Sri S.M.Phani Kumar

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE NO.168/2017 (Crime No.157/2013 of Singarayakonda P.S. - P.R.C. No.36/2014 on the file of the Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Kandukur) ON THE FILE OF

ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT ::: KANDUKUR :::

(Case against A.1 to A.11 only)

(1) NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Singarayakonda P.S.

(2)DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCUSED :

1. Gali Sivannarayana alias Srimannarayana, S/o.Kotaiah, aged 48 years, Yadava, Old Singarayakonda.

2. Kummari Mohan Rao, S/o.Subba Rao, aged 32 years, Yadava by caste, near – Saibaba temple, Singarayakonda Village.

3. Kummari Ramanaiah, S/o.Subba Rao, aged 34 years, Yadava by caste, Hanuman Nagar, Singarayakonda Village.

4. Gali Hari alias Hari Babu, S/o.Bollaiah, aged 34 years, Yadava by caste, Old Singarayakonda Village.

5. Jajula Raghava alias Raghavendra Rao, S/o.Srihari, aged 33 years, Yadava by caste, Bairagimanyam, Singarayakonda Village.

6. Chimata Kishore, S/o.ramachandraiah, aged 28 years, Yadava by caste, Hanuman Nagar, Opposite to Sai Baba Temple, Singarayakonda Village.

7. Chimakurthy Srikanth, S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 29 years, Yadava by caste, near – Panchayat Office, Singarayakonda Village.

8. Chimata Mahesh, S/o.Narayana, aged 27 years, Yadava by caste, Islampeta, Opp. : Prasanthi Theatre, Singarayakonda Village.

9. Ariveni Mangaiah, S/o.Subbaiah, aged 29 years, Yadava by caste, Godagatlavaripalem Village, Singarayakonda Mandal.

10. Chimata Balaji, S/o.Kotaiah, aged 25 years, Yadava by caste, Old Singarayakonda Village, Singarayakonda Mandal.

11. Bapatla Suresh, S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 25 years, Yadava by caste, Ayyappa Nagar, Old Singarayakonda Village.

12. Kummari Moulali (D I E D).

(Case against A.12 was abated as he died).

(3)DATES OF :

Occurrence: 28-09-2013 Complaint: 29-09-2013 Committal Order : 10-07-2017 Apprehension: 06-12-2018 Commencement of trial: 12-02-2019 Closure of trail: 25-04-2019 Sentence or Order: 25-04-2019 2 (4)Offences/Charges: U/Sec.148, 307 r/w.149 of I.P.C. (5) Plea of accused : Not guilty. (6)Finding of Court: Not guilty.

(7) SENTENCE OR ORDER : A.1 to A.11 are found not guilty for the offencesA.1 to A.11 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.148, 307 r/w.149 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) ofpunishable U/Sec.148, 307 r/w.149 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of A1 to A.11 shall stand cancelled after theCr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of A1 to A.11 shall stand cancelled after the period of six months. The case property i.e. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be destroyedperiod of six months. The case property i.e. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. Case against A.12 was abated as he died. after the appeal time is over. Case against A.12 was abated as he died.

(8) EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY: The Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Kandukur committed this case as P.R.C. No.36/2014, dated 10-07-2017 to Hon'ble Sessions Division, Prakasam District, Ongole and the same was numbered as this case by the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Ongole and made over the same to this court on 17-08-2017 for disposal according to law and this court received the same on 18-08-2018. On 06-12-2018 the accused were examined U/Sec.228 Cr.P.C. and charges U/Sec.148, 307 r/w.149 of I.P.C. are framed and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In this case, trial was commenced on 12-02-2019 and concluded on 17-04-2019. During the trial period, P.W.s.1 to 10 were examined, and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 and also M.Os. 1 and 2, and the matter adjourned for examination of accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. On 25-04-2019 the accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. and reported no defence evidence and heard arguments on both sides and on the same day i.e. on 25-04-2019 judgment

pronounced (vide separate judgment) in open court. Hence, the delay.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KANDUKUR.

Copy Submitted to :

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by way of C.D. (Through the Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole).

2. The Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

Copy to : 1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kandukur.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Kandukur.

3

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::: KANDUKUR

PRESENT: SRI S.M.PHANI KUMAR,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Kandukur.

Thursday, this the 25th day of April, 2019.

Sessions Case No.168 of 2017

(P.R.C. No.36/2014 of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur in Crime No.157/2013 of Singarayakonda P.S.)

Between:

State : The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Singarayakonda P.S. … Complainant

And

1. Gali Sivannarayana alias Srimannarayana, S/o.Kotaiah, aged 48 years, Yadava, Old Singarayakonda.

2. Kummari Mohan Rao, S/o.Subba Rao, aged 32 years, Yadava by caste, near – Saibaba temple, Singarayakonda Village.

3. Kummari Ramanaiah, S/o.Subba Rao, aged 34 years, Yadava by caste, Hanuman Nagar, Singarayakonda Village.

4. Gali Hari alias Hari Babu, S/o.Bollaiah, aged 34 years, Yadava by caste, Old Singarayakonda Village.

5. Jajula Raghava alias Raghavendra Rao, S/o.Srihari, aged 33 years, Yadava by caste, Bairagimanyam, Singarayakonda Village.

6. Chimata Kishore, S/o.ramachandraiah, aged 28 years, Yadava by caste, Hanuman Nagar, Opposite to Sai Baba Temple, Singarayakonda Village.

7. Chimakurthy Srikanth, S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 29 years, Yadava by caste, near – Panchayat Office, Singarayakonda Village.

8. Chimata Mahesh, S/o.Narayana, aged 27 years, Yadava by caste, Islampeta, Opp. : Prasanthi Theatre, Singarayakonda Village.

9. Ariveni Mangaiah, S/o.Subbaiah, aged 29 years, Yadava by caste, Godagatlavaripalem Village, Singarayakonda Mandal.

10. Chimata Balaji, S/o.Kotaiah, aged 25 years, Yadava by caste, Old Singarayakonda Village, Singarayakonda Mandal.

11. Bapatla Suresh, S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 25 years, Yadava by caste, Ayyappa Nagar, Old Singarayakonda Village.

12. Kummari Moulali (D I E D).

(Case against A.12 was abated as he died).

... Accused

Plea of the accused : Not guilty.

4

Finding of the Court :A.1 to A.11 are found not guilty for the offencesA.1 to A.11 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.148, 307 r/w.149 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) ofpunishable U/Sec.148, 307 r/w.149 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of A1 to A.11 shall stand cancelled after theCr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of A1 to A.11 shall stand cancelled after the period of six months. The case property i.e. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be destroyedperiod of six months. The case property i.e. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. Case against A.12 was abated as he died. after the appeal time is over. Case against A.12 was abated as he died.

The case coming on this day of examination of the accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for State/Complainant and of Sri S.Srinivasulu and Sri SK.Shumshuddin, Advocate for Accused and on perusal of material available on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

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

1. This case has been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kandukur to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Ongole Division against A.1 to A.12 in

P.R.C. No.36/2014 in Cr. No.157/2013 of Singarayakonda P.S. as the offences involved in this case are Sec.148, 307 r/w.149 IPC, which are exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, Ongole Division.

2. After the case has been committed to the court of Sessions, Ongole Division, this case has been assigned Sessions Case No.168/2017 and made over the case to the file of this court for disposal according to law.

3. After receiving the case, summons were issued to the accused to secure the presence of accused. On appearance of A.1 and A.11 they were examined

U/Sec.228 Cr.P.C and charges for the offences U/Sec.148, 307 r/w.149 I.P.C. were framed against the accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu and the accused having understood the charges pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case against A.12 is abated as died.

4. To prove the guilt of A.1 and A.11, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and also M.Os. 1 and 2. The learned A.P.P. has given up the evidence of L.W.9/Maddani Narasimha Rao, L.W.11/Chidipudi Venkata

Reddy, L.W.12/Raavi Ravi Kumar, L.W.13/Dr. N.Anjaneyulu, L.W.14/Sri Samrajyam,

Woman A.S.I. and L.W.16/K.Mallikarjuna, S.I. of Police.

5

5. After closure of the evidence on prosecution side, A.1 and A.11 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C in respect of the incriminating evidence placed against them. The accused denied the incriminating evidence and also reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard the arguments of learned A.P.P. and also the learned defence counsel.

7. Perused the entire material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A.1 to

A.11 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/Sec. 148,

307 r/w.149 I.P.C. or not ?

9. The case of the prosecution is as follows :

One Shaik Masthan (L.W.1) is the victim and injured person in this case. A.3 is running Bajaj show room at Gudlur Village. One Sukur purchased

Bajaj 150 C.C. motor cycle from A.3 by paying down payment of Rs.25,000/-.

One Saleem and Chinna of Singarayakonda stood as sureties to the said

Sukur. After few days A.3 asked the said Sukur about the payment of balance amount. Then the said Sukur informed him that banks are on strike and he will pay the balance amount within few days. While so, on 27-09-2013 evening around 09-00 p.m. A.3 was going on motor cycle from Guldur and found the said Sukur at Prasanthi theater and as such A.3 asked him about the balance amount, on that a wordy altercation took place between them. Later, Sukur called one Saleem on phone and informed the incident. Later, both formed as groups and beat each other and as such they admitted in area hospital,

Kandukur for treatment and both parties gave statements to the police. Later, case and counter was registered in Crime Nos. 155 and 156 of 2013 of

Singarayakonda P.S. Later, elders on both sides came to the police station on 28-09-2013 to compromise the matter and to withdraw the cases. After discussing in the police station, the parties went out side along with their associates. When the injured person (L.W.1) reached old NH.5 road around 07-30 p.m. on 28-09-2013, A.1 to A.12 formed an unlawful assembly armed 6 with sticks and iron rods and with an intention to kill the injured person (L.W.1)

A.1 beat with stick on his head and caused injuries. A.2 and A.3 beat the injured person (L.W.1) with sticks and iron rods and caused bleeding injuries.

A.4 beat the injured person (L.W.1) with stick on right hand and caused bleeding injuries and cut his fingers. Mean while A.5 to A.12 also joined with

A.1 to A.4 by saying to kill the injured person (L.W.1). When the injured person (L.W.1) raised cries the neighbours gathered there and on seeing them the accused escaped from that place. Later, the neighbours and eye witnesses shifted the injured person (L.W.1) to Venkata Ramana Hospital, Ongole for treatment. Basing on the intimation given by the hospital staff

L.W.15/SD.Mahaboob Basha, A.S.I. of Police, Singarayakonda P.S. recorded the statement of the injured person (L.W.1) and registered F.I.R. in this case in

Cr. No.157/2013 for the offences U/Sec.147, 148, 307 r/w.149 of I.P.C. Later,

L.W.16/K.Mallikarjuna, S.I. of Police, Singarayakonda P.S. took up investigation in this case and seized the weapons at the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against A.1 to A.12 for the alleged offences U/Sec.147, 148, 307 r/w.149 of

I.P.C.

10. The contention of the prosecution is that A.1 to A.12 formed as an unlawful assembly with common object to kill the injured person (L.W.1). Therefore, A.1 to

A.12 with common object to kill the injured person (L.W.1) armed with iron rods and sticks beat the injured person (L.W.1) indiscriminately and caused injuries and thereby committed offences punishable U/Sec.148, 307 r/w.149 of I.P.C. and prayed the court to convict the accused for the charges levelled against them.

11. Coming to the evidence, the prosecution examined the injured person by name Shaik Masthan as P.W.1. P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that there are disputes in between him and A.2 in the year 2013 with regard to purchase of vehicle on finance. In connection with the financial dispute, he along with his relatives and the accused with their men went to Singarayakonda P.S. to resolve the dispute. After discussion they came out side, at that time there was a dispute 7 between them. A.2 beat him with stick on his head and A.12 beat him on forehead with stick and caused bleeding injuries. Later, all the accused beat him with sticks and iron rods and caused bleeding injuries. He also sustained fracture injury on his right hand fingers. Later, he became unconscious. Late he was admitted in

Venkata Ramana Hospital, Ongole in 108 ambulance. P.W.1 also identified M.O.1 and M.O.2 i.e. sticks and iron rod used in the incident. He stayed an in-patient for four days in the hospital, Later, police recorded his statement. Ex.P.1 is his statement.

12. P.W.1 though supported the version of the prosecution to some extent in the chief examination, he could not stand with during the cross examination. More over,P.W.1 completely resailed from his earlier evidence and stated that the incident took place in the night at 07-30 p.m. and it was dark at that time and nearly 100 people gathered at the time of the incident. Therefore, he cannot say whether the accused were present among the said 100 persons or not. He further deposed that he has mentioned the names of the accused in Ex.P.1/statement as per the information given by the neighbours. Therefore, P.W.1 completely resiled from his earlier evidence and did not support the prosecution case. Therefore,

P.W.1 was declared as hostile by the prosecution and his 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P.6. More over, P.W.1 did not speak about the involvement of the other accused except A.2 and A.!2. More over, P.W.1 did not speak anything that the accused had any intention to kill him. Therefore, the ingredients required to constitute the offence U/Sec.307 of I.P.C. was not spoken by P.W.1. More over, only one iron rod was seized in this case which is marked as M.O.2. P.W.1 did not specifically state which accused has used the said iron rod in committing the offence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is not consistent with that of the prosecution case. More over, P.W.1 completely deviated from his evidence in chief and did not support the prosecution case during the cross examination. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is not credible and trustworthy. P.W.1 has spoken two contrary versions When there are two versions, the version which is favourable to the accused has to be considered as per the cordinal principles of the criminal justice system.

8

13.Coming to other evidence, P.W.2 to P.W.9 namely Daka Anji Reddy, Shaik

Liyakath, Shaik Intiyaz, Syed Hussain, Shiak Sulthan, Burgu Sambaiah, Kunchala

Chandrasekhar and Gudiwada Srinivasarao respectively are cited as eye witnesses by the prosecution. Surprisingly, P.W.2 to P.W.9 clearly stated that they have not witnessed the incident. P.W.3 and P.W.3 stated that they came to know that P.W.1 sustained injuries, but they does not know how P.W.1 sustained injuries and they also does not know how the incident happened and who caused injuries to P.W.1.

P.W.2, P.W.6 to P.W.9 categorically stated that they does not know the facts of the case. P.w.2 to P.W.9 also categorically stated that they does not know whether there are any disputes between P.W.1 and the accused. Therefore, P.W.2 to P.W.9 who are the alleged eye witnesses completely turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution and the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.2 and P.W.4 to

P.W.9 are marked as Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.9 respectively.

14.P.W.10 is the investigating officer who recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered F.I.R. P.W.10 deposed in his evidence that on 29-09-2013 he received intimation from Ongole Taluq P.S. and he also received the statement of P.W.1 recorded by the A.S.I. of Police, Ongole Taluq P.S. and registered the statement of

P.W.1 as F.I.R. in this case. Ex.P.1 is the statement of P.W.1 and Ex.P.10 is the hospital intimation. Ex.P.11 is the F.I.R. Later, he went to Venkata Ramana

Hospital, Ongole and examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1. He also visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P.12/scene observation report in the presence of mediators and seized M.O.1 and M.O.2 which are sticks and iron rod.

He also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P.13 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Later, he arrested the accused and send them to judicial custody. After completion of the investigation L.W.16/K.Mallikarjuna, S.I. of Police filed charge sheet.

15. In the present case the evidence of the victim/injured person i.e. P.W.1 is not credible and trustworthy. He changed his version from time to time and did not speak any incriminating evidence against the accused during the cross examination. More over, P.W.1 clearly stated that at the time of the incident 100 people gathered there and he cannot say whether the accused are present among 9 the said 100 people or not. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be relied upon.

As already discussed above P.W.2 to P.W.9 who are the alleged eye witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that they does not know the facts of the case and involvement of the accused in this case. P.W.10 is only the investigating officer. In the absence of any substantial evidence, the evidence of the investigating officer cannot be considered as sole basis to arrive at a conclusion.

Therefore, the material witnesses and the eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case. More over, the prosecution also did not examine the medical officer who issued wound certificate of P.W.1 to prove the injuries over the body of the injured person (P.W.1). The police filed report stating that the doctor who issued wound certificate was admitted in a hospital in Vijayawada and he is not in a position to come to the court to give evidence. Therefore, basing on the report the learned A.P.P., has given up the evidence of the medical officer.

16.Therefore, there is no material on record placed by the prosecution to establish that A.1 to A.12 formed as an unlawful assembly armed with sticks and iron rods and made an attempt to kill P.W.1 and with that intention caused injuries by beating P.W.1 with sticks and iron rods. Therefore, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A.1 to A.11 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/Sec.148, 307 r/w.149 of I.P.C.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

17.In the result, A.1 to A.11 are found not guilty for the offencesA.1 to A.11 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.148, 307 r/w.149 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) ofpunishable U/Sec.148, 307 r/w.149 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of A1 to A.11 shall stand cancelled after theCr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of A1 to A.11 shall stand cancelled after the period of six months. The case property i.e. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be destroyedperiod of six months. The case property i.e. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. Case against A.12 was abated as he died. after the appeal time is over. Case against A.12 was abated as he died.

Dictated to the Stenographer of this court, transcribed by him corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 25 th day of April, 2019.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KANDUKUR.

10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :

P.W.1: Shaik Masthan P.W.2:Daka Anji Reddy P.W.3:Shaik Liyakath P.W.4:Shaik Intiyaz P.W.5:Syed Hussain P.W.6:Shaik Sulthan P.W.7: Burgu Sambaiah P.W.8:Kunchala Chandrasekhar P.W.9:Guidwada Srinivasarao P.W.10:SD. Mahaboob Basha, S.I. of Police.

For Defence : N O N E.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1:Signature of P.W.1 on the statement Ex.P.2:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.5:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.6:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.7:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7 Ex.P.8:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8 Ex.P.9:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.9 Ex.P.10 :Hospital intimation. Ex.P.11 :F.I.R. Ex.P.12 :Scene observation report. Ex.P.13 :Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

For Defence : - N I L -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 – Three sticks. M.O.2 – Iron rod.

A.S.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KANDUKUR

Present: Sri S.M. Phani Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur.

Friday, this the 26th day of April, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.99/2015

Between :

Medam Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, Hindu, Land Lord, aged about 38 years, r/o.Vegupalli Village, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District.… Plaintif

And :

Kakunuri Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy, Hindu aged about 38 years, business, r/o.Podili Road, Darsi Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.… Defendant

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Samba Siva Rao, Advocate for Plaintif and of

Sri B.Sai Sankar, Advocate for Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court made the following :

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

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money basing on a promissory note transaction said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff along with interest and costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint are as follows :

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 27-02-2012 from the plaintiff and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24 % per annum. Thereafter, the defendant failed to repay the promissory debt inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff got issued legal notice defendant on 11-02-2015. The defendant received the legal notice and got issued reply notice with false allegations.

Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for recovery of money. Hence, the suit.

2

3. After receiving summons from the court, the defendant made his appearance and filed written statement.

The averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows :

The defendant denied all the material averments made in the plaint.

It is further contended in the written statement that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated document and the suit is filed by the plaintiff to get wrongful gain because of the political rivalry. The defendant has not received any consideration under the suit promissory note and therefore, prayed the court to consider the circumstances and dismiss the suit with costs.

4.On perusal of the pleadings of both sides, this court has framed the following issues for trial :

(1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid, genuine and binding on the defendant or not ?

(2) Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from

the defendant as prayed for ?

(3) To what relief ?

5.To prove the suit claim, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. The plaintiff also examined the scribe of the suit promissory note by name Veeramreddy Suresh Babu as P.W.2.

On the other hand, the defendant got examined himself as D.W.1. The defendant did not choose to examine any independent witnesses nor adduced any documentary evidence.

3

6.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant.

7.Perused the entire material on record.

8.ISSUE Nos.1 and 2 :

I take up issues 1 and 2 together for discussion, for convenience and also to avoid repetition of evidence and discussion.

9.The plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1. The plaintiff deposed in her evidence that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from him and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in his favour. Subsequently, the defendant failed to repay the promissory note debt, as such he got issued

Ex.A.2 legal notice to the defendant. Even after receiving the legal notice the defendant did not choose to pay any amount, as such he filed the present suit. In support of his claim the plaintiff also examined the scribe of the suit promissory note as P.W.2. P.W.2 categorically deposed in his evidence that the suit transaction took place at Kanigiri near park. The defendant called him to scribe the suit promissory note. He was present at the time of the suit transaction and scribed the suit promissory note. The defendant after receiving the consideration amount from the plaintiff executed the suit promissory note in his presence. One Mule Krishna

Reddy and Sangu Venkata Subba Reddy signed as attestors in the suit promissory note. Therefore, P.W.2 supported the case of the plaintiff in all material aspects.

11. On the other hand, the defendant got examined himself as D.W.1.

The main contention of the defendant in the written statement is that because of the political disputes the plaintiff forged and fabricated the suit promissory note and filed the present suit for wrongful gain. Coming to 4 the evidence, the defendant categorically stated that he got acquaintance with the elder brother of the plaintiff, but he has no acquaintance with the plaintiff. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that there are political disputes appears to be false and invented for the purpose of the suit. If at all the defendant has no facial acquaintance with the plaintiff, there is no scope for political rivalry as alleged by the defendant. Therefore, it appears that the defendant has invented the defence for the purpose of the suit to avoid payment of the suit debt. More over, the plaintiff also got issued

Ex.A.2 legal notice to the defendant prior to filing of the suit. The defendant also categorically admitted during his cross examination that he received the legal notice issued by the plaintiff. Admittedly, the defendant did not choose to issue any reply notice. Therefore, the conduct on the part of the defendant even after receiving the legal notice throws doubt over his version. If really, there was no transaction, the defendant is expected to take legal action against the defendant or at least expected to issue reply notice, but no such action has been taken by the defendant.

12. The other contention raised by the defendant is that the plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend the amount. Surprisingly, the defendant categorically stated during cross examination that he has no knowledge about the landed properties of the plaintiff and his financial capacity.

Therefore, this fact clearly establish that the defendant has taken the plea casually without any basis. More over, the defendant also contended that he will take steps to send the suit promissory note to hand writing expert for opinion, but no such steps were taken by the defendant. On the other hand, the evidence of the plaintiff is cogent and trustworthy and supported by Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. P.W.2 who is an independent witness and scribe of the suit promissory note categorically stated that the defendant received the consideration amount from the plaintiff in his presence and executed the suit promissory note. Therefore, this court holds that the sit 5 promissory note is true, valid, genuine and binding on the defendant and as such the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed.

Accordingly, issues 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

13.ISSUE No.3 :

In view of the findings given by this court on issues 1 and 2, this court holds that the plaintiff is able to establish his claim in this suit and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for recovery of money as prayed for.

19. In the result, the suit is decreed as follows :

That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,72,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the

principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the costs of the suit.

Dictated to the Stenographer of this court, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26th of April, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KANDUKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

P.W.1 : Medam Srinivasa Reddy. P.W.2 : Veeramreddy Suresh Babu.

6

FOR DEFENDANT :

D.W.1 : Kakunuri Chandrasekhar Reddy.

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A.1 : Original promissory note, dated 27-02-2012. Ex.A.2 : Office copy of legal notice, dated 11-02-2015.

FOR DEFENDANT :

- N I L - S.C.J.

7

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KANDUKUR

Present: Sri S.M. Phani Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur.

Friday, this the 26th day of April, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.99/2015

Between :

Medam Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, Hindu, Land Lord, aged about 38 years, r/o.Vegupalli Village, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District.… Plaintif

And :

Kakunuri Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy, Hindu aged about 38 years, business, r/o.Podili Road, Darsi Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.… Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money basing on a promissory note transaction said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff along with interest and costs of the suit.

Cause of Action : The cause of action for the suit arose on 27-02-2012 when the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and subsequently when the defendant failed to discharge the debt in spite of repeated demands and got issues legal notice on 11-02-2015 at Kanigiri Village and Mandal which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Valuation and Court Fee :

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.1,72,000/- on which a court fee of Rs.4,226/- is paid U/Sec.20 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

Plaint presented on : 27-02-2015 and filed on : 09-04-2015

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Samba Siva Rao, Advocate for Plaintif and of Sri B.Sai Sankar, Advocate for Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court doth order and decree:

(1) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,72,000-00 Ps. with subsequent interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of the suit i.e., from 27-02-2015 till the date of decree i.e. till 26-04-2019 and thereafter at the rate of 6 % per annum till realization on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-; and; 8 (2) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.11,778-00 Ps. towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.NIL (C.M. & F.C. not filed);

Given under my hand and seal of Court, this the 26th day of April, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KANDUKUR.

TABLE OF COSTS

Description of costs For Plaintif For Defendant

Stamp on vakalatRs. 2-00 Plaint fee4,226-00N I L Stamp on process 100-00 C.M. & F.C. not filed Advocate fee 7,350-00 Type charges100-00 Total : Rs.11,778-00

S.C.J.

Note: The Exhibited and Non-exhibited documents have to be taken back by the parties concerned within stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KANDUKUR

Present: Sri S.M. Phani Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur.

Friday, this the 26th day of April, 2019.

H.M.O.P. No.21/2019

Between :

Mukku Usha Rani alias Madatala Usha Rani, W/o.Madatala Mallikarjuna Reddy, D/o. Mukku Tirupathi Reddy, Hindu, aged about 28 years, deserted wife, r/o.Door No.1-10, Kattakindapalli Village, H/o.Gudipatipalli Village, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District.… Petitioner.

And :

Madatala Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o.Madatala Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged about 37 years, private teacher, r/o. Door No.8-123, Padamati Bazaar, Darsi Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. … Respondent.

This petition coming on this day for petitioner’s exparte evidence

before me in the presence of Sri SK. Masthan Vali, Advocate for

Petitioner and Respondent remained exparte, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court made the following :

:: O R D E R ::

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner/wife U/Sec. 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act praying the court to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner/wife with the respondent/husband and to grant decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion along with costs.

2. The averments of the petition are that :

The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 04-12-2011 at Kavali Town according to Hindu rites and custom. The marriage was consummated. They lived happily for two years.

Thereafter, the respondent started harassment towards the petitioner .

The respondent used to pick up quarrel with the petitioner without any reason and used to abuse her in unparliamentary language in public. In the month of November, 2015 the respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner without any justifiable cause and since then the petitioner has been residing at her parents house. Mediation efforts were ended in futile as the respondent did not choose to lead marital life with the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file the present petition seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Hence, the petition.

3.After receiving notice, the respondent remained exparte in the petition.

4. In order to prove the claim, the petitioner/wife got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5. The petitioner also examined her father by name Mukku Tirupathaiah alias Tirupathi Reddy as P.W.2.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the petitioner/wife is entitled to seek decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion of the respondent/husband as prayed for ?

7. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the marriage of the petitioner/wife was performed with the respondent/husband on 04-12-2011 at Kavali

Town according to Hindu rites and custom. To prove the marriage, the petitioner got marked Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. Ex.A.1 is the wedding invitation card, Ex.A.2 is the marriage photographs which establish their wife and husband relationship. The petitioner also got filed her aadhar card and election voter card and aadhar card of the respondent which are marked as Ex.A.3 to Ex.A.5. Where the petitioner presently residing at Kattakindapalli Village, H/o.Gudipatipalli Village, Veligandla Mandal,

Prakasam District which is within the jurisdiction of this court. The contention of the petitioner is that after two years of the marriage the respondent started harassment towards the petitioner. The respondent used to pick up quarrel with the petitioner without any reason and used to abuse her in an unparliamentary language in public. In the month of

November, 2015 the respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner without any reasonable cause and since then the petitioner has been residing at her parents house. P.W.2 is supported the evidence of P.W.1.

The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 remained unchallenged on record. The evidence on record clearly shows that the respondent subjected the petitioner to cruelty and willfully deserted the petitioner since more than two years period. P.W.1 further stated that there is no likelihood of any reunion between the petitioner and respondent. More over P.W.1 categorically stated that there is no collusion in between the parties in filing this petition to seek divorce.

8. On the other hand, the respondent/husband did not choose to contest the petition which categorically shows that the respondent/husband has no intention to lead marital life with the petitioner/wife. Therefore, the material placed on record and the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 categorically established sufficient grounds to dissolve the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent which took place on 04-12-2011 and therefore the petitioner is entitled to seek decree of divorce as prayed for.

Accordingly the point is answered.

9.In the result, this petition is allowed granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/wife with the respondent/husband without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Asst., corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26th day of April, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KANDUKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner : For Respondent :

P.W.1 : Mukku Usha rani alias Exparte Madatala Usha Rani. P.W.2 : Mukku Tirupathaiah alias Tirupathi Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner :

Ex.A.1 : Wedding invitation card. Ex.A.2 : Marriage photographs two in number. Ex.A.3 : Aadhar card of the petitioner. Ex.A.4 : Election voter card of the petitioner. Ex.A.5 : Aadhar card of the respondent.

For Respondent : ---

S.C.J.

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KANDUKUR

Present: Sri S.M. Phani Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur.

Friday, this the 26th day of April, 2019.

H.M.O.P. No.21/2019

Between :

Mukku Usha Rani alias Madatala Usha Rani, W/o.Madatala Mallikarjuna Reddy, D/o. Mukku Tirupathi Reddy, Hindu, aged about 28 years, deserted wife, r/o.Door No.1-10, Kattakindapalli Village, H/o.Gudipatipalli Village, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District.… Petitioner.

And :

Madatala Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o.Madatala Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged about 37 years, private teacher, r/o. Door No.8-123, Padamati Bazaar, Darsi Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. … Respondent.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/wife U/Sec. 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act praying the court to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner/wife with the respondent/husband and to grant decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion along with costs.

Valuation : A fixed Court fee of Rs.10/- is paid u/schedule II Article

I (7) of AP CF & SV Act.

Petition presented on : 05-02-2019 and filed on : 01-03-2019

This petition coming on this day for petitioner’s exparte evidence

before me in the presence of Sri SK. Masthan Vali, Advocate for

Petitioner and Respondent remained exparte, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court doth Order and Decree:

1. that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed;

2. that the marriage of the petitioner/wife with the respondent/ husband be and is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce ; and;

3. that each party do bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 26th day of April, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KANDUKUR.

TABLE OF COSTS

- NIL -

S.C.J.

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KANDUKUR

Present : Sri S.M.Phani Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur.

Friday, this the 26th day of April, 2019.

E.P. No.42/2017 in Small Cause Suit No.39/2006

Between :

Ganta Rambabu, S/o.Chalamaiah, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Cultivation, r/o.Kamepalli Village, Zarugumalli Mandal, Prakasam District. … Decree Holder/Plaintiff. And :

Basina China Abbai, S/o.Narasaiah, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Cultivation, r/o.Uppaladinne Village, Ponnalur Mandal, Prakasam District. Presently residing at Kondepti Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. … Judgment Debtor/Defendant.

This Execution Petition coming on this day J.Dr. evidence

before me in the presence of Sri K.Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate for

Decree Holder and of Sri K.V. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate for

Judgment Debtor, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

1.This is an Execution Petition filed by the Decree Holder

Under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 of C.P.C. praying the court to detain the Judgment Debtor in civil prison for non-payment of the decree debt in spite of having sufficient means.

2.After receiving notice in this E.P., the J.Dr. made his appearance and filed counter.

3.To prove the claim in the E.P., the D.Hr. got examined himself as P.W.1. The D.Hr. did not choose to examine any independent witnesses nor adduced any documentary evidence. On 2 the other hand, the J.Dr. did not choose to adduce any oral or documentary evidence inspite of several adjournments and therefore, the evidence on the J.Dr. side was closed.

4.Heard the arguments. Perused the entire material on record.

5.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the Judgment Debtor has got sufficient means and financial capacity to discharge the decree debt ?

6.The D.Hr. got examined himself as P.W.1. The D.Hr.

deposed in his evidence that he filed a suit for recovery of money against the J.Dr. in Small Cause Suit in S.C. No.39/2006 and the same was decreed in his favour on 29-06-2009. After passing of the decree, he demanded the J.Dr. on several occasions to discharge the decree debt, but the J.Dr. willfully avoided to pay the decree debt inspite of having sufficient means. Therefore, he filed E.P. for arrest and detention of the J.Dr. in civil prison in E.P. No.57/2014 and the same was dismissed for default. Again the D.Hr. filed the present

E.P. for the same relief. The D.Hr. further deposed that the J.Dr. is having agricultural land to an extent of Ac.08-00 Cents in his village and getting income of Rs.50,000/-. The J.Dr. is also doing money lending business and getting Rs.10,000/- per month. More over, the J.Dr. and his family members are also doing milk business and earning Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, the J.Dr.

is having sufficient means and financial capacity, but he did not 3 choose to discharge the decree debt and prayed the court to detain the J.Dr. in civil prison to realize the decree debt. However, the

D.Hr. has not filed any documentary proof in support of his contention.

7.On the other hand, the J.Dr. did not choose to adduce any oral or documentary evidence. However, the J.Dr. filed his counter.

In the counter the J.Dr. contended that he has no landed property and income as alleged by the D.Hr. He further contended that he has no sufficient means and financial capacity to discharge the decree debt. More over, he is suffering from diabetes, blood pressure and heart problem and as such he is not attending any kind of work and prays to dismiss the E.P.

8.Though the J.Dr. contended that he is suffering from ill- health, did not file any medical record in support of his contention.

Further, the J.Dr. contended that he has no properties and income as alleged by the D.Hr. Therefore, the burden is on the D.Hr. to establish the means and financial capacity of the J.Dr. The D.Hr.

except contending orally that the J.Dr. has got properties and income did not file any documentary proof. More over, the D.Hr. did not even choose to furnish the particulars like survey numbers and boundaries of the properties owned by the J.Dr. In the absence of any such cogent evidence and particulars of the property owned by the J.Dr., it cannot be held that the J.Dr. is having property and income, but intentionally avoiding the payment. More over, there is no sufficient proof on record to establish that the D.Hr. has made 4 demand to discharge the decree debt, but the J.Dr. willfully avoiding the same. Even though the J.Dr. failed to adduce any evidence in support of his contention, the D.Hr. failed to discharge his burden of proving that the J.Dr. has got sufficient means and financial capacity to discharge the decree debt. Therefore, this court holds that the

D.Hr. failed to establish that the J.Dr. has got sufficient means and financial capacity to discharge the decree debt.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

10.IN THE RESULT, THIS EXECUTION PETITION IS

DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS.

Dictated to the Stenographer of this court, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26th day of April, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KANDUKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Decree Holder : For Judgment Debtor :

P.W.1 : Ganta Rambabu.N O N E

Documents Marked

No documentary evidence adduced on either side.

S.C.J.

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KANDUKUR

E.P. No.133/2014

Date : 30-04-2019.

Between :

Kapuluri Murarji.… Decree Holder.

And :

Nallagangula Malyadri. … Judgment Debtor.

O R D E R

As per the endorsement of the Field Assistant the

J.Dr. is not residing within the jurisdiction of this court.

Hence, the E.P. is dismissed on the point of jurisdiction.