Sri. S Kalyanachakravarthi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PUNGANUR .

PRESENT: SRI S. Kalyana Chakravarthy, B.Com., LL.B.,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Punganur

. Thursday, the 16th ( Sixteenth ) day of April, 2015.

M.C.No. 15 /2012

Between :-

1)B.Pramakumari, aged about 42 years, w/o

B.Vijayabhaskar Reddy,

2)B.Pallavi aged about 16 years,

3)B.Jyothsna, aged about 14 years, Petitioners 2 and 3 are daughters of B.Vijayabhaskar

Reddy. All are Hindus and the petitioners 2 and 3 are minors by guardian natural mother, B.Prema Kumari,

R/at Therumanuthota veedhi, Punganur Town.

PETITIONERS

And

Buchireddigari Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy, aged about 45 years, s/o Late Lakshman Reddy, Hindu, residing at Diguva Chadalla village, Punganur Mandal. RESPONDENT

This case is coming on 25-03-2014, before me , for final hearing, in the presence of Sri K.Chand Basha, Advocate for petitioners, and of Sri

B.Venkatamuni, Advocate for the respondent, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :- - : O R D E R ;-

This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Sec.125 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent praying this court to grant maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month each ,to the petitioners 1 to 3.

2. The allegations of the petitioner as per the petition in brief are as follows ;:- The 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and her marriage was solemnized on 11-4-1990 at Eswara Temple, Srikalahasti and out of their wedlock the petitioners 2 and 3 were begotten. The marital life of the 1st petitioner with the respondent, though not happy, but with small 2 disturbances among them, they lived together till the year , 2007. The respondent aggrieved against the 1st petitioner as she could not provid him a male child. On that the respondent started to harass and neglected the 1st petitioners and ill-treated them not provided any food, clothing and shelter . On 12-12-2007 the respondent married one B.Rahitha and he completely neglected the petitioner and started to living with his second wife. When she approached the respondent, where he was living with his second wife, the respondent man- handled and on that she was hospitalized. She gave a complaint to police and the same was registered as a case in Cr. No. 3/2008 in C.C. 114/2008 against the respondent and his relatives under sec. 498-A , 494 and 323 IPC and in that case, the respondent herein, is the 1st accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A and 323 IPC and convicted him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- and acquitted the remaining accused 2 to 7. The 1st petitioner further alleges that she is working as an Anganwadi worker and getting salary of Rs.2,200/- and she has no parents and living in a rented house by paying

Rs.2000/- towards rent per month. Since 2007 the petitioners 1 to 3 are facing a lot of problems for their food, clothing and for education needs. The petitioners are studying Senior and Junior Intermediate courses respectively and they are in need of Rs.5,000/- per month towards their expenses and they are not having any movable or immovable properties and they are depended on their relatives for their needs and they are unable to maintain themselves as the earnings of the 1st petitioner is not sufficient to pay the house rent. The 1st petitioner further alleges that the respondent is a wealthy land-lord having vast lands and house property by maintaining his own tractor for his agricultural operations and he is also having a political hold and held political force and also he is doing contract works. The respondent has sufficient means to provide separate maintenance to petitioners 1 to 3. The 1st petitioner submits that since the respondent has not choosen to take the petitioners into conjugal fold by 3 neglecting and illtreating them since the year 2007. The petitioners 1 to 3 requires Rs.5,000/-, each per month towards their separate maintenance from the date of this petition.

3. The respondent filed counter denying all the allegations made in the petition. The respondent further submitted that he hails from a respective family and maintaining good reputation in the society. He is a friend of the 1st petitioner’s brother since child hood and used to go to the house of mother of the 1st petitioner as a neighbourer and having acquaintance with the mother of the 1st petitioner and he helped her mother financially and in other aspects and he is not having any relationship with the 1st petitioner in any manner at any time. He further submitted that he helped financially to the mother of 1st petitioner during her life time and he lent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the mother of the 1st petitioner and he demanded to repay the said amount. The 1st petitioner in collusion with her relatives got filed a false case under Sec. 498-A IPC against him and his family members without any relationship and the Hon’ble court also without considering his defence convicted him. On such he also preferred an appeal in Crl.Appeal No. 5/2012 on the file of the Hon’ble II Addl.District Judge,

Madanapalle and the Hon’ble Court was partly allowed the appeal by acquitting the respondent under Sec. 498-A IPC and 494 IPC and convicted to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. He also further submits that the Hon’ble Addl.District Judge,

Madanapalle also not considered that the 1st petitioner is the wife of the respondent and petitioners 2 and 3 are daughters of the respondent and as such the relationship made against the respondent by the 1st petitioner is not correct and the 1st petitioner has to put to strict proof of the alleged marriage in between himself and first petitioner under Hindu Marriages Act.

The respondent further alleges that the 1st petitioner is working as

Anganwadi teacher and getting salary of Rs.4,500/- per month and 2nd petitioner is aged about 18 years and she is a major The 3rd petitioner is aged about 17 years and he is no way connected with the petitioners 1 to 3 and there is no 4 good relationship between him and the petitioners as alleged in the petition and the petitioners are not entitled to any maintenance from him. He further alleged that all the documents filed by the petitioner are created and self-styled documents with a malafide intention to harass and black-mail him. Himself and 1st petitioner never lived as wife and husband in any where and there is no relationship between him and the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner having suspicion that she may loose the criminal case in Crl. Appeal No.5/2012 and to apprehend the respondent, she got filed this petition claiming separate maintenance from him. The 1st petitioner is working as Anganwadi Teacher and getting sufficient income and having a own house at Chadalla village and there is no question that the 1st petitioner is unable to maintain herself and the petitioners 2 and 3 and he finally requested to dismiss the petition.

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner herself examined as PW-1 examined and got marked Exs. P-1 to

Ex.P-7 marked and on behalf of respondent, RW-1 and RW-2 are examined and Ex. R-1 to Ex.R-6 marked.

5. Now the points that arise for consideration are :-

1) Whether the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent?

2) Whether the respondent neglected or refused to maintain the petitioners?

3) Whether the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves?

4) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the maintenance as prayed for?

6, To grant maintenance under Sec 125 Cr,P.C., the petitioner has to prove that there is valid marriage between the petitioner and respondent and the respondent has neglected or refused to maintain the petitioners and the petitioner has also to prove that she is unable to maintain themselves. If all the requirements are satisfied, the petitioner is entitled to claim maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C.

7.. POINT No.1 :- 5

Under law the burden is placed upon the wife to show that there is a valid marriage between her and her husband and that he has neglected or refused to maintain her and she also to be satisfied that she was unable to maintain herself. If the wife established thought the respondent failed to provide maintenance even though he is having sufficient income , then the court will pass an award to maintenance to the petitioner. Now let us see whether the 1st petitioner in this case has established the essential elements of 125 of Cr.P.C. to pass an order of maintenance as prayed by her.

8. The 1st petitioner herself examined as PW-1 and marked Ex.P-1 to P-7. PW-1 deposed that she has acquaintance with the respondent from her childhood and used to go to their house and he also used to go to her house.

She admitted that as on the date of her examination, petitioners 2 and 3 are majors. She deposed that at the time of their marriage, except one person by name Ramesh, none were present on her behalf and no one were present on behalf of the respondent. She deposed that the caste of her and the caste of respondent is different. She further deposed that their marriage was performed in a small temple which is in the premises of main temple of Sri Kalahasti. The respondent tied Thali and they both exchanged the garlands in the presence of a purohit. But she failed to say the name of the said purohit. She also deposed that no photographs were taken to avoid impediments of marriage of the respondent’s sister. She also failed to file any receipt from the temple for their marriage. She further deposed that after their marriage they lived together at

Madanapalle for a period of three years and later they shifted their family to

Chadalla village at her mother’s residence and lived for a period of three years and again they came to Punganur and resided in the rented house at A.V.Rao

Street. She admitted that in the voters’ list of 1993, 1995, 2006, the name of the respondent has not mentioned by showing him that she is wife of respondent.

But the name of father of the 1st petitioner is mentioned in the voters list. She admitted that she is getting salary of Rs.3,700/- per month as Anganwadi 6 worker. She did not submit any salary certificate. She denied all the remaining suggestions put by the counsel for the respondent.

9. The respondent himself examined as RW-1 and Exs. R-1 to R-6 marked. RW-1 deposed that he knows the 1st petitioner since 25 years . There are disputes in between himself and mother of PW-1, 20 years back. Since he lent money to the mother of PW-1. He admitted that the case filed by PW-1 against him under Sec. 498-A IPC convicted him by this court, preferring appeal , etc., facts. He denied that he got married with the 1st petitioner at Eswara temple in Sri Kalahasti on 11-41990 that to safe guard the interests of his unmarried sister married PW-1 secretly and also denied that he put up family with PW-1 at Basinikonda and thereafter at Chadalla and thereafter at A.V.Rao

Street Punganur. He also denied that on 12-12-2007, he married second time.

He voluntarily says that the marriage was his first marriage and he deposed that he do not know whether the joint photos of himself and PW-1 are filed before this court. He further deposed he is not having habit of taking photos with unknown ladies. He further deposed that as he is a politician on some occasions, he can take photos with unknown persons also. He deposed that he is a Law graduate and he was also enrolled as Advocate in Bar counsel of Hyderabad but due to cultivation and political affairs he could not practice as an Advocate.

He also denied that he is getting annual income of Rs.15,00,000/- by way of cultivation and politics.

10. RW-2- M.Venkatrami Reddy deposed in his chief-examination deposed that the respondent is a family friend of the 1st petitioner’s mother and the respondent used to help financially to the mother of the 1st petitioner and he further deposed that the respondent and PW-1 is not having any relationship.

But where as in his cross-examination he deposed totally a different version that he do not know the family back-ground of the respondent and he do not know tht the respondent is a family friend of the mother of PW-1 and he do not know that the marriage of PW-1 and the respondent was performed. So in view of the 7 cross-examination of RW-2, his evidence is not reliable to support the version of RW-1. Hence the evidence of RW-2 cannot be given much credence and it will not support the version of RW-1.

11. Upon assessment of evidence and on appreciation of facts and circumstances emerging from the record , Pw-1 deposed that she married the respondent on 11-4-1990 at Eswaratemple Sri Kalahasti and later they lived happily for some period, during their wedlock the petitioners 2 and 3 were begotten. When the respondent married one Rahitha on 12-12-2007, he completely neglected the petitioners 1 to 3 and he has not provided any food, clothing and shelter, even though he is having sufficient means. As such, the petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent.

12. To support her version, she filed Exs. P-1 to P-7 documents. As seen from Exs.P-1 to P-7 , the name of the respondent is shown as husband of

PW-1. PW-1 has not examined any of the witnesses to support her version. But the documents filed by PW-1 ie., Ex.P-3 – Ration card clearly shows that the respondent is the husband of PW-1 and father of Petitioners 2 and 3. Ex.P-4

Sterilization certificate issued by Dr. Prabhakar, Vijaya Nursing Home,

Punganur, shows that the respondent is the husband of PW-1. Ex.P-4-

Progress report of 2nd petitioner shows that he is the father of 2nd petitioner and he signed in the progress report at signature of the “parent column”. Ex.P-6 voters list of Punganur for the year 2013 and at page 39 at Sl., No. 1107, the name of respondent is shown as husband of PW-1. Ex.P-2 is the joint photo and negative of PW-1 and Respondent .

13. The respondent denied the marriage with PW-1 and he also denied that the petitioners 2 and 3 are their children. To support his case, he filed Exs.

R-1 to R-6. Ex.R-1 is the voters list of Punganur for the year 1993 and Ex.R-2 is the relevant entry at Sl.No. 383 by showing that PW-1 is the daughter of David.

Ex.R-3 is the voters list of Punganur for the year 1995. Ex.R-4 is the relevant entry at Sl.No.317 showing PW-1 is the daughter of David. Ex.R-5 is the voters 8 list of Punganur for the year 2006. Ex.R-6 is the relevant entry at Sl.No. 636 by showing that PW-1 is the daughter of Chinnapa Reddy.

14. Basing on the material available on record, it is true that in order to succeed in an application filed for maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C, it is incumbent on the applicant to prove first of all that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Unquestionably it is the first statutory pre-requisite so as to succeed oneself, as a wife to claim maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code.

Apart from plain reading of the Provision of the Sec. 125 of the Code, it is very settled that the expression 'wife' under Sec. 125 of the Code means , legally wedded wife. Therefore , there is no dispute about the fact in order to succeed in a claim for maintenance under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C, the applicant who is claiming to be a wife have to show that she is legally wedded wife. But we have to observe the factum of marriage with the required degree of proof for claiming maintenance under Sec. 125 Code of Criminal Procedure could be established even in the absence of such documentary evidence. The factum of marriage attracts presumption and it is in accordance with law, for the purpose of qualifying oneself and claiming maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code.

Keeping in the mind, very purport underlined design of Sec. 125 of the Code, a lady claiming to be a wife has to show that she is legally wedded wife and this factum of marriage can be established by various circumstances including long stay between the parties and marital enjoyment between them and parties are taken to have been living as such as spouses by the society. If this is established it is sufficient to presume marital status between the parties for the limited purpose of qualifying oneself to claim maintenance under Sec. 125 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. A husband cannot deny the claim of maintenance of his wife on the ground that the marriage is not established strictly and as such wife is not entitled to claim maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code.

15. It is settled principle of law that in proving a marriage in proceedings under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C which is a civil nature, the standard of proof 9 need not be as high as required in the criminal prosecution by bigamous marriage under Sec. 494 IPC. It is, therefore, very clear that in the case for maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C, it is not necessary that the marriage should be established as required under Sec. 494 IPC.

16 Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children or parents who are victims of social environment.

The scope of Sec. 125 Cr.P.C has been exhaustively dealt with by

Sri Krishna Iyer, J in Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs M/s Veena Kaushal,

AIR 1978, S.C. 1807 at Paragraph 9 of the said Judgment, it is observed that “ This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constituted sweep of Article 15 (3) re-enforced by article 39, we have no doubt that Sections of statues calling for construction of courts are not petrified print, but vibrant words with social functions to fulfill. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker Sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the Cause of the derelictions. “The provisions under Sec. 125 of is not be utilized or defeating the rights conferred by the legislature to the destitute women, children or parents who are victims of social environment the decision of criminal court that there was marriage and that it was a valid marriage will not operate as decisive in any Civil proceedings between the parties for determining those questions.

17 As seen from the evidence of PW-1 and her documents , there is no direct evidence that there is valid marriage in between PW-1 and respondent.

18 No persons were examined by PW-1 to support her case, to prove that there is a valid marriage in between PW-1 and respondent. But , PW-1 contended that there is a valid marriage performed in between her and respondent on 11-12-1990 at Eswara Temple of Sri Kalahasti and during their 1 wedlock, petitioners 2 and 3 were begotten. The respondent denied the marriage, but he admitted that he is having acquaintance with the family of PW-1 from his child hood. He also admitted that PW-1 filed a criminal case under Sec.

498-A IPC against him and the same was ended in conviction in

C.C.No.114/2008 on the file of this court and he also admitted that he preferred an appeal before the appellate court and the same was partly allowed. Ex.P-7 is the certified copy of Judgment in Criminal Appeal 5 /2012 on the file of the

Hon'ble II Addl. District Judge, Madanapalle.

19The main contention of respondent is that there is no valid marriage between him and PW-1 and the documents filed by PW-1 is created and self- styled documents. In support of his case, he filed Exs.R-1 to R-6. It shows that PW-1 is the daughter of David and the counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that if the marriage is happened in the year 1990, the name of the respondent ought to have shown as the husband of PW-1, but it was not find place in the documents Exs. R-1 to R-6 to show that the respondent was the husband of PW-1. The case of PW-1 is that the respondent married her secretly to avoid the impediments which will be caused for his sister's marriage. So the respondent married PW-1 secretly at Sri Kalahasti as per the version of PW-1.

The evidence of PW-1 and the documents Exs. P-1 to P-7 clearly shows that the respondent is the husband of PW-1 and father of Petitioners 2 and 3. We have already observed the findings of the Hon'ble Apex court that the factum of proof of marriage is not so high under Sec. 125 Code of Criminal Procedure As seen from the record, the maintenance petition was filed in the year 2012 and the marriage of PW-1 and respondent was performed in the year 1990. As per the

Hindu customs and traditions, no woman will come forward by claiming a person to be her husband and the father of her children, if really there is no marriage, previous acquaintance , relationship or long stay between them. Here, in this case, admittedly, PW-1 already filed a criminal case against the respondent and also she filed this maintenance petition. So it is presumed that there is a 1 relationship of husband and wife among PW-1 and respondent and also the documents which were filed by PW-1 also clearly shows that the respondent is the husband of PW-1 and father of Petitioners 2 and 3.

20. By virtue of the above mentioned provisions and observations and as per the evidence of PW-1, RW-1 and the documents Exs.P-1 to P-7 and

Exs.R-1 to R-6, this court is satisfied that there is a valid marriage, between the 1st petitioner and respondent. So, basing on the object of Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C to prevent starvation and vagrancy of persons unable to maintain themselves should be paid maintenance and maintenance allowances. Therefore the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Hence this point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.

21 POINT No. 2 :-

Now let us see whether there is any negligence or refusal on the part of the respondent in maintaining the petitioners. As per the evidence of

PW-1, the respondent married one B.Rahita on 12-12-2007 and since then he completely neglected the petitioners 1 to 3, harassed them, illtreated them and not provided any food clothing and shelter. When PW-1 approached the respondent, he beat and manhandled here. To that effect, PW-1 also filed a criminal case in C.C. 114/2012 before the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Punganur.

The respondent was also admitted that PW-1 filed a case against him, under

Sec. 498-A IPC. Hence it seems that the respondent even did not take any steps to dissolve his matrimonial disputes as well as to provide any maintenance to

PW-1 and Petitioners 2 and 3. So it clearly shows that the respondent neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners 1 to 3. Hence this point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.

22 POINT NO.3:-

As seen from the evidence of PW-1, she admitted that she is working as an Anganwadi Worker and getting an income of Rs.2,200/- per month and she is paying house rent of Rs.2,000/- per month, the petitioners 2 and 3 are 1 majors as on the date of giving evidence by PW-1, before the court and they are studying D- Pharmacy and Chartered Accountant courses respectively. If we see the evidence of RW-1 , he is a Law graduate and he is having political influence and he hold several posts in politics and at the same time he is having vast lands and doing agricultural works. Therefore, no doubt, PW-1 is working as an Anganwadi worker and getting salary of Rs.2,200/- per month, but that amount itself is sufficient to pay house rent only. The petitioners 2 and 3 are studying higher studies. So, PW-1 is not having capacity to maintain the educational career of petitioners 2 and 3 and basic needs of PW-1 and her children. So the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves. Hence this point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.

23 POINT NO.4 :-

Coming to source of income of the respondent, PW-1 deposed that the respondent is a landlord and having vast landed properties and also having own tractor for his agricultural purposes. He is a Law graduate having political career as a politician. But, to prove the same, PW-1 has not filed any documentary proof to show that the respondent is a landlord and having vast landed property. Even though PW-1 has not filed any document, with regard to property of respondent, it is bounden duty of every husband to maintain his wife and children as per income and his social status. The 1st petitioner is having two children and due to high prices and high cost of living now a days, her salary of Rs.2,200/- per month is not sufficient to maintain herself and her children ie., petitioners 2 and 3. Hence, the petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled for the maintenance. On considering the facts and circumstances and also financial status, this court feels that it is just and reasonable to award monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the 1st petitioner from the date of filing of this petition.

24. As seen from the evidence of Pw-1 , Petitioners 2 and 3 are majors as on the date of giving her evidence, before this court. If we see Sec.

1 125 Code of Criminal Procedure the major children are not entitled to claim maintenance. Here, in this case the petitioners 2 and 3 are majors. Therefore the petitioners 2 and 3 are not entitled to claim for maintenance from the respondent., but at the time of filing of this petition, the petitioners 2 and 3 are minors. Hence, the petitioners 2 and 3 are also entitled to claim maintenance for an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to each petitioner, till the date of their attaining majority only, by filing arrears maintenance petition before the court, subject to production of the date of birth certificate, along with the arrears maintenance petition, for consideration. The point is answered accordingly.

25 In the result, the petition is partly allowed, directing the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner towards maintenance from the date of filing of this petition and further the respondent is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioners 2 and 3 from the date of this petition ie., 11-6-2012, till the date of their attaining majority, subject to filing date of birth certificate.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 16th day of April, 2015..

sd/- xxxxxxxxxx

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 CLASS.

PUNGANUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONERS : - RESPONDENT:-

PW-1- B.Pramakumari, RW-1- B. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy, RW-2- N.Vekatramana.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONERS :-:

Ex.P.1: 28-12-2012: Certified copy of Judgment in CC.No. 114/2008 on the file of

Addl. Jr. Civil Judge, Punganur .

Ex.P-2 : -- : Photographs with negatives of the petitioner and respondent.

.

Ex.P.3 : -- : House –hold card of the petitioner.

Ex.P-4 : 17-3-1999 : Sterilization certificate issued by Dr P.Prabhakar,

Vijaya Nursing Home, Punganur.

1

Ex.P-5 -- :; Progress card of B.Pallavi Issued by Viswabharathi

School, Punganur.

Ex.P-6 : -- Voters list, 2013 for Rajampeta M.P. elections.

Ex.P-7 :25-10-2012 : Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 5/2012 on the file of the

Hon’ble II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle. .

RESPONDENT:-

Ex.R.1: Voters list of the year 1993 for Punganur Assembly constituency.

Ex.R-2 : Serial Nos. 382 and 383 in page No.3 in Ex.R-1.

Ex.R-3 : Voters list for the year 1995 for Punganur Assembly constituency.

Ex.R-4: Serial No. 316, 317 in Page No.2 of Ex.R-3,

Ex.R-5 : Voters list of Chadalla Grama Panchayath for the year, 2006 ,

Ex.R-6 : Sl. No. 635, 336 in Page No.8 of Ex.R-5.

sd/- xxxxxxxxxx

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 CLASS.

PUNGANUR

1 OS 136/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::PUNGANUR

Present: Sri S.Kalyana Chakravarthi, Addl. Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC-Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Punganur

MONDAY, THE 16th DAY OF MARCH, 2015

O.S.NO.136 of 2014

Between:

Muddangala Venkatappa , S/o Venkatappa, aged about 48 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/at Jangalapalli village, R Nadimpalli post, Ramasamudram Mandal … Plaintiff

And:

1. Muddangala Gurrappa , S/o Venkatappa, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/at Jangalapalli village, Nadimpalli post, Ramasamudram Mandal

2. Muddangala Venkatesh , S/o Venkatappa, aged about 43 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/at Jangalapalli village, Nadimpalli post, Ramasamudram Mandal

3. Muddangala Kanthamma , W/o Venkatesh aged about 40 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/at Jangalapalli village, Nadimpalli post, Ramasamudram Mandal

4. T Venkatamma , S/o Venkatappa, aged about 36 years, Hindu,Cultivation,r/atNarasapuramvillage,, Ramasamudram Mandal

...Defendants.

This suit is coming on 11.03.2015 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K Chand Basha , Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants called absent and set exparte, upon hearing the plaintiff and upon perusal of the record, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff submits that he has been in open , peaceful, exclusive and continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Item No. 1 and 2 of the suit property fallen to the share of the plaintiff during the family oral partition and the item no,. 3 is the DKT Patta land and 2 OS 136/2014 he has got pattadhar pass book and all revenue records in his favour . He has also availed a loan from Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Chembakuru by depositing the title deeds with the bank . He has also filed 1B namuna for the suit property Item No. 1 to 3. The defendants 1 and 2 are brothers and fourth defendant is the sister of plaintiff. The defendants demanded the plaintiff to part with an extent of each Ac 0.05 cents for them in item no., 2 of the suit property for having their houses as item No. 2 of the suit property is situated to the main road and got much value. When the plaintiff refused to sell the extent demanded by the defendants they in order to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff by causing obstruction for the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and on 15.06.2014 the defendants tried to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession over the suit property while the plaintiff was making ready to sow groundnut seeds .

The plaintiff is innocent and helpless person. The defendants have no manner of right over the suit property and never in possession of the same.

The defendants are larger in number and the plaintiff is unable to resist the high handed acts of the defendants . Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.

3. The suit summons have been served on the defendants, subsequently the defendants remained exparte. The plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit as P.W1 and got marked Ex A1 to A4 .

4.Heard and perused the record.

5.Now the point for consideration is, whether the plaintiff is

entitled for the relief of permanent injunction over the suit schedule

property as prayed for ?

6. POINT : On perusal of the evidence of P.W1, he deposed as per the averments mentioned in the plaint. To support his contentions Ex.A1 to A4 are marked. Ex A1 is the Pattadhar Passbook bearing NO. 184 stands in the name of plaintiff. Ex A2 is the pattadhar passbook bearing No. 148 stands in the name of plaintiff. Ex A3 is 1B Namuna for items No. 1 and 2. Ex A4 is 1B Namuna for item No. 3 . All the said

Ex.A1 to A4 are clearly show that the plaintiff has been possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. As per record, the defendants are trying to dispossess and causing troubles to the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Since the defendant remained ex-parte in the suit, it can be said that an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant to the effect that they admitted the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, by virtue of the consistent and 3 OS 136/2014 indiscredited evidence of P.W1, coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A4, this court concludes that the plaintiff has established the Suit claim, and as such, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

7.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in an way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint scented property.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 16th day of March, 2015.

Sd/-XXXXXX

Addl. Principal Junior Civil Judge, FAC-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For plaintiff For defendants

P.W1: M Venkatappa - NIL-

Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff

Ex A1 is the Pattadhar Passbook bearing NO. 184 stands in the name of plaintiff.

Ex A2 is the pattadhar passbook bearing No. 148 stands in the name of plaintiff.

Ex A3 is 1B Namuna for items No. 1 and 2.

Ex A4 is 1B Namuna for item No. 3 .

Exhibits marked on behalf of the defendants

--nil—

Sd/-XXXXXX

Addl. Principal Junior Civil Judge, FAC-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::PUNGANUR

Present: Sri S.Kalyana Chakravarthi, Addl. Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC-Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Punganur

MONDAY, THE 16th DAY OF MARCH, 2015

O.S.NO.136 of 2014

Between:

Muddangala Venkatappa , S/o Venkatappa, aged about 48 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/at Jangalapalli village, Nadimpalli post, Ramasamudram Mandal … Plaintiff

And:

1. Muddangala Gurrappa , S/o Venkatappa, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/at Jangalapalli village, Nadimpalli post, Ramasamudram Mandal

2. Muddangala Venkatesh , S/o Venkatappa, aged about 43 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/at Jangalapalli village, Nadimpalli post, Ramasamudram Mandal

3. Muddangala Kanthamma , W/o Venkatesh aged about 40 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/at Jangalapalli village, Nadimpalli post, Ramasamudram Mandal

4. T Venkatamma , S/o Venkatappa, aged about 36 years, Hindu,Cultivation,r/atNarasapuramvillage,, Ramasamudram Mandal

...Defendants.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs.

Plaint presented on :20.06.2014 and Plaint filed on : 20.06.2014

Value of the suit schedule property Rs.54,500/-

Notional value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.5000/-

A court fee of Rs.411/- is paid u/s. 26(c) of APCF Act.

Cause of action arose on 15.06.2014 when the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property at Peddakurappali village in Ramasamudram Mandal within the jurisdiction of this court.

This suit is coming on 11.03.2015 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K Chand Basha , Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants called absent and set 5 exparte, upon hearing the plaintiff and upon perusal of the record, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

1. That the defendants and their men be and are restrained from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by way of permanent injunction

2. That the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1133/- being the costs of the suit;

Given under my hand and the seal of the court this the 16th day of March, 2015.

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur.

SCHEDULE

Chittoor district, Punganur Sub-District, Ramasamudram mandal, Kurappalli village.

1.Sircar Dry S.No.285/15, Ac 0-21 cents

Bounded by: East : Vanka

West : Pathura Venkatesu's land

North: Land of pullaganti Venkatramana

South: Land of Pathuru Venkatramana 2.Sircar Dry S.No. 288/2 Ac 0-48 cents

Bounded by: East : Land of Marrimakulapalli Munaswamy

West : Land of Guttappa

North : Land of Palekoti Gangappa

South : Ramasamudram to Chembakur Road 3.Sircar Dry S.No. 246/11 Ac 0-40 cents

Boundee by : East : Land of Digudu Chennappa

West : Land of Ramana Boyudu

North : Land of Medipalle Venkatappa

South : Vanka.

6

STATEMENT OF COSTS

For For Plaintiff Rs.Defendants.

Stamp on Plaint411-00

Stamp on Vakalat'2-00exparte

Pleader’s Fee500-00

Service of Process200-00

Typing Charges20-00

Total Rs.1133-00 -

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur.

DECREE

O.S.No.136/2014,

dt.16.03.2015 Part I

1 OS 79/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::PUNGANUR

Present: Sri S.Kalyana Chakravarthi, Addl. Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC/ Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Punganur

Monday, the 16th day of March, 2015

O.S.NO.51 of 2014

Between:

G Venkataramana Reddy, S/o G Munivenkataswamy, aged about 61 years, Hindu, cultivation, r/at Panjani Staram, Pedda panjani madnal , Chittoor District … Plaintiff

And:

1. R Markondiah, S/o Ramaiah, aged about 60 years, Hindu. Cultivation, r/at Basavarajakandriga village, H/o Kogileru, Pedda Panjani mandal , Chittoor District

2. R Parvathamma , W/o Markondiaah , aged about 50 years, Hindu. Cultivation, r/at Basavarajakandriga village, H/o Kogileru, Pedda Panjani mandal , Chittoor District

3. R Jagadeeswara, S/o Markondiaah , aged about 30 years, Hindu. Cultivation, r/at Basavarajakandriga village, H/o Kogileru, Pedda Panjani mandal , Chittoor District

...Defendants.

This suit is coming on 10.03.2015 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y Bhaskar Reddy , Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants called absent and set exparte, upon hearing the plaintiff and upon perusal of the record, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff submits that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property of the plaintiff. During the life time of father of plaintiff he was in possession and the same and after his death the plaintiff continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. During the life time of father of plaintiff, on his application hiis name was mutated in all revenue records for the suit schedule property and other properties and got issued 2 OS 79/2014 pattadhar pass book and title deed by the then MRO, Pedda Panjani. After the death of the father of plaintiff the name of the plaintiff has been mutated in No. 2 Adangal and in NO 3 Pahani . The plaintiff further submits he has planted and reared Mango plants in the suit schedule property and also planted and reared wood apple, guava plants and farmed a small water pond for water to the cattle, he also drilled a bore well and electricity department erected electrical pole and fixed transformer and he also fenced on the ridge of his land in the suit schedule property. The defendants who have no right and title over the suit schedule property creating troubles to the plaintiff in enjoying the suit schedule property. On 15.03.2014 when the plaintiff and his wife are dressing the fencing on southern side in the suit schedule property, the defendant and their men trying to enter into the suit schedule property highhandedly to damage the fencing of the plaintiff . The plaintiff and his wife stopped them not to enter into the suit schedule property. The defendants are rich and powerful persons who are backed by the enemies of the plaintiff are trying to create all sorts of obstacles in the process of enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.

3. The suit summons have been served on the defendants, subsequently the defendants remained exparte. The plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit as P.W1 and got marked Ex A1 to A4 .

4.Heard and perused the record.

5.Now the point for consideration is, whether the plaintiff is

entitled for the relief of permanent injunction over the suit schedule

property as prayed for ?

6. POINT : On perusal of the evidence of P.W1, he deposed as per the averments mentioned in the plaint. To support his contentions Ex.A1 to A4 are marked. Ex A1 is copy of 10 (1) account issued by the

Revenue Inspector, Pedda Panjani . Ex A2 is copy of No 2 Adangal and

No 3 Pahani. Ex A3 is title deed issued in the name of fatehr of plaintiff. Ex A4 is the pattadahr pass book issued in the name of father of plaintiff. . All the said Ex.A1 to A4 are clearly show that the plaintiff has been possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. As per record, the defendants are trying to dispossess and causing obstruction to the plaintiff in enjoying the suit schedule property.

Since the defendants remained ex-parte in the suit, it can be said that an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants to the effect that they admitted the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, by virtue of the 3 OS 79/2014 consistent and indiscredited evidence of P.W1, coupled with Ex.A1 to

Ex.A4, this court concludes that the plaintiff has established the Suit claim, and as such, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

7.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in an way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint scented property.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 16th day of March, 2015.

Sd/-XXXXX

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For plaintiff For defendants

P.W1: G Venkatramana Reddy - NIL-

Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff

Ex A1 is copy of 10 (1) account issued by the Revenue Inspector, Pedda Panjani .

Ex A2 is copy of No 2 Adangal and No 3 Pahani.

Ex A3 is title deed issued in the name of fatehr of plaintiff.

Ex A4 is the pattadahr pass book issued in the name of father of plaintiff.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the defendants

--nil—

Sd/-XXXXX

Addl Junior Civil Judge, FAC-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::PUNGANUR

Present: Sri S.Kalyana Chakravarthi, Addl. Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC/ Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Punganur

Monday, the 16th day of March, 2015

O.S.NO.51 of 2014

Between:

G Venkataramana Reddy, S/o G Munivenkataswamy, aged about 61 years, Hindu, cultivation, r/at Panjani Staram, Pedda panjani madnal , Chittoor District … Plaintiff

And:

1. R Markondiah, S/o Ramaiah, aged about 60 years, Hindu. Cultivation, r/at Basavarajakandriga village, H/o Kogileru, Pedda Panjani mandal , Chittoor District

2. R Parvathamma , W/o Markondiaah , aged about 50 years, Hindu. Cultivation, r/at Basavarajakandriga village, H/o Kogileru, Pedda Panjani mandal , Chittoor District

3. R Jagadeeswara, S/o Markondiaah , aged about 30 years, Hindu. Cultivation, r/at Basavarajakandriga village, H/o Kogileru, Pedda Panjani mandal , Chittoor District

...Defendants.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs.

Plaint presented on : 20.03.2014 and Plaint filed on :20.03.2014

Value of the suit schedule property Rs.25,000/-

Notional value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.5000/-

A court fee of Rs.411/- is paid u/s. 26(c) of APCF Act.

Half of the value of 70 Mango trees Rs.3,500/-

C.F. Paid u/s. 26(b) of APCF Act Rs.299/-

Total C.F. (Rs.411+299+10) Rs. 710/-

Cause of action arose

This suit is coming on 10.03.2015 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y Bhaskar Reddy , Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants called absent and set exparte, upon hearing the plaintiff and upon perusal of the record, this court doth order and decree as follows:- 5

1.That the defendants and their men be and are restrained from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by way of permanent injunction

2. That the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1822/- being the costs of the suit;

Given under my hand and the seal of the court this the 16th day of March, 2015.

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur.

SCHEDULE

Chittoor District, Punganur Sub-District, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Kogileru Revenue village,

S.No. 137-1A, Dry Ac.1-00 cents.

Bounded by

East: The land of M.Murahari Reddy.

West: The land of Jalli Salamma,

North: The Mango garden of the plaintiff in the some other S.No.,

South: After fencing the suit schedule property the land of defendants.

Within this the land poora and Mango trees seventy in number.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

For For Plaintiff Rs.Defendants.

Stamp on Plaint710-00

Stamp on Vakalat'2-00exparte

Pleader’s Fee850-00

Service of Process240-00

Typing Charges20-00

Total Rs.1822-00 -

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur.

DECREE

O.S.No.51/2014,

dt.16.03.2015 Part I 6

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PUNGANUR .

PRESENT: Sri S. Kalyana Chakravarthy, B.Com., LL.B.,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

Friday, the 10th ( Tenth) day of April, 2015.

C.C No. 88 / 2013 Between:

The State of A.P. represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Somala Police station.

Complainant.

And :

1)A. Hemanth Reddy, S/o. A.Veerapa Reddy, Aged about 21 years, Yerragunthalavaripalli village, H/o. Annemmagaripalli,

Somala Mandal.

2)A. Gangadhar Reddy, S/o. A. Pedda Venkata Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Yerragunthalavaripalli village, H/o.

Annemmagaripalli, Somala Mandal.

3)A. Sidda Reddy, S/o. A. Veerapa Reddy, Aged about 30 years, Yerragunthalavaripalli village, H/o. Annemmagaripalli,

Somala Mandal. Accused 1 to 3

This case is coming on 10-04-2015, before me, for final hearing, in the presence of Kum M. Latha, Assistant Public prosecutor for State and of Sri

K. Anji Babu, Advocate for Accused, upon hearing their arguments, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :- - : JUDGMENT ;-

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Somala P.S filed a charge sheet in Cr.

No. 53 /2012 against accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 324, 323

IPC r/w 34 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that on 15-12-2012 at 6 AM near the house of LW.1 Y.Madhu at Yerragunthalavaripalle village,

Somala Mandal A-1 to A-3 came there with common intention, A-1 beat LW.1

Y.Madhu, with a knife on his head and caused bleeding injury. A-2 and A-3 beat

LW.1 Y.Madhu and LW.2 Y.Chendrayappa with hands and kicked with legs and caused dumb injuries due to the house site disputes. They were shifted to

Government Hospital, Punganur through 108 ambulance for treatment. Basing on that hospital intimation LW.6- C.Lakshmi Kanth, S.I. of Police Somala PS, registered a case in No. 53 /2012 under Sec. 324, 323 IPC r/w 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, the S.I. of police, Somala filed charge sheet against accused for the above offence. Hence the charge.

3. After filing of the charge sheet, this court has taken cognizance of the offences under Sec. 324, 323 IPC r/w 34 IPC. against A-1 to A-3.

4 On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. This court has examined A-1 to A-3 under Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. for which they denied the offences leveled against them upon which a charge under Sec.

324 IPC against A-1 and U Sec 323 IPC, 324 r/w 34 IPC against A-2 and A-3 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution in support of its case examined Pws 1 to 3 and

Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-4 marked. Since PWs 1 to 3 did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of rest of the witnesses as no useful purpose will be served in view of hostile evidence of

PWs 1 to 3..

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence appeared against the accused persons, as such the examination of accused under sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

8. Heard both sides. Perused entire record.

9. Now the point for determination is :-

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused under Sec. 324 IPC

against A-1 and U Sec 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC against A-2 and A-3, beyond all

reasonable doubt” ?

10. The prosecution, in order to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences U/Sec 324, 323 r/w.34 IPC, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 3 and Exs. P-1 to P-4 are marked.

11.PW-1- Y.Madhu, deposed in his evidence that at about 2 years back while he was loading the mud in his tractor, several persons picked up quarrel with regard to the path way disputes and pushed him down, that he fell down on s\tone slabs and sustained injuries and he fell unconscious. The villagers shifted him to the Government Hospital, Punganur. He further deposed that the accused never beat and never caused any injuries. The police obtained his signature on some white papers in the hospital, but he do not know the contents of the same and he was not examined by the police.

12. PW 2 – Y.Chandrayapa deposed in his evidence that PW 1 is his son, he came to know about the incident through his villagers that at about 2 years back while PW.1 was loading the mud in his tractor, several persons picked up quarrel with regard to the path way disputes and pushed him down, that he fell down on stone slabs and sustained injuries and he fell unconscious. The villagers shifted him to the Government Hospital, Punganur. He was not examined by the police.

13.PW.3 – Y.Laxmaiah deposed in his evidence that PW.1 is grand son and PW.2 is his son. He do not know anything about this case facts and he was not examined by the police.

14. Since the material witnesses ie., PWs 1 to 3 did not support the version of prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross-examined the witnesses and suggested to PWs 1 to 3 that they stated before police as in

Exs. P-1 to Ex. P-4 respectively, for which they denied the suggestions made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Hence there is no iota of evidence against accused to prove the prosecution case. Hence the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. In the result, A-1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec 324 IPC, A-2 and A-3 are also found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.

323, 324 r/w.34 IPC and they are acquitted under Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C . The bail bonds of both the accused shall be in force for a further period of 6 months from the date of judgment U/S 437(A) Cr.P.C. and thereafter it stands canceled.

The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 10thday of April, 2015.

sd/- xxxxxxxxxx

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PUNGANUR .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION :- ACCUSED:-

PW-1- Y.Madhui – Nil --

PW-2- Y.Chandrayappa.

PW-3-Y.Laxmaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION :-

Ex. P-1 – Signature of PW-1 in the complaint.

Ex. P-2– 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1 .

Ex. P-3 – 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2 .

Ex. P-4 – 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3.

Defence:- -- Nil --

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

– Nil --

sd/- xxxxxxxxxx

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PUNGANUR .

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

PUNGANUR .Calendar in C.C.No. 88 / 2013

Date of Offence:15-12-2012

Date of complaint.:15-12-2012

Date of taken on file:22-03-2013

Date of apprehension of accused:20-12-2013

Date of commencement of trial.:10/04/15

Date of close of trial:10-04-2015

Date of sentence of Order:10-04-2015

Complainant:The Sub Inspector of police, Somala Police Station, (Cr.No. 53 / 2012 )

Name of the Accused Father’s Name Age.

1)A. Hemanth Reddy, S/o. A.Veerapa Reddy, Aged about 21 years,

2)A. Gangadhar Reddy, S/o. A. Pedda Venkata Reddy, Aged about 50 years,

3)A. Sidda Reddy, S/o. A. Veerapa Reddy, Aged about 30 years,

Village MandalReligionCalling All are r/o All are in Somala All are Hindus, cultivation Yerragunthalavaripalli Mandal. village, H/o. Annemmagaripalli,

Nature of offence/ U/s 324, 323 and 324 r/w 34 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt Section of lawby means of deadly weapons , voluntarily causing hurt with hands and legs and with common intention)

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty. Explanation of delayInspite of take several adjournments, the prosecution examined PWs- 1 to 3 on 10-4-2015. Finding of the courtThe accused are found not guilty.

Sentence of order.In the result, A-1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec 324 IPC, A-2 and A-3 are also found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 323, 324 r/w.34 IPC and they are acquitted under Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C . The bail bonds of both the accused shall be in force for a further period of 6 months from the date of judgment U/S 437(A) Cr.P.C. and thereafter it stands canceled. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

sd/- xxxxxxxxxx

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Punganur

1 OS 221/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::PUNGANUR

Present: Sri S.Kalyana Chakravarthi, Addl. Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC-Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Punganur

Monday, the 18th day of March, 2015

O.S.NO.221 of 2014

Between:

Neerugatti Gangulappa, S/o. N. Reddeppa @ Pedda Reddeppa, aged about 50 years, Hindu, cultivation, r/at Yeguva Bathalapuram Harijana Wada, H/o. Nekkundi, Itikanellore Post, Punganur Mandal, Chittor District.

… Plaintiff

And:

Yenamala Vemanna, S/o Mallappa, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/at Diguva Bathalapuram H/o. Nekkundi, Itikanellore Post, Punganur Mandal, Chittor District.

...Defendant.

This suit is coming on 12.03.2015 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Reddeppa, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants called absent and set exparte, upon hearing the plaintiff and upon perusal of the record, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff submits that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property originally belongs to the Government. The plaintiffs family occupied the same since more than 20 years, they with their manual labour and personal hard work brought the land under plough by removing all bushes and stones and leveled the same and made it fit for easy cultivation and enjoying the same by raising dry crops in it. After taking the long standing un-interrupted possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff's family the Revenue Authorities visit and enquired and issued Sub-Divisional sketch, ryoth pass book and title deed to the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff further submits that in the month July 2014 the defendant without having any manner of right title or possession 2 OS 221/2014 highhandedly ploughed the suit schedule property. The plaintiff and some other elders resisted the high handed acts of the defendant. But the defendant not headed the words of elders and threatened with dire consequences. The plaintiff being a poor person is not in a position to resist the highhanded acts of the defendants. The defendant is not any right over the suit schedule property is trying to occupying the suit land by force and he is trespassing and dis-possessing the suit land without having any manner of right . Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.

3. The suit summons have been served on the defendants, subsequently the defendants remained exparte. The plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit as P.W1 and got marked Ex A1 to A8 .

4.Heard and perused the record.

5.Now the point for consideration is, whether the plaintiff is

entitled for the relief of permanent injunction over the suit schedule

property as prayed for ?

6. POINT : On perusal of the evidence of P.W1, he deposed as per the averments mentioned in the plaint. To support his contentions Ex.A1 to A8 are marked. Ex A1 is pattadhar pass book issued in favour of plaintiff . Ex A2 is title deed issued in favour of plaintiff . Ex A3 is 1B namuna issued by Mandal Revenue Inspector , Ex A4 is Enjoyment

Certificate issued in favour of plaintiff issued by Addl. Revenue

Inspector. Ex A5 is Certified copy of 1B namuna. Ex A6 is Sub

Divisional sketch issued by the Mandal Surveyor ploughed by the plaintiff. Ex A7 is 10 (1) account copy issued by Meeseva stands in the name of plaintiff dated. 08.07.2014. Ex A8 is 1B namuna (ROR) issued by Meeseva stands in the name of plaintiff. . All the said Ex.A1 to A8 are clearly show that the plaintiff has been possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. As per record, the defendants are trying to dispossess and causing troubles to the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Since the defendant remained ex-parte in the suit, it can be said that an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant to the effect that they admitted the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, by virtue of the consistent and indiscredited evidence of P.W1, coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A8, this court concludes that the plaintiff has established the Suit claim, and as such, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

3 OS 221/2014

Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

7.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in an way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint scented property.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 18th day of March, 2015.

Sd/-XXXXX

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For plaintiff For defendants

P.W1: N Gangulappa- NIL-

Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff

Ex A1 is pattadhar pass book issued in favour of plaintiff .

Ex A2 is title deed issued in favour of plaintiff .

Ex A3 is 1B namuna issued by Mandal Revenue Inspector ,

Ex A4 is Enjoyment Certificate issued in favour of plaintiff issued by Addl. Revenue Inspector.

Ex A5 is Certified copy of 1B namuna.

Ex A6 is Sub Divisional sketch issued by the Mandal Surveyor ploughed by the plaintiff.

Ex A7 is 10 (1) account copy issued by Meeseva stands in the name of plaintiff dated. 08.07.2014.

Ex A8 is 1B namuna (ROR) issued by Meeseva stands in the name of plaintiff.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the defendants

--nil—

Sd/-XXXXX

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::PUNGANUR

Present: Sri K.Mothilal

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur

Monday, the 18th day of March, 2015

O.S.NO.221 of 2014

Between:

Neerugatti Gangulappa, S/o. N. Reddeppa @ Pedda Reddeppa, aged about 50 years, Hindu, cultivation, r/at Yeguva Bathalapuram Harijana Wada, H/o. Nekkundi, Itikanellore Post, Punganur Mandal, Chittor District.

… Plaintiff

And:

Yenamala Vemanna, S/o Mallappa, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/at Diguva Bathalapuram H/o. Nekkundi, Itikanellore Post, Punganur Mandal, Chittor District.

...Defendants.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs.

Plaint presented on :21.08.2015 and Plaint filed on : 21.08.2015

Value of the suit schedule property Rs.50,000/-

Notional value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.5000/-

C.F paid u/s 26(c) of APCF Act Rs.411/-

Cause of action arose when the defendant caused obstruction to the plaintiff and since one week the defendant is causing obstruction, without any right and title tried to trespass in to the schedule property at Yeguva Bathalapuram which is within the jurisdiction of this court.

This suit is coming on 12.03.2015 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Reddeppa, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant called absent and set exparte, upon hearing the plaintiff and upon perusal of the record, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

1.That the defendants and their men be and are restrained from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by way of permanent injunction 5

2. That the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.933/- being the costs of the suit;

Given under my hand and the seal of the court this the 18th day of March, 2015.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Punganur.

SCHEDULE

Chittoor District, Punganur Sub-District, Nekkundi Gram Panchayath, Bathalapuram Revenue village – Dhakala

Sircar Dry S.No.313/1 an extent of Ac.0.32 cents

Bounded by:

East: Land of defendants

West: Check Dam and Anadheenam

South: Vanka and defendant's land

North: Peethambaram Subramanayam land

STATEMENT OF COSTS

For For Plaintiff Rs.Defendants.

Stamp on Plaint411-00

Stamp on Vakalat'2-00exparte

Pleader’s Fee500-00

Typing Charges20-00

Total Rs.933-00 -

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Punganur.

DECREE

O.S.No.221/2014

dt.18.03.2015 Part I