R Ashok kumar FAC AJCJ

A.J.F.C.M, Hindupur 1 C.C.No.214 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, HINDUPUR.

Present: Sri R.Ashok Kumar

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madakasira

FAC Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Hindupur

Tuesday, the eighth (8th) day of August, 2023.

C.C.No.214/2021

Between: State Represented by The Sub-Inspector of police, , Hindupur Rural P.S.

...Complainant

And

K.Chinna Ramanji, aged 56 years, S/o. Late Hanumanthappa, D.No.5-1-83, Lakshmipuram, Hindupur town. …Accused

This case coming before me on 1.8.2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Anjaneyulu, Advocate for the accused, 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, Hindupur Rural Police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.133/2020 for the offence punishable Under Section 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is as follows:

On 6.6.2020, at 4.00 PM., during the course of raids conducted by P.W.2 along with staff members, at the outskirts of

Kotipi village, Hindupur mandal, they found the accused in possession of plastic cover and on seeing the police officials, he tried to run away

A.J.F.C.M, Hindupur C.C.No.214 of 2021 leaving the bag, but was detained and on enquiry, confessed that bag contain liquor bottles. They tried for mediators in Kotipi village but in vain. Later, P.W.2 verified the said cover and found 21 dips of non- duty paid Haywards Cheers Whiskey in tetra packets, drew one packet as sample, sealed and labelled the same, seized the remaining property and arrested accused under a cover of Police Proceedings drafted on the spot. Later, sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner for analysis, who opined that the sample is “Indian Made Liquor”.

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

4.After appearance of accused before the Court, copies of all documents were furnished to him as contemplated under

Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

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

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, cited four witnesses, among them examined two of them as P.Ws.1 & 2 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.3. The evidence of other witnesses, is given up by the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined Under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining

A.J.F.C.M, Hindupur 3 C.C.No.214 of 2021 the available incriminating material on record, accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that with the evidence adduced, the prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the accused.

10. Per contra, the learned defence counsel argued that the evidence available on record is not sufficient to prove the case against the accused and that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11. Now the Point of determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove

the guilt of accused for the offence under

Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond

all reasonable doubt?

12. POINT:

To prove the offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise

Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein was transporting, exporting, importing, manufacturing, collecting or possessing any intoxicants in contravention of A.P. Excise Act,1968 or any license or permit granted or issued under this Act.

13. The evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 that on 6.6.2020, at 4.00

PM., during the course of raids conducted by P.W.2 along with staff members, at the outskirts of Kotipi village, Hindupur mandal, they

A.J.F.C.M, Hindupur C.C.No.214 of 2021 found the accused in possession of plastic cover and on seeing the police officials, he tried to run away leaving the bag, but was apprehended and on enquiry, confessed that bag contain liquor bottles. They tried for mediators in Kotipi village but in vain. Later,

P.W.2 verified the said cover and found 21 dips of non-duty paid

Haywards Cheers Whiskey in tetra packets, drew one packet as sample, sealed and labelled the same, seized the remaining property and arrested accused under a cover of Police Proceedings drafted on the spot. Later, sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner for analysis, who opined that the sample is “Indian Made Liquor” and later, on completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed.

14.As can be understood from the evidence of P.W.2, he seems to have not tried to issue an order in writing on those persons who did not volunteer to act as mediators.

15. When the search and seizure is in open place, there is no mandatory requirement to secure independent mediators of the locality but to prove their case beyond any iota of doubt, it is expected that the police officials should have seriously and sincerely tried for independent mediators to show their impartial investigation.

No doubt, the acts of police officials in discharge of their official duties, are presumed to be correct unless contrary is proved but, when there was opportunity to secure the mediators, no convincing attempts were made by P.W.2. At this juncture, it is relevant to note a decision made in:

A.J.F.C.M, Hindupur 5 C.C.No.214 of 2021

S.Babu Saheb @ Babu v. State of A.P., 2010 (1) A.L.T.

(Crl.) 32 A.P. wherein it was held ‘no efforts being made to secure the mediators is doubtful. The necessity was emphasized by the

Hon’ble High Court when there is seizure of contraband’.

Also in, Gajamker Narayana v. State of A.P., 2005 (3)

A.L.T. (Crl.) 1, it was held “.... Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. lays down that

before making a search, the officer of other person about to make it

shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality...”, the seizure of contraband was held to be illegal when the provision of Section 100 (4) Code of Criminal Procedure are not complied. Also, it was held that the evidence of Excise officials is interested, artificial and routine. In this case on hand also, P.W.2 did not depose the convincing reasons for non-securing of the independent mediators from the locality.

In Botcha Raju v. State Rep. by the Inspector of

Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle, 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) 69

(A.P.), it was held “...the Courts below fell in error by accepting the version of the Police Officers without the corroboration of the disinterested witnesses...”.

16. There is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to establish that the accused possessed contraband.

Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act. In the light of above discussion, and the evidence of P.W.2 being the police official and his evidence pertaining to Ex.P.1 and above referred citations, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

17.With regard to the alleged confessional statement of

A.J.F.C.M, Hindupur C.C.No.214 of 2021 the accused before P.W.2, the same is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence

Act and is inadmissible in evidence.

18.For the above discussion, this Court feels that prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act.

19. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted

U/s.248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. Accused shall execute personal bond for Rs.10,000/- and it shall remain in force for six months as required Under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Prepared and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 8 th day of August, 2023.

Sd/- R.Ashok Kumar,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Madakasira,

FAC Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I

Class, Hindupur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1: R.Sreenivas -None- P.W.2: T.Maddileti

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Police Proceedings dt.6.6.2020

A.J.F.C.M, Hindupur 7 C.C.No.214 of 2021

Ex.P.2: First Information Report in Cr.No.133/2020 of Hindupur Rural PS Ex.P.3: Analysis Report

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil- MATERIAL OBJECTS :NIL.

Id/- R.A.K.

JFCM, MDKSR,

FAC AJFCM, HDP

// True copy //

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madakasira,

FAC Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Hindupur.

A.J.F.C.M, Hindupur C.C.No.214 of 2021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by Sri R.Ashok Kumar, Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur

Date of

Commence- ApprehensionReleaseClose of OffenceReportmentJudgment of accusedon bailtrial of trial 6.6.2020 1.8.202 41-A Crpc 6.6.20206.6.20206.6.202028.3.20238.8.2023 notice3 served Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.214 of 2021 on the file of the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Hindupur Rural PS Cr.No.133/2020

Name of the accusedReligio AgeCallingResident with father’s namen

K.Chinna Ramanji, D.No.5-1-83, S/o.Late 56 CooliHindu Lakshmipuram, Hindupur Hanumanthappa, yrs town.

Offence: U/Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act

Finding : Accused found not guilty.

Sentence : Accused is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Accused shall execute personal bond for Rs.10,000/- and it shall remain in force for six months as required Under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Remarks : NIL Explanation for the delay : Nil

Sd/- R.Ashok Kumar,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Madakasira ,

FAC Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Hindupur.

Copy submitted to

A.J.F.C.M, Hindupur 9 C.C.No.214 of 2021

The Hon'ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur.

Dis. No.

C.C.462 of 2019 Date : 08.08.2023

AJMFC, Hindupur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: HINDUPUR

Present : SRI R.Ashok Kumar,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madakasira

FAC: Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur

Tuesday, this the 08 th day of August, 2023

C.C.No. 462 OF 2019 BETWEEN:

The State of A.P., rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police,

II Town Police Station, Hindupur.

… Complainant AND

1. B. Nagendra Rao, aged 31 years S/o. A. Aswarthanarayana, R/o D. No. 15/257, Roshan Street, Behind Tulasi Brundavan Hotel, Guntakal.

2. A. Aswarthanarayana, aged 61 years, S/o. Late Venkatarao, R/o D. No. 15/257, Roshan Street, Behind Tulasi Brundavan Hotel, Guntakal.

3. Smt. Sunanda Bai, aged 35 years, w/o. Sreenivasulu, R/o. Gudiwada Veedhi, Bellary of Karnataka State.

4. Smt. Hemavathi, aged 33 years W/o. Thulasi Rao, R/o. Railway employee, Railway Station, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. … Accused

This Case is coming on 01.08.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor for State and Sri K. Ravindra Kumar, learned Counsel for the Accused / A1 to A4, upon hearing both sides, considering material available on record and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Hindupur filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 in Cr.No.02/2019 of II Town Police Station, Hindupur alleging that accused committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC “for the sake of brevity) and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Pag 1 f 4

C.C.462 of 2019 Date : 08.08.2023

AJMFC, Hindupur

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are :

The Marriage of PW1/A. Pranitha was solemnized with A1 in Hindupur and at the time of marriage, on the demand of A1 to A4, her parents PW2 and PW3 presented 15 Tulas of Gold Ornaments, house hold articles worth Rs. 1,00,000/- and paid cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- . PW1, having joined the marital fold of A1, led marital life with him and she was looked after well only for about four months after the marriage and thereafter, A1 started harassing her physically and mentally with a demand for additional dowry from her parents PW2 and PW3 for starting business. A3 and A4 being the sisters of A1, used to visit their house once in a month and harass PW1 mentally. A2, being the father of A1, used to demand PW1 to fulfill his lust offering her his pension amount. When she took the same to the notice of A1, he along with A3 and A4 harassed her physically. A1 used to brand her with cigarette with a demand for additional dowry and having being informed about the same, her parents paid Rs. 50,000/- towards additional dowry. But, having not satisfied with the said amount, A1 continued to harass PW1 and unable to bear the harassment, she returned to her parents’ house.

3. Now the point that arise for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offences u/s. 498A r/w.

34 Indian Penal Code, 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

P O I N T :

4. PW1, being the alleged victim of the offence of being subjected to cruelty by A1 to A4, did not support the case of the prosecution deposing that there were some disputes between her and the accused and at the instance of her relatives she signed on some written papers., the contents of which, she does not know.

5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, having requested the court to treat her hostile to the case of the prosecution and having been permitted by the court, conducted cross examination on her but could

Pag 2 f 4

C.C.462 of 2019 Date : 08.08.2023

AJMFC, Hindupur not elicit any evidence in support of the case of the prosecution. Same is the fate of the evidence of other witnesses i.e., parents of the alleged victim who are examined PW2 and PW3 and her brother who is examined as PW4. None of the family members of PW1 supported the case of the prosecution.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, having considered these circumstances, has given up the evidence of other witnesses. Since no incriminating material is found in the evidence of PW1 to PW4 as against A1 to A4, examination under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code is dispensed with.

7. The prosecution, having failed to get the evidence from PW1 to PW4 including the alleged victim of the offence in support of its case, failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offenses alleged against them.

8. In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences u/s. 498A r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and are acquitted u/s. 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code

The bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall remain in force for six months as provided as required u/s. 437-A of Criminal

Procedure Code.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08 th day of August, 2023.

Sd/- R.Ashok Kumar,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Madakasira FAC: Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Hindupur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR Defence

PW-1 A. Pranitha

PW-2 Ambedkar Sreenivasulu

PW-3 Ambedkar Lalitha Bai

Pag 3 f 4

C.C.462 of 2019 Date : 08.08.2023

AJMFC, Hindupur

PW-4 Ambekar Siva Kumar :: NIL ::

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR Defence

Ex.P-1 Signature of PW-1 on Complaint dated 15.10.2018.

Ex.P-2 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1

Ex.P-3 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2 :: NIL :: Ex.P-4 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3

Ex.P-5 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-4

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Madakasira FAC: Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur.

Pag 4 f 4

C.C.462 of 2019 Date : 08.08.2023

AJMFC, Hindupur

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by Sri R.Ashok Kumar,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madakasira

FAC: Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur.

Date of

Commence- ApprehensionReleaseClose of OffenceReportmentJudgment of accusedon bailtrial of trial

Prior to12.01.20120.05.201920.05.2019 28.03.202301.08.202 08.08.2023 12.01.201993 Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.462 of 2019 on the file of the Judl.

Magistrate of First Class, Madakasira; FAC: Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Hindupur. Complainant : The State of A.P., represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town P.S., Hindupur. Cr.No.02/2019

Name of the accusedCallingReligio AgeResident with father’s namen

1. B. Nagendra Rao, BusinesHindu 31 S/o.A.Aswarthanarayanas Years R/o D. No. 15/257, Roshan Street, Behind Tulasi Brundavan Hotel, Guntakal.

2.A.Aswarthanarayana, S/o. Late businesHindu 61 R/o D. No. 15/257, Roshan Venkatarao,s Years Street, Behind Tulasi Brundavan Hotel, Guntakal.

3. Smt. Sunanda Bai, w/o. House Hindu 35 Sreenivasulu,wife R/o. Gudiwada Veedhi, Years Bellary of Karnataka State.

4. Smt. Hemavathi, W/o. Railway Hindu 33 R/o. Railway employee, Thulasi Rao,employe Years Railway Station, Tirupathi, e Chittoor District.

Offence: U/Sec. 498(A) r/w 34 IPC, Sec 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

Finding : A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty.

Sentence : Accused 1 to 4 are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.498(A) r/w 34 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Pag 5 f 4

C.C.462 of 2019 Date : 08.08.2023

AJMFC, Hindupur

Prohibition Act. A.1 to A.4 shall execute personal bond for Rs.10,000/- each and they shall remain in force for six months as required Under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. Remarks : NIL Explanation for the delay : Nil

Sd/- R.Ashok Kumar,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Madakasira

FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur

Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble II Additional District Judge, Hindupur.

Dis. No.

Pag 6 f 4

IN THE cOURT OF THE PbaC

DVISO)

R A S I A O K KUMAR

PRESENT: SA

pVTSIOw). MADAKA SIRA

CVL JUDGE (JUNIOR

FAC: PRINCIPAL CVL JUDGE (DUNIOR DIVISION). MINDUPUR

Thursday. the rnth (o") ) day of October 2025

Original | Suit NO.59 of 2019

Between:

S Venu Gopal, S/o S Kristappa. Hindupur. Aged 33 years,

Resident of Kotnut, Hindupur Mandal. Anantapur District.

Plaint1f

And:

Thimmaiah, . Aged 58

1. Saraswathamma, Wlo Chinna

years, Agriculture, Yarraballi Village. Gowribidanur

Karnataka State.

Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.

2. Vadd1 Gangamma, Wio Vaddi Yallappa, Aged 78 years,

Agriculture, R/o D.No 30-11-22. Kollakunta Village.

Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur distnct.

3. Vaddi Naveen, S/o Late Ramappa, Aged 26 years,

Agriculture, R/o D.No.30-11-22, Kollakunta Village,

Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur district.

Defendants

Suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated

10.03.2019 directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed

in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property after

receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- within the time

fixed by the Court and if defendants fails to execute the registered sale

deed as directed, the Hon'ble Court may itself execute the sale deed on

behalf of defendants in respect of the suit schedule property at the costs

plaint1ift POSsessSion of the suit schedule of the plaintiff and put the property ater evicting the defendanis nereon and for costs of the sut

Suit is coming before me on 09.10.2025 in the This presence of Sri A. .Gopala Krishna, Counsel for the plaintiff and Si Counsel for the deendant No 1 and case against

D.N.Nagaraju, C

defendant No.2 is abated as she died and defendant No.3 remained considering the material available on record and ex parte, and upon having stood over the matter for *onsideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUpMENI :

Memo is filed by plainiff's Counsel that matter is settled out

Suit is dismissed without costs, as settled of the Court. Plaintiff present.

out of the Court.

Pronounced by me in open Court this the 9h day of October,

2025.

CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Divsn.)

MADAKASIRA

FAC: PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Divsn.)

HINDUPUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Nil.

CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Divsn.)

MADAKASIRA

FAC: PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Divsn.)

HINDUPUR

IN THE cOURT OF THE PbaC

DVISO)

R A S I A O K KUMAR

PRESENT: SA

pVTSIOw). MADAKA SIRA

CVL JUDGE (JUNIOR

FAC: PRINCIPAL CVL JUDGE (DUNIOR DIVISION). MINDUPUR

Thursday. the rnth (o") ) day of October 2025

Original | Suit NO.59 of 2019

Between:

S Venu Gopal, S/o S Kristappa. Hindupur. Aged 33 years,

Resident of Kotnut, Hindupur Mandal. Anantapur District.

Plaint1f

And:

Thimmaiah, . Aged 58

1. Saraswathamma, Wlo Chinna

years, Agriculture, Yarraballi Village. Gowribidanur

Karnataka State.

Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.

2. Vadd1 Gangamma, Wio Vaddi Yallappa, Aged 78 years,

Agriculture, R/o D.No 30-11-22. Kollakunta Village.

Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur distnct.

3. Vaddi Naveen, S/o Late Ramappa, Aged 26 years,

Agriculture, R/o D.No.30-11-22, Kollakunta Village,

Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur district.

Defendants

Suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated

10.03.2019 directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed

in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property after

receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- within the time

fixed by the Court and if defendants fails to execute the registered sale

deed as directed, the Hon'ble Court may itself execute the sale deed on

behalf of defendants in respect of the suit schedule property at the costs

plaint1ift POSsessSion of the suit schedule of the plaintiff and put the property ater evicting the defendanis nereon and for costs of the sut

Suit is coming before me on 09.10.2025 in the This presence of Sri A. .Gopala Krishna, Counsel for the plaintiff and Si Counsel for the deendant No 1 and case against

D.N.Nagaraju, C

defendant No.2 is abated as she died and defendant No.3 remained considering the material available on record and ex parte, and upon having stood over the matter for *onsideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUpMENI :

Memo is filed by plainiff's Counsel that matter is settled out

Suit is dismissed without costs, as settled of the Court. Plaintiff present.

out of the Court.

Pronounced by me in open Court this the 9h day of October,

2025.

CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Divsn.)

MADAKASIRA

FAC: PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Divsn.)

HINDUPUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Nil.

CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Divsn.)

MADAKASIRA

FAC: PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Divsn.)

HINDUPUR

IN THE cOURT OF THE PbaC

DVISO)

R A S I A O K KUMAR

PRESENT: SA

pVTSIOw). MADAKA SIRA

CVL JUDGE (JUNIOR

FAC: PRINCIPAL CVL JUDGE (DUNIOR DIVISION). MINDUPUR

Thursday. the rnth (o") ) day of October 2025

Original | Suit NO.59 of 2019

Between:

S Venu Gopal, S/o S Kristappa. Hindupur. Aged 33 years,

Resident of Kotnut, Hindupur Mandal. Anantapur District.

Plaint1f

And:

Thimmaiah, . Aged 58

1. Saraswathamma, Wlo Chinna

years, Agriculture, Yarraballi Village. Gowribidanur

Karnataka State.

Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.

2. Vadd1 Gangamma, Wio Vaddi Yallappa, Aged 78 years,

Agriculture, R/o D.No 30-11-22. Kollakunta Village.

Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur distnct.

3. Vaddi Naveen, S/o Late Ramappa, Aged 26 years,

Agriculture, R/o D.No.30-11-22, Kollakunta Village,

Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur district.

Defendants

Suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated

10.03.2019 directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed

in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property after

receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- within the time

fixed by the Court and if defendants fails to execute the registered sale

deed as directed, the Hon'ble Court may itself execute the sale deed on

behalf of defendants in respect of the suit schedule property at the costs

plaint1ift POSsessSion of the suit schedule of the plaintiff and put the property ater evicting the defendanis nereon and for costs of the sut

Suit is coming before me on 09.10.2025 in the This presence of Sri A. .Gopala Krishna, Counsel for the plaintiff and Si Counsel for the deendant No 1 and case against

D.N.Nagaraju, C

defendant No.2 is abated as she died and defendant No.3 remained considering the material available on record and ex parte, and upon having stood over the matter for *onsideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUpMENI :

Memo is filed by plainiff's Counsel that matter is settled out

Suit is dismissed without costs, as settled of the Court. Plaintiff present.

out of the Court.

Pronounced by me in open Court this the 9h day of October,

2025.

CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Divsn.)

MADAKASIRA

FAC: PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Divsn.)

HINDUPUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Nil.

CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Divsn.)

MADAKASIRA

FAC: PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Divsn.)

HINDUPUR