Ms. Revathi Baidipati

OS/200/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE I – ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUSNABAD

Present : Smt. B. REVATHI Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad. FAC I – Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad.

Dated this the 28 th day of November, 2025.

O.S.No. 200 of 2014

Between : Khata Anand S/o Balaiah, Age:40 years, Occ: Business, r/o Husnabad village and Mandal, proper Karimnagar District.

....Plaintiff

AND

1. Pandilla Gopala Krishnamurthy S/o Raghupathi, Age:52 years, Occ: Publicity Assistant, O/o Divisional public relation office, Peddapally village and Mandal, Karimnagar District.

2. Mittapelly Sudharshan S/o Yellaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Narayanapoor village of Koheda Mandal, Karimnagar District (Now Siddipet District).

3. Surike Sammaiah S/o Mallaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Nagaram village of Husnabad Mandal, Karimnagar District (Now Siddipet District).

4. Gaddi Kavitha W/o Komuraiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Nagaram village of Husnabad Mandal, Karimnagar District (Now Siddipet District).

5. Thokala Ravinder S/o Venkataiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: RMP doctor, R/o Nagaram village of Husnabad Mandal, Karimnagar District (Now Siddipet District).

6. Salla Rajaiah S/o Venkataiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Madadha village of Husnabad Mandal, Karimnagar District (Now Siddipet District).

7. Challa Kanakavva W/o late Rajaiah, Age: 74 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Bantupally H/o Madadha village of Husnabad Mandal, Siddipet District.

8. Challa Venkateshwarlu S/o late Rajaiah, Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Bantupally H/o. Madadha village of Husnabad Mandal, Siddipet District.

1 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/200/2014

9. Challa Ashok S/o late Rajaiah, Age:40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Bantupally H/o Madadha village of Husnabad Mandal, Siddipet District.

10. Gunda Swarupa W/o Komuraiah, Age:36 years, Occ: House wife, R/o Mulkanoor village of Chigurumamidi Mandal, Karimnagar District.

…Defendants This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A. Balakishan, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. Ch. Hanmaiah for D2 and D6 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following :

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

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

The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property i.e. land in Sy.No.1217/A and 1218/B a compact plot to an extent of 968 Sq. yards, situated at Nagaram road, Husnabad village and the same was purchased from

Pandilla Ramuloo to an extent of 484 Sq. yards each out of Sy.Nos.1217/A and 1218/B through two registered sale deeds vide doc. No. 3411/2009, dated 09.12.2009 and doc. no.333/2010 dated 06.02.2010 (rectification deed vide doc.no.1857/2011,

dated 14.06.2011). Since the date of purchase he is peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the same. The defendants who are no way concerned with the suit schedule property and they are trying to interfered with the peaceful possession over the suit schedule property without having any right over the suit schedule property.

On 24-05-2011 and on subsequent dates, the defendants along with some anti social elements attempted to take possession and tried to dispossess the plaintiff, but the plaintiff resisted and prevented them with the help of his well wishers. Hence this suit.

2 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/200/2014

2.The defendant 2 & 6 filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that the defendant no.2 purchased house plot in Sy.No.1217 to an extent of 242 Sq.yards through reg. Sale deed vide doc. no. 415/2002, dated 21.03.2002 from his vendor Savula Chandramma and the said vendor purchased from defendant no.1 through reg. Sale deed vide doc. no.582/1997 dated 31.03.1997 and also obtained permission to construct compound wall from the G.P., Husnabad on 07.06.1997, but due to her legal necessities she sold the same to defendant no.2 without constructing the compound wall. That after purchasing, defendant no.2 applied for permission and to dig borewell and obtained electricity service connection and also constructed house in the suit schedule land, since then defendant no.2 is in possession and enjoying the same. The defendant no.6 purchased house plot in Sy.No.23 to an extent of 242 Sq. yards through reg. Sale deed vide doc.

no.1369/2002, dated 30.10.2002 from his vendor Jala Jyothi Kumar and the said vendor’s vendor Chevula Shivaiah purchased the same from defendant no.1 through reg. Sale deed vide doc. no. 581/1997 dated 23.04.1997 and that defendant no.6 obtained permission to construct compound wall from the G.P. on 05.12.2009 vide file no. A2/913/2009 and it was renewed on 05.12.2010. That after renewal defendant no.6 constructed compound wall within the prescribed time and is in possession of the same without any disturbance.

3.It is further submitted that, the plaintiff and his vendor have created documents only to cause loss and to grab the suit schedule land from the physical possession of the defendants suppressing all the facts by misguiding the court due to 3 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/200/2014 hike of land rates and real estate boom and he is not in possession over the suit schedule property, but on the contrary defendant no.2 and 6 are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. Therefore prayed the court to dismiss the plaint.

4.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property at the time of filing of the suit ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief as prayed for ?

4. To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial, on the side of plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 are examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 are marked. On the side of defendants, DW1 to DW3 are examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B21 are marked. During dependency of the suit, the sole plaintiff and defendant no.6 died and their LRs were brought on record.

6.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material placed on record.

7.Issue No.1 :

Though an issue was framed as to whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, this court is not required to adjudicate ownership in a suit for perpetual injunction and deciding ownership in the present suit would amount to granting a declaration without seeking such relief.

8.Issue Nos.2 & 3 :

4 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/200/2014 In view of the rival contentions, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit. It is settled law that the plaintiff has to stand or fall on the evidence letin by him and that he cannot take advantage of the weakness in the case of the defendants, if any. In this regard, as stated above, on the side of plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 are examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 are marked.

9.As stated above, the plaintiff filed chief examination affidavit as PW1 and deposed that he is the absolute owner and possessor of a compact plot admeasuring 968 Sq. yards in Sy.Nos.1217/A and 1218/B, 484 Sq. yards each, having purchased from Pandilla Ramulu through two registered sale deeds vide document bearing number 3411/2009, dated 09.02.2009 and document bearing number 333/2010 dated 06.02.2010 and rectification deed number 1857/2011 dated 14.06.2011. PW1 further deposed that he is in possession of the same and that defendants are trying to interfere with his possession.

10.To substantiate his case, the plaintiff got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A14. Ex. A1 is the registered sale deed vide document number 3411/2009 dated 09.12.2009 executed by Pandilla Ramulu in favour of plaintiff to an extent of 484 Sq. yards in

Sy.No.1217/A and 1217/B. Ex.A2 is registered sale deed vide document number 333/2010 dated 06.02.2010 executed by Pandilla Ramulu in favour of plaintiff to an extent of 484 Sq. yards in Sy.No.1217/A and 1218/B. Ex.A3 is rectification deed of

Ex.A2 vide document number 1857/2011 dated 14.06.2011. Ex. A4 to Ex.A14 are the certified copies of pahani from the years 1999-2002 to 2007-2008, which show 5 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/200/2014 that plaintiff vendor’s father, Pandilla Kishtaiah is the pattadar of the suit lands.

Ex.A14 is the attested copy of land surveyor Panchanama along with map wherein

Panchanama was done fixing the boundaries to survey numbers 1217 and 1218.

11.During cross examination, PW1 stated that he purchased the suit land under two different documents and further stated that he has not filed simple sale deed based on which he got the land registered. PW1 further stated that he purchased the suit land from Pandilla Ramulu and after inquiry it was revealed that his vendor got the suit land from his father during partition with his father and brothers. PW1 further admitted that along with father of his vendor, his brother Pandilla Raghupathi also has a share in the suit survey numbers and Pandilla Raghupati has one son and his name is Gopal Krishnamurthy, who is defendant no.1. PW1 further admitted that defendant no.2 and defendant no.6 have purchased house plots from defendant no.1 and further stated that they have not purchased the plots in suit survey number, but in survey number 23, which is abutting to the suit land towards western side. PW1 further admitted that Savula Chandramma had purchased the land to an extent of 242

Sq. yards prior to his purchase and further stated that Savula Chandramma had purchased in different survey number and that defendant no.6 had purchased 242 Sq.

yards from Jala Jyothi Kumar in survey number 23. PW1 further stated that he does not know how much land fell to the share of his vendor and defendant no.1 in the suit survey number. He further stated that he has not paid any tax as the authorities have refused to collect the same stating that civil suit is pending.

12.PW2, Pandilla Ramulu filed chief examination affidavit and deposed on 6 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/200/2014 similar lines as PW1. During cross-examination, PW2 stated that defendant no.1 is his paternal uncle’s son and that his father and his paternal uncle have got equal share in the properties of his grandfather. PW2 further stated that no agreement was entered to show the partition of properties between his father and paternal uncle and further stated that PW2 along with his brothers have partitioned the properties of his father and he got land in Sy.No.1217 to an extent of Ac.00.18 gts and in Sy.No.1218 to an extent of Ac.00.28 gts towards his share. PW2 further stated that he sold

Ac.0.08 gts of land from Sy.No.1217 and 1218 to the plaintiff and that no agreement was entered between his brothers to show that the entire land in Sy.No.1217 and 1218 was given to him. He further stated that his father had given these properties to him on a simple document.

13.PW3, Boini Yellaiah examined himself as PW3 and filed chief examination affidavit stating that he is one of the witnesses to the Panchanama under Ex.A14 conducted by the Mandal Surveyor. During cross-examination, PW3 stated that plaintiff got land from Pandilla Ramulu and the said Ramulu is the brother of defendant no.1. PW3 further stated that he knows that the land fell to the share of plaintiff.

14.After closure of the evidence on the side of the plaintiff, DW1 to DW3 are examined and in the evidence of DW1, Ex.B1 to Ex.B13 are marked and Ex.B14 to

Ex.B21 are marked in the evidence of DW2. Defendant no.2 examined himself as

DW1 and filed chief examination affidavit and deposed that plaintiff is claiming that he purchased the house plot by showing the house plot of defendant no.2 and 7 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/200/2014 defendant no.6, which was purchased by them through registered sale deed vide document number 415/2002, dated 21.03.2002 to an extent of 242 Sq. yards in

Sy.No.1217 from his vendor Savula Chandramma under Ex.B1, who inturn had purchased the same from defendant no.1 through registered sale deed vide document number 582/1997 dated 31.03.1997. DW1 further deposed that he has constructed a house after obtaining permission from Grampanchayath and electricity connection was also sanctioned and municipal authorities have assisted and allotted house number 16–101/2/A/1. DW1 further deposed that plaintiff was never in possession and that DW1 and defendant no6 are in possession till today by constructing houses.

15.During cross examination, DW1 stated that he purchased Ac.00-02 of land in

Sy.No.1215 from Savula Chandramma in the year 2002 and the said Savula

Chandramma had purchased the land from defendant no.1. He further stated that he does not know the mode of purchase of land by his vendor from defendant no.1.

DW1 further stated that he does not know the extent of land possessed by defendant no.1 and further stated that he raised compound wall in the year 2003 around his land on permission obtained by his vendor from Gram Panchayat authorities.

16.Defendant no.9 filed chief examination affidavit as DW2 and deposed that his father late Challa Rajaiah, who is defendant no.6 had purchased residential plot in

Sy.No.23 to an extent of 242 Sq. yards from Jala Jyothi Kumar through registered sale deed vide document number 1369/2002 dated 30.10.2002 under Ex.B2, who inturn had purchased the same from his vendor Chevula Shivaiah vide document number 86/1998 dated 24.01.1998 under Ex.B3. DW2 further deposed that the said 8 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/200/2014 vendor of defendant no.6 had purchased the same from defendant no.1 vide sale deed number 581/1997 dated 23.04.1997 under Ex.B4 and after purchase of land, defendant no.6 constructed compound wall by obtaining permission from Gram

Panchayat under Ex.B5 and H.No.16–101/2/A/1/2 was allotted. During cross- examination, DW2 stated that he does not know the suit schedule property and its survey number and that his father has land admeasuring 242 Sq. yards in Sy.No.23.

DW2 further stated that defendant no.6 raised construction in Sy.No.23 in the year 2009 after obtaining permission and electricity connection was also obtained by him.

17.Jala Jyothi Kumar, vendor of D6 filed his chief examination affidavit as DW3 and deposed on similar lines of DW3. During cross examination, DW3 stated that

Chevula Shivaiah purchased 2 guntas of land from D1 and that he does not know the year in which he purchased the said land. DW3 further stated that he sold his land to defendant no.6 in the year 2002.

18.On perusal of the pleadings and material available on record, plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, by virtue of registered sale deeds under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. However, defendant nos. 2 and 6 deny plaintiff’s title and possession and assert title by virtue of Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. Since the plaintiff is seeking the equitable relief of injunction, it is settled law that possession of the plaintiff as on the date of filing the suit is a crucial aspect and the said aspect must be established by the plaintiff. In an attempt to prove his possession, the plaintiff produced Ex.A4 to Ex.A13 i.e. certified copies of pahanies from 1999- 2008, which reflect the name of Pandilla Kistaiah, who is the father of plaintiff’s 9 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/200/2014 vendor as pattadar in respect of the suit schedule property.

19.According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property is a vacant house plot, whereas the defendants contend that they purchased vacant house plot under Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 and after obtaining permission from Gram Panchayat under Ex.B5, they have constructed house and house numbers were allotted. Further, defendants have produced Ex.B6 to Ex.B19 comprising electricity bills, payment receipts and property tax bills and receipts, which serve as prima face evidence of possession of defendant no.2 and 6 over the suit property subsequent to filing of the suit. The physical structures as depicted in photographs under Ex.B13 and Ex.B20 strongly indicate possession. When the defendants produced documentary evidence which indicate some semblance of possession, the burden is more predominant on the plaintiff to establish his possession over the suit schedule property.

20.In the instant case, the plaintiff has produced Ex.A4 to Ex.A13 to prove his possession. If it is an agricultural land, then the extracts of pahanies and other revenue or village records will prove the possession. But the property is a vacant house plot, as stated by the plaintiff. In such a case, the principle is “possession follows title”. This is what is laid down by the Hon ’ ble High Court in G. Yadamma

V/s. G. Suryanarayana 2008 3 ALT 217 and also by the Hon ’ ble Apex court in

Anantula Sudhakar V/s. P. Buchi Reddy dead by LRs 2008(4)SCC 594.

21.Thus, having regard to the said ruling, although the present suit is one for bare injunction, in order to acertain the factum of the possession, the court has to go into 10 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/200/2014 the question of title. Admittedly, the plaintiff’s entire claim rests on registered sale deeds under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 executed in the years 2009 to 2011, having purchased the same from its original owner, Pandilla Ramulu. During oral evidence, it was elicited that PW2/Pandilla Ra200 of 2014mulu had acquired the suit schedule property from his father and brothers through partition and PW2 stated that his father had given these properties to him on a simple document and on the basis of it, his name was mutated.

22.On the other hand, defendant no.2 and 6 are tracing their title by virtue of registered sale deeds under Ex.B1 which shows flow of title from defendant no.1 from 1997, which are prior in point of time when compared to the title document of plaintiff. Thus, the vendors of defendant no.2 and 6 being the prior purchasers, it cannot be said that a valid title was conveyed in favour of the plaintiff.

23.Be that as it may, in the instant case, the plaintiff’s title is seriously disputed by the defendants. When the defendants have taken a specific plea that the plaintiff is claiming title in respect of the house plot by showing the house plot of defendant no.2 and 6 and further the defendant had produced multiple electricity bills, property tax receipts to prove their continuous possession, the burden is more heavy on the plaintiff to establish that the plaintiff vendor has valid title over the suit schedule property and the plots purchased by the plaintiff in survey numbers 1217/A and 1218/B are part and parcel of the share of land allotted to his vendor/PW2 and that the title of the suit schedule property was validly conveyed to him by his vendor.

11 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/200/2014

24.Except Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, plaintiff failed to produce any document through which his vendor had acquired title over the suit schedule property. Further, during cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the suit schedule property was joint property of father of PW2 and father of defendant no.1. PW1 further admitted that he does not know the exact extent of land that fell to the share of his vendor i.e. PW2 and that no

Partition Deed exist and between PW2 and his brothers. During cross-examination,

PW2 admitted that no written partition occurred between his father and the father of

D1. PW2 further states that the suit schedule property was acquired by him through simple document, but no such document is produced. Thus, plaintiff has not shown that the land purchased by forms some part of the land allotted to PW2. As such, plaintiff failed to show that PW2 had exclusive, transferable right to the very land that was sold to him under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Hence, plaintiff could not establish that there is valid flow of title in favour of him. Ex.A14 survey Panchanama was filed by plaintiff but the same cannot cure the defective title.

25.On a close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, admittedly, both plaintiff and defendant claim suit schedule property from different branches of the same family, creating a cloud over the title. When the plaintiff’s title is seriously disputed by the defendants, the plaintiff must seek declaration of title. In the reported

judgement of the Hon ’ ble Supreme Court in Anantula Sudhakar Vs P. Buchi

Reddy (Dead) by Lrs & others 2008 law suit SC 1186, it was held as follows ;

Where a cloud is raised over plaintiffs title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the 12 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/200/2014 remedy. Where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff’s lawful possession or threat of dispossession.

If the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating tot tiel, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.

26.Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the ratio laid down in the above reported case, since the defendants are also claiming right and title over the suit schedule property herein and since there is a cloud over the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land, the suit as filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of perpetual injunction, without seeking relief of right and title over the suit schedule property, is found not maintainable and further in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for against the defendants and this suit is liable to be dismissed. Issue No.2 and 3 are answered against the plaintiff.

27.Issue no.4 :

In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 28 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

I – Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad.

13 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/200/2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS :

PW1 : Khata AnandDW1 : Mettapalle Sudharshan

PW2 : Pandilla RamuluDW2 : Challa Ashok

PW3 : Boini Yellaiah DW3 : Jala Jyothi Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1 : Original sale deed doc. No. 3411/2009, dated 09.12.2009. Ex.A2 : Original sale deed doc. No. 333/2010, dated 06.02.2010. Ex.A3 : Original rectification deed doc. No. 1857/2011, dated 14.06.2011. Ex.A4 to Ex.A13 : CC of pahanies for the years 1998-99 to 2007-08. Ex.A14 : Attested copy of land Surveyor Panchanama along with map.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS :

Ex.B1 : Original sale deed doc. No. 415/2002, dated 21.03.2002. Ex.B2 : Original sale deed do. No. 1369/2002, dated 30.10.2002. Ex.B3 : Original sale deed doc. no.86/1998, dated 24.01.1998. Ex.B4 : CC of sale deed doc.no. 581/1997, 23.04.1997. Ex.B5 : Original construction permission issued by Panchayath Secretary, Husnabad vide file no.A2/913/09, dated 05.12.2009 along with blue print. Ex.B6 : Original electricity bill in the name of D2 for the month of August, 2018. Ex.B7 : Original certificate issued by Municipal Commissioner, Husnabad, vide no.A1/3049/2018, dated 04.12.2018. Ex.B8 : Original property tax bill issued in the name of D2 for door no.16-101/2/a/1 for the period of 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. Ex.B9 : Original property tax bill issued in the name of D2 for door no.16-101/2/a/1 for the period of 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020. Ex.B10 : Original electricity bill in the month of D2 for the month of March, 2019. Ex.B11 : Original payment receipt of electricity bill for the month of March, 2019. Ex.B12 : Electricity payment receipts (06). Ex.B13 : Photographs along with CD. Ex.B14 : Original electricity bill receipt.

14 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/200/2014 Ex.B15 : Original Electricity bill demand notice. Ex.B16 : Original house tax receipt. Ex.B17 : Special notice of property tax new assessment. Ex.B18 : Online statement of electricity consumption, billing collection and arrears particulars. Ex.B19 : House tax receipt. Ex.B20 : Electricity bill payment. Ex.B21 : Photographs along with CD.

Sd/-

I – Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad.

15 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

::HUSNABAD::

Present: Smt. B. Revathi, Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Husnabad.

Thursday, the 29th day of January, 2026.

C.C.No. 101 of 2019

Between:

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Husnabad Police Station …Complainant.

And

A1.Potharaveni Balaiah, S/o. Komuraiah, Age: 45 years, Caste: Golla, R/o. Arepally Village of Husnabad Mandal.

A2.Potharaboina Sammaiah, S/o. Komuraiah, Age: 42 years, Caste: Golla, R/o. Arepally Village of Husnabad Mandal.

A3.Potharaboina Ellavva, W/o. Kanukaiah, Age: 50 years, Caste: Golla, R/o. Arepally Village of Husnabad Mandal.

A4.Potharaboina Kanakavva, W/o. Pedda Komuraiah, Age: 52 years, Caste: Golla, R/o. Arepally Village of Husnabad Mandal.

A5.Potharaboina Ailavva, W/o. Venkataiah, Age: 47 years, Caste: Golla, R/o. Arepally Village of Husnabad Mandal.

A6.Potharaboina Mallesh, S/o. Veeraiah, Age: 20 years, Caste: Golla, R/o. Arepally Village of Husnabad Mandal.

… Accused.

This case is coming on 21-01-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Learned A.P.P.O Sri M.K. Nagaraju for the prosecution and Sri K. Devender, Advocate for the accused and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

2

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Husnabad filed chargesheet against

A1 to A6 in Crime No.215 of 2018 for the offence punishable U/secs. 448, 427, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The case of prosecution in brief is as follows: -

On 29-11-2018 the defacto complainant/Kashaboina Ravinder lodged a complaint stating that he has land in Sy.No.266/7 situated at the outskirts of Husnabad village wherein he had built a house with the permission of the Grampanchayath and has been residing there for the past 10 years. It is further alleged that the complainant had prior land disputes with the accused persons and had obtained an injunction order from the

Hon’ble High Court. On 29-11-2018, while the complainant was at his

agricultural land, he received a phone call from his grandmother

Kashaboina Odamma/LW2, stating that A1/Potharaveni Balaiah and

A2/Potharaveni Sammaiah along with others trespassed into his house and the house of Kashaboina Pochaiah/LW7 and damaged the same using axe and crowbar, threw household articles and caused loss of about

Rs.40,000/-. It is further alleged that when LW2 and LW3 tried to prevent them, the accused beat them with hands and pushed them. The complainant rushed there and asked them why they were damaging his house for which the accused persons replied that the complainant does not have land there and threatened to leave that place and further threatened 3 them with dire consequences. The complainant requested to take necessary action against the accused.

ii)On receipt of the report from LW1, LW11 registered a case in

Cr.No.215/2018 U/sec. 448, 427, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW11 examined LW1 and recorded his statement and visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of LWs9 and 10 and incorporated the same in crime details form.

LW11 took the photographs of the scene of offence with the help of LW8.

Later, LW11 served notice to A1 to A6 U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C. During interrogation, the accused stated that the axes and crowbar used by them to damage the houses were thrown away by them after the commission of the offence. Hence, the crime articles were not recovered. Later LW12 took up investigation and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Upon consideration of the material placed before this court, this Court took cognizance against A1 to A6 for the offence punishable under section 448, 427, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and on appearance of the accused persons, copies of the documents were furnished to them as per section 207

Cr.P.C

4.The accused A1 to A6 were examined U/sec. 251 of Cr.P.C and they denied the accusation and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial against the accused.

4

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs1 to 8 and Exs.P1 to P6 are marked.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused A1 to A6 were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied and reported defence evidence on their side.

7.On the side of accused, A1/Potharaveni Balaiah examined himself as

DW1 and in his evidence Exs.D1 to D4 are marked.

8.Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel

for accused.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is ;

Whether the prosecution has proved its case against accused No.1

to 6 for the offences punishable under section 448, 427, 323, 506

r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.Point:

It is the case of the prosecution that on 29-11-2018, accused A1 to A6 criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant and the house of

LW7 and damaged the same by using axes and crowbar, threw household articles and caused a loss of Rs.40,000/-. When LW2 and LW3 tried to prevent them, the accused persons beat them with hands and pushed them, further threatened them with dire consequences.

5

11.For bringing home the guilt of the accused persons for the offence

U/sec. 448 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused committed criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in a house in the lawful possession of the complainant, with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession.

To attract Section 427 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused committed mischief as defined U/sec. 425 of IPC and that such mischief caused destruction or damage to property, resulting in loss of

Rs.50/- or more.

For bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec.323 of IPC, it must be proved that the accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim.

To attract Section 506 of IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused threatened the complainant with injury to person or property, with intent to cause alarm and that such threat actually caused fear or compelled the complainant to act against his lawful interest.

12.As stated above, in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws1 to 8. The complainant Kashaboina Ravinder examined as

PW1 and deposed that on 29-11-2018, when he was in his agricultural land, he received a call from his grandmother/LW2, stating that A1 to A4 and A6, along with some other persons were demolishing his house and the house of

LW7 and he rushed to his house and questioned them for which they stated 6 that the complainant and LW7 should vacate the house as they have no land and further threatened them. As such, Ex.P1 complaint was lodged.

13.During cross-examination, PW1 stated that he has land in

Sy.No.266/7 to an extent of Ac.02-00 guntas and that he has filed documents pertaining to his land. PW1 further stated that his grandfather got the said land from the government and further denied the suggestion that the said land in Sy.No.266/7 belongs to Punna Parshaiah. He further stated that he does not know whether the government has allotted Ac 05.00 guntas of land to the father of A1/Potharaveni Komuraiah. PW1 further stated that he does not know whether Tahsildar has demolished the tin shed in the land of accused upon the complaint given by father of A1 and further stated that he cannot say the boundaries of his grandfather's land and further stated that he has filed the permission given by the concerned

Grampanchayath for construction of the house in the above mentioned land.

14.PW2/Kashaboina Odavva deposed that PW1 is her grandson and about five years ago, one day, when she was in her house, she saw A1, A2 and other persons were demolishing the house of PW1 and LW7, and on seeing the same she informed PW1 and LW7. During cross examination PW2 stated that the said land in which the house was constructed by them was given to her husband by name Venkataiah by one Lakshmikant (dhora) and further stated that the land in Sy.No.266/7, which was in the name of 7 grandfather of PW1 namely Komuraiah was transferred to PW1 and some of his agnates including her husband.

15.PW3/Kahsaboina Rajaiah deposed that about five years ago, one day, when he was in his house at Arapally village, he received a call from PW2 stating that A1, A2 and his family members were demolishing the house of

PW1 and LW7 and he rushed to the scene and observed that the house of

PW1 and LW7 was already demolished and A1, A2 and their family members were present at the scene. During cross-examination, PW3 stated that after receiving the message through his mother/PW2 about the demolition of the house of PW1 and LW7, he rushed to the scene of offence. PW3 further stated that PW1 and LW7 got the land from Government and that he does not know the extent of land and its survey number held in the name of PW1 and LW7. He further stated that he does not know whether the government has allotted Ac.05.00 guntas of land to the father of A1 through lavuni patta. PW3 further stated that he had seen the already demolished house at the scene of offence and the accused persons were present, but he has not witnessed while the accused were demolishing the house on the alleged day.

16.PW4/Kashaboina Pochaiah deposed that about 10 to 11 years ago, the Grampanchayath of Husnabad village had allotted him and his agnates land to an extent of Ac.02.00 guntas near Yellamma Cheruvu at Husnabad for the purpose of constructing houses and accordingly, they constructed houses and started living in that houses. About five years ago, one day, 8 when he was at his agricultural land, his son came to the agricultural land and informed that A1 to A5 were demolishing his house and the house of

PW1 and he rushed to the scene and saw that his house and the house of

PW1 was already demolished and saw none of the accused were present at the scene. During cross-examination, PW4 stated that he does not know the extent of land and the survey number of the land which was allotted to him and his agnates by the Grampanchayat for construction of houses and that he cannot say the boundaries of the said land.

17.PW5/Gurrala Sandeep, panch witness to CDF deposed that about five years ago, one day police came to the house of PW1 and conducted

Panchanama pertaining to the demolishing of the house of PW1 by A1 and police obtained his signature on Panchanama. Ex.P2 is the Crime Detail

Form (CDF). During cross-examination, PW5 stated that he does not know the house number of PW1 and that he cannot say the boundaries of house of PW1.

18.PW6/Panduga Swaroopa, who eye witness to the incident resiled from her earlier statement, Ex.P3 is her 161 Cr.P.C statement. PW7/Bingi

Yadagiri, who is photographer resiled from his earlier statement, Ex.P4 his 161 Cr.P.C statement was marked. As PW6 and PW7 turned unfavorable to the case of prosecution, the learned APP declared them as hostile. Upon questioning by learned A.P.P. as in cross examination under the provision of section 154 of Indian Evidence Act r/w Sec. 162 Cr.P.C proviso, nothing 9 could be elicited from him, which in itself creates doubt as to the actual happening of the alleged offence.

19.PW8/B, Sampath, The Investigation Officer, narrated the manner in which he conducted investigation and in his evidence, Ex.P5/FIR, Ex.P6 photographs along with CD are marked. During cross-examination, PW8 stated that he cannot say the survey number of the land of scene of offence, but he can say the boundaries of the said land. PW8 further admitted that he has not conducted any investigation pertaining to the fact of the owner of the alleged land and about its survey number and that he has not collected any land documents of PW1 to show his ownership over the scene of offence.

PW8 stated that he does not know whether the land belongs to the father of

A1 and that he does not know whether the Tahsildar has sent his staff to demolish the illegal tin shed raised in the said land belonging to father of A1 in the year 2011.

20.After prosecution side evidence, accused No.1/Potharaveni Balaiah examined as DW1 and deposed that during the lifetime of his father

Potharaveni Komuraiah, he has obtained lavuni patta of Government land in

Sy.No.266/1, admeasuring Ac.5-00 guntas from the AP Government on 14-09-1970 and he got mutated his name in the concerned revenue records as Pattadar and Raitu passbook and title deed was issued in favour of his father and after the demise of his father, DW1 and his younger brother A1 and A2 are in possession as pattadar of the said land till today. DW1 further 10 deposed that in the month of November 2011, PW1 along with some others illegally trespassed into their land and raised temporary tin sheds and his father had given a complaint to the Tahsildar and the Revenue officials had dismantled the said illegal construction. In support of his contention,

Exs.D1 to D4 are marked. Ex.D1 is the lavuni patta issued by Tahsildar of

Karimnagar allotting land in Sy.No.266/1 to Potharaboina Komuraiah.

Ex.D2 is the old Raitu passbook. Ex.D3 is the title deed issued to

Potharaboina Komuraiah and Ex.D4 are the certified copies of pahanis for the years 1990-91, 2009-10, 2010-11. Learned APP reported cross- examination as nil.

21.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of the entire evidence on record, it could be seen that the prosecution case mainly rests on the oral testimony of PW1.

PW1 in his evidence stated that his father and grandfather were allotted the land in Sy.No. 266/7 to an extent of Ac.02.00 gts by the Government and that he had built a house therein after obtaining permission from the

Grampanchayath. However, no documentary evidence such as allotment proceedings, revenue records, title deeds or Grampanchayath permission has been produced to substantiate the said claim. PW1 further admitted that he could not state the boundaries of the alleged land. Further, the

Investigating Officer/PW8 also admitted that no investigation was conducted with regard to ownership, possession or survey number of the land nor were any land documents collected. In the absence of proof of lawful possession, 11 the essential ingredient of criminal trespass U/sec. 448 of IPC remains unestablished.

22.Though A1 to A6 were charge sheeted, PW1 specifically deposed that

A1 to A4 and A6 along with some others demolished the house of PW1 and

LW7. Except the oral testimony of PW1 none of the other prosecution witnesses have attributed any specific overt act against A3 to A6. PW2 to

PW4 admittedly did not witness the act of demolition and reached the scene only after the alleged incident. PW6 projected as an eyewitness, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW7, the photographer also resiled from his earlier statement.

23.Though PW1 alleged that the accused caused damage to the house of

PW1 and resulted in a loss of Rs.40,000/- the prosecution has failed to produce any estimation report, valuation certificate or other material evidence to prove the extent of damage. Mere oral assertion of loss without proof of actual damage or its valuation, does not satisfy the statutory requirement of Section 427 of IPC.

24.Though it is alleged that PW2 and LW3 were beaten with hands and pushed by the accused, no medical evidence such as wound certificates or treatment record has been produced. None of the witnesses have spoken about the nature or extent of injuries sustained. In the absence of medical or reliable corroborative evidence, the offence of voluntarily causing hurt under section 323 of IPC is not proved.

12

25.Though PW1 stated that the accused threatened him, the alleged threats are vague and general in nature. No specific words of intimidation, no specific role of individual accused and no evidence to show that the complainant was put in alarm have been brought on record. Bald and omnibus allegations of threat, without proof of intention and resultant alarm, do not constitute criminal intimidation U/sec. 506 of IPC.

26.Further, the failure of the Investigating Officer to collect material documents relating to ownership, possession, valuation of damage and corroborative evidence constitutes a serious infirmity in the case of the prosecution, striking at its very root. When the prosecution evidence itself is insufficient and lacks corroboration to prove the essential ingredients of the offences charged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

27.In such circumstances, discussion of defence evidence becomes redundant, as the prosecution has failed to discharge its primary burden of proof. On holistic consideration of the entire evidence on record, this court is of the opinion that the essential elements constituting the offences for which the accused were prosecuted were not brought on record beyond reasonable doubt, and except sweeping allegations, no cogent and consistent evidence was brought on record pointing towards the guilt of the accused for the imputed crime. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

13

In the result, the accused A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/secs. 448, 427, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and consequently they are acquitted u/sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgement as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No order as to the property as none was deposited before this Court.

(Typed to my diction by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 29th day of January, 2026)

P rl. Junior Civil Judge cum JFCM Husnabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1- Kashaboina RavinderDW1- Potharaveni Balaiah PW2- Kashaboina Odhavva PW3- Kashaboina Rajaiah PW4- Kashaboina Poshaiah PW5- Gurrala Sandeep PW6- Panduga Swaroopa PW7- Bingi Yadagiri PW8- B. Sampath

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Is the Report Ex.P2 Is the CDF Ex.P3 Is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P4 Is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7 Ex.P5 Is the F.I.R Ex.P6 Is the photographs along with CD 14

FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.D1 Is the Lavuni Patta issued by the Tahsildar of Karimnagar Ex.D2 Is the Old Raithu pass book issued by the Tahsildar of Karimnagar Ex.D3 Is the Title Deed issued by the R.D.O Karimnagar Ex.D4 Is the Certified copies of Pahanies for the years 1990-91, 2009-10, 2010-11

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- Nil -

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum JFCM Husnabad

OS/08/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I – ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUSNABAD

Present : Smt. B. REVATHI Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad. FAC I – Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad.

Dated this the 27 th day of November, 2025.

O.S.No. 08 of 2018

Between : Boju Rajaiah S/o Yellaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Husnabad town and Mandal, Siddipet District.

....Plaintiff

AND

1. Chevula Shivaiah S/o Rajaiah, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.15-20, Husnabad town and Mandal, Siddipet District.

2. Boju Devaiah S/o Chennaiah, Age:45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.15-32, Husnabad town and Mandal, Siddipet District.

…Defendants This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K. Jagathpal, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. G. Jumlal Naik for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following :

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

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

Plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment since long time his name was recorded in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor column and also availed crop loan from Andhra Bank, Husnabad Branch. The defendants are no way concerned with the suit schedule property and defendant no.1 is stranger and defendant no.2 is the neighbour to the suit schedule property. On 26.12.2017, the defendants tried to 1 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/08/2018 occupy the suit schedule property, but the plaintiff resisted them with the help of neighbours and well wishers. As such the plaintiff has no other way except filing of the suit. Hence, the suit.

2.The defendant 1 & 2 filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that one Boju Yellaiah is the original owner of the suit schedule property and he was issue less. The father of plaintiff and said Boju Yellaiah are real brothers. That the father of D2 late Boju Chennaiah purchased the suit land through simple sale deed from Boju Yellaiah, since the date of purchase he was in possession till his death and after that D2 is in possession. Subsequently, the plaintiff started interfering with the suit schedule land by proclaiming that his name is mutated in revenue records, but D2 resisted the plaintiff from interfering into his possession. A panchayath was convened on 19.01.2018 and agreed to get the land registered in favour of D2. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is the son of late Boju Odaiah, but in the pleadings he stated that he is the son of Boju Yellaiah. In the agreement in between plaintiff and defendants also he mentioned as son of Boju Odaiah. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is not having any right over the suit land and he is in no way connected with the suit land. As the suit land rates have abnormally increased, the plaintiff herein filed this suit for wrongful gain. Hence, defendants prayed to dismissed the plaint.

3.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial :

Issues :

1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful and continuous possession of suit 2 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/08/2018 schedule property within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint at the time of filing of the suit ?

2. Whether there is any interference by the defendants into the possession of the plaintiff over suit schedule property and whether such interference is legal or not ?

3. Whether one Boju Yellaiah is the original pattadar of the suit land

and whether he sold the said land to the father of D2 ?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for ?

5. To what relief ?

4.During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 are examined and Ex.A1 to A30 are marked. The learned counsel for defendant has neither cross examined PW1 and PW2 nor adduced any evidence on their behalf even after giving ample opportunity.

5.Heard arguments on the side of plaintiff. Perused the material placed on record.

6.Issue nos.1 to 4 :

In a suit for perpetual injunction, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove his case. It is settled law that the plaintiff has to stand or fall on the evidence let in by him and he cannot depend upon the weakness in the case of the defendant if any. In this regard, as stated above, on the side of the plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 are examined and Ex.A1 to A30 are marked.

9.The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and filed his chief examination 3 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/08/2018 affidavit with similar averments that are made in the plaint. The contention of the plaintiff is that, the suit schedule property is his ancestral property and he has been in possession, his name is mutated as Pattdar and possessor under Patta no.2375 and he has obtained crop loans from Andhra Bank by depositing his Pattadar passbook and title deed. The plaintiff further contended that defendant no.1 is a stranger and defendant no.2 owns land on the northern side and further alleged that on 26.12.2017, the defendants attempted to interfere and tried to occupy the suit land which he resisted with the help of neighbours.

10.To substantiate his contention, the plaintiff relied on Ex.A1 to A30. Exhibit

A1 and A2 are the pattadar passbook and both attested by Andhra Bank showing plaintiff as pattadar for Sy.No.108 to an extent of Ac.01-03 gts. Ex.A3 is the 1-B

Namoona, dated 25.11.2014, Ex.A4 to A19 are the certified copies of pahanis for the years 1990-91 to 2006-07 showing Bhoju Yellaiah as Pattadar and possessor. Ex.20 to A22, Ex.A24 are the certified copies of pahanies for the years 2006-07 to 2010-11 showing Bhoju Yellaiah as pattadar and plaintiff as possessor. Ex.A23 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11 showing the plaintiff as pattadar and possessor.

Ex.A25 to A30 are the computer pahanies for the fasli years 1422 to 1427 continuously reflecting plaintiff as pattadar and possessor in respect of suit schedule property.

11.On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that the suit schedule property originally belong to Bhoju Yellaiah, who was issueless and that the father of defendant no.2/Bhoju Chennaiah purchased the suit land under a simple sale deed 4 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/08/2018 and had been in possession for decades and after his death, defendant no.2 is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that plaintiff has no title or possession in respect of the suit schedule property. PW2 who is the wife of

PW1, filed her chief examination affidavit and deposed on the similar lines as PW1.

12.As stated supra, though the defendants filed written statement, the learned counsel for the defendant failed to cross examine PW1 and PW2 and further the defendant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence inspite of being given sufficient opportunity by this court. It is the specific case of the defendant that the father of defendant no.2 purchased the suit property through simple sale deed from

Bhoju Yellaiah and since then the father of defendant no.2 was in possession of the suit schedule property and after his death, the defendant no.2 is in possession of the same but the defendant did not produce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his contention. On the other hand, the plaintiff produced consistent revenue records for nearly 3 decades and all the pahanies produced by the plaintiff under

Exs.A4 to Ex.A30 show plaintiff and his father as pattadar and possessor and that plaintiff is in continuous possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit. The bank endorsed passbook and title deed under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 further strengthen his possession. The defendants did not challenge these documents by cross-examination nor produced any evidence to show their possession or produced the alleged simple sale deed. The defendants did not even enter into the witness box to put forth their case and to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff.

Therefore, a presumption can be drawn under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act 5 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/08/2018 against a party who fails to enter into the witness box. Hence their pleadings remain unsubstantiated.

13.Further, PW1 deposed that on 26.12.2017, the defendants attempted to interfere and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Their testimony stands unshaken, as the defendants did not cross examine PW1 and PW2.

14.In the light of the evidence produced by the plaintiff and in the absence of any contra evidence, this court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for. Issue nos.1 to 4 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

15.Issue no.5 :

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants by granting perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 27 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

I – Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad.

6 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/08/2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS :

PW1 : Boju Rajaiah– Nil –

PW2 : Boju Kanukamma

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1 : Copy of pattadar passbook patta no.2375 attested by Andhar Bank Ex.A2 : Copy of title deed attested by Andhra Bank Ex.A3 : Computer 1-B namoona (ROR), dated 25.11.2014 Ex.A4 : CC of pahani for the year 1990-91 Ex.A5 : CC of pahani for the year 1991-92 Ex.A6 : CC of pahani for the year 1992-93 Ex.A7 : CC of pahani for the year 1993-94 Ex.A8 : CC of pahani for the year 1994-95 Ex.A9 : CC of pahani for the year 1995-96 Ex.A10 : CC of pahani for the year 1996-97 Ex.A11 : CC of pahani for the year 1997-98 Ex.A12 : CC of pahani for the year 1998-99 Ex.A13 : CC of pahani for the year 1999-2000 Ex.A14 : CC of pahani for the year 2000-01 Ex.A15 : CC of pahani for the year 2001-02 Ex.A16 : CC of pahani for the year 2002-03 Ex.A17 : CC of pahani for the year 2003-04 Ex.A18 : CC of pahani for the year 2004-05 Ex.A19 : CC of pahani for the year 2005-06 Ex.A20 : CC of pahani for the year 2006-07 Ex.A21 : CC of pahani for the year 2007-08 Ex.A22 : CC of pahani for the year 2008-09 Ex.A23 : CC of pahani for the year 2010-11 Ex.A24 : CC of pahani for the year 2011-12 Ex.A25 : Computer pahani for the fasli year 1422 Ex.A26 : Computer pahani for the fasli year 1423 Ex.A27 : Computer pahani for the fasli year 1424 Ex.A28 : Computer pahani for the fasli year 1425 Ex.A29 : Computer pahani for the fasli year 1426 7 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

OS/08/2018 Ex.A30 : Computer pahani for the fasli year 1427

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS :

- Nil -

Sd/-

I – Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad.

8 FAC I AJCJ, Husnabad.

Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

:: CHERIAL::

Present: Smt. B. Revathi Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Husnabad. FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class Cherial

Thursday, the 18th day of September, 2025.

C.C.No. 324 of 2025

(Old C.C No.586 of 2019)

Between:

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Cherial Police Station …Complainant.

And

Kolipaka Rajashekar, S/o. Kanakaiah, Age: 19 years, Caste: Rajaka, R/o. Danampalli Village. … Accused.

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri M.V.Praveen Kumar, Counsel for the accused and having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and 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, Cherial Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.74/2019 against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after reffered as IPC).

2.The case of prosecution is as follows: - 1of 9

Fair

(i)Thaton25-04-2019atabout18:00hours,

LW1/Complainant/Rachakonda Anil came to PS Cherial and lodged a written complaint stating that on 25-04-2019 in the morning he along with his parents went outside. After completition of work at about 12:45 hours his wife has bolted the house and went to his mother-in-law Rupa’s house who are their neighbours and returned at 13:15 hours, when she opened bolt and pushed, the doors did not opened, meanwhile one of their neighbour tried to open bolt inside and found their neighbour i.e., accused who over scaled the compound wall to his home. When his wife made hues, the neighbours rushed to their home and tried to catch him, but he escaped from there. Later, his wife checked Almirah and found the purse containing net cash of Rs.1700/- on the ground and found missing net cash and the same was informed to him over phone. On receipt of information he rushed home and noticed the same. The said person opened bolt of doors with iron rod and gained entrance into the house. On the same day, another person

Sri Rachakonda Kanakaiah reported that Rs.2,000/- was missing at his house which were kept in Almirah. The total stolen amount is Rs.3,700/-.

Finally he requested to take necessary action against the accused.

ii)On receipt of the above complaint, LW14/J. Mohan Babu, registered a case in Cr.No.74 of 2019 U/sec. 380 of IPC and issued FIR and dispatched the copies to all the concerned and took up investigation.

2of 9

Fair

During the course of investigation, LW14 examined and recorded the statement of LW1 in part II CD in detail at P.S. Further on 26-04-2019 visited the scene of offence i.e., House of LW1 situated at Danampalli Village where he secured the presence of Lws2, LW3, LW4, examined them and recorded their statements in detail and drafted the scene observation panchanama in CDF in the presence of LW8 & LW9 and drew rough sketch of the scene of offence and also visited the house of LW5 situated at

Danampalli Village where, he secured the presence of LWs6 & LW7, examined them and recorded their statements in detail, and drafted the scene observation panchanama in CDF2 in the presence of LWs10 & LW11.

On 26-4-2018 on reliable information about the accused, the LW14 along with staff rushed to Thandur X Road and apprehended the accused at 11:00 hours and interrogated him. On interrogation, he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. As he is in confession mood, summoned two mediators LWs12 & LW13 and interrogated him. On interrogation, he disclosed his identity as Kolipaka Rajashekar. His father is leading the family by doing watchman duty, he was addicted to spend money on his lavish life style and he decided to commit thefts. As per his intention, on 25-4-2019 at 1200 noon he went to the house of Kanakaiah which is near their home and over scaled compound wall and lifted door and entered into the house and found Almirah locked, and he tried to open with screw driver, but in vain. Later he went to (Pooja) room and found iron trunk box when he opened, he found (4) Rs.500/- notes fell down from sarees and 3of 9

Fair same was collected by him and he came out. Later, he over scaled compound wall into the house of Rachakonda Anil and opened bolt of the house with small iron rod and gained entrance into the house and found one purse which is containing net cash of Rs.1700/-, the same was taken and he searched for valuables in almirah, meantime he heard sound of the door, immediately he was alert and over scaled compound wall. On seeing him Anil’s wife made hues 'Donga, Donga and somebody rushed to him and caught hold, but with great effort he escaped from their clutches and fled away from the village and reached Cherial bus stand and stayed in the bus stand on that night. On 26-4-2019 during morning hours, while he was going to home, at Thandur X Road the police apprehended him. His confessional statement reduced into writing and seized net cash of

Rs.500x2=1000/- Rs.200x1=200/-, 100x5=500/- total Rs.1700/- which he committed theft in the house of Rachakonda Anil and he also produced (4) 500/- notes 500x4-2000/- which he committed theft in the house of

Kanakalah. The same was seized under the cover of panchanama in the presence of above mediators duly affixing panch chits signed by them.

Thereafter the apprehended accused together with seized property brought to PS at 13:00 hours, hence, affected his arrest by issuing arrest form and grounds of his arrest was intimated to him and to his blood relatives, made necessary entries in the relevant records of P.S. and produced him before the Hon'ble Court for remand and after completion of entire investigation charge sheet was filed.

4of 9

Fair

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence

U/sec.380 of IPC. On appearance of accused, copies of documents on which the prosecution intended to rely were furnished to him as contemplated u/sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as

Cr.P.C).

4.Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C for the offence

U/sec.380 of IPC and the charges were explained in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined witnesses

PW.1 to PW.8 and exhibited documents P1 to P12 as indicated in the appendix of evidence.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution established guilt of the accused for the offence under section U/sec. 380 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

8.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

9.Answer to point basing on Evidence on record:

5of 9

Fair

(i)PW1 who is the victim and material witness when testified he deposed that he never lodged any report against the accused regarding any theft committed by him in his house. He deposed that some unknown persons committed theft in his house and stolen cash of Rs.1700/- from his house but he does not know their names and Ex.P1 is his signature and he deposed that he do not know the contents of Ex.P1.

(ii) The other witnesses were examined as PW2, PW3, PW6 and PW7 they too did not support the case of prosecution in toto and resiled from their earlier statements by giving inconsistent statements. As PW2 and PW3 turned unfavourable to the case of prosecution, the learned APP declared them as hostile. Upon Cross-examination by learned A.P.P. under section 154 of Indian Evidence Act R/w Sec. 162 Cr.P.C proviso, nothing could be elicited which in itself creates doubt as to the actual happening of the alleged offence.

(iii)The other witness examined as PW4 who is panch witness deposed that police prepared a panchanama near the house of PW1 and he was informed about a theft at the house of PW1. Police requested him to sign the panchanama and the same is marked as Ex.P5 but in cross examination he deposed that he did not know the contents of Ex.P5.

(iv)The other panch witness examined as PW5 deposed that police prepared a panchanama near the house of PW3 and he was informed about a theft at the house of PW3. Police requested him to sign the panchanama 6of 9

Fair and the same is marked as Ex.P6 but in cross examination he deposed that he did not know the contents of Ex.P5.

10.From the entire evidence that is brought on record, the material witnesses examined have not given any incriminating evidence against the accused as they have resiled from their earlier statements and they have neither supported the case of prosecution nor have said anything about the commission of offences by the accused which in itself creates doubt in the mind of this court as to the actual happening of the alleged offence as alleged to have been committed by the accused. Hence, this court feels that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused.

11.In view of the above discussion, this Court feels that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and this point is answered against the prosecution.

12. In the result, the accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offence punishable U/sec.380 of IPC and is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and the sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal period. The case property deposited before this Court vide C.P.R No. 64 of 2019 under MO.1 which is cash Rs.1700/- and MO2 is Rs.2000/- shall be given to its original owner on filing of petition as per law after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 18th day of September, 2025) 7of 9

Fair

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum JFCM Husnabad FAC: Junior Civil Judge cum JFCM Cherial.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1- R. Anil- NIL –

PW2- M. Narsimlu

PW3- R. Kanakaiah

PW4- Barma Srinivas

PW5- Borra Srinivas

PW6- Bandi Babu

PW7- B. Yadagiri

PW8- J. Mohan Babu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 Is the signature of PW1 on report - NIL - Ex.P2 Is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 Ex.P3 Is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2 Ex.P4 Is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3 Ex.P5 Is the signature of PW4 on panchanama Ex.P6 Is the signature of PW5 on panchanama Ex.P7 Is the signature of PW6 on panchanama Ex.P8 Is the Report Ex.P9 Is the FIR Ex.P10 Is the CDF-1 Ex.P11 Is the CDF-2 Ex.P12 Is the Confession cum seizure panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1 Is the Rs.1700/- 8of 9

Fair

MO.2 Is the Rs.2000/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum JFCM Husnabad FAC: Junior Civil Judge cum JFCM Cherial 9of 9

1 C.C.No. 1145 of 2025 Draft

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::AT::

CHERIAL

Present: Smt. B. Revathi,

Prl Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

Husnabad

FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

Cherial

Thursday, this the 18th day of September, 2025.

C.C.No. 1145 of 2025

Between:

The State of T.S., through & Proh. & Excise Inspector Cherial C.O.R.No.254/2024 …Complainant

And

Jatoth Kamala, W/o. Bikna, Age: 44 years, Caste: Lambada, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Hanuma Thanda, Dhoolmitta Mandal.

…Accused

OFFENCE UNDER SEC.7(A) r/w 8(e) OF TELANGANA STATE EXCISE ACT,

1968.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 11.09.2025 in the presence of the Learned A.P.P.O for the prosecution and Sri J.Kiran, advocate for the accused having perused the evidence adduced and exhibits marked and material papers 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 Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Cherial filed a charge sheet in C.O.R No.254/2024 for the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS

Prohibition and Excise Act, 1995 against the accused.

2. The Proh. & Excise Inspector, Cherial filed a charge sheet alleging that on 02-11-2024 at about 08.00 AM, received reliable information regarding some persons selling I.D. liquor in Hanuma Thanda, after securing two mediators i.e., 2 C.C.No. 1145 of 2025 Draft

LW1 and LW2, the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector (LW3) Cherial along with staff proceeded to Hanuma Thanda for conducting raids and conducted checking in suspicious places and during the checking found one woman before a house in suspicious manner with a bag in her hand and after seeing the raid party, she left the bag and started running to escape. On suspicion, the officers and staff made efforts to stop her, but in vain, she ran away. Then the officers opened the bag left by her and found (4) polythene covers filled with some liquid in them. Then LW1 to LW3 identified it as I.D liquor, each cover containing about (500) ml of I.D liquor and totally about two liters of I.D liquor. On eqnuiry it was revelaed that the absconding woman was Jatoth Kamala. Further LW3 seized the above contraband, duly drawn (2) samples of I.D. liquor each sample containing about (180) ml of I.D. liquor for the purpose of chemical examination and sealed them by affixing the chits duly signed by the panchas and officer and subsequently apprehended the accused person under cover of panchanama. On return to the

Prohibition and Excise Station, Cherial, LW3 registered a case against the accused in C.O.R No. 254/2024, dated 02.11.2024 for the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act, 1995 and issued notice to the accused under section 41 of Cr.P.C. and released the accused person on personal bail, after obtaining sufficient sureties.

3. The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition and Excise Act, 1995. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C).

4. Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C for the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition and Excise Act, 1995 and the charge is 3 C.C.No. 1145 of 2025 Draft framed. The same was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove its case against the accused person, the prosecution examined

PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and she denied the veracity of the incriminating material on record.

6. Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.

7.The Point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition and Excise

Act, 1995 ?”

8. In the present case, the prosecution has examined three witnesses PW1 to

PW3. PW1 deposed that about 8 months ago Excise police, Cherial conducted panchanama in the presence of PW1 and LW2, seized 4 polythene covers containing 500 ML liquid each, by virtue of smell it was identified as ID liquor.

The excise officials drew samples and prepared seizure panchanama and read over the contents. PW1 along with LW2 signed on the panchanama. The panchas observed that on seeing excise officials the accused person fled away from the scene by leaving a bag containing 4 polythene covers filled with liquid. Ex.P1 is the panchanama and MO.1 is the sample. During cross examination PW1 stated that when he reached the scene of offence he observed police first and that police have not shown any ID card and not brought any machine to measure the quantity of liquid. He further stated that the police have not measured the 4 C.C.No. 1145 of 2025 Draft quantity of liquid and that they have not seized any thing before him except the packets and they have not shown any ID proof to identify that the said person is

Jatoth Kamala. PW1 stated that the police have not clearly stated what is written in the panchanama.

9.PW2 deposed that on 02-11-2024 at about 8.00 AM he received reliable information about sale of 1.D liquor in Hanum Thanda and he along with his staff proceeded to Hanuma Thanda for inspection. That they secured the presence of PW1 and LW2 and conducted an inspection in the Thanda. During the course of inspection, they found a bag containing 4 polythene covers filled with liquid, each polythene cover containing 500 ml of liquid total 2 liters liquid in front of the house of the accused. They identified the liquid as ID liquor by its smell. They ascertained that the house belongs to the accused, after they spoke to the local residents of the Thanda and the accused was identified as Jatoth Kamala. W/o.

Bikna. On seeing them the accused fled away from scene.

10.PW2 further deposed that he conducted panchanama/Ex.P1 in the presence of PW1 and LW2 and drawn two samples of 180 ml each under MO.l and registered a case against the accused in COR No.254/2024 dated 02-11-2024 for the offence u/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act and the same is marked as

Ex.P2, PW2 sent the sample drawn for chemical examination to LW4/Chemical examiner, Nizamabad and received report Ex.P3(attested). It is further deposed that, on 20-12-2024 he destroyed seized property in the presence of LW5 and

LW6 and conducted panchanama marked as Ex.P4, issued notice under sec 41-A

Cr.P.C to the accused and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet for the offence under section u/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act 5 C.C.No. 1145 of 2025 Draft

11.During cross examination PW2 stated that he has not filed any document to show that house belongs to the accused and he has not measured the quantity of the seized liquid with machine. He further admitted that he has not filed any document to show that he has seized the ID liquor from the accused.

12.PW3 deposed that about one year ago Excise Police, Cherial destroyed ID liquor of 1.5 liters in his presence at Cheruvu tank bund, Cherial, and conducted panchanama/Ex.P4 in his presence and after reading over the contents. he along with LW6 had put signature on it. In his cross examination PW3 deposed that previously he was a witness in Excise case and that he attended duty of driving occasionally for Excise Police and that he is well known to Excise Officials.

13. In this case the prosecution has examined panch witness PW1 in whose presence seizure panchanama was conducted, but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is the evidence of PW1 that the police have not brought any machine to measure the liquid and they have not clearly stated the contents of the panchanama and simply his signature was obtained.

14.The evidence of PW2, though incriminating, cannot be relied, she bring I.O and an official witness. Further, no independent witness was examined. Though these witnesses were examined by the learned APPO nothing could be elicited in support of the prosecution case. Therefore it is clear that there is no evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused for which she is charged. Hence, for the reasons discussed above, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and thereby the accused is entitled for acquittal.

15. In the result, the accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition and Excise Act, 1995 and she is acquitted 6 C.C.No. 1145 of 2025 Draft under section 248(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be disposed after the expiry of appeal period.

(Typed on my dictation by Stenographer on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 18th day of September, 2025)

PRL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C,

HUSNABAD.

FAC: JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C,

CHERIAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For defence:

PW1: J. Srinivas- None - PW2: G. Suvarna PW3: Syed Jani

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution:

Ex.P1: Is the Panchanama Ex.P2: Is the Crime Occurrence Report dt.02.11.2022 by PW2. Ex.P3: Is the Attested copy of Laboratory Analysis Report vide C.E.No.1597/2024.1 by PW2 Ex.P4: Is the Seized and destroyed the contraband panchanama For defence : - Nil - No. of Material Objects Marked: MO.1 is the sample

PRL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C,

HUSNABAD.

FAC: JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C,

CHERIAL