Sri R.V.V.S Murali Krishna

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLAGADDA

PRESENT : Sri R.V.V.S. Murali Krishna,

V Additional District Judge, Allagadda.

Thursday, On this 3rd Day of April, 2025.

CNR No:APKU180001432022

A.S.No. 09 /2022

Between:

1. Lakkireddy Venkata Dastagiri Reddy, L.V. Siva Rami Reddy, aged about 39 years, Hindu, R/o. Cultivation, R/o. Gotluru Village, Chagalamarri Mandal, Nandyal District. Now residing at H.No.2-504-1, Balaji Nagar, Proddutur Town, Kadapa District.… Appellant

Vs.

1.Kamatham Nagesh, S/o.Naganna, aged about 40 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.Gotluru Village, Chagalamarri Mandal, Nandyal District. … Respondent

ON APPEAL AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE COURT, ALLAGADDA MADE IN O.S.No.190/2014, DATED 10-03-2022.

Between:

Lakkireddy Venkata Dastagiri Reddy… Plaintiff

Vs.

Kamatham Nagesh … Defendant.

This appeal is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.

Paneendra Babu for Appellant/Plaintiff, and the Sri U. Prathap, Advocate for 2

Respondant; and upon perusing the material on record, hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day this court made the following :

// JUDGMENT //

This appeal filed against the decree and judgment of the trial court in OS

No.190/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Allagdda. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

2. The averments in the plaint in brief are:-

Originally the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff’s ancestors L.

Venkata Reddy, after his death, the plaintiff’s father Siva Rami Reddy succeeded the same, the said Siva Rami Reddy has two sons i.e., the plaintiff and one Venkata

Hussain Reddy. In the oral partition on 07.01.2004, the plaint schedule property fell to the share of plaintiff, since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The name of the plaintiff is mutated in the revenue records of Gotluru village, the revenue department also issued pattadar passbooks and title deed passbooks in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant without having any manner of right trying to interfere in the suit schedule property and the plaintiff filed the suit in OS No. 210/2005 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge Court, Allagadda, the said suit was settled out of the court, accordingly the

same was not pressed by the plaintiff.

3

3.Recently disputes are arosed between plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property, the defendant also claiming the suit schedule and made an application before the Tahsildar, Chagalamarri to mutate his name in the revenue records pertaining to the plaint schedule property. In view of the objections raised by the plaintiff, the Tahsildar Chagalamarri stopped issuance of the pattadar passbooks and title deed passbooks and advised the defendant to approach the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal for cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deed passbooks stands in the name of the plaintiff, accordingly the defendant filed the application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal for cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds stands in the name of the plaintiff and the same is pending for enquiry. The defendant bluntly proclaiming that he has absolute right over the plaint schedule. On 30.11.2013, the defendant and his men forcefully tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property to occupy the same, then the plaintiff, with the assistance of villagers, resisted the defendants acts. Hence this suit..

4.After receipt of suit summons, the defendant filed the written statement denying material allegations.

BRIEF AVERMENTS IN THE DEFENDANT’S WRITTEN STATEMENTS ARE:

The plaintiff filed this suit after the dismissal of OS No.201/2015 and the present suit is barred by law of limitation. The suit is hit by the principle of Res-

Judicata. The plaintiff is not entitled for any kind of relief. The plaintiff is not owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant and his fore-fathers got the suit schedule property, they alone were the original owners. The plaintiff filed the suit to knock away the plaint schedule property. The defendant is belongs to SC 4

Community, the defendant and his fore fathers enjoying the plaint schedule. The defendant approached the revenue authorities for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The revenue department issued notice to both the plaintiff and the defendant, but the plaintiff not cooperated, at the stage of cancellation of pattadar passbooks, the plaintiff filed this suit. There is no cause of action for the suit and prays to dismiss the suit.

5. In view of the contentions of the Plaintiff, the trail court settled following issues.

1.Whether the suit is hit by principle of Res-Judicata or not?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for or not?

3. To What Relief?

In support of the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff himself testified as PW.1, got examined PW.2 to PW.5 and got marked Ex. A1 to A8 and closed his evidence.

After closure of the plaintiff’s evidence, the defendant himself examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B3 and closed his evidence. On hearing the arguments, after appreciating the evidence on record, the trail court dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved with the decree and judgment of the trail court, the plaintiff preferred present appeal contending inter- alia that the decree and judgment of the trail court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The trail court not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence leads by the plaintiff and came to erroneous conclusion. It is admitted that the plaint schedule is the ancestral property of the plaintiff, but the trail court passed the decree against the plaintiff 5 which is against the law. The trail court ought not to dismiss the suit and prays to set aside the decree and judgment of the trial court.

6.Both parties not adduced oral or documentary evidence at the stage of appeal.

9. Heard the appellants.

10. In View of the submissions made by the appellants, in view of the grounds of appeal, the following points arosed for consideration.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for or not?

2. The decree and judgment of the trail court warrants any interference by way of this appeal or not?

3. To What Relief?

POINT NO.1:

The plaintiff filed the suit seeking relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff is the plaint schedule property is situated in Sy.No.115(2A) of Gotluru Village Limits consisting of Ac.1-32 cents. Originally the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff’s ancesters L. Venkata Reddy, after his death the plaintiff father Siva Rami Reddy succeeded the same. The said Siva Rami Reddy has two sons i.e., plaintiff and the

Venkata Hussain Reddy, in the oral partition the plaint schedule property was fell to the share of plaintiff and some other properties were fell to the share of the plaintiff’s brother Hussain Reddy. Since the date of partition, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule. Without having any manner of 6 right, the defendant tried to interfere with the plaint schedule property, previously the plaintiff filed the suit seeking relief of permanent injunction, that matter was settled out of court, accordingly the plaintiff withdrawn that suit. Just prior to the suit, the defendant is making attempts to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. On 30.11.2013, the defendant tried to occupy the plaint schedule forcefully. However, the plaintiff resisted their acts and constrained to file this present suit.

11.In support the plaintiff’s contentions, the plaintiff himself testified as PW.1, he got examined his father as PW.2 and also got examined the 3rd parties as PW.3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A8. The plaintiff also leads the oral evidence of PW.4 and 5, they did not turned up for cross examination, accordingly their evidence was eschewed by the trail court. Now the evidence of PW.1 to 3 remains for scrutiny.

Contrary to the pleadings of the plaintiff, the defendant contending that the plaint schedule property is belongs to the ancestors of the defendant, the plaintiff has no manner of right and title over the plaint schedule property. The defendant applied for cancellation of pattadar passbooks stands in the name of the plaintiff and the revenue authorities issued notice the plaintiff, then the plaintiff filed the present suit and the suit is hit by the Doctrine of Res-Judicata.

12. As per the record, the suit filed by the plaintiff in OS No. 201/2005 was dismissed as withdrawn. A perusal of Ex.A1, it is the certified copy of the decree which reveals the plaintiff filed the memo of not-pressing the suit, accordingly the suit was dismissed as not-pressed. A perusal of the Ex.A2, the Judgment, it reveals the memo filed by the plaintiff not pressing the suit with a prayer to file the fresh suit in future, that memo was recorded, the suit is dismissed as not-pressed 7 without costs. It clearly reveals that the suit was dismissed in view of the memo filed by the plaintiff not pressing the suit. The suit in OS No.201/2005 was not disposed on merits, accordingly the provision under section 11 of Civil Procedure

Code is not attracted to the present case. The trial court rightly answered the issue and hold that the suit is not hit by doctrine of Res-Judicata, that answer is in favour of the plaintiff, contrary to that the defendant in the suit not filed any appeal.

Therefore, this court need not discuss elaborately Whether the provision of Res-

Judicate will attract to the present case or not. In view of the Ex.A2, it is evident that the suit in OS NO. 2001/2005 was dismissed as not pressed and it was not disposed on merits, therefore it can safely be concluded that the present suit is not hit by Principle of Res-judicata.

13.The plaintiff claiming the title over the plaint schedule property. As discussed earlier, the plaint schedule property originally belongs to the plaintiff ancestors

L.Venkata Reddy, after his death, the plaintiff’s father Siva Rami Reddy succeeded the same, thereafter the plaintiff and his brother partitioned the joint family properties and the plaint schedule properties fell to the share of the plaintiff.

14. Coming into the evidence of PW.1 who is the plaintiff herein, PW.2 who is the father of the plaintiff, they reiterated the plaint averments in their chief examination affidavits. in the cross examination, the PW.1 deposed that the plaint schedule originally belongs to his grandfather and subsequently it is devolved upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the Revenue records, 1B-Namuna and No.3 Adangals.

He did not file any registered documents. He filed the revenue records stands in the name of his grandfather. After partition Ex.A3 and A4 were issued in favour of the plaintiff i.e., 1B-Namuna, No.3 Adangals for Phasali 1414, he does not know in 8 the year 2006, the R.D.O. Passed any order. He further deposed that he preferred appeal against the orders of R.D.O.. since he preferred appeal, the documents in his favour was not canceled, he does not know whether the property covered in sale deed dated 31.12.1956 is devolved upon the defendant. His father also applied for issuance of pattadar passbooks in his favour. A perusal of the entire evidence of

PW.1, his evidence reveals that he has not filed original registered documents in respect of the plaint schedule property. Though he deposed that he filed pattadar passbooks, no such pattadar passbooks was filed by the plaintiff in his evidence.

He filed certified copy of 1B-Extract and certified copy of No.3 Adangal for

Phasali1414 i.e., for the year 2004, he has not filed any revenue records pertaining to his ancestors. He has not filed the No.3 Adangals pertaining to his grandfather, so also 1B-Register stands in the name of his grandfather.

15.It is the case of the plaintiff that originally the plaint schedule property belongs to his ancestors, only after the partition, the plaint schedule property fell to the share of his plaintiff. But on perusal of Ex.A3 1B-Namuna which stands in the name of the Lakkireddy Venkata Reddy, S/o.Lakshmi Reddy, i.e., grandfather of the plaintiff, it did not reveals the source of title or any other particulars, the plaintiff also filed the Ex.A7 1B-Namuna stands in the name of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff, originally the plaint schedule property stands in the name of the plaintiff ancestors L.Venkata Reddy, after his death, the plaintiff’s father succeeded the plaint schedule, but no such document stands in the name of the plaintiff’s father has been filed. It is further case of the plaintiff, during the life time of his father, he himself and his brother partitioned all the joint family properties and the plaint schedule property is fell to the share of the plaintiff, it is silent on what basis Ex.A6

Adangal Pahani, Ex.A7 1B-Namuna has been issued, evidently no pattadar 9 passbooks and title deed passbooks has been issued either in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of the plaintiff’s father or grandfather. The Father of the plaintiff examined as PW.2, he also reiterated the plaint averments in his chief examination affidavit to the extent that the plaint schedule properties belongs to the plaintiff’s grandfather and after his death the PW.2 succeeded the same and in the oral partition, the plaint schedule property is fell to the share of the plaintiff.

16.The PW.2 deposed in the cross examination that his father purchased the plaint schedule property from the defendant’s grandfather, after the death of his father, the property devolved upon his mother, she allotted equal shares to her sons, his father has pattadar passbook, but he does not know whether the same was filed or not. There is no revenue records stands in the name of his mother. He is under the impression that his son filed the revenue records to show that his son raised crops. He further deposed that an oral partition took place in the year 2004, in pursuance of the oral partition, the pattadar passbooks has been issued to PW.1.

As discussed earlier there is no pattadar passbooks has been filed by the plaintiff.

17.The evidence of PW.2 is contrary to the evidence of PW.1 with regarding to the source of the title over the plaint schedule. It is evidence of PW.1 that, after the death of the plaintiff grandfather, the property fell on the plaintiff’s father, subsequently in the oral partition the plaint schedule property is fell to the share of the plaintiff, but whereas the PW.2 deposed that after the death of the plaintiff grandfather, the property fell to the plaintiff’s grandmother, she alloted a share to the plaintiff and his brother. No where the PW.2 deposed that he came into possession of the plaint schedule property and he categorically deposed that no revenue records stands in the name of his mother. Initially the grandmother of the 10 plaintiff is not a sole legal heir to the plaintiff’s grandfather and no revenue record stands in the name of the plaintiff’s grandmother. In such circumstance, how the revenue department relied upon the oral partition of plaintiff and his brother and said to have been issued pattadar passbook Ex.A7 1B-Namuna and Ex.A6 Adangal

Pahani.

18.The PW.3 is the 3rd party to the proceedings, he reiterated the facts deposed by the Pw.1 and 2 that the plaint schedule property belongs to plaintiff’s grandfather, after his death, the plaintiff father succeeded the plaint schedule property, from then onwards, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Prior to the Plaintiff’s father Siva Rami Reddy and his grandfather

L.Venkata Reddy, one P. Sanjeeva Reddy has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property for more than 30 years. The defendant is no way concern to the plaint schedule property. His evidence not based on the record.

Surprisingly, he deposed in the cross examination, he does not know the plaintiff’s father name, therefore, no credence will be given to his evidence.

19.The defendant mainly relied upon the admission of the plaintiff made in earlier suit OS No.201/2005 which are marked as Ex.B1 to B3. The Ex.B1 is the relevant portion of the deposition of PW.1 in OS No. 201/2005 i.e., presently the defendant is cultivating the said land and another admission is since two year, the defendant is cultivating the said land which is Ex.B2. Ex.B3 is the certified copy of the sale deed pertaining to the 31.12.1956 stands in the name of the Kamatham pedda Yellanna, he purchased the same under Ex.b3 from Eedula Mallareddy,

Yellanna has 3 sons namely Pedda Naganna, Nadipi Naganna, Sadhanna. Pedda

Naganna has 4 sons i.e., Naganna, Kanakaraju, Yellayya and Ramudu. Naganna 11 has 3 sons. The Pedda naganna has sold his share and remaining Ac.1-35 cents land in the said Sy.No.is in possession and enjoyment of defendant’s father

Naganna. They get the property in oral partition. The source of the title is referred by the defendant is very vague, he did not state the relationship between the defendant and the Pedda Yellanna and when the partition took place is also not discussed. No revenue records stands in the name of the defendant or his ancestors at any point of time, absolutely there is no iota of evidence to prove the possession or title of the defendants in respect of the plaint schedule property.

20.The only point involved in this case is whether the plaintiff has title over the plaint schedule property or not. Since the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his title independently and he shall not depend upon the weaknesses of defendant’s case. In the case on hand, the plaintiff himself admitted that he has no registered documents to prove his title.

Though the plaintiff filed Ex.A3 1B-Namuna stands in the name of the plaintiff’s grandfather. As discussed earlier paragraphs, it did not reveals any other details with regarding to source of title. The plaintiff also filed Ex.A7 1B-Namuna Stands in the name of the plaintiff, it refers the source of title as succession. As discussed in earlier paragraphs, the devolution of plaint schedule properties is not consistent in the evidences of the plaintiff and his father, admittedly there is no basis for issuance of 1B-Namuna in favour of the plaintiff. No pattadar passbook and title deed passbooks has been issued in favour of the plaintiff or his ancestors at any point of time. Now the plaintiff relied on Ex.A3 which stands in the name of the plaintiff grandfather and Ex.A7 1B- Namuna Stands in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.A3 is concerned, it did not reveals any details of flow of title, how it was registered in the name of the plaintiff’s grandfather, so also the Ex.A7 is not based on any document.

12

21.It is also evident from the evidence of PW.1 that there is no written partition among himself and his brother and basing on the oral statement only the revenue authorities mutated the name of the plaintiff and issued 1B-Namuna. However, the defendant contending that the said dispute is pending before the revenue authorities, no such evidence has been placed. Since the plaintiff seeking the relief of declaration of title, he has to prove his title convincingly, but except the revenue record which is incorporated without any basis, the plaintiff not filed any other record to establish his title.

‘’It is a settled proposition of law that Revenue Records not confers any title.’’

In Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & Ors vs Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund &

Ors reported in AIR 2008 SC 901: Where in it was held that A revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession.

Presumption of possession and/ or continuity thereof both forward and backward can also be raised under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act.

In the case on hand, being the plaintiff, the plaintiff has to adduce high degree of proof to prove his title. Except the revenue records which are also not supported by any document, the plaintiff not adduced any other documents to prove his title. In view of the ratio laid down in judgment cited supra, the revenue records not coferns any title upon the plaintiff. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration of title.

13

22.However, In View of the Ex.A6 Adangal Pahani, it appears that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is claiming the title and consequential declaration of possession. Though the plaintiff failed to adduced high decree of evidence to establish his title i.e., not filed any registered document to prove his title. But the revenue records filed by the plaintiff is showing the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

The Defendant not filed any revenue records either in the name of the defendant or his ancestors at any point of time. Except the stray admissions of the plaintiff in the previous suit, the defendant have not filed any evidence to show his possession over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff placed the better evidence than the defendant in establishing his possession. Though the plaintiff has not established the title, since he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, he can be evicted in due process of law by the true owner only. The defendant who do not have any valid title cannot question the possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and their men from interfering with the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

This point is answered accordingly.

POINT No.2:

A perusal of the decree and judgment of the trail court, the trail court rightly observed that the plaintiff failed to prove his title over the plaint schedule property and the trail court not granted the relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff, even he has sufficient evidence to establish his possession and the trail court not granted injunction. Therefore, the decree 14 and judgment of the trail court is liable to be modified to the extent that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

This Point is Answered Accordingly.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by setting aside the

decree and judgment of the trail court in OS No.190/2014 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge Court, Allagadda to the extent that the plaintiff is not

entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. The Suit in OS

No.190/2014 is decreed by granting the permanent injunction restraining

the defendant and his men from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful

possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. The rest

of the suit claim is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances, both parties

shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 3 rd day of April, 2025.

V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA.

Appendix of Evidence

Nil

V ADJ, ALG

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLAGADDA

PRESENT : Sri R.V.V.S. Murali Krishna, V Additional District Judge, Allagadda.

Monday, 7th Day of April, 2025.

CNR No.APKU180000032020

APPEAL SUIT No. 03 OF 2020

Between:

1. Jeedi Thirupalu, S/o. Chinna Obaiah, Aged about 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Bhooma Nagireddy Palle village, Rudrawaram Mandal, Nandyal District. … Appellant

Vs.

1.Reddipalle Hussain Peera, Died by his LR;s S/o.Late Khaja Hussain, Aged about 40 years, Muslim, R/o.Rudrawaram Village, Nandyal District

2.Reddipalle Hussain Bee, Died W/o. Late Khaza Hussain, Aged about 60 years, Muslim, R/o.Rudrawaram Village, Nandyal District.

3.Nanubaigari Apsar Bee, W/o. Chinna Ammer Basha, Aged about 35 years, Muslim, House Wife, R/o.H.No.5/25, Chakarajuvemula village, Dornipadu Mandal,

Nandyal District...... Respondents

ON APPEAL AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE COURT, ALLAGADDA MADE IN O.S.No.4/2012, DATED 15-11-2019.

Between:

Jeedi Thirupalu, S/o. Chinna Obaiah, Aged about 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Bhooma Nagireddy Palle village, 2

Rudrawaram Mandal, Nandyal District. … Plaintiff

Vs.

1.Reddipalle Hussain Peera, Died by his LR;s S/o.Late Khaja Hussain, Aged about 40 years, Muslim, R/o.Rudrawaram Village, Nandyal District

2.Reddipalle Hussain Bee, Died W/o. Late Khaza Hussain, Aged about 60 years, Muslim, R/o.Rudrawaram Village, Nandyal District.

3.Nanubaigari Apsar Bee, W/o. Chinna Ammer Basha, Aged about 35 years, Muslim, House Wife, R/o.H.No.5/25, Chakarajuvemula village, Dornipadu Mandal, Nandyal District. … Defendants

This appeal is coming on 30.12. 2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Neelakanteswaram, Advocate for Appellant/Plaintiff, and Sri V.

Ramachandra Rao, the counsel for R3 and upon perusing the material on record, hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day this court made the following :

// JUDGMENT //

The appeal is filed against the decree and judgment in OS No. 4 of 2012 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Allagadda. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief od specific performance of contract basing on the agreement of sale dated 30.04.1979.

2. THE AVERMENTS IN THE PLAINT IN BRIEF ARE:-

Originally the suit schedule property belongs to one Khaza Hussain, he offered to sell the property @ 38 rupees per cent, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same. Accordingly both the plaintiff and the defendant entered into agreement 3 of sale dated 30.04.1979, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards advance sale consideration. It was agreed that the defendant has to execute the registered sale deed on receipt of the balance of sale consideration with subsequent interest @ 24% Per Annum. The defendant delivered the possession to the plaintiff. On 28.05.1980, the plaintiff paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.1638 and the same was endorsed on the reverse side of the agreement of sale. After payment of advance sale consideration, the plaintiff requested the defendant to measure the schedule property and to execute the registered sale deed, but the defendant postponed the same on one or other ground and died intestate leaving the defendants 1 and 2 as his legal heirs. After the death of the Khaza Hussain, the plaintiff also demanded the defendants 1 and 2 for execution of the sale deed and issued legal notice to the defendants 1 and 2, but they are not responded and moreover, they both filed the suit for injunction in OS No.113/2009 for permanent injunction by suppressing the true facts.

3.After receipt of the summons in OS No.113/2009 the plaintiff came to know that the D1 and D2 executed registered sale deed in favour of the 3rd defendant to defeat his interest. The said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff. After receipt of the summons the plaintiff questioned the defendants 1 and 2 for their execution of nominal sale deed, on that the defendants promises to execute the registered sale deed and withdrawn the said suit in OS no.113/2009, but the defendants not fulfill their promise. The plaintiff understood that, the defendants has no intention to execute the registered sale deed. Hence he filed the suit.

4.After receipt of the suit summons, the 1st defendant filed the written statement, the remaining defendants not filed the written statement, after the death 4 of the 1st defendant, the 3rd defendant filed the additional written statement denying the plaint averments.

THE BRIEF AVERMENT IN THE WRITTEN STATEMNT OF DEFENDANTS ARE:

The plaintiff has to prove that Khaza Hussain is the owner of the suit schedule property, the alleged agreement of sale dated 30.04.1979 and part payment endorsement dated 28.05.1980 are forged one. The scribe not signed on the endorsement. There are corrections in the agreement of sale, the suit is barred by law of limitation. The date of purchase of stamps and the date of agreement of sale are different. The deceased Khaza Hussain having one daughter by name

Khadar Bee, without her presence the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff has fulfilled his part of contract. The 1st defendant is already executed the registered sale deed dated 18.10.2008 in favour of the 3rd defendant for valid sale consideration and 3rd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and prays to dismiss the suit.

6. In view of the rival contentions of both the parties, the trail court settled following issues.

1. Whether the agreement of sale dated 30.04.1979 and part payment

dated 28.05.1980 are valid and binding on the defendant or not?

2. Whether the plaintiff entitled for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale as prayed for or not?

3. To What relief?

5

In support of the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff himself testified as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A8 and got examined the 3rd parties as PW.2 and 3 and closed his evidence. After closure of the plaintiffs’ evidence, the 3rd defendant examined as

DW.1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B9 and closed her evidence. On hearing the arguments, after appreciating the evidence on record, the trail court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved with the decree and judgment of the trail court, the plaintiff preferred present appeal contending inter- alia that the decree and judgment of the trail court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The trail court not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence leads by the plaintiff. The trail court erroneously came to conclusion that the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff prove the execution of the Ex.A1 by examining the scribe and the attestors. The defendant also admitted the execution of Ex.A1, the trial court answered the Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court not followed the law with regarding to the right of the plaintiff. The suit ought to be decreed and prays to set aside the decree and judgment of the trial court.

7.Both parties not adduced any oral or documentary evidence at the stage of the appeal.

8. Heard the arguments.

9. In View of the submissions made by the parties, in view of the grounds of appeal, the following points arosed for consideration.

1. Whether the plaintiff entitled for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale as prayed for or not?

2. The decree and judgment of the trail court warrants any interference by way of this appeal or not?

6

3. To What Relief?

POINT NO.1:

It is the case of the plaintiff that 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant are the children of Khaza Hussain. The Khaza Hussain offered to sell the schedule property @ Rs.38 per cent. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the same and paid the advanced sale consideration of Rs.3,000/- on 30.04.1979. Both parties entered into agreement of sale. As per the terms of agreement of sale, the plaintiff has to pay the balance of sale consideration with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum

before the UGADI Festival. This defendant has to execute the registered sale deed

with the expenses of plaintiff. It is further agreed that the defendant has to measure the schedule land and receive the money to the actual extent available on the ground. With the above terms, both the plaintiff and the Khaza Hussain entered into an agreement of sale, accordingly the plaintiff paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,638/- on 28.05.1980. Thereafter, the Khaza Hussain postponed the execution of registered sale deed and died intestate leaving behind the D1 and D2.

After the death of Khaza Hussain, the plaintiff demanded the D1 and D2 for execution of registered sale deed, but they postponed the same. When the plaintiff issued legal notice, the defendants filed civil suit in OS No.113/2009 for permanent injunction. After receipt of the suit summons, the plaintiff came to know that the D1 and D2 executed sale deed in favour of the D3, it is not binding on the plaintiff, when the defendant postponed the performance of his part of contract, the plaintiff filed the suit.

11.Contrary to the contention of the plaintiff, the defendant totally denying the agreement of sale and receipt of the consideration. The defendant mainly attacked the agreement of sale and also take the defense that the agreement is time barred 7 and Khaza Hussain has daughter, without impleading the daughter of the Khaza

Hussain, the suit is not maintainable. No possession was delivered to the plaintiff under Ex.A1. The Ex.A1 document is not valid under law as it was not registered and no required stamp duty was affixed on Ex.A1. The plaintiff not filed the suit with inordinate delay of 32 years and not entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract.

12.As discussed in earlier paragraphs, in view of the rival contentions of both the parties, the trial court settled the issues that Whether the agreement of sale dated 30.04.1979 and part payment dated 28.05.1980 are true, valid and binding on the defendant. After elaborate discussion, the trial court answered the said issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, aggrieved with the said finding the defendants not preferred any cross appeal. Therefore, the findings given by the trial court in Issue no.1 remains unchallenged. The trial court rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to conclusion that the Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding on the defendants. Now the point remains for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract as prayed for or not?

13.In view of the findings in issue no.1, the plaintiff established the fact that on receipt of the consideration Khaza Hussain executed the Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and delivered the possession. Subsequently the plaintiff paid the balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,638/- under Ex.A2 endorsement. As could be seen from the Ex.A1, the plaintiff has to be paid balance sale consideration before UGADI festival, there is no evidence that the plaintiff paid the balance of sale consideration before the day of UGADI, but the plaintiff paid the balance of sale consideration in the month of May,1980 and the Late. Khaza

Hussain received the same without any objection. Therefore, it can be safely 8 concluded that the plaintiff performed his part of contract i.e., the payment of balance of sale consideration, now it is the duty of the Late Khaza Hussain to got measure the schedule land and to execute the registered sale deed.

14.On perusal of entire evidence on record, there is no evidence that Khaza

Hussain come forward to get measure the plaint schedule land and the plaintiff not cooperated for it. The evidence of PW.1 clearly reveals that he made several demands to the Khaza Hussain, he was postponed the same on one or other ground and died intestate leaving D1 and D2 as his legal heirs. A perusal of the evidence of PW.1, it shows that the plaintiff demanded the D1 and D2 for execution of registered sale deed, but they both postponed the same, then the plaintiff issued legal notice to D1 and D2 demanding the execution of registered sale deed and both D1 and D2 received the same under the Ex.A4 and A5.

15.A perusal of Ex.A3 Legal notice dated 14.11.2008, the plaintiff demanded the defendants 1 and 2 to execute the registered sale deed by stating the facts i.e., the execution of agreement of sale by Khaza Hussain on receipt of consideration as well as delivered the possession etc. The defendant received the same under the

Ex.A4 and A5, but they both not responded and surprisingly the 3rd defendant filed the suit for permanent injunction in OS No.113/2009 on the file of Junior Civil Judge

Court, Allagadda seeking the permanent injunction claiming her possession in the suit schedule, the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution, aggrieved with the same the 3rd defendant not take steps either for restoration or for appeal.

16.The 3rd defendant examined as DW.1. As could be seen from the evidence of

DW.1, she is Khaza Hussain. In the written statement, the defendant pleaded that

One Khadar bee is the daughter of Khaza Hussain, but not referred anything about 9 the D3. A perusal of the Ex.B1 Sale deed, the same is executed by D1 only. It is an undisputed fat that the suit schedule property belongs to Khaza Hussain, Ex.B1 sale deed did not refers how the said property devolved upon the D1 and how the

D1 executed Ex.B1 sale deed dated 18.10.2008 in favour of the D3, that is prior to the receipt of legal notice from the plaintiff. In fact the D1, D2 and D3 are the children of Khaza Hussain, there is no evidence how the property was devolved on

D1 alone and he himself executed the sale deed in favour of his sister D3.

17.It is evidence of PW.1 that after the death of the Khaza Hussain, he demanded the D1 and D2 to execute the sale deed, but they have not come forward. The evidence of PW.1 further reveals that on the date of Ex.A1, Khaza

Hussain has delivered the possession to the plaintiff as the plaintiff paid the major portion of the amount. The D3 is claiming the possession by virtue of Ex.B1 sale deed and she also filed the suit for injunction, but the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. As discussed in earlier paragraphs, the D3 not take steps for restitution of said suit. The D3 not adduced any evidence to prove her possession as on the date of suit. The D3 filed the revenue records pertaining to the year 2017 i.e., subsequent to the suit. The entire case of the defendant is that late Khaza

Hussain never executed the agreement of sale and not received any consideration.

The Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are created one and the suit is barred by law of limitation.

The trial court rightly appreciated the evidence and gave findings that the plaintiff established that on receipt of the consideration Late Khaza Hussain executed

Ex.A1 agreement of sale and also delivered the possession.

18.From the evidence of PW.1, it is evident that, he demanded the Late Khaza

Hussain to execute the sale deed, but he postponed the same, he also issued legal notice to the D1 and D2, but they have not responded. The plaintiff ought to file the 10 suit within 3 years from the date of Ex.A1 sale deed Executed by D1 in favour of plaintiff. Since the D1 executed sale deed in favour of D3, it is implied that D1 denying the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the cause of action arosed to file the suit from the date of Ex.B1 dated 18.10.2008. The plaintiff filed the suit on 15.09.2011 i.e., well within time. With regarding to the other allegations raised by the defendant that the plaintiff not proved his ready and willingness in performance of his part of contract.

19. As could be seen from the Ex.A1, it was agreed that the plaintiff has to pay the balance of sale consideration before UGADI Festival, accordingly the plaintiff plaid the same. It is further agreed in the agreement of sale that the defendant has to measure the schedule land and receive the price as per the extent. There is no evidence that the defendant made endeavor to measure the schedule land.

Therefore, it is evident that the Late Khaza Hussain failed to perform his part of contract and on the other hand, the plaintiff performed his part of contract. However, there are latches on the part of the plaintiff in non-obtaining the sale deed within the reasonable time from the date of Ex.A1. But in the case on hand, the plaintiff received the possession from the vendor and he is enjoying the possession and he simply demanding the vendor to execute the registered sale deed, but the vendor postpone the same and died intestate, unfortunately his legal heirs not responded properly, when they received the legal notice, they have to issue the reply with the facts pleaded in the written statement, but D1 and D2 not issued any reply. Except attacking the Ex.A1 agreement of sale, the defendant not leads any evidence to prove that the D3 has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule as on the date of suit.

11

20. Since the trial court already hold that on receipt of consideration, Late Khaza

Hussain executed the Ex.A1 Agreement of sale and it is evident that Late Khaza

Hussain failed to perform his part of contract. Therefore, the legal heirs of the Late

Khaza Hussain has bound to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. But, Here in this case, the D1 and D2 who are the sons of Khaza Hussain executed the Ex.B1 sale deed in favour of the D3, now the property is in the hands of the D3, therefore the D3 is bound to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff with the expenses of the plaintiff. A perusal of Ex.B1 sale deed, the D3 purchased the said property for Rs.37,000/-, the said transaction took place in the year 2008 in the month of October. Since the granting the relief of specific performance of contract is an equitable relief, it is just and reasonable to compensate D3 who purchased the suit schedule land from D1 for valid consideration of Rs.37,000/-.

Therefore, the plaintiff shall pay Rs.37,000/- with subsequent interest @ 24 % per annum from the date of Ex.B1 i.e., 18.10.2008 till the date of deposit. The plaintiff has to deposit such amount before the trial court under the intimation to the D3, on such deposit D3 has to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with the expenses of the plaintiff, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deed in due process of law.

This point is answered accordingly.

POINT No.2: A perusal of the decree and judgment of the trail court, it is evident that the trail court not appreciated the evidence in proper lines and came to erroneous conclusion. The trial court not considered the material contentions. The trail court not observed that the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration and enjoying the property, the plaintiff performed his part of contract. The Late Khaza

Hussain, Later D1 and D2 not performed their part of contract. In view of the clear explanation of the plaintiff i.e., He already paid the balance sale consideration and enjoying the property and the defendant failed to measure the schedule property 12 and failed to execute the registered sale deed, thereby defendants not performed their part of contract and he is entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract. Therefore the decree and judgment of the trail court is liable to be set aside .

This Point is Answered Accordingly.

In the result, the appeal is allowed, the decree and judgment of the

trial court in OS No. 4/2012 is hereby set aside. The suit in OS No.

4/2012 is hereby decreed by directing the plaintiff to deposit the

Rs.37,000/- with subsequent interest @ 24 % per annum from the date of

Ex.B1 i.e., 18.10.2008 till the date of deposit under the intimation to D3.

on such deposit, the D3 shall execute the registered sale deed in favour

of the plaintiff with the expenses of the plaintiff. If D3 failed to execute

the sale deed the plaintiff shall get the sale deed in due process of law.

It is needless to say that, after execution of the registered sale

deed, the D3 is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the

plaintiff. In the circumstances, both parties shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 7 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- R.V.V.S. Murali Krishna

V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA.

Appendix of Evidence

Nil

Sd/- R.V.V.S. Murali Krishna

V ADJ, ALG.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLAGADDA

PRESENT : Sri R.V.V.S. Murali Krishna,

V Additional District Judge, Allagadda.

Wednesday, this 26th Day of March, 2025.

APPEAL SUIT No. 30 /2020

Between:

Barrenkula Sambaiah, S/o.Eswaraiah, Aged about 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.Bachapuram Village, H/o. G. Jambuladinne village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District. (Present Nandyal)… Appellant

Vs.

Muttaluru Rama Krishnamma, W/o. Late Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.G. Jambula Dinne village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District. Present Nandyal)… Respondent

ON APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT, ALLAGADDA

MADE IN O.S.No.87/2015, DATED 31-08-2020

Between

Barrenkula Sambaiah, S/o.Eswaraiah, Aged about 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.Bachapuram Village, H/o. G. Jambuladinne village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District. (Present Nandyal)… Plaintiff

Vs.

Muttaluru Rama Krishnamma, W/o. Late Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.G. Jambula Dinne village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District. Present Nandyal)

.. Defendant.

2

This Appeal is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.

Neelakanteswaram Advocate for Appellant and in the presence of P.

Suryanaryana Reddy, the advocate for Respondent and upon perusing the material on record, hearing the argument of appellant and having stood over for consideration till this day this court made the following :

// JUDGMENT //

This appeal is filed against the decree and judgment in OS No.87/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge court, Allagadda. The Appellant/plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and also from trespassing into the plaint schedule land and from causing any type of damage to the schedule property including the

Mango trees in the schedule land.

For the sake of convenience and for better understanding of facts, the parties to the suit will be herein after to be referred as arrayed in the pleading before the trail court.

Brief Averments in the Plaint are:

Originally the schedule property belongs to Sale Barrenkula Nagamma, she sold the said property to Eswarayya who has two sons Ramudu and Sambaiah (Who is the plaintiff herein), after the death of Eswarayya the plaintiff and his brother Ramudu succeeded the property of Eswarayya. Subsequently in the family settlement held in the year 1980, the plaint schedule property is fell to the share of the plaintiff. Since then, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without having any kind of interruption from any body. The revenue authorities also recognized his right and possession and mutated his name in the revenue records in respect of the schedule property.

3

3.While so, in view of the recent disputes with the defendant, the defendant threatening that she will interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and also dispossess the plaintiff. The defendant has no manner of right over the plaint schedule property. Recently on 10.07.2015, the defendant tried to trespass into the plaint schedule and tried to cause the damage to the plaintiff. However on the intervention of the elders, the plaintiff resisted the acts of the defendants. But he is apprehending the interference form the defendant, Hence he filed the suit.

4. After receipt of the notice, the defendant filed the written statements denying material allegations

Brief Averments in the Written statement of the defendant are.

5.The plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property, he sold away the same to the defendant’s son by name Srinivasa Reddy for Rs.6,500/- on 26.06.1959 under agreement of sale and delivered the possession, accordingly the defendant’s son Srinivasa Reddy has been in possession and enjoyment till his death, after his death the plaint schedule devolved upon the defendant. Being the true owner, she executed the registered gift deed in favour of her grand son by keeping her daughter in law as guardian. Since then the daughter in law of the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of same. The present defendant is no way concerned with the schedule land. The plaint schedule is not an exclusive property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff suppressed the true facts and filed the present suit.

6.In view of rival contentions of both the parties, the trail court settled following issues:

4

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of prohibitory permanent injunction as prayed for or not?

2. To what relief?

7.In support of the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff himself testified as PW.1, got examined 3rd parties as PW.2, got marked Ex. A1 to A3 and closed his evidence.

After closure of the plaintiff’s evidence, the defendant herself examined as DW.1, got marked Exs. B1 to B5 and closed his evidence. After appreciating the evidence and on hearing the arguments, the trail court dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved with the decree and judgment of the trail court, the plaintiff preferred present appeal contending inter alia that the decree and judgment of the trail court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The trail court not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence properly and came to an erroneous conclusion. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff is the true owner of the plaint schedule property. The defendant is claiming the right basing on the agreement of sale, the said agreement of sale was not filed by the defendant in the suit, but the trail court accepted the case of the defendant without any basis.

8.The Observation of the trail court that without adding the grand son in the suit, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties is absolutely false. The observation of the trail court, since the grand son of the defendant is minor, accordingly pattadar passbook has been issued in favour of the defendant is incorrect. The decree and judgment of the trail court is passed on assumptions and the trial court also not observed the revenue records filed by the defendant is very recent and the defendant not filed the revenue records along with the written statement and prays to set aside the decree and judgment of the trail court.

5

9.Both parties not adduced any oral or documentary evidence at the stage of appeal. Both parties filed the written arguments.

10.Heard Arguments.

11. In view of the submissions made by the appellant and in view of the grounds of appeal, the following points arosed for consideration.

1. Whether The Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for or not?

2. Whether the decree and judgment of the trail court warrants any interference by way of this appeal or not?

3. To What Relief?

POINTS NO.1 :

The Plaintiff filed the suit seeking releif of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men from interfering with the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and also from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule. The plaintiff contending that his father purchased the suit schedule under Ex.A1 registered sale deed. Soon after the death of his father the plaintiff and his brother Ramulu Succeeded the plaint schedule, thereafter, in the family settlement, the plaint schedule property is fell to the share of the plaintiff and other properties fell to the share of his brother. The revenue department also recognized his right and possession and mutated his name in the revenue records. The defendant without having any manner of right or title tried to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment. In support of the plaintiff’s contentions he himself examined as PW.1 and got examined 3rd party as PW.2 6 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the Registered sale deed, Ex.A2 is the extract of the 1B-Namuna, Ex.A3 is No.3 adangal for Phasali 1422.

12. The oral evidence of PW.1 and 2 shows that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit with symbolance of legal right. The evidence of PW.1 and 2 was not rebutted with regarding to the title. It was suggested that the plaintiff has not been in possession and defendant’s grand son has been in possession and the said suggestion was denied by the Pw.1. With regarding to the evidence of PW.2 is concerned, he categorically deposed in his evidence, Originally the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff’s father and after his death the plaintiff and his brother succeeded the same and the plaint schedule property is fell to the share of the plaintiff. The revenue authorities also mutated the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records. The plaintiff is the only person having right over the schedule land and he has been in possession and enjoyment without having any interruption.

13.In the cross examination, the PW.2 is deposed that the plaintiff is not his relative, he is the resident of Chinatakunta village. The Schedule property is situated on the outskirts of the Jammuladinne which is 5 KM away from his village.

He is cultivating the lands on lease, he does not know the name of the Rasta adjoining to the plaint schedule property, the plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.2-30 cents, he does not know the total landed properties of plaintiff. He does not know the Katha Number in the passbooks, he denied that he does not know anything about the plaint schedule property. Admittedly the PW.2 is not relative of

PW.1, he know about the fact the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property. Per contra the defendant not adduced any evidence.

7

14.The defendant not disputing the title of the plaintiff’s father over the plaint schedule property, the defendant not disputing that the plaintiff succeeded the plaint schedule property from his father and thereafter in the family settlement, the plaint schedule property allotted to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is absolute owner in respect of the plaint schedule property. The only case of the defendant is that the plaintiff sold the plaint schedule property to the defendant’s son Srinivasa

Reddy by executing an agreement of sale and also delivered the possession accordingly the defendant’s son Srinivasa Reddy become the absolute owner, after his death the defendant and her grandson succeeded the same. She executed the gift deed in favour of her grandson in respect of the plaint schedule property keeping her daughter in law as guardian, accordingly the defendant’s grandson has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since the date of the Ex.B3 gift deed dated 25.09.2010.

15.The defendant further contending that the revenue department also recognized her possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. In support of her contentions, she herself examined as DW.1 and filed Copy of 1B

Namuna, Adangal Pahani, certified copy of Gift deed, Original of digital passbook and 1B-RoR Extract. Which are marked as Ex.B1 to B5. By relying on the said documents the defendant claiming her possession over the plaint schedule property. A perusal of Ex.B1 to B5, Ex.B1 is 1B-namuna stands in the name of the defendant’s grandson, the source of title was referred as purchase. Ex.B2

Adangal Pahani reveals that defendant’s grandson is pattadar as well as he is the enjoyer of the plaint schedule property, the source of title is referred aspurchase.

Ex.B4 is e-passbook stands in the name of the defendant’s grandson which also reveals the source of title referred as purchase. Ex.B5 is copy of 1B-Namuna stands in the name of the defendant’s grandson. The Ex.B1 to B5 are one and the same, which are stands in the name of the defendant’s grandson.

8

16.As could be seen from the evidence of DW.1, initially her son purchased the schedule land from the plaintiff under agreement of sale, after his death the defendant and her grandson succeeded the same and the defendant executed the gift deed in favour of her grandson. No revenue records stnds in the name of the defendant or her son Srinivasa Reddy. The entire revenue records filed by the defendant is came into light only after the defendant executed the Ex.B3 gift deed in favour of her grandson. The Ex.B1, B2, B4 and Ex.B5 came into light basing on the Ex.B3 gift deed. Though the Ex.B3 is gift settlement deed, the source of title is referred as purchase.

17.The entire claim of the defendant is that her son Srinivasa Reddy purchased the suit schedule property from the plaintiff under agreement of sale, but the alleged agreement of sale was not filed by the defendant. It is far away from the proof and relevancy. Basing on the Ex.B3 gift deed, the revenue authorities issued Ex.B1 and B2 and B4 in favour of defendant’s grandson.

Though the defendant or her son has no title, they obtained the revenue records by executing the gift deed. Absolutely there is no basis for issuance of Ex.B1,

Ex.B2, Ex.B4 and Ex.B5 in favour of the defendant. The entire revenue records were obtained basing on Ex.B3 self-serving document of the defendant.

18.It is settled proposition of law that, “No title can be passed under agreement of sale”. In the case on hand, the defendant not filed the alleged agreement of sale said to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant’s son.

There is no evidence that the possession was delivered to the defendant’s son and after his death, the defendant succeeded the same.

9

It was held in BEENA AND OTHERS VS CHARAN DAS reported in Civil

Appeal No. 3190 of 2014: The Apex Court Held that “the title cannot be transferred without properly executed document and more importantly without a registered instrument conveying the title of disputed property.”

Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in the judgment cited supra, no title can be passed in favour of Srinivasa Reddy by virtue of alleged agreement of sale, consequently the defendant and her grandson not acquired any title over the plaint schedule property. With Regarding to possession also, the entire revenue record filed by the defendant is based on Ex.B3 gift deed. As discussed in earlier paragraphs, the defendant has no title to execute the Ex.B3 gift deed as well as there is no evidence whether the plaintiff was delivered the possession to the

Srinivasa Reddy. The defendant not leads any evidence how they came into possession of suit schedule property.

19. This is a suit for permanent injunction based on title, the plaintiff’s title was not denied by the defendant. As discussed earlier the case of the defendant is that they have title by virtue of agreement of sale, the defendant’s son acquired the title in the plaint schedule property as well as possession. As discussed earlier, no such document has been filed by the defendant to prove that the possession was delivered to the defendant’s son Srinivasa Reddy.

20.Since the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his possession as on the date of the suit. In order to prove his possession, he himself examined as PW.1 and got examined the 3rd party as PW.2. Both the PW.1 and 2 deposed that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. Further more, Ex.A3 the copy of No.3 adangal which goes to show that the plaintiff has been in 10 possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule In Phasali1422. The plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2015.

21.As discussed earlier, there is no evidence that the plaintiff was subsequently dispossessed by the defendant or by any other person. So also there is no evidence whether the plaintiff voluntarily delivered the possession to the defendant’s son Srinivasa Reddy. Therefore, by virtue of Ex.A3 No.3 Adangals and by virtue of evidence of PW.1 and 2, the plaintiff established his possession in the suit schedule property. As discussed so far, the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, the same was not legally transferred to the defendant’s son. Since the plaintiff proved his possession over the suit schedule property convincingly coupled with legal title and apprehending the interference of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property who has no legal title over the plaint schedule.

This point is answered accordingly.

POINT NO.2:

22.A perusal of the decree and judgment of the trail court, the trail court completely went on the wrong way. A perusal of the judgment, initially the trail court settled the issues as:

1) whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of prohibitory permanent injunction as prayed for or not?

2) To what relief

Thereafter the trail court re-casted the issues as

1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit or not?

11

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for or not?

3) To What Relief.

While answering the Issue No.1, the trail court perused the oral and documentary evidence, in Para No.17, it was referred that the defendant herself is the guardian to the minor grandson, but in fact the defendant’s daughter in law is the guardian, the names of both defendant and her daughter in law is Rama

Lakshmamma. In para No.17 the trail court observed that when the defendant filed the Ex.B1 to B5 to establish her possession over the plaint schedule property, the version of the plaintiff is that he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment is cannot be believed.

23.The plaintiff failed to prove the possession by filling the positive documents.

Where as the defendant filed the Ex.B1 to B5 to show the possession of defendant’s grandson. But the trail court totally erred in appreciating the Ex.B1 to

B5. In para No.19, the trail court observed that this court not deciding the title of the plaintiff or defendant. Since it is suit for the permanent injunction, when the title of the parties is in dispute, the plaintiff ought to file the suit for declaration of title. But here in this case, the title of the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant, she make a claim of the title basing on the agreement of sale and no such document has been filed. All the record filed by the defendant is based on Ex.B3 gift deed. In para no. 20 also the trail court not explained why the trail court not believe the Ex.

A3 No.3 adangals and the trail court specifically referred that the defendant filed the Ex.B1 to B5 in support of possession of her grand child. The version of the defendant is that the plaintiff himself executed agreement of sale and delivered the possession. No record is filed to show the agreement of sale. However the possession of the defendant is clear from the document filed by her. Without 12 observing the validity of the documents Ex.B1 to B5, the trail court gave erroneous findings which are liable to be set aside.

This point is Answered Accordingly

To What Relief : In view of the findings in point no. 1 and 2, the decree and judgment of the trail court in OS No. 87/2015 is liable to be set aside and the appeal is required to be allowed and OS No.87/2015 is liable to be decreed.

In the result, this appeal is allowed with costs by setting aside the

decree and judgment of the trail court in OS No. 87/2015 on the file of Senior

Civil Judge Court, Allagadda and OS No. 87/2015 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge Court, Allagadda is hereby decreed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 26 th Day of March, 2025.

Sd/- R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA.

Appendix of Evidence

Nil

Sd/- R.V.V.S. Murali Krishna

V ADJ, ALG.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLAGADDA

PRESENT : SRI R.V.V.S. MURALI KRISHNA,

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

Friday, The 11 th DAY OF APRIL, 2025.

O.S.NO. 01 /2023

Between:

1. Yekkala Rama Chadraiah, S/o. Anjaneya Sreshti, Hindu, Aged about 71 years, Cultivation,

2. Yekkala Indiramma, W/o. Rama Chandraiah, Hindu, Aged bout 61 years, House Wife,

3. Kona Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Rama Chandra Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Hindu, Cultivation

4.Kona Chndrakala, W/o. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Aged about 46 years, House Wife, All are residents of Cheemalavagupalle village, Pedda Pappuru Mandal, Ananthapuram District.… PLAINTIFFS

Vs.

1. Karnati Venkata Subrahmanyam, S/o.K.V.Radhakrishna Murthy (Died rep. By legal heir) K.V. Radha Krishnamurthy, S/o.Venkata Sriramulu, Hindu, aged about 65 years, Business, R/o.P.R.Road, Koilakuntla, Nandyal District.… DEFENDANT This Suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri B. Siva Prasada Rao, the Advocate for Plaintiffs, and the Defendant was set ex-parte; and upon perusing the material on record, hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day this court made the following :

2

// JUDGMENT //

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money basing on the mortgage.

2. The averments in the plaint in brief are:-

On 17.12.2020, One K.Venkata Subramanyam borrowed a sum of

Rs.40,00,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum. Towards security, he mortgaged the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and executed the registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff and the time for redemption is 3 years. Thereafter, in spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the amount and died intestate leaving the defendant as his sole legal heir. After death of the original borrower, the plaintiff demanded the defendant for repayment, but he did not made any repayment, accordingly the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 10.10.2022 demanding the repayment, but the defendant not responded. Hence this suit.

3.After receipt of the suit summons, the defendant filed written statement.

Brief Averments in the Written Statement are:

The deceased K.V. Subramanyam run a School in the name of Life Energy

School At Koilakuntla along with his wife Rohini. He invested huge amount in establishing the school and incurred debts from 3rd parties. The plaintiff is money lender and used to lend the amounts with abnormal rate of interest. Due to

Covid-19 the said school could not functioned, accordingly the school did not receive any fee in the year 2020 – 21, as scuh the defendant son contracted debts from various creditors, the creditors of K.V. Subramanyam pressurized him for repayments. In view of abnormal pressure the defendant’s son and his wife committed suicide. The police also registered the case, this defendant has no 3 knowledge about the alleged execution of the mortgage by his son, the alleged mortgage has not genuine one. The defendant is not in a possession to enjoy the deceased estate, as such the defendant not liable to pay the suit amount and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.In View of rival contentions of the both the parties, the following issues are settled for trail.

1 Whether the mortgage deed dated 17.12.2020 is true, valid and

binding on the defendant as prayed for or not?

2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount or not?

3 To What relief?

In support of the plaintiff’s case, the 1st plaintiff himself testified as

PW.1, got examined the scribe as PW.2 and got marked Ex. A1 to A4 and closed his evidence, after closure of the plaintiff’s evidence, the defendant not adduced any evidence and set-exparte.

5.Heard the arguments.

Issue No.1:

Whether the mortgage deed dated 17.12.2020 is true, valid and

binding on the defendant as prayed for or not?

4

6.It is the case of the plaintiff that On 17.12.2020, the Defendant’s son

K. Venkata Subramanyam borrowed a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum.

Towards security, he mortgaged the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and executed the registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff and fix the time for redemption is 3 years. Thereafter, in spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the amount and died intestate leaving the defendant as his sole legal heir. After death of the original borrower, the plaintiff demanded the defendant for repayment, but he did not made any repayment, accordingly the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 10.10.2022 demanding the repayment, but the defendant not responded.

7.Since the plaintiff averred and contending that on receipt of Rs.40,00,000/- consideration, the son of the defendant executed the Ex.A1 registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiffs agreeing to repay the same with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of mortgage deed and the time for redemption is Three Years. Whereas the defendant denying the genuineness of the Ex.A1 Mortgage deed, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the Ex.A1 mortgage deed.

8.In order to discharge his initial burden the plaintiff himself testified as

PW.1, he reiterated the plaint averments in his chief examination affidavit. In support of his oral evidence, he filed the Ex.A1 registered mortgage deed, Ex.A2 legal notice, Ex.A3 Postal acknowledge and Ex.A4 the certified copy of the registered gift deed stands in the name of the original borrower. The oral evidence of PW.1 is also corroborated with the evidence of PW.2 who is the scribe of the mortgage deed. His Evidence reveals that the deceased K. Venkata 5

Subramanyam is the owner of the Mortgage Schedule property, he acquired the said property through Ex.A4 registered gift deed. Due to his financial crisis he borrowed a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with subsequent interest @ 24 % per annum, mortgaged the plaint schedule property towards security and executed registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiffs, the said mortgage deed was scribed by the PW.2. The wife of the deceased by name Rohini and 3rd party K. Parameswarar Reddy were attested the mortgage deed. The defendant set ex-parte, accordingly the evidence of

PW.1 and PW.2 was not rebutted as there is no cross-examination.

9.The Oral evidence of PW.1 and 2 goes to show that originally the son of the defendant K. Subramanyam is the owner of the mortgage schedule property.

Due to financial crisis, he borrowed Rs.40,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiffs agreeing to repay the same with subsequent interest @ 24 % per annum. In spite of repeated demands, the said borrower not paid amount and died intestate leaving the defendant as his legal heir and the defendant also not repaid the mortgage debt, the time for redemption was also expired, Hence prays to fore-close the mortgage debt and sell the schedule property for realization of mortgage debt.

10.Though the defendant was set ex-parte, that itself is not a ground to pass the decree in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has to prove his case independently on his own legs, he shall not depend upon the weakness of the defendant’s case.

11.The oral evidence of PW.1 goes to show that on receipt of Rs.40,00,000/- cash, the son of the defendant executed Ex.A1 Mortgage deed and agreed the 6 repay the same. The defendant in the written statement denying the genuineness of the Ex.A1 mortgage deed. Therefore, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the mortgage deed.

It is a settled proposition of law that. Under Section 59 of the Transfer of property Act, the Mortgage Deed is compulsory attestable document. Sec. 68 of the Indian Evidence act prescribes the mode of proof, how the compulsory attestable document shall be proved.

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act Describes:

If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence;

Provided that it shall be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.

In the case on hand, the defendant denied the genuineness of the Ex.A1.

Therefore, the plaintiff has to prove the Ex.A1 in accordance with the provisions under section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the case on hand, It is evident from the Ex.A1, the mortgage deed is attested by one Parameswara Reddy and

K. Revathi. Though the defendant pleaded from the written statement that his daughter-in-law committed suicide, there is no evidence why the plaintiff not examined another attestor to prove the execution of the mortgage deed.

7

12.Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act Provides the Procedure to prove the document, in case non-availability of attesting witnesses.

Section 69 of Indian Evidence Act Reads:

If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the documents is in the handwriting of that person.

In the case on hand, The plaintiff did not choose to examine the attestors of the Ex.A1. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the Ex.A1 in accordance with the Provision engrafted under section 68 of Indian Evidence

Act. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the Ex.A1 mortgage deed and it is not binding on the defendant.

This Issue is Answered Accordingly.

ISSUE NO.2:

Whether The Plaintiff Is Entitled For The Recovery of suit amount

As Prayed For Or Not?

The plaintiff filed the suit for fore-closure of the mortgage debt basing on the Ex.A1 mortgage deed and failed to prove the execution of mortgage deed, therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for the recovery of the suit amount from the defendant basing on the Ex.A1 mortgage deed.

This issue is answered Accordingly.

8

In view of the findings in the issues no 1 to 2, this suit liable to be dismissed.

In the result, this suit is dismissed. In the circumstances both parties shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- R.V.V.S. Murali Krishna

V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined on behalf of the Plaintiff : Defendant: Set Ex-Parte

PW.1: Yekkala Ramachandraiah PW.2: B. Siva Rama Pullaiah Exhibits Marked on Behalf of the Plaintiff: Ex. A1: Registered mortgage deed dated 17.12.2020 executed by One Venkata Subramanyam Ex. A2: Office Copy of the Legal notice dated 10.10.2022 Ex. A3: Postal Receipt Ex. A4: Certified Copy of Registered Gift Deed.

Sd/- R.V.V.S. Murali Krishna

V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ::

KURNOOL AT ALLAGADDA.

Present:- Sri R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna V-Additional Sessions Judge, Allagadda.

Wednesday, this the 19th Day of March, 2025.

CNR: APKU180002812024 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 100 / 2024.

From what Court the appealJudl. Magistrate of II Class Court, Allagadda is preferred Number of case in that CourtS.T.C.No.867/2024 Number of the AppealCriminal Appeal No.100/2021 Dudekula Naga Bramham, S/o.Balaraju, Aged Name and description of theabout 29 years, R/o.Injedu Village, Uyyalawada AppellantMandal, Nandyal District.

2. Dudekula Dastagiri, S/o.Nandyal Dastagiri, Aged about 47 years, R/o.Kondumopalle Village, Uyyalawada Mandal, Nandyal District.

3. Desham Sudhakar Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy, Aged about 40 years, R/o.Gunthanala Village, Uyyalawada Mandal, Nandyal District.

4. Kota Sekhar, S/o.Rajaratnam, Aged about 39 years, R/o. Sarvaipalle Village, Uyyalawada Mandal, Nandyal District.

5. Ineni Nagapuroshotham, S/o. Venkata Narayana, Aged about 26 years, R/o.Muthaluru Village, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal District.

6. Vadabingi Sudhakar, S/o.Prasad, aged about 35 years, H.No.30-494A, Bogguline, Nandyal Town and District.

7. Vadabingi Harikrishna, S/o.Balaji, Aged about 27 years, H.No.30-392, Bogguline, Nandyal.

2

8. Shaik Younus, S/o.Vali, Aged about 32 years, H.No.27/177A, Mulasagaram, Nandyal Town

9. Chakali Anil Kumar, S/o.Subbanna, Aged about 30 years, Chagalamarri Town and Mandal, Nandyal District.

All the accused shall be sentenced to undergo Thesentenceand law Simple Imprisonment for a period of two weeks under which it was imposed and they are sentenced to pay a fine fo rs.500/- in the lower Court each and in default of the payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three days for the offence u/s.194(2) of BNS. Further the accused shall sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of Two Weeks and they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each in default of payment of fine, A1 to A9 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three days for the offence punishable u/s. 9(1) of A.P. Gaming Act, both sentences shall run concurrently.

Whether confirmed, modified or reversed; and if modified MODIFIED the modification Date of Presentation 27.12.2024 Date of Filing28.12.2024 Date of Notice issued by12.02.2025 Court to appear Date of hearing12.03.2025 Date of Judgment 19.03.2025

Sd/- R.V.V.S. Murali Krishna

V-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KURNOOL AT ALLAGADDA.

3

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ::

KURNOOL AT ALLAGADDA.

Present:- Sri R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V-Additional Sessions Judge, Allagadda.

Wednesday, On that 19 th Day of March, 2025.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 100 / 2024.

Between:

1.Dudekula Naga Bramham, S/o.Balaraju, Aged about 29 years, R/o.Injedu Village, Uyyalawada Mandal, Nandyal District.

2.Dudekula Dastagiri, S/o.Nandyal Dastagiri, Aged about 47 years, R/o.Kondumopalle Village, Uyyalawada Mandal, Nandyal District.

3.Desham Sudhakar Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy, Aged about 40 years, R/o.Gunthanala Village, Uyyalawada Mandal, Nandyal District.

4. Kota Sekhar, S/o.Rajaratnam, Aged about 39 years, R/o. Sarvaipalle Village, Uyyalawada Mandal, Nandyal District.

5.Ineni Nagapuroshotham, S/o. Venkata Narayana, Aged about 26 years, R/o.Muthaluru Village, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal District.

6.Vadabingi Sudhakar, S/o.Prasad, aged about 35 years, H.No.30-494A, Bogguline, Nandyal Town and District.

7.Vadabingi Harikrishna, S/o.Balaji, Aged about 27 years, H.No.30-392, Bogguline, Nandyal.

8.Shaik Younus, S/o.Vali, Aged about 32 years, H.No.27/177A, Mulasagaram, Nandyal Town

9. Chakali Anil Kumar, S/o.Subbanna, Aged about 30 years, Chagalamarri Town and Mandal, Nandyal District. .Appellant/Accused.

4

v/s.

1. Station House Officer,

Chagalamarri Police Station.....Respondents/Complainant

This appeal coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.

Surya Narayana Reddy Advocate for the appellant/ Accused and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant, upon hearing

the arguments on both sides, having perused the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This Criminal Appeal filed against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in S.T.C.No.867/2024 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of 2nd Class Court, Allagadda.

The story of the proesecution which leads to file the Charge is:

The SHO, chagalamarri filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging that the they commit offence punishable u/s. 9(1) of AP Gaming Act and Section 194(2) of BNS. The Accused A1 is the resident of Injedu Village,

A2 is the resident of Kondapalli village, A3 and A4 are the residents of the

Guntanala Village, A5 is the resident of Muttaluru Village, A6 to A8 are the residents of Nandyal and the accused A9 is the resident of Chagalamarri village. On 20.12.2024, at about 11 AM, the ASI Chagalamarri along with staff rided over on Basavanna Katta and found the accused A1 to A9 gathering intentionally for paying the gambling (Andhar-Bahar) by betting money and during the course of ride, they found that A1 to A5 are formed as A- group, the remaining A6 to A9 formed the B-Group and quarreling with each other over 5 sharing the betting amount by shouting and beating with hands and legs and caused disturbance to public tranquility and peace. Then the police arrested the accused and seized the 52 cards and Rs.91,400 cash from their possession and registered the case and investigated into. Later the SI of

Police filed the charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file u/s.9(1) of AP Gaming Act and Section 194(2) of BNS Act against the Accused A1 to A9.

4.On receipt of summons, the accused appeared before the trial Court, they read over the prosecution case and explained them in Telugu and they were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C the accused pleaded guilty, accordingly the trail court accepted the plea and recorded the conviction and awarded the sentence that all the accused shall be sentenced to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of two weeks and they are sentenced to pay a fine fo rs.500/- each and in default of the payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three days for the offence u/s.194(2) of BNS. Further the accused shall sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of Two Weeks and they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each in default of payment of fine, A1 to A9 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three days for the offence punishable u/s. 9(1) of

A.P. Gaming Act, both sentences shall run concurrently.

5.Aggrieved with the conviction and sentence passed by the trail, the accused preferred present appeal contending inter-alia that the judgment passed by the trail court is against the established principles of law. The trail court not exercised its discretion judiciously in awarding the sentence. The 6 appellants are the sole bread winners of their respective families, if they are kept in prison, the family members will be suffered. The family members of some of the appellants are suffering with ill-health and prays to reduce the quantum of sentence. Hence this appeal.

6.Both parties not adduced any oral or documentary evidence at the stage of appeal.

7.Heard the arguments.

Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether it is required to reduce the quantum of sentence as prayed for or not?

2.To What Relief?

Point NO.1:

8.The counsel for the appellants argued that the perusal of the charge sheet, it did not reveals that the accused are playing gambling, so also the charge sheet is silent from which place the cash and 52 playing cards were seized. The charge sheet simply reveals that A-Group and B-Group are quarreling with each other over sharing of amount by beating with hands and legs and causing disturbance to public peace and tranquility and also seized the playing cards and cash. The charge sheet is silent who seized the cash and playing cards and where it was seized. The trial court without applying mind, only basing on the admission of the appellants recorded the conviction.

9. It is true that the appellants admitted the guilt as they informed by the court constable that the court will award simple fine and they can get rid of 7 court proceedings, accordingly, due to innocence, they admitted the guilt and further more they have no such financial capacity to engage the advocate and to contest the case. Accordingly they admitted the guilt. The appellants not questioning the conviction, the appellants only prays to reduce the quantum of sentence, in view of the family conditions of the appellants and as all the appellants are laborers and they are sole bread winners of their respective families.

10.Per contra, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that most of the accused are previously involved in gaming act cases, but there is no change to that effect. The police seized the huge cash at the place of offence, the appellants not claiming cash. In view of the huge cash and in view of the previous crime history of the accused, the court awarded the sentence which is quite sufficient.

11.A perusal of the judgment of the trail court, the trial court satisfied with the plea of the appellant and recorded the conviction. Considering the nature, manner of the offence as well as the plea of the accused and crime history of the accused, the trail court awarded the sentence. Though there are latches on the part of the investigating agency for non mentioning the material fact that where the property was seized and from whom that property was seized.

Since the appellants admitted and pleaded the guilty, the trail court recorded conviction. Now the only grievance of the appellants herein is with regarding to the quantum of sentence. The appellants contending that they were aleredy paid the fine amount and undergone sentence for imprisonment for a period of 6 days. Considering the nature of offence and status of the parties i.e., all are the laboureres and bread winner of thier respective families and they are 8 already paid the fine amount and undergone sentence for a period of 6 days, I felt it is just and necessary to modify the sentence of imprisonment to the extent the appellants already undergone, accordingly the sentence is modified to the extent already undergone. The rest of the sentence i.e., awarding the fine amount for both the offences i.e., Section 9(1) of Gaming act and

Sec.194(2) of the BNS Act is shall stands good.

This point is Answered accordingly.

In the result, this appeal is Allowed, confirmed the conviction and

modified the sentence of imprisonment alone to the extent of the

sentence already undergone by the appellants. The rest of the sentence

is hereby confirmed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th Day of March, 2025.

Sd/- R.V.V.S. Murali Krishna

V-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KURNOOL AT ALLAGADDA.

Copy to the Learned II Class Judicial Magistrate Court, Allagadda.

//TRUE COPY//

Superintendent

V Additional District Judge

Allagadda