Rokkam Varalakshmi

APWG0F0002912019

IN THE COURT OF

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, NARSAPUR.

Present: Rokkam Varalakshmi, Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Narsapur,

Wednesday, the 13th day of May, 2026.

C.C.No.69/2019

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsapuram Rural Police Station, Narsapur. … Complainant And:

1) Kottu Prasad, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 32 years, Tundurru village, Bhimavaram Mandal.

2) Javvadi Satyanarayana, S/o. Jagannadam, Aged 51 years, Tundurru village, Bhimavaram.

3) Bellapu Satyanarayana @ Sattibabu, S/o. Gokarneswara Rao, Aged 42 years, R/o. K.Bethapudi, Narasapuram Mandal.

4) Yarramsetti Satyanarayana, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged 48 years, K.Bethapudi village, Narasapuram Mandal.

5) Alluri Arun, S/o. Subba Raju, Aged 27 years, K.Bethapudi village, Narasapuram Mandal.

6) Juttiga Naga Venkata Gopalam, S/o. Narsimha Murthy, Aged 45 years, Housing Board Colony, Bhimavaram CPM Leader.

7) Samudrala Veeravenkata Satya Veni, W/o. Venkata Ramana, Aged 34 years, K.Bethapudi village, Narasapuram Mandal.

8) Bellapu Veera Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. Prasad, Aged 30 years, K.Bethapudi village, Narsapuram Mandal.

9) Vaddi Venkata Ganesh, S/o. Durga Rao, Aged 21 years, K.Bethapudi village, Narasapuram Mandal.

10) Bellapu Veeranjaneyulu, S/o. Ranga Rao, Aged 33 years, K.Bethapudi village, Narasapuram Mandal.

-2-

11) Pantam Venkata Trinadh Apparao, S/o. Boga Linga Charyulu, Aged 40 years, Brahmin, K.Bethapudi village, Narasapuram Mandal.

12) Bellapu Chantibabu, S/o. Venkata Chalam, Aged 22 years, K.Bethapudi village, Narasapuram Mandal.

13) Samudrala Mani Kanta, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged 20 years, K.Bethapudi Village, Narasapuram Mandal.

14) Pantam Manikanta Srinivas, S/o. Apparao, Aged 22 years, Bethapudi village, Narasapuram Mandal. …Accused

This case is coming before me on 11.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri P.Srinivas, Advocate for the accused, and upon hearing arguments and on perusing the material available on record, having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasapuram Rural Police Station, filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 to 14 in Crime No. 139/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 353 read with 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the management of

Godavari Mega Aqua Food Park Pvt. Limited (GMAFP) acquired land to an extent of Ac.55.50 cents in Tundurru Village of Bhimavaram Mandal to construct a Food Park after obtaining all the permissions from the Government and started to construct the Food Park, but the villagers of Kamsali Bethapudi,

Jonnalagaruvu, Tundurru villages have been obstructing the construction of the Food Park by alleging that it would make their lives miserable on all fronts, and that the accused are actively played vital role to prevent the construction and in protest against the construction of the said factory, they involved in criminal cases of Narsapur Rural Police Station. As a part of ongoing agitation, some people launched Hunger Strike to Death near Kanaka

Durgamma temple in K.Bethapudi village of Narasapuram Mandal, at that time

PW.1 and LWs.2 to 6 who are police officials were deputed at that camp to prevent untoward incidents. On 18.10.2017 while they are attending their legitimate duties, all the accused and some others came there and questioned -3- about their presence, for which PW.1 replied that they were on duty to prevent untoward incidents in the wake of fast unto death against the construction of

Godavari Food factory in Tundurru village. Then the accused throw the PW.1 down by using criminal force and obstructed him from his legitimate duties.

On seeing the same, remaining police personnel (LWs.2 to 6) intervened to pacify the accused, they but the accused argued with them and caused obstruction to their legitimate duties. Then PW.1 gave report to Narsapur

Rural P.S.

(ii) It is further case of prosecution that basing on the statement of

PW.1, Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsapur Rural P.S. (PW.2) registered a case in Crime No.139/2017 under Section 353 r/w 34 of IPC and took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements, issued notices to all the accused under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and released them on Station bail, and after completion of further investigation, PW.2 filed charge sheet before the

Court against the accused. Thereby accused are liable for punishment under the above Section of law.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offences under Section 353 r/w 34 of IPC against the Accused Nos.1 to 14 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Narsapur.

4. After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., accused were examined on the contents of the documents, for which they denied the offence. After hearing and on consideration, a charge punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. At this stage, it may be mentioned here that this case which was numbered as C.C. No.571/2017 was transferred from the Court of the

Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Narsapur, to this Court as per

the proceedings of the Hon’ble District Court, West Godavari, Eluru, in -4-

Dis.No.310 dated 14.06.2019. That is how, this case is taken up by this Court for disposal according to law and re-numbered as C.C.No.69/2019.

6. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution cited as much as ten witnesses. Out of them, prosecution examined LWs.1 and 10 as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. Prosecution given up the evidence of LWs.2 to 6, and on 16.04.2026 prosecution filed a memo stating that LWs.7 to 9 went to other states for their livelihood. Hence the evidence of LWs.7 to 9 was closed.

7. After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

P O I N T:

10. Coming to the evidence adduced before the Court, the evidence of

PW.1, who set the criminal law into motion reveals that on 15.10.2017 at about 10.00 a.m., himself, HC1546 (LW3), PC-1236 (LW.4), PC-2644 (LW.5) and

PC-2650 (LW.6) accompanied the S.I. of Police (LW.2) and went to the scene of offence near Kanakadurga temple at K.Bethapudi of Tundurru, and there are 30 people making agitation against the construction of Godavari Mega Aqua Food factory. On 18.10.2017 at about 06.00 a.m. when they all attending the duty, about 20 people came to their tent and questioned their presence, and when he gave reply that they are attending the duties as per the instructions of their higher -5- officials to prevent the galata/nuisance, they all threatened and caused obstruction to his duties by pushing him down, on that his colleagues came there and questioned the acts of the said persons, but they pushed his colleagues also.

Thereby he gave Ex.P1 report to the police.

11. It may be noted here that the prosecution given up the evidence of

LWs.2 to 6, and filed a memo stating that LWs.7 to 9 went to other states for their livelihood and therefore requested the Court to close their evidence.

Recording the said memo and the said submission made by the prosecution their evidence came to be closed.

12. There remains the evidence of PW.2, who was the Investigating Officer in this case. His evidence demonstrates that on 18.10.2017 he received written report from PW.1, and basing on it, he registered Ex.P2 FIR as a case in Crime No.139/2017 under Section 353 r/w 34 of IPC and took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, prepared Ex.P3 Rough sketch, examined the witnesses LWs.1 to 9 and recorded their detailed statements, issued notice to all the accused under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and on compliance released them on self bail, and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet before the Court against the accused.

13. It is therefore shows from the above evidence that PW.1, who set the criminal law into motion, indicates that on 18.10.2017 at about 06.00 a.m.

while they were attending the duty, about 20 people came to their tent and questioned for their presence, threatened and pushed him down and caused obstruction to his duties, then their colleagues came there and questioned their acts, on that they pushed his colleagues also. During cross-examination

PW.1 deposed that he do not know the names of the persons and their identity who were standing in the dock.

14. The evidence of PW.2 indicates that on 18.10.2017 he received written report from PW.1, basing on it he registered Ex.P2 FIR, investigated into the same, visited the scene of offence, observed the same, and prepared Ex.P3 rough sketch. examined the witnesses LWs.1 to 9 and recorded their detailed -6- statements, and that later he served notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C.

on the accused and released them on station bail, and after completion of further investigation he laid the charge sheet before the Court against the accused. Thus, it is proved that he did not have any personal knowledge about the facts of the case.

15. In the light of the same and having due regard to the fact that PW.1, who set the criminal law into motion, and there is no corroborative evidence of

PW.1 before the Court this Court cannot be relied on the sole testimony of

PW.1. Moreover, PW.1 failed to identify the accused who were present in the dock. The evidence of PW.2, who was the investigating officer in this case, is also not useful to the case of the prosecution in the absence of any corroborative evidence. As a corollary thereof, there is no iota of evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they are charged. Further, there must be concrete legal evidence to convict the accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the said offences beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, in the light of the above discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to wholly bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly point is answered against the prosecution.

16. In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 14 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 353 r/w 34 of the IPC, and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused if any, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Rokkam Varalakshmi,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Narsapur.

-7-

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1: Sangireddi Satyanarayana, Constable, Narsapur None Town P.S. PW.2: J.V.N. Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsapur Rural P.s.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution For Defence Ex.P1: Report given by PW.1 None Ex.P2: FIR in Crime No.139/2017 dated 18.10.2017. Ex.P3: Rough Sketch of scene of offence.

Material Objects Marked

- Nil -

Sd/- Rokkam Varalakshmi,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Narsapur.

-8-

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari Calendar of Cases tried by PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, NARSAPUR

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence Report of complaint Apprehension of Accused Release on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18.10.2017 18.10.2017 26.10.2017 26.10.2017 (Sec.41A Cr.P.C) (Station bail) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 07.01.2026 11.05.2026 13.05.2026 Due to non-production of witnesses from time to time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment of Calendar Case No.69/2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Narsapur. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsapur Rural P.S. (Crime No.139/2017) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion: Calling Village ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Kottu Prasad, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 32 years, Tundurru village, Bhimavaram Mandal.

2) Javvadi Satyanarayana, S/o. Jagannadam, Aged 51 years, Tundurru village, Bhimavaram.

3) Bellapu Satyanarayana @ Sattibabu, S/o. Gokarneswara Rao, Aged 42 years, R/o. K.Bethapudi, Narasapuram Mandal.

4) Yarramsetti Satyanarayana, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged 48 years, K.Bethapudi village, Narasapuram Mandal.

5) Alluri Arun, S/o. Subba Raju, Aged 27 years, K.Bethapudi village, Narasapuram Mandal.

6) Juttiga Naga Venkata Gopalam, S/o. Narsimha Murthy, Aged 45 years, Housing Board Colony, Bhimavaram CPM Leader.

7) Samudrala Veeravenkata Satya Veni, W/o. Venkata Ramana, Aged 34 years, K.Bethapudi village, Narasapuram Mandal.

8) Bellapu Veera Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. Prasad, Aged 30 years, K.Bethapudi village, Narsapuram Mandal.

9) Vaddi Venkata Ganesh, S/o. Durga Rao, Aged 21 years, K.Bethapudi village, Narasapuram Mandal.

-9-

10) Bellapu Veeranjaneyulu, S/o. Ranga Rao, Aged 33 years, K.Bethapudi village, Narasapuram Mandal.

11) Pantam Venkata Trinadh Apparao, S/o. Boga Linga Charyulu, Aged 40 years, Brahmin, K.Bethapudi village, Narasapuram Mandal.

12) Bellapu Chantibabu, S/o. Venkata Chalam, Aged 22 years, K.Bethapudi village, Narasapuram Mandal.

13) Samudrala Mani Kanta, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged 20 years, K.Bethapudi Village, Narasapuram Mandal.

14) Pantam Manikanta Srinivas, S/o. Apparao, Aged 22 years, Bethapudi village, Narasapuram Mandal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence : Under Section 353 r/w 34 of IPC Finding : Accused Nos.1 to 14 are found not guilty.

Sentence :In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 14 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 353 r/w 34 of the IPC, and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused if any, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Rokkam Varalakshmi,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Narsapur.

Copy submitted to the I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (through CD) Copy to the Superintendent, Prohibition & Escise, Bhimavaram, W.G.District.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PALAKOL.

Present: Rokkam Varalakshmi,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsapur

FAC/ Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol

Friday, this the 13th day of March, 2026

O.S.No. 128/2025

Between:

Kadali Lalitha Kumari, W/o Satyanarayana, Female, age 51 years, Cultivation, resident of Mulaparru, Penugonda Mandal, West Godavari District. … Plaintiff

And:

1) Kadali Murali Prasad, S/o Satyanarayana, Male, age 32 years, Electrician, resident of Vankatala Cheruvu, H/o Achanta, Achanta Mandal, West Godavari District.

2) Kadali Lakshmi Durga, W/o Kadali Murali Prasad, Male, Anganvadi Teacher, Vankatala Cheruvu, H/o Achanta, Achanta Mandal, West Godavari District. … Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 02-03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.V.Subba Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff, and the defendants 1 and 2 having remained exparte, and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing, having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) This suit is instituted by the plaintiff seeking to grant decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their henchmen from ever trespassing into the plaint schedule properties and interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff in the plaint schedule properties, and to award costs of the suit.

-2-

Plaint

2) The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are that –

(i) The 1st Defendant is the younger son and 2nd Defendant is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. The properties shown in A,B,C,D & E schedules are self-acquired properties of the plaintiff. She got the A-schedule property from her paternal uncle, namely Dommeti Satyanarayana under a

Registered Gift Deed, dated 19-10-2002. Plaintiff purchased B-Schedule property from Kudipudi Meerasaheb of Gummuluru village under a Registered

Sale Deed, dt. 28.03.2001 and she had purchased plaint C-schedule property from Dommeti Venkata Swamy under a Registered Sale Deed, dt. 16.06.2008.

The father of plaintiff namely Dommeti Venkata Swamy gifted the ‘D’ and ‘E’ schedule properties to the plaintiff with life interest rights and given vested reminder rights to her children and he had executed a Registered Settlement deed on 18.06.1990 with respect to D-Schedule property and he had executed another Registered Settlement Deed on 28-05-1991 with respect to

E-schedule property.

(ii) The plaintiff further submitted that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the A, B & C schedule properties with absolute rights and D & E schedule properties with life interest rights by paying property tax to the revenue authorities and the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbooks and title deed books. She cultivates the plaint schedule properties with the help of Kadali Narayana Murthy and Kudipudi Venkateswara Rao of Vankatala

Cheruvu village. Her husband addicted to vices and eloped with another woman after birth of two children. Since then she brought up her children with her had work and earned plaint schedule properties.

iii) The plaintiff further submitted that on 17.05.2019 the father of the plaintiff namely Dommeti Venkata Swamy performed the marriage of the defendants without the consent of the plaintiff. After the marriage, the 1st defendant heard the words of the 2nd defendant and he has been demanding the plaintiff to give half share in her self-acquired properties, and they -3- demanded to execute a settlement deed in favour of the 1st defendant, but the plaintiff did not accept their demands. Since then, both defendants have been harassing the plaintiff one way or another. On 04.08.2020, the 1st defendant came to her house in a drunken state of mind and highhandedly demanded the plaintiff to give half share to him, when the plaintiff did not accept the same, the 1st defendant kicked the plaintiff on her stomach with maximum force, then plaintiff fell down on the floor with heavy stomach pain. The elder son of the plaintiff and her relatives of the plaintiff took her to the Sun Star

Hospital, Rajahmundry and provided treatment.

iv) The plaintiff submitted that in the month of April, 2023, at the instance of defendants, the Penugonda Police called the plaintiff and her elder son to the Police Station. Later, both the defendants hatched upto a plan and they managed the police and got filed a false criminal case against the plaintiff and her elder son, as if they beat them. As the defendants had been harassing the plaintiff and her elder son, plaintiff and her elder son went to the adjacent cattle shed of their neighbour and resided in the said shed. Later they went to the Mulaparru village to avoid harassment of Defendant and they have been residing in the rented house. On 25.07.2025, both the defendants came to the fields of the plaintiff and they highhandedly stopped the workers of the plaintiff from doing agricultural operations at the plaintiffs’ schedule properties. But at the intervention of elders both the defendants went away. But they threatened the plaintiff that they will kill her unless she settle the plaint schedule properties in the name of the 1st defendant. Hence the suit.

3) After service of summons, the defendants 1 and 2 appeared before the

Court by engaging Counsel, but the defendants did not file their written statement within statutory period and no representation on their behalf. Hence the defendants were set ex parte on 08-01-2026.

-4-

4) Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record.

5. Now the point for determination in this suit is:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?

2) To what relief ?

6) In order to establish her case, plaintiff filed her chief affidavit and examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-14 and another witness is examined as PW.2 on behalf of the plaintiff.

7) POINT NO.1:

i) Plaintiff examined herself as PW1, and PW.2-Balam Lakshmi was also examined in support of the case of the plaintiff and got marked

Exhibits A1 to A14. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of a registered Settlement

Deed, dt. 19.10.2002, Ex.A2 is certified copy of registered Sale Deed, dt.

28.03.2001, Ex.A3 is certified copy of registered Settlement Deed, dt.

16.06.2008, Ex.A4 is certified copy of registered Settlement Deed, dt.

18.06.1990, Ex.A5 is certified copy of registered Settlement Deed, dt.

28.05.1991, Ex.A6 is original title deed cum Pattadar Pass Book in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A7 is original title cum Pattadar Pass Book, dt. 07.12.2001 in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A8 is property tax receipt, dt. 04.08.2025, Ex.A9 is property tax receipt, dt. 04.08.2025, Ex.A10 is water tax receipt, dt.

08.08.2022, Ex.A11 is Sun Star Hospital OP card along with medical prescription, Ex.A12 is accused copies of charge sheet along with Wound

Certificate in CC No.90/2023, Ex.A13 is OP card along with medical prescription of plaintiff, dt. 16.09.2022 and Ex.A14 is OP bill cum receipt issued by Sun Star Hospital, dt. 04.08.2022.

-5- ii) The evidence of PW.1 is nothing but replica of plaint and the evidence of PW.2 is supporting the case of PW.1. It is the contention of plaintiff that the properties shown in A,B,C,D & E schedules are self-acquired properties of the plaintiff. She got the A-schedule property from her paternal uncle, namely Dommeti Sastyanarayana under a Registered Gift Deed, dated 19-10-2002. Plaintiff purchased B-Schedule property from Kudipudi

Meerasaheb of Gummuluru village under a Registered Sale Deed, dt.

28.03.2001 and she had purchased plaint C-schedule property from Dommeti

Venkata Swamy under a Registered Sale Deed, dt. 16.06.2008. The father of plaintiff namely Dommeti Venkata Swamy gifted the ‘D’ and ‘E’ schedule properties to the plaintiff with life interest rights and given vested reminder rights to her children and he had executed a Registered Settlement deed on 18.06.1990 with respect to D-Schedule property and he had executed another

Registered Settlement Deed on 28-05-1991 with respect to E-schedule property in her favour.

iii) The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the A, B &

C schedule properties with absolute rights and D & E schedule properties with life interest rights by paying property tax to the revenue authorities and the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbooks and title deed books. She cultivates the plaint schedule properties with the help of Kadali Narayana

Murthy and Kudipudi Venkateswara Rao of Vankatala Cheruvu village. After two children were born to the plaintiff, her husband addicted to vices and eloped with another woman, since then she brought up her children with her had work and earned plaint schedule properties.

iv) On 17.05.2019 the father of the plaintiff namely Dommeti Venkata

Swamy performed the marriage of the defendants without the consent of the plaintiff. After the marriage, the 1st defendant heard the words of the 2nd defendant and he has been demanding the plaintiff to give half share in her self-acquired properties, and they demanded to execute a settlement deed in favour of the 1st defendant, but the plaintiff did not accept their demands.

-6-

Since then, both defendants have been harassing the plaintiff one way or another. On 04.08.2020, the 1st defendant came to her house in a drunken state of mind and highhandedly demanded the plaintiff to give half share to him, when the plaintiff did not accept the same, the 1st defendant kicked the plaintiff on her stomach with maximum force, then plaintiff fell down on the floor with heavy stomach pain. The elder son of the plaintiff and her relatives of the plaintiff took her to the Sun Star Hospital, Rajahmundry and provided treatment.

v) Later, both the defendants hatched upto a plan and they managed the police and got filed a false criminal case against the plaintiff and her elder son, as if they beat them. As the defendants had been harassing the plaintiff and her elder son, plaintiff and her elder son went to the adjacent cattle shed of their neighbour and resided in the said shed. Later they went to the Mulaparru village to avoid harassment of Defendant and they have been residing in the rented house. On 25.07.2025, both the defendants came to the fields of the plaintiff and they highhandedly stopped the workers of the plaintiff from doing agricultural operations at the plaintiffs’ schedule properties. But at the intervention of elders both the defendants went away. But they threatened the plaintiff that they will kill her unless she settles the plaint schedule properties in the name of the 1st defendant. The defendants may do any disparate acts, unless the Hon’ble Court prevented them by suitable injunction orders.

8. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed Ex.A1 to A10 documents i.e., certified copies of sale deed, settlement deeds, pattadar pass book and property tax and water tax receipts pertaining to the plaint schedule properties and all the documents stand in the name of the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff established her case that she is the absolute owner having right, title and possession over the plaint schedule properties by paying property tax and water tax.

-7-

9. Whereas, the defendants remained exparte and did not contest the matter by filing application to set aside the exparte order.

10. In the light of the discussion made hereinbefore and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that this suit is liable to be decreed with costs. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

POINT NO.2

11) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants 1 and 2 by granting permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their henchmen from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties and interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist, corrected, and pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 13 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- Rokkam Varalakshmi

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsapur

FAC/ Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW.1: Kadali Lalitha Kumari (Plaintiff) Exparte

PW.2: Balam Lakshmi

Documents marked

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of a registered Settlement -- Nil -- Deed, dt. 19.10.2002

Ex.A2: Certified copy of registered Sale Deed, dt. 28.03.2001 -8-

Ex.A3: Certified copy of registered Settlement Deed, dt. 16.06.2008,

Ex.A4: Certified copy of registered Settlement Deed, dt. 18.06.1990,

Ex.A5: Certified copy of registered Settlement Deed, dt. 28.05.1991,

Ex.A6: Original title deed cum Pattadar Pass Book in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A7: Original title cum Pattadar Pass Book, dt. 07.12.2001 in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A8: Property tax receipt, dt. 04.08.2025,

Ex.A9: Property tax receipt, dt. 04.08.2025,

Ex.A10: Water tax receipt, dt. 08.08.2022,

Ex.A11: Sun Star Hospital OP card along with medical prescription,

Ex.A12: Accused copies of charge sheet along with Wound Certificate in CC No.90/2023,

Ex.A13: OP card along with medical prescription of plaintiff, dt. 16.09.2022

Ex.A14: OP bill cum receipt issued by Sun Star Hospital, dt. 04.08.2022

Sd/- Rokkam Varalakshmi

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsapur

FAC/ Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PALAKOL.

Present: Rokkam Varalakshmi,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsapur

FAC/ Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol

Friday, this the 13th day of March, 2026

O.S.No. 128/2025

Between:

Kadali Lalitha Kumari, W/o Satyanarayana, Female, age 51 years, Cultivation, resident of Mulaparru, Penugonda Mandal, West Godavari District. … Plaintiff

And:

1) Kadali Murali Prasad, S/o Satyanarayana, Male, age 32 years, Electrician, resident of Vankatala Cheruvu, H/o Achanta, Achanta Mandal, West Godavari District.

2) Kadali Lakshmi Durga, W/o Kadali Murali Prasad, Male, Anganvadi Teacher, Vankatala Cheruvu, H/o Achanta, Achanta Mandal, West Godavari District. … Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 02-03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.V.Subba Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff, and the defendants 1 and 2 having remained exparte, and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing, having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) This suit is instituted by the plaintiff seeking to grant decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their henchmen from ever trespassing into the plaint schedule properties and interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff in the plaint schedule properties, and to award costs of the suit.

-2-

Plaint

2) The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are that –

(i) The 1st Defendant is the younger son and 2nd Defendant is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. The properties shown in A,B,C,D & E schedules are self-acquired properties of the plaintiff. She got the A-schedule property from her paternal uncle, namely Dommeti Satyanarayana under a

Registered Gift Deed, dated 19-10-2002. Plaintiff purchased B-Schedule property from Kudipudi Meerasaheb of Gummuluru village under a Registered

Sale Deed, dt. 28.03.2001 and she had purchased plaint C-schedule property from Dommeti Venkata Swamy under a Registered Sale Deed, dt. 16.06.2008.

The father of plaintiff namely Dommeti Venkata Swamy gifted the ‘D’ and ‘E’ schedule properties to the plaintiff with life interest rights and given vested reminder rights to her children and he had executed a Registered Settlement deed on 18.06.1990 with respect to D-Schedule property and he had executed another Registered Settlement Deed on 28-05-1991 with respect to

E-schedule property.

(ii) The plaintiff further submitted that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the A, B & C schedule properties with absolute rights and D & E schedule properties with life interest rights by paying property tax to the revenue authorities and the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbooks and title deed books. She cultivates the plaint schedule properties with the help of Kadali Narayana Murthy and Kudipudi Venkateswara Rao of Vankatala

Cheruvu village. Her husband addicted to vices and eloped with another woman after birth of two children. Since then she brought up her children with her had work and earned plaint schedule properties.

iii) The plaintiff further submitted that on 17.05.2019 the father of the plaintiff namely Dommeti Venkata Swamy performed the marriage of the defendants without the consent of the plaintiff. After the marriage, the 1st defendant heard the words of the 2nd defendant and he has been demanding the plaintiff to give half share in her self-acquired properties, and they -3- demanded to execute a settlement deed in favour of the 1st defendant, but the plaintiff did not accept their demands. Since then, both defendants have been harassing the plaintiff one way or another. On 04.08.2020, the 1st defendant came to her house in a drunken state of mind and highhandedly demanded the plaintiff to give half share to him, when the plaintiff did not accept the same, the 1st defendant kicked the plaintiff on her stomach with maximum force, then plaintiff fell down on the floor with heavy stomach pain. The elder son of the plaintiff and her relatives of the plaintiff took her to the Sun Star

Hospital, Rajahmundry and provided treatment.

iv) The plaintiff submitted that in the month of April, 2023, at the instance of defendants, the Penugonda Police called the plaintiff and her elder son to the Police Station. Later, both the defendants hatched upto a plan and they managed the police and got filed a false criminal case against the plaintiff and her elder son, as if they beat them. As the defendants had been harassing the plaintiff and her elder son, plaintiff and her elder son went to the adjacent cattle shed of their neighbour and resided in the said shed. Later they went to the Mulaparru village to avoid harassment of Defendant and they have been residing in the rented house. On 25.07.2025, both the defendants came to the fields of the plaintiff and they highhandedly stopped the workers of the plaintiff from doing agricultural operations at the plaintiffs’ schedule properties. But at the intervention of elders both the defendants went away. But they threatened the plaintiff that they will kill her unless she settle the plaint schedule properties in the name of the 1st defendant. Hence the suit.

3) After service of summons, the defendants 1 and 2 appeared before the

Court by engaging Counsel, but the defendants did not file their written statement within statutory period and no representation on their behalf. Hence the defendants were set ex parte on 08-01-2026.

-4-

4) Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record.

5. Now the point for determination in this suit is:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?

2) To what relief ?

6) In order to establish her case, plaintiff filed her chief affidavit and examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-14 and another witness is examined as PW.2 on behalf of the plaintiff.

7) POINT NO.1:

i) Plaintiff examined herself as PW1, and PW.2-Balam Lakshmi was also examined in support of the case of the plaintiff and got marked

Exhibits A1 to A14. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of a registered Settlement

Deed, dt. 19.10.2002, Ex.A2 is certified copy of registered Sale Deed, dt.

28.03.2001, Ex.A3 is certified copy of registered Settlement Deed, dt.

16.06.2008, Ex.A4 is certified copy of registered Settlement Deed, dt.

18.06.1990, Ex.A5 is certified copy of registered Settlement Deed, dt.

28.05.1991, Ex.A6 is original title deed cum Pattadar Pass Book in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A7 is original title cum Pattadar Pass Book, dt. 07.12.2001 in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A8 is property tax receipt, dt. 04.08.2025, Ex.A9 is property tax receipt, dt. 04.08.2025, Ex.A10 is water tax receipt, dt.

08.08.2022, Ex.A11 is Sun Star Hospital OP card along with medical prescription, Ex.A12 is accused copies of charge sheet along with Wound

Certificate in CC No.90/2023, Ex.A13 is OP card along with medical prescription of plaintiff, dt. 16.09.2022 and Ex.A14 is OP bill cum receipt issued by Sun Star Hospital, dt. 04.08.2022.

-5- ii) The evidence of PW.1 is nothing but replica of plaint and the evidence of PW.2 is supporting the case of PW.1. It is the contention of plaintiff that the properties shown in A,B,C,D & E schedules are self-acquired properties of the plaintiff. She got the A-schedule property from her paternal uncle, namely Dommeti Sastyanarayana under a Registered Gift Deed, dated 19-10-2002. Plaintiff purchased B-Schedule property from Kudipudi

Meerasaheb of Gummuluru village under a Registered Sale Deed, dt.

28.03.2001 and she had purchased plaint C-schedule property from Dommeti

Venkata Swamy under a Registered Sale Deed, dt. 16.06.2008. The father of plaintiff namely Dommeti Venkata Swamy gifted the ‘D’ and ‘E’ schedule properties to the plaintiff with life interest rights and given vested reminder rights to her children and he had executed a Registered Settlement deed on 18.06.1990 with respect to D-Schedule property and he had executed another

Registered Settlement Deed on 28-05-1991 with respect to E-schedule property in her favour.

iii) The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the A, B &

C schedule properties with absolute rights and D & E schedule properties with life interest rights by paying property tax to the revenue authorities and the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbooks and title deed books. She cultivates the plaint schedule properties with the help of Kadali Narayana

Murthy and Kudipudi Venkateswara Rao of Vankatala Cheruvu village. After two children were born to the plaintiff, her husband addicted to vices and eloped with another woman, since then she brought up her children with her had work and earned plaint schedule properties.

iv) On 17.05.2019 the father of the plaintiff namely Dommeti Venkata

Swamy performed the marriage of the defendants without the consent of the plaintiff. After the marriage, the 1st defendant heard the words of the 2nd defendant and he has been demanding the plaintiff to give half share in her self-acquired properties, and they demanded to execute a settlement deed in favour of the 1st defendant, but the plaintiff did not accept their demands.

-6-

Since then, both defendants have been harassing the plaintiff one way or another. On 04.08.2020, the 1st defendant came to her house in a drunken state of mind and highhandedly demanded the plaintiff to give half share to him, when the plaintiff did not accept the same, the 1st defendant kicked the plaintiff on her stomach with maximum force, then plaintiff fell down on the floor with heavy stomach pain. The elder son of the plaintiff and her relatives of the plaintiff took her to the Sun Star Hospital, Rajahmundry and provided treatment.

v) Later, both the defendants hatched upto a plan and they managed the police and got filed a false criminal case against the plaintiff and her elder son, as if they beat them. As the defendants had been harassing the plaintiff and her elder son, plaintiff and her elder son went to the adjacent cattle shed of their neighbour and resided in the said shed. Later they went to the Mulaparru village to avoid harassment of Defendant and they have been residing in the rented house. On 25.07.2025, both the defendants came to the fields of the plaintiff and they highhandedly stopped the workers of the plaintiff from doing agricultural operations at the plaintiffs’ schedule properties. But at the intervention of elders both the defendants went away. But they threatened the plaintiff that they will kill her unless she settles the plaint schedule properties in the name of the 1st defendant. The defendants may do any disparate acts, unless the Hon’ble Court prevented them by suitable injunction orders.

8. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed Ex.A1 to A10 documents i.e., certified copies of sale deed, settlement deeds, pattadar pass book and property tax and water tax receipts pertaining to the plaint schedule properties and all the documents stand in the name of the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff established her case that she is the absolute owner having right, title and possession over the plaint schedule properties by paying property tax and water tax.

-7-

9. Whereas, the defendants remained exparte and did not contest the matter by filing application to set aside the exparte order.

10. In the light of the discussion made hereinbefore and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that this suit is liable to be decreed with costs. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

POINT NO.2

11) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants 1 and 2 by granting permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their henchmen from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties and interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist, corrected, and pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 13 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- Rokkam Varalakshmi

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsapur

FAC/ Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW.1: Kadali Lalitha Kumari (Plaintiff) Exparte

PW.2: Balam Lakshmi

Documents marked

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of a registered Settlement -- Nil -- Deed, dt. 19.10.2002

Ex.A2: Certified copy of registered Sale Deed, dt. 28.03.2001 -8-

Ex.A3: Certified copy of registered Settlement Deed, dt. 16.06.2008,

Ex.A4: Certified copy of registered Settlement Deed, dt. 18.06.1990,

Ex.A5: Certified copy of registered Settlement Deed, dt. 28.05.1991,

Ex.A6: Original title deed cum Pattadar Pass Book in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A7: Original title cum Pattadar Pass Book, dt. 07.12.2001 in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A8: Property tax receipt, dt. 04.08.2025,

Ex.A9: Property tax receipt, dt. 04.08.2025,

Ex.A10: Water tax receipt, dt. 08.08.2022,

Ex.A11: Sun Star Hospital OP card along with medical prescription,

Ex.A12: Accused copies of charge sheet along with Wound Certificate in CC No.90/2023,

Ex.A13: OP card along with medical prescription of plaintiff, dt. 16.09.2022

Ex.A14: OP bill cum receipt issued by Sun Star Hospital, dt. 04.08.2022

Sd/- Rokkam Varalakshmi

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsapur

FAC/ Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PALAKOL.

Present: Rokkam Varalakshmi,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsapur

FAC/ Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol

Friday, this the 6th day of March, 2026

O.S.No.138/2023

Between:

Ukkusuri Venkata Siva, S/o Dharma Raju, aged 40 years, Male, Business, D.No.1-214, Poolapalli of Palakol Mandal, W.G.District.

...Plaintiff

And

1. Eluri Satyanarayana, S/o Adi Murthy, aged 65 years, Male, Business, D.No. 3-67, Mallavaram, Narsapu Mandal, W.G. District.

2. Eluri Savitri, W/o Satyanarayana, aged60 years, Female, Housewife, D.No.3-67, Mallavaram, Narsapur Mandal, W.G. District. …Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 06.02.2026 in the presence of Sri C.V.N.Kishore, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri V.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for the defendants, and on perusing the material available on record and upon hearing arguments, having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking a decree directing the defendants to pay the suit claim of Rs.2,77,866/- with subsequent interest at 24% per annum on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization, and to award costs of the suit.

2. The averments made in the plaint, in brief are that on 25-11-2021, the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for their family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and for investment of otheir business, and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum with yearly compound rests. Subsequently in spite of several demands made by the 2 plaintiff personally and through mediators, defendants postponing the same on one pretext or the other, thereby plaintiff got issued registered legal notice to the 1st defendant on 20-02-2023 and informed to serve the copy of the notice to the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant having received the said notice on 24.02.2023, kept quite without issuing any reply notice or they did not choose to pay any amount so far. The plaintiff further submitted that the 1st defendant is a business man and hence the provisions of Act IV of 38 and its extended acts are not applicable. Hence the suit.

3.After service of summons, defendants filed their written statement denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that they never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, and they have no knowledge about him. After received legal notice dt. 20.02.2023, the defendants enquired for the plaintiff, who is son-in-law of 1st attester by name Denaboina Radha Krishna, S/o

Subbarao of Mallavaram. Originally, the defendants took an amount of

Rs.10,000/- from 1st attester’s wife Denaboina Vijaya Lakshmi Kumari in or about 6 years back for the agricultural investment on condition to repay the said amount with interest at Rs.2/- per hundred per month, when they lent the amount she obtained their signatures on one empty promissory note towards collateral security for the said amount. Subsequently they paid an amount of

Rs.15,000/- to Denaboina Vijaya Lakshmi Kumari, W/o Radha Krishna towards full and final settlement of the said debt. After received the said amount, she stated to the defendants that “tomorrow I will return your empty promissory note”. The defendants so many times went to the house of

Denaboina Vijaya Lakshmi Kumari to collect their empty promissory note, but she said that the said empty promissory note was misplaced in her records, requested for some time to search records and return the empty promissory note.

3

The defendants believed the words of Denaboina Vijaya Lakshmi

Kumari and kept quiet. Subsequently said Denaboina Vijaya Lakshmi Kumari died in the year 2020 without return the said empty promissory note to the defendants. Surprisingly, her husband i.e., 1st attestor Denaboina Radha

Krishna, S/o Subbarao of Mallavaram sent legal notice dated 26-03-2022 to the 2nd defendant, after received the said notice the defendants put the matter

before the Mallavaram village elders and the village elders called the said 1st

attester Denaboina Radha Krishna to enquire about the same, but he did not approach the elders and on the other hand he got filed the false suit in the name of plaintiff to gain unlawfully. The neither defendants never seen nor knowledge about the plaintiff, the alleged 2nd attester and scribe of the suit promissory note. The 1st attestor Denaboina Radha Krishna, S/o Subbarao of

Mallavaram brought into existence the alleged suit promissory note with collusive of the plaintiff and other attester and scribe of the suit promissory note who are kith and kin of him. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with compensatory costs.

4. Basing on the pleadings of the both the parties, the following issues were settled for trilal:

1) Whether the suit promissory note dated 25-11-2021 is true, valid and binding on the defendants or not ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of recovery of suit amount as prayed for ?

3) To what relief?

5. During course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of the defendant, the 2nd defendant herself examined as DW.1 and Ex.B1 is marked.

6. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

4

ISSUE NOs.1 & 2:

7. Issues No.1 and 2 are answered collectively to avoid repetition of evidence.

8. It is the case of plaintiff that defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from him on 25-11-2021 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note by agreeing to repay the same with interest and subsequently in spite of demands and registered notice the defendants failed to discharge the debt.

On the other hand the defendants denied the case of plaintiff and submitted that the suit promissory note is brought into existence by the 1st attester with collusive of the plaintiff and other attester and scribe.

9. Plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and deposed that he got acquaintance with the defendants through one Manne Srinivas, who is son-in- law of 1st attestor. The first attestor asked him amount on 25-11-2021. He lent amount to the defendants on the next day of 25-11-2021. He lent amount to the defendant at the residence of the son-in-law of 1st attester. Ex.A1 transaction was taken place at the outside of residence of above Manne

Srinivas. There were six people were present while Ex.A1 transaction. The defendants 1 and 2, the 1st attestor, scribe and the above Manne Srinivas were present. Despite the demands made by the plaintiff, defendants not discharged the debt, hence got issued Ex.A2 dated 20-02-2023 i.e., registered legal notice, and notice was served. Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgment, thereby plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of promissory note amount. To prove his case he also examined two attestors of Ex.A1, namely, Denaboyina Radha

Krishna and Mutyala Venkateswara Rao as PW.2 and P.W3. The evidence of

PW.2 and P.W.3 is Ex.A1 was attested by them and scribed by one

K.Srinivasa Rao, the consideration was passed in their presence, and the defendants put their signatures on Ex.A1 in their presence.

5

10. The 2nd Defendant herself examined as DW.1, Ex.B1 was marked on his behalf and deposed that they did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time, hence question of passing of consideration does not arise, they never seen nor knowledge about the plaintiff, the alleged 2nd attestor and scribe of Ex.A1. She further submitted that the promissory note is brought into existence by 1st attester Denaboina Radha Krishna, S/o

Subbarao of Mallavaram with collusive of the plaintiff and another attester and scribe of the suit promissory note.

11. The cross-examination of PW.1 that he got acquaintance with the defendants through one Manne Srinivas, who is son-in-law of 1st attestor. The first attestor asked him amount on 25-11-2021. He lent amount to the defendants on the next day of 25-11-2021. He lent amount to the defendant at the residence of the son-in-law of 1st attester. Ex.A1 transaction was taken place at the outside of residence of above Manne Srinivas. There were six people were present while Ex.A1 transaction. The defendants 1 and 2, the 1st attestor, scribe and the above Manne Srinivas were present. The 1st attestor called him to the house of his son-in-law. Then he went there. When he reached his house, the defendants, the 1st attestor and the above Manne

Srinivas were present. The defendants brought Ex.A1 promissory note and affixed Rs.1/- stamp over it. The defendants 1 and 2 signed two signatures each over Ex.A1 in Telugu. One Kolakuluru Srinivasa Rao is scribe of Ex.A1.

12. The defence was taken by defendants is Ex.A1 promissory note was brought into existence by the 1st attester Denaboina Radha Krishna, S/o

Subbarao of Mallavaram with collusive of the plaintiff and another attester and scribe. To prove the suit transaction, plaintiff relied on Ex.A1 contains the signatures of defendants and Ex.A2 notice, Ex.A3 Postal Acknowledge and also relied on the oral evidence of PW.2 and P.W.3 who are attesters of

Ex.A1, the evidence of PW.2 and P.W.3 not shaken during cross-examination, 6 the plaintiff proved the execution of Ex.A1 and passing of consideration. The defendants failed to deny the case of plaintiff even though they taken defence of collusive document, and also she denied the signatures on promissory note, when Ex.A1 was confronted to her. Ex.A2 is legal notice received by the defendants and Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgment. The 2nd defendant deposed that she got issued reply to Ex.A2, but did not file any such notice before the

Court. As discussed earlier plaintiff succeeded to prove the execution of

Ex.A1 and passing of consideration, hence it can be said that promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendants and the plaintiff is entitled to receive the amount from the defendants, the defence of collusive document is not proved. Accordingly, Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

ISSUE No.3:

13. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the defendants are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,77,866/- (Rupees Two lakhs Seventy

Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Six only) to the plaintiff together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization only on the

principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 6 th day of March, 2026.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsapur

FAC/ Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff For Defendants

PW.1: Ukkusuri Venkata Siva DW.1: Eluri Savitri

PW.2: Denaboina Radha Krishna

PW.3: Mutyala Venkateswara Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff For Defendants

Ex.A1: Promissory note dated 25-11-2021 Ex.B1: Legal notice, dt.26.03.2022 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2: Office copy of Registered Legal Notice dated 20-02-2023. Ex.A3: Postal Acknowledgment.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsapur

FAC/ Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol.

APWG0F0004492022

IN THE COURT OF

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, NARSAPUR.

Present : Rokkam Varalakshmi, Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur,

Friday, the 15th day of May, 2026.

C.C. No.252/2022

Between:

The State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Plice, Elamanchili Police Station, Elamanchili. … Complainant And:

1) Veeraghanta Lakshmi Prasanna @ Sripada Lakshmi Prasanna, W/o. Veeraghanta Janardhana Rao, Aged 57 years, Teacher, High School, Medapadu village, Elamanchili Mandal.

2) Veeraghanta Srivalli, D/o. Janardhana Rao, Aged 32 years, Medapadu village, Elamanchili Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming before me on 11.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri R.Pullaji, Advocate for the accused, and after hearing arguments, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Elamanchili

Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime

No.256/2021 for the offence under Section 304-A, 337 of IPC, and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

-2-

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

(i) Accused No.1 is the rider of Pleasure motorcycle/Crime vehicle bearing No.OD-15-8155, and Accused No.2 is the owner of the crime vehicle and have no valid insurance. On 09.07.2012, on the eve of birthday of Pilli

Prabhudasu, he and his friend Manukonda Krupavaram who are the residents of Neredumilli village of Elamanchili, went to Palakol on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-37-CK-5916 Passion Pro to purchase clothes and other articles, and while returning to their house at about 12.30 p.m. when they reached near to Medapadu village, Accused No.1 drove his Pleasure Motor

Cycle bearing No.OD-15-8155 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the Pilli Prabhudasu, resulting which they fell down on the road, Pilli Prabhudasu received head injury and died on the spot, and the pillion rider of the motorcycle namely, Manukonda Krupavaram received injuries, then they were shifted to Government Hospital at Palakol in 108 Ambulance. Having received the report from LW.1-Pilli Yohanu who is theelder brother of Pilli Prabhudasu (deceased), LW.15 registered a case in

Crime No.256/2021 under Section 304-A, 337 of IPC of Elamanchili P.S. and took up investigation. During the course of further investigation, LW.15 visited the scene of offence, examined and phographed the scene, prepared rough sketch and Scene observation report, secured LWs.1 to 9, conducted inquest and postmortem over the deadbody of the deceased, obtained postmortem certificate of the deceased and wound certificate of LW.9-

Manukonda Krupavaram from LW.11-Dr. Santhosh, CAS, Government

Hospital, palakol, and also obtained M.V.I. report from LW.10-K.Rambabu,

Motor Vehicle Inspector, Palakol, served notice to the accused under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., and on compliance accused was released on Station bail, and after completion of investigation LW.15-Sri J.N.V.Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Police, Elamanchili P.S. filed charge sheet before the Court against the accused. Thereby, A1 and A2 are liable for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A, 337 of IPC and Section 196 of M.V.Act 1988.

-3-

3. Cognizance was taken by my learned predecessor for the offence under

Sections 304-A, 337 of IPC and Section 196 of Motor Vehicles Act against A1; and Section 196 of Motor Vehicle Act against the A2.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of the relevant documents were furnished to the Accused Nos.1 and 2 as contemplated u/Sec.207 of the

Cr.P.C., and they were examined u/Sec.251 of the Cr.P.C. on the substance of accusation for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 of IPC and Section 196 of Motor Vehicles Act against A1; and Section 196 of Motor

Vehicle Act against the A2 was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.

5. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.

6. After closure of prosecution side evidence, as there was no incriminating material leveled against the accused, the examination under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination is that -

1) Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of Accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 of IPC and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

2) Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of Accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 196 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988?

POINT NOs.1 AND 2:

9. Coming to the evidence adduced before the Court, the evidence of

PW.1, who set the criminal law into motion, discloses that deceased

Prabhudasu is his elder brother, he does not know the reason for his death and he does not know anything about this case and the police did not examine -4- him and recorded his statement and he never gave report to the police. As the witness turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution having deviated from his previous version as stated in Ex.P2 (Section 161 of the

Cr.P.C. Statement), the learned APP cross-examined him with the permission of the Court but nothing worthwhile was elicited from him in support of the case of the prosecution.

10. PW.2 is the mother of deceased, PWs.3 and 4 are the daughters of deceased. The evidence of PWs.2 to 4 is well-nigh akin to that of PW.1. As the witness turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution having deviated from their previous version as stated in Exs.P3 to P5 (Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Statements), the learned APP cross-examined the witnesses with the permission of the Court but nothing worthwhile was elicited from them in support of the case of the prosecution.

11. It is crystal clear from the above evidence that PWs.1 to 4 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Though the learned APP cross-examined them with the permission of the Court, nothing worthwhile was elicited from them in support of the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 disclose that they did not witness the accident in this case, and they seen the deceased in the hospital. Hence, they did not personally know that the Accused No.1 was driving the crime vehicle at the relevant time and he drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby he was responsible for the death of the deceased Prabhudasu in this case. Not only that, even the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 does not disclose anything against the accused. Thus, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is of no use at all to the case of the prosecution.

12. In view of the above evidence of PWs.1 to 4, the learned APP also gave up the evidence of the remaining 11 listed witnesses, including five official witnesses in this case. In the light of the same and having due regard to the fact that PWs.1 to 4 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile, as can be culled out from the above evidence, even if the remaining witnesses, including five official witnesses, whose time is precious, are -5- examined before the Court in this case, no useful purpose would be served.

There must be concrete legal evidence to convict the accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the said offences beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, in the light of the above discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to wholly bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, Point Nos.1 and 2 are accordingly answered in favour of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 and against the prosecution.

13. In the result, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A, 337 of the IPC and Section 196 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, and they are acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C.

of the said offences. Bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Rokkam Varalakshmi,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Narsapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1: Pilli Yohanu None

PW.2: Pilli Mariyamma

PW.3: Pilli Jhansi

PW.4: Pilli Estheru Rani @ Pandutalli -6-

Documents Marked

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on the report. Nil

Ex.P2: Statement of PW.1 recorded u/Sec. 161 of the Cr.P.C.

Ex.P3: Statement of PW.2 recorded u/Sec. 161 of the Cr.P.C.

Ex.P4: Statement of PW.3 recorded u/Sec. 161 of the Cr.P.C.

Ex.P5: Statement of PW.4 recorded u/Sec. 161 of the Cr.P.C.

Sd/- Rokkam Varalakshmi

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Narsapur.

-7-

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari Calendar of Cases tried by PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, NARSAPUR

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence Report of complaint Apprehension of Accused Release on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09.07.2021 09.07.2021 26.07.2021 26.07.2021 (Sec. 41-A of Cr.P.C.) (Station bail) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.05.2026 11.05.2026 15.06.2026 Due to non-production of witnesses from time to time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment of Calendar Case No.252/2022 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Narsapur. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Elamanchili Police Station in Crime No.256/2021. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion: Calling Village ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Veeraghanta Lakshmi Prasanna @ Sripada Lakshmi Prasanna, W/o. Veeraghanta Janardhana Rao, Aged 57 years, Teacher, High School, Medapadu village, Elamanchili Mandal.

2) Veeraghanta Srivalli, D/o. Janardhana Rao, Aged 32 years, Medapadu village, Elamanchili Mandal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence : U/Sec.304-A, 337 of IPC and Section 196 of the M.V.Act,1988. Finding : Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty. Sentence : In the result, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A, 337 of the IPC and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and they are acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offences. Bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Rokkam Varalakshmi,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Narsapur.

Copy submitted to theHon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (through e-mail) Copy to the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Bhimavaram.