, dated 24.11.2008 Ex.B6 is original title deed No.167007 issued by RDO Gadwal, dated 24.5.2010 Ex.B7 is original registered cancellation of plaintiff GPA No.8/8/1993, dated 12 6.4.1993 Ex.B8 is original ROR.No.C/1634/2009, dated 24.12.2009.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GADWAL.
Comp.by
Read by
FAIR COPY
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, GADWAL.
TUESDAY, THIS THE 16th DAY OF MAY, 2017.
PRESENT:- SRI PVS.SURYA NARAYANA MURTHY
ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, GADWAL
SESSIONS CASE No.216 OF 2016
Between:-
The State represented by through SI of Police, Itikayala PS
…..Complainant
Vs.,
A1) Kurva Thimmappa S/o K.Gajjalanna, age: 40 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Caste: Kurva, R/o Satharla village, Itikyala Mandal.
A3) Kurva Gajendra S/o K.Thimmappa, age: 20 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Caste: Kurva, R/o Satharla village, Itikyala Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.
...Accused
Section of Law U/Sec.306 IPC Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty Finding of the court Found not guilty Sentence or order In the result, the accused Nos 1 and 3 found not guilty for the offence under section 306 IPC and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. Their bail bonds shall in force for a period of six months.
This case is coming before me for final hearing on 15.5.2017 in the presence of Sri K.Vijay Kumar, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri E.Venkateshwarlu, Counsel for the accused and this court having heard stood for consideration till this day has delivered the following.
J U D G M E N T
The SI of Police, Narva PS has filed case against the accused
No. 1 and 3 for the offence under section 306 of IPC.
2
2. The prosecution case in brief are that the accused and defacto complainant are residents of Satharla village and owned lands. There were land disputes in between them with regard to field bund and in the year 2011 accused No.1 assaulted Thimmappa and beat him due to which, a case was registered in crime No.89/2011 and same was compromised before Lok Adalath in JCJ Court, Alampur. The accused have admitted that they would remove the field bund and failed to remove the same and hence on 22.5.2015 Thimmappa held a panchayath before village elders and accused 1 and 3 insulted
Thimmappa during the panchayath due to which, he disgusted on his life and on the same day at about 7:30 pm he went to his hayrick yard consumed poison and went to the house then the defacto complainant noticed the smell and shifted him to hospital. While undergoing treatment Thimmappa died on 24.5.2015 at 7:50 pm, in GGH Kurnool.
The defacto complainant gave complaint on 25.05.2015 at 8:00 am to
SI of Police, Itikyala and basing on that complaint SI of Police, Itikyala registered a case in crime No.52/2015 conducted inquest over dead body of Thimmappa. He has arrested the accused No.1 and 3 on 9.06.2015. His investigation reveals that accused Nos.1 and 3 abetted
Thimmappa to commit suicide and he has deleted the name of accused
No.2.
3. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur has taken cognizance against the accused Nos. 1 and 3 for the offence under section 306 IPC and committed the case to the court of Sessions, since the offence under section 306 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of
Sessions. The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Mahabubnagar assigned Sessions case number and make it over to this court.
3
4. After appearance of the accused Nos 1 and 3 they were examined under section 228 Cr.P.C and later charge under section 306 r/w 34 of
IPC framed read over and explained to them by the then Officer for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Later, the section of law altered from 306 r/w 34 IPC to 306 IPC only.
5. During trial the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 14 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P8. The learned Addl.Public Persecutor has given up the evidence of Gutala Thimmappa(LW.13).
6. After closure of the prosecution side evidence the accused 1 and 3 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material found against them for which, they denied and reported no defence evidence.
7. Heard the arguments.
The Learned Addl.P.P has submitted that the evidence of PW.1 to 5 discloses that the accused got disputes with the Thimmappa with regard to field bund and previously a case was registered against the accused No.1 and same was compromised before Lok Adalath. He has further submitted that Thimmappa raised panchayath before the elders and the evidence of PWs 5 to 9 proves the same and that the accused did not remove the field bund and insulted the deceased due to which the deceased committed suicide. He prays severe conviction on the accused.
a) Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused has submitted that
PWs 1 to 4 are related to the deceased Thimmappa and the panchayath elders did not support the prosecution case. According to him, The 4 driver of the auto/car in whose vehicle Thimmappa shifted to the
Govt.Hospital is not examined. According to him, PW.4 is accused in a rape case and victim in that case is related to the accused herein, due to which, a case is foisted against the accused. According to him,
Thimmappa was admitted in the hospital on 22.5.2015 and Ex.P1 report given by PW.1 on 25.05.2015 which is more than two days later and the prosecution failed to explain the in ordinate delay in lodging the complaint. He has prays to give benefit of doubt to the accused.
8. Now the Point for determination is that Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused Nos 1 and 3 for the offence U/Sec.306 IPC?
9. The prosecution case in brief are that the accused and PW.1 are resident of Satharla village and there were disputes between the accused and deceased Thimmappa since 2011 with regard to field bund and previously a case was registered against the accused No.1 and the same was compromised and later the accused failed to remove the field bund and threatened Thimmappa due to which, the said Thimmappa committed suicide.
10. The accused Nos.1 and 3 were charged for the offence under section 306 IPC.
To prove the offence U/Sec. 306 of IPC the prosecution has to establish that Thimmappa has committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison on 22.5.2015 on the instigation of accused and he died on 24.05.2015 while undergoing treatment.
5
11. Section 107 of IPC defines the abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of thing, if he firstly instigates any person to do that thing, secondly engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to doing of that thing or thirdly intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thing.
12. Keeping in mind the ingredients for the offence under section 306
IPC this court scrutinize the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
PW.1 is none other than the wife of the deceased Thimmappa. Ex.P1 is the report given by PW.1 on 25.05.2015 is to the effect that they got field bund disputes with the accused and there was a panchayath to that effect and three years back the accused No.1 beat her husband and the elders compromised the case. On 22.5.2015, the deceased Thimmappa asked the accused then the accused threatened him and asked him to do whatever he likes. Then, Thimmappa went to the house informed the same to PW.1 and felt insult went to the thrashing floor and came to the house at 8:00 pm, then PW.1 noticed poison smell from his mouth.
Then, PW.1 along with others shifted him to the hospital.
13. PWs 1, 3 and 4 have stated that Thimmappa consumed poison and while undergoing treatment he died at GGH, Kurnool. PW.14
Doctor has conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of
Thimmappa. Ex.P8 is the final opinion given by Doctor. In Ex.P8 the doctor opined that Thimmappa died due to consumption of organo phosphate poison. Thus, the death of Thimmappa is due to consumption of organo phosphate poison. Thus, the death of 6
Thimmappa has occurred due to consumption of poison which is other than under normal circumstances.
14. The next aspect to be decided is that whether the accused has instigated Thimmappa to commit suicide. PW.1 who is none other than the wife of Thimmappa has deposed that previously accused Nos 1 and 2 beat Thimmappa due to which, a case was registered and subsequently they got compromised the case before Lok Adalath. No doubt, the evidence on record reveals that previously there was a case between the parties and same was compromised between Thimmappa and accused. The prosecution has not exhibited the said case record.
15. Be that as it may, the specific version of the prosecution is that after disposal of the previous case the accused did not remove the field bund and hence Thimmappa raised a panchayath and in that panchayath accused refused to remove the field bund and asked the
Thimmappa to do whatever he likes. In Ex.P1 PW.1 has stated that on 22.05.2015 the Thimmappa talked to the accused Nos 1 and 3 and another then they threatened him. It is not specifically mentioned in
Ex.P1 that on 22.05.2015 a panchayath was raised in the presence of elders and accused threatened Thimmappa in the presence of elders.
The version of PW.1 under Ex.P1 is that Thimmappa returned to the house on 22.5.2015 and informed to her that the accused threatened him. Thus, PW.1 was not present at the time the accused alleged to have threatened Thimmappa. The exact words uttered by the accused were not mentioned in Ex.P1 nor spoken by PW.1.
16. PW.2 who is the cousin of the deceased Thimmappa has deposed that after panchayath accused did not remove the field bund due to which, there was a quarrel in between the accused and the deceased.
7
He has further stated that he was not present on the date of the incident and he was informed that Thimmappa consumed poison then he went there. So, PW.2 was also not present at the time of alleged incident. PW.3 who is sister of Thimmappa has deposed that the accused Nos 1 and 2 threatened to kill Thimmappa and Thimmappa came to the house and cried before her and after some time he went to hayrick yard and consumed poison. So, the PWs 1 to 3 have not specifically stated that in their presence the accused threatened
Thimmappa.
17. PW.4 who is brother-in-law of Thimmappa. He has received intimation from PW.1 that Thimmappa consumed poison then he went there and shifted him to the hospital. He has admitted that one
Ramakrishnamma filed a case against him alleging that he committed rape on her and he has denied the suggestion that she is the relative of the accused.
18. PWs 5 to 9 are the elders in whose presence Thimmappa alleged to have raised panchayath. PW.5 has deposed that after compromise
Thimmappa called him to the house of Venkatanna goud there
Thimmappa got quarrel with the accused No.1 as he has not removed the field bund. Thus, the material on record goes to show that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to filed bund since 2011 and previously also criminal case filed against accused NO.1 was compromised.
19. PWs 6 7 and 9 have specifically stated that they do not know the reasons why Thimmappa consumed poison. PW.6 who is one of the elders of Sathrala village has stated that the accused did not refuse to 8 remove the bund and they accepted before them that they would remove the bund. So, PW.6 who is one of the village elders has stated that the accused did not refuse to remove field bund and they accepted to remove the field bund. If that is so the version of the prosecution that the accused refused to remove the field bund and threatened
Thimmappa in the presence of elders is doubtful.
20. PW.8 who is one of the elders has deposed that Thimmappa used to consume heavy alcohol. According to him, at the time of panchayath they erected stones in the land of accused and deceased. PW.8 further stated that after harvesting the crop he was informed that accused did not erect the stones. The prosecution has not produced any material with regard to erection of stones in the field after fixing the boundaries by the qualified surveyor. PWs 6 to 9 who are the elders have not stated that the accused threatened the deceased in their presence and also instigated him to commit suicide.
21. PWs 10 and 11 are the witnesses for inquest panchanama. PWs 10 and 11 have stated that they do not know the contents of inquest panchanama. Thus their evidence is not of much use to the prosecution.
22. PW.13 who is the Investigating Officer has stated that the chronological events of his investigation. PW.1 who is none other than wife of deceased Thimmappa has not specifically stated that in her presence accused threatened Thimmapa and instigated him to commit suicide. PWs 1 to 4 have not specifically stated that in their presence
Thimmappa questioned the accused. On the other hand PW.2 has deposed that he was not present on the date of incident. PWs 6 to 9 9 who are the elders did not say that in their presence the accused threatened Thimmappa and also instigated him to commit suicide. On the other hand, PW.6 has deposed that the accused did not refuse to remove the boundary. Hence, the evidence of PWs 6 to 9 will not helpful to the prosecution to prove that accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The evidence on record does not reveal that the accused had mens-rea to abet the the commission of the suicide by
Thimmappa.
23. In the citation reported in
AIR 2010 SC page 327
in between
Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs., State of A.P.,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed similar issues and held at pars 20 and 21 which are extract as follows:-
20. Abetment involves in mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
21. The intention of the Legislator and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person U/Sec.306 IPC there has to be clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased such a position that she committed suicide.
24. In the citation reported in
2002(1) ALD (Crl.)61 AP
In between
Ambayapudi Parusharamdu Vs., State of AP
10 the Hon’ble High Court has held “every incidence of suicide is not an offence U/Sec.306 IPC and there must be evidence that the accused abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased and unless there is abetment by way of inducement the offence U/Sec. 306 IPC would not be made out.
25. The Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the citation reported in 2002 (1) AD 956
In between
Sanju @ Sanjay singh Senger Vs., State of M.P.
has held that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea”.
In view of the Principal enunciated in the above citations this court of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused has instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
26. According to the prosecution on 22.05.2015 at about 8:00 pm
Thimmappa consumed poison then PW.1 and others shifted him to the hospital and while undergoing treatment Thimmappa died on 24.05.2015 at 7:50 pm in GGH, Kurnool. Ex.P1 report given by PW.1 on 25.05.2015 at 8:00 am. PWs 1 to 4 did not intimate to Police nor inform to the Duty Doctors of the hospital with regard to the alleged incident. Assuming for a moment if the accused instigated Thimmappa to commit suicide, PW.1 ought to have informed to the Doctor or Out
Post Police at the Hospital. There is no explanation on the part of the prosecution with regard to delay in lodging Ex.P1 report. The inordinate delay in lodging Ex.P1 report to the Police creates serious doubt with regard to prosecution story.
11
27. In the citation reported in
2008 (3) law summary page 204 (Supreme court)
in between
state of AP Vs. M.Madhusudan Rao
his lordships has held at para no. 18 regarding the delay in lodging the report which is extracted as follows.
“Delay in lodging the first information report, more
often than not, results in embellishment and
exaggeration, which is creature of an after thought . A
delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage
of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of
coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident
or concocted story as a result of deliberations and
consultations, also creeps in casting a serious doubt
on its veracity. Therefore it is essential that the delay
in lodging the report should be satisfactorily
explained”.
28. In this case on hand the incident occurred on 22.5.2015 and Ex.P1 report given by PW.1 on 25.5.2015. There is inordinate delay in lodging the report and the prosecution failed to explain the same. IN the light of the above discussion this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. This point is answered accordingly.
In the result, the accused Nos 1 and 3 found not guilty for the offence under section 306 IPC and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. Their bail bonds shall in force for a period of six months.
Dictated to the Copyist, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 16th day of May, 2017.
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
GADWAL.
12
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION DEFENCE: --nil— PW.1 Govardanamma (Defacto complainant) PW.2 K.Gopal PW.3 K.Lachamma PW.4 Karnakar PW.5 Boya Paramesh PW.6 Jaya Chandra Reddy PW.7 Ediga Venkatanna Goud PW.8 T.Suleman PW.9 Veera Reddy PW.10 Boya Thimmappa(witness of inquest) PW.11 Boya Narsimhulu(witness of inquest) PW.12 Y.Venkatramulu (witness of crime details form) PW.13 M.Bhagavanth Reddy(I.O) PW.14 Dr.T.Sai Sudheer(Doctor)
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 is report given by PW.1 Ex.P2 is Inquest panchanama Ex.P3 is Signature of PW.12 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4 is the FIR Ex.P5 is Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P6 is Post Mortem Report Ex.P7 is FSL report Ex.P8 is final opinion
DEFENCE: -Nil- M.Os. Marked -Nil-
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
GADWAL.
FAIR COPY
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, GADWAL.
SATURDAY, THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE, 2017.
PRESENT:- SRI PVS.SURYA NARAYANA MURTHY
ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, GADWAL
SESSIONS CASE No.307 OF 2016
Between:- The State represented by through SI of Police, Atmakur PS
…..Complainant
Vs.,
A1)Kurva Redyamma W/o Venkatamulu @ Kurva Sreenu, age: 25 years, Kurva, Occupation: Coolie, R/o Khanapur village of Atmakur Mandal.
A2)Kurva Venkatamulu @ Kurva Sreenu S/o Kurva Karre Beerappa, Age:30 years, Caste:Kurva, Occupation:Shepherd, R/o Khanapur village of Atmakur Mandal.
(The case against accused No.2 abated as he died)
...Accused
Section of LawU/Sec.306 IPC Plea of the accused No.1Pleaded not guilty Finding of the courtFound not guilty Sentence or order In the result, the accused No. 1 is found not guilty for the offence under section 306 IPC and she is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. Her bail bonds shall in force for a period of six months.
This case is coming before me for final hearing on 02.06.2017 in the presence of Sri K.Vijay Kumar, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri D.Laxmanna and Sri E.Venkateshwarlu Goud, Counsel for the accused No.1 and this court having heard stood for consideration till this day has delivered the following.
J U D G M E N T
The SI of Police, Atmakur PS has filed case against the accused for the offence under section 306 of IPC.
2.The prosecution case in brief are that the accused No.2 is the brother of the deceased Anjaneyulu and hails from Khanapur village.
2
Accused No.1 is the wife of accused No.2. One Kurva Rajamma is the wife of deceased Anjaneyulu. The said Anjaneyulu and his wife were doing labour work in Rajasthan State and on 27.11.2012 they came to their native village as the father of Anjaneyulu namely Kurva Beerappa died. On 01.12.2012 the household articles of Anjaneyulu were being put outside and after white washing they tried to put the articles into the house and accused Nos 1 and 2 did not allow them to keep the articles in the house. Then, Anjaneyulu said that if they would not allow him to put the articles into the house he would die and the accused stated that they were least bothered due to which, Anjaneyulu frustrated and poured kerosene on his body and set ablaze. While undergoing treatment he died in the Govt.Hospital, Mahabubnagar. Basing on the complaint of Rajamma, PW.11 registered a case in crime No.94/2012.
Subsequently, PW.12 altered the section of law. On 26.2.2013 PW.12 arrested the accused Nos 1 and 2 and produced them before the court.
Hence this case.
3.After taking cognizance the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Atmakur issued summons to the accused. Accused No.2 died and hence case against him abated. Since the offence under section 306 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Atmakur committed this case to the court of Sessions. After
assigning Sessions Case number, the Hon’ble Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar committed this case to this court.
4.After appearance of the accused No.1 she was examined under section 228 Cr.P.C and charge under section 306 of IPC framed read over and explained to her by the then Officer for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3
5.During trial the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 12 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P10. During pendency of case, K.Rajamma(LW.1) died. Addl.P.P given up the evidence of P.Linganna(LW.5).
6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence the accused No.1 was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material found against her for which, she denied and reported no defence evidence.
7.Heard the arguments. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 also filed written arguments.
The learned Addl.P.P has submitted that though the eye witnesses did not support the prosecution version the deceased gave statement to
PW.10 and in Ex.P7 he has stated that the accused asked him to die and hence he has committed suicide by pouring kerosene on his body and set ablaze. He has further submitted that the dying declaration is substantive piece of evidence and it can be relied upon. He sought severe conviction on the accused No.1.
a)Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st accused has submitted that PWs.1,2,4,5,7 and 8 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. According to him, PWs 3 and 6 stated that they do not know the cause of death of Anjaneyulu. He has further submitted that in Ex.P7 it is specifically mentioned that the doctor gave diazepam injection to the victim and victim under the influence of alcohol. He has further submitted that the doctor has stated that both the hands of
Anjaneyulu were burnt and hence he could not be in a position to put thumb impression. He prays to give benefit of doubt to the accused
No.1.
4
8.Now the Point for determination is that whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the 1st accused beyond all reasonable doubt?
9.The prosecution case in brief are that the deceased Anjaneyulu and his family were doing labour work in Rajasthan state and on 27.11.2012 he came to know that his father died in his native village
Khanapur and hence he come down to Khanapur along with his family to perform obsequies of his father. On 1.12.2012 the household articles were kept outside for white washing the house. Then Anjaneyulu requested the accused to put the articles into the house after white washing as he has no house. Then, there was a quarrel between them and Anjaneyulu stated that if the accused doesn’t allow him to keep the utensils into the house he will die, then the accused stated that they were least of bother, due to which he poured kerosene on his body and set ablaze. While undergoing treatment on 2.12.2012 he succumbed to burns.
10.The accused No.1 charged for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC.
To prove the offence under section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that Anjaneyulu committed suicide by pouring kerosene on his body and set ablaze on the instigation of the accused No.1
11.Section 107 of IPC defines the abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of thing, if he firstly instigates any person to do that thing, secondly engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to doing of that 5 thing or thirdly intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thing.
12.PW.1 who is the cousin of Anjaneyulu deposed that Anjeneyulu committed suicide and he doesn’t aware why he committed suicide.
PWs 1, 2, 4 did not support the prosecution version. No doubt, they stated that Anjaneyulu committed suicide. PW.9 who is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Anjaneyulu opined that death was due to hypovolenic shock and septicemia due to burns. PW.11 is the ASI who received the complaint and registered the case. PW.12 is the investigating officer. PW.12 has deposed chronological events of the investigation. The material on record discloses that Anjeneyulu poured kerosene on his body and set ablaze on 1.12.2012 at 7:00 pm in
Khanapur village and on 2.12.2012 he succumbed to injuries in
Govt.Hospital at Mahabubnagar. Thus, the death of Anjaneyulu occurred other than under normal circumstances.
13.The next aspect to be decided is that whether the prosecution could prove that the accused No.1 instigated Anjaneyulu to commit suicide. The 2nd accused who is none other than the brother of the deceased Anjeneyulu is no more and the case against him abated.
During life time of Anjaneyulu, he along with his family went to state of
Rajasthan and did labour work. After receipt of the intimation about the death of father of Anjaneyulu he along with his family come down to
Khanapur village. The version of the prosecution is that on 1.12.2012 the utensils were kept outside for white washing the house walls and then there was a tussle between the accused and deceased Anjaneyulu and then the Anjaneyulu stated that if accused don’t allow him to keep the utensils into the house he would die. PWs1, 2 and 4 did not support the prosecution version. PW.3 has deposed that there was a quarrel 6 between the accused and deceased Anjaneyulu due to which Anjaneyulu poured kerosene and set ablaze. He has admitted that he doesn’t aware who shifted Anjaneyulu to Govt.Hospital and at the time of the incident accused, deceased and himself were present. Assuming for a moment if
PW.3 alone present at the time of the incident he ought to have aware who shifted the Anjaneyulu to the hospital. PW.3 has not spoken the exact words uttered by the accused.
14.PWs 5 and 6 are the witnesses for the inquest panchanama. PW.5 has stated that he does not know anything about the case. PW.6 has deposed that police did not enquire him about death of Anjaneyulu and he doesn’t know why deceased Anjaneyulu set ablaze his body. PWs 7 and 8 are the witnesses to the crime details form and they turned hostile. Thus, the evidence of PWs 1 to 8 will not ameliorate the prosecution case.
15.The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.10 and Ex.P7 dying declaration. Ex.P7 is dying declaration recorded by PW.10. Basing on the dying declaration of deceased which is substantive piece of evidence, the accused can be convicted if the dying declaration inspires confidence. The latin maxim “Nemo moriturus prasumintus mentire” which means no one at the time of death is presumed to lie and he will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. On this premise the dying declaration is admissible.
16.Ex.P7 is the dying declaration. PW.10 has deposed that after receipt of the intimation on 1.12.2012 he reached the hospital and enquired the duty doctor who stated that victim was administered diazepam injection and he was under the influence of alcohol. He has further stated that doctor confirmed that the victim is conscious to that 7 extent certificate was given. He has further deposed that the victim stated that his brother Venkatramulu asked him to die and his sister-in- law Reddyamma abused him and asked him to die as she was having interest in joint property and hence he poured kerosene and set ablaze.
17.The deceased and his family were lived in Rajasthan state to eke out their livelihood and they come down to Khanapur after receipt of the intimation about the death of father of Anjaneyulu. The material on record reveals that on 1.12.2012 the household utensils kept outside the house in Khanapur and Anjaneyulu asked the accused to keep the utensils after white washing into the house for which they refused and then he stated if they would not allow him to keep the utensils into the house he would die for which they asked him to die. So there was a quarrel between the parties with regard to keeping of utensils into the house of the accused. It appears there was a dispute with regard to property. If there is a dispute aggrieved party can approach competent authority. PW.11 registered FIR basing on the complaint given by the wife of Anjaneyulu on 3.12.2012. The prosecution did not exhibit the said complaint dated 3.12.2012 though got exhibited the FIR through
PW.11.
18.In the citation reported in 1995 (3) SCC (Supp.) 438 in between
Swami Prahaladdas
Vs.,
State of MP
The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased “to go and die” were not even prima- facie enoughto instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
19.In the citation reported in 2001 (9) SCC 618 8
In between
Ramesh Kumar
Vs.,
State of Chhattisgarh
The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation”.
20.In a citation reported in
2002(5) Supreme Court cases 371
In between
Sanju
Vs.,
State of MP.,
The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “if the accused did tell the deceased to go and die that doesn’t constitute the ingredients of instigation”.
21.In the citation reported in
AIR 2010 Supreme court page 327
In between
Gangula Mohan Reddy
Vs.,
State of AP
the Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed similar issue and held at pars 20 and 21 which are extract as follows:-
20. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
21.The intention of the Legislator and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person U/Sec.306 IPC there has to be clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option 9 and this act must have been intended to push the deceased such a position that she committed suicide.
22.Thus, to convict the accused under section 306 IPC the prosecution has to establish that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide and the accused had mens-rea to abet the commission of the suicide by the deceased and the deceased committed suicide seeing no option. In view of the principles enunciated in the above citations this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the 1st accused had mens-rea to instigate the commission of suicide by the deceased. If the accused during the quarrel asked the deceased to go and die that doesn’t constitute the ingredient of instigation.
23.The counsel for the accused has relied on the citation reported in
2012 (1) ALD Criminal (10) AP
In between
Alev Bikshapati
Vs.,
State of AP
In the cited case the names of the culprits were not mentioned in
Dying Declaration. The facts in the above case are different to the facts of the case on hand. Hence, the above citation is not helpful to the accused.
24.The learned Addl.P.P has relied on the citation reported in
2017 SAR (Criminal) 177
In between
Ramesh and others
Vs.,
State of Hariyana
In the cited cases the dying declaration was recorded by the 10
Magistrate and the victim has clearly stated that her husband and
his brother Suresh given beatings to her. In the cited case his lordships has held that the victim has been brought with 100% burn injuries and the doctor found that she was in conscious state of mind and competent to give statement and hence dying declaration cannot be discarded.
25.In this case on hand the deceased stated to the accused that if they won’t allow him to put the utensils in the house of the accused he would die. Merely because the accused did not allow the deceased to put the utensils in their house and in that quarrel the words uttered by the accused cannot be said to be uttered with mens-rea. The present one is not a case where the accused had by her acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consquenes to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. Thus, for the above reasons this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had mens-rea to abet the commission of suicide by the deceased. Hence accused No.1 is entitled for benefit of doubt. This point is answered is answered accordingly.
In the result, the accused No. 1 is found not guilty for the offence under section 306 IPC and she is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. Her bail bonds shall in force for a period of six months.
Dictated to the Copyist, after transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 3rd day of June, 2017.
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
GADWAL.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION DEFENCE: --nil— 11
PW.1 C.Veeranna PW.2 Kotla Ramudu PW.3 Kotla Srinivasulu PW.4 Suvarna PW.5 K.Nadipanna PW.6 K.Thirupathaiah PW.7 Dealer Balaswamy PW.8 K.Venkatanna PW.9 Dr.S.Anitha(Doctor) PW.10 Milind Kamble(JMCM) PW.11 Bal Reddy PW.12 Gandhi Naik(I.O)
PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P2 is sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P3 is inquest panchanama Ex.P4 is signature of PW.6 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5 is PME report Ex.P6 is requisition Ex.P7 is dying declaration Ex.P8 is FIR Ex.P9 is scene of offence panchanama Ex.P10 is section alternation memo
DEFENCE: -Nil- M.Os. Marked -Nil-
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
GADWAL.
TSJG010003102015 Presented on : 18-12-2015 Registered on : 29-01-2016 Decided on : 02-06-2017 Duration : 1 years, 5 months, 15 days
IN THE COURT OF
Principal Senior Civil Judge cum Assistant Sessions Judge AT
GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR
Presided Over by Senior Civil Judge
H.M.O.P/78/2015
Exhibit No.:
: Narsimulu Age: 30 Occupation : Address: aged 30 years Occu Barbar R.O. Ieeja
VERSUS : Smt.Pavai @ Josha Age: 27 Occupation : Address: Ocu House wife R.O. Nagalapuram Kapati village Adoni mandal ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : E.Venkateswarlu Advocate for : appearing for Smt.Pavai @ Josha: Advocate appearing for respectively.
Claim :
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 02-06-2017 )
ORDER
Petitioner called absent no representation petition. Hence this petition is dis- missed as process not paid no costs
Date : 02-06-2017 Senior Civil Judge
GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR
Dictated on :
Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :
Senior Civil Judge
GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS
Order Record 5 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC/307/2016 | SI of Police Atmakur vs Smt Kurva Redyamma | 03 Jun 2017 | Judgement | Acquitted |
| OS/56/2009 | Md.Momin vs Smt.Habebunnisa | 02 Jun 2017 | Judgement | — |
| H.M.O.P/78/2015 | Narsimulu vs Smt.Pavai @ Josha | 02 Jun 2017 | Order | — |
| SC/216/2016 | PS Itikyala vs Kurva Thimmappa and another | 16 May 2017 | Judgement | Acquitted |
| SC/134/2016 | PS Narwa vs B Ramulamma and other | 11 May 2017 | Judgement | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has PVS Surya Narayana Murthy handled?
PVS Surya Narayana Murthy has handled 6 court orders since 2017 at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 4 orders per month.
What types of cases does PVS Surya Narayana Murthy hear?
Based on available records, PVS Surya Narayana Murthy primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex.
Where is PVS Surya Narayana Murthy currently posted?
PVS Surya Narayana Murthy is posted as Senior Civil Judge at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex, Jogulamba Gadwal, Telangana.
Are judgments by PVS Surya Narayana Murthy available online?
Yes. 5 judgments by PVS Surya Narayana Murthy are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does PVS Surya Narayana Murthy dispose cases?
PVS Surya Narayana Murthy disposes approximately 4 cases per month, based on 6 orders handled over their tenure at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex.
Since when is PVS Surya Narayana Murthy serving?
PVS Surya Narayana Murthy has been serving at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex since 2017.
Case Types
Posting History
-
May 2017 — Jun 2017Senior Civil Judge · 6 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court