Sri S.prasad

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT, KADAPA.

Present :- Sri S.Prasad, B,Sc.,LLM.,

Additional Senior civil Judge:: Kadapa.

Monday this the 13th day of February, 2017.

O.S.No.33 of 2006.

Obulampalli Venkaeswaramma W/O O.Subba Reddy, 52 years, Hindu, housewife, residing at D.No.6/635-5, Sankarapuram, Chinnachowk Grama Panchayat, Kadapa District.

….Plaintiff.

Vs

1.S.Jalaluddin S/O Salavuddin, Muslim, 42 years, D.No.9/559, Angadiveedhi, Kadapa.

2. Yalakacharla Suvarna W/o Janardhan Reddy, 40 years, Hindu, residing at D.No.6/486-2, Sankarapuram, Kadapa District.

3. S.Khursheed Begum W/O Syed Sallauddin, 60 years, Muslim, residing at D.No.9/559, Ameenpeer road, Kadapa.

4. M.D.Mustari Begum W/o M.D.Sulthan, 55 years, Muslim, residing at D.No.9/30, N.S.K.Salai, Puzhal camp, Chennai-66.

5. S.Athari Begum W/O Liyakath Basha, Muslim, residing at No.11, Mandavalli street, Madhavaram, Chennai. (Defendants 3 to 5, are added as per orders passed in I.A.No. /2006, dt: ).

…..Defendants.

This suit is coming on 27.01.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.M.Sudhakar Babjee, advocate for the plaintiff, and

Sri.P.Subramanyam, advocate for defendant Nos.1 and 3, and

Sri.D.Nageswara Raju, advocate for defendant No.2, and after hearing arguments of both the counsel, and having stood over for consideration, till this day this court delivered the following:- 2 ::: JUDGEMENT :::

This suit is filed, by the plaintiff, seeking the relief, of declaration of title and permanent injunction, and for costs.

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

3.Originally, the suit schedule property is belongs to B. Ganga Raju and Kotte Munemma. They executed a general power of attorney, in favour of

B. Ramanaiah, under a register general power of attorney dt:11.05.1990, authorizing him, to lease out, recovery of lease, execution of lease deeds, including maintaining and sale of the suit schedule property. The Mandal

Revenue Officer, has issued pattadar passbook and title deed, in favour of general power of attorney, B. Ramanaiah, in respect of the suit schedule property.

4.It is averred that, B. Ramanaiah, had sold the suit land to O.

Ravindra Reddy, under a register sale deed dt:31.03.1993, and delivered the possession. O. Ravindra Reddy, in turn sold the suit land to Sagali Subbi

Reddy, under a register sale deed dt:18.06.2001. After death of said Sagali

Subbi Reddy, his wife Pullamma, had succeeded the suit land of her husband and she sold the suit property to the plaintiff, under a register sale deed

dt:25.04.2005, and delivered the possession. Since the date of purchase, the

plaintiff, is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land as rightful owner.

5.It is further averred that, the defendants came to the suit lands, in the second week of June, 2005, and tried to occupy the suit land. It is averred 3 that, Kathipeta Subbaiah, never had land in Sy.No.98/1 or 1 A. He did not execute, the sale deed dt.15.06.1967 in favour of Shaik Mohiddin Saheb and delivered the possession. The alleged sale deed is a forged document. Having no other go, forcing the plaintiff, filed the present suit.

6.The defendant Nos.1 to 3, have filed, a separate written statements each.

7.The brief averments of the written statement of D.1, are as follows:

8.The plaintiff is claiming title to the suit schedule through, B.

Ganga Raju and K. Munemma. The alleged general power of attorney,

dt:11.5.1990, was brought into existence to lend a colour of reality and to

create some documents without any right. It is not recited in General power of attorney, how Gangaraju and Munemma, had acquired the title to suit land.

Mere execution of a general power of attorney will not confer any right either on the principal or his agent. The reasons stated in the general power of attorney is strange and untenable. The schedule lands are fit for house sites for the past several years. No crop being raised for the past 20 years. The schedule shown in general power of attorney does not contain the boundaries, of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has failed to file original general power of attorney, but he filed only certified copy. The alleged general power of attorney pressed into service to grab the suit schedule property. The sale deeds executed in favour of the Ravindra Reddy, 4 and subsequent purchasers, arestage managed and pressed into service, with malafide intention, to knock the suit land. Rythvari pass book and other are created documents.

9.It is contended that, originally the land in S.No.98/1, to an extent of Ac.4.75 cents, belongs to one K.Subbaiah S/o Kondaiah. The suit schedule property is part and parcel of Sy.No.98/1, to an extent of Ac.4.75 cents. The government had granted patta in the name of K.Subbaiah, recognizing his title and possession vide patta dt:2.10.1960. The said patta was issued by settlement officer. He was priest of Gangamma temple. K. Subbaiah, was the owner of the lands in S.No.90 and 98/3, which he sold in favour of

Syamalamba Devi, under a register sale deed dt:03.04.1962. K. Subbaiah, had sold the entire land in S.No.98/1, to an extent of Ac.4.75 cents, to Shaik

Modin Saheb, under a register sale deed dt:15.6.1967 and delivered the possession. The suit schedule property is dry land, depending on rainfall. The said Modin Saheb, died in the year 1983, leaving behind him, three daughters namely, S. Khurshid Begum, Md. Mustari Begu and S. Athari Begum. They succeeded the entire land Ac.4.75 cents, in S.No.98/1. They did not obtain passbook, as the suit schedule land is fit for house site. But they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit land, since death of their father. The defendants having denied that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. When the plaintiff has no title and possession, the question of granting relief does 5 not arise and prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

10.The brief averments of the written statement of D.2, are as follows:

11.The defendant No.2, having admitted the claim of the plaintiff. It is contended that, she purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0.85 cents out of

Ac.2.30 cents from O. Ravindra Reddy, under a register sale deed

dt:21.6.2001, and took the possession on the same day. Since the date of

purchase, she is in possession and enjoyment of said land. She prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

12.The brief averments of the written statement of D.3, are as follows:

13.The defendant No.3, has reiterated the similar contents as narrated by the first defendant in the written statement. It is contended in the written statement D.3 and D.1, are being mother and son respectively and he prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

14.Based on the above pleadings, my learned predecessor in office, has framed the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner and possessor of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the suit schedule property is part and parcel of S.No.98/1, situate at Putlampalli village?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitle to perpetual injunction as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

6

15.On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2, were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.12 documents. On behalf of the defendant, S. Kursheed

Begum, third defendant, examined as D.W.1, and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.5 documents.

16.Heard the arguments of both the counsel.

17.ISSUES NO.1 TO 3:- In a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish, the better title affirmatively and prove that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants 1 to 3, having denied the title and possession of the plaintiff to the suit schedule property. Therefore, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove these issues.

18.It is the specific claim of the plaintiff, that originally, the suit schedule property, belongs to Battu Ganga Raju and Kotte Munemma. They executed a general power of attorney in favour of Battu Ramanaiah under a registered general power of attorney deed dt.11.05.1990.. The said B.

Ramanaiah, sold away the suit schedule land to O. Ravindra Reddy, under a registered sale deed dt.31.03.1993 and delivered the possession. The said O.

Ravindra Reddy, inturn sold the suit land to the Sagili Subbi Reddy under a registered sale deed dt.18.06.2001. The wife of Sagili Subbi Reddy, namely

Pullamma, had sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dt.25.04.2005. Since the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

7

19.It is the specific claim of the defendants No.1 and 3 that originally, the suit schedule property belongs to the Government. The

Government had granted patta in the name of K. Subbaiah , vide patta dt.2.10.1960. The said patta was issued by settlement officer. The said K.

Subbaiah, had sold away the land Sy.No.98/1, to an extent of Ac.4.75 cents, to Shaik Modin Saheb, under a registered sale deed dt.15.06.1967 and delivered the possession. Shaik Modin Sheb, died in the year 1983, leaving behind him three daughters. They succeeded the entire land in Sy.No.98/1 to an extent of Ac.4.70 cents and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, after the death of their father. The plaintiff has no title and possession in respect of the suit schedule property.

20.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, her husband O. Subba

Reddy, has filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination of P.W.1. He reiterated the same facts as narrated in the plaint averments. The evidence of

P.W.1 was disputed during the cross examination. P.W.1, O. Subba Reddy, has admitted the fact in his cross examination that he was a Sarpanch, to

Pabbapuram village. O. Ravindra Reddy, is his son. His son was a minor as on the date of sale deed dt.31.3.1993. The sale deed is marked as Ex.A.2. This piece of evidence of P.W.1 would shows that O. Ravindra Reddy is his son, who purchased the suit land from B. Ramanaiah (GPA) under Ex.A.2, while he was a minor. P.W.1 has stated in his cross examination that he do not know the total extent of the land in Sy.No.98/1 and its sub division. This piece of 8 evidence of P.W.1 would shows that he does not know the total extent of the suit schedule property and its sub division.

21.P.W.1 has stated in his cross examination that the executants of

Ex.A.1, general power of attorney, got the suit land by inheritance. However, it is not the claim of the plaintiff that the executants B. Ganga Raju and K.

Munemma got the suit land by way of inheritance. In this regard, on a perusal of Ex.A.1, general power of attorney, which discloses the fact that the executants of Ex.A.1 got the suit lands by inheritance. Therefore, the oral testimony of P.W.1, is contradicting the claim of the plaintiff that the suit land was inherited by the executants under Ex.A.1. Therefore, the evidence of

P.W.1, is not reliable and credible that the suit land was inherited by the executants of Ex.A.1. P.W.1 has stated in his cross examination that he do not known the names, from whom the executants of Ex.A.1, got the suit land. He do not know that the executants had executed Ex.A.1 general power of attorney in favour of B. Ramanaiah . He do not know the boundaries of the suit land. He do not know the children of B. Ganga Raju. He do not know the executant, covered under Ex.A.3 sale deed. No patta pass book, issued in the name of vendor under Ex.A.4 sale deed. He do not know whether,

B.Ramanaiah, had obtained pass book, in pursuance of Ex.A.1 general power of attorney. This piece of evidence of P.W.1 would shows that, he do not know the suit particulars, that, B. Ganga Raju and K. Munemma, got the suit land from whom and Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4 sale deeds.

9

22.P.W.1 has stated in his cross examination that as per ExA.6 the name of B. Gangamma is shown as pattadar to suit land. The suit land is not under cultivation for the past 10 or 12 years. This piece of evidence of P.W.1 would shows that the suit land originally belongs to Gangamma, and the land is not under cultivation for the past 12 years.

23.The plaintiff, has relied upon Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.12 documents.

Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of general power of attorney dt.11.05.1990, go to show that B. Ganga Raju and K. Munemma, had executed, G.P.A, in favour of B. Ramanaiah, authorizing him to sell or lease, the land in Sy.No.98/1A to an extent of Ac.2.30 cents. There is no recital in Ex.A.1, that, from whom;

B.Ganga Raju and K. Munemma, had acquired the said property. A perusal of

Ex.A.1, which does not contain the boundaries for the said land. Whereas the suit schedule contain the boundaries. Thus. Ex.A.1, G.P.A., is leads to doubt.

Ex.A.2 is register sale deed dt.31.03.1993, go to show that B. Ramanaiah, ie., general power of attorney holder, of B. Ganga Raju and K. Munemma, had sold the land in Sy.No.98/1A to an extent of Ac.2.30 cents to Ravindra Reddy.

The schedule shown in Ex.A.2, which contain, bountdaries. Where as Ex.A.1, does not contain boundaries. It appears, the land covered under Ex.A.1, general power of attorney, does not contain the boundaries. Whereas, the land shown under Ex.A.2, contains the boundaries. As such, Ex.A.2 sale deed, which leads to doubt. Ex.A.3 is the original register sale deed dt.18.06.2001, go to show that Ravindra Reddy, had in turn, sold the land to Sagili Subbi 10

Reddy. The survey, extent and boundaries shown under Ex.A.2 corresponds to

Ex.A.3 sale deed. Ex.A.4 is the original sale deed dt.25.4.2005, go to shows that S. Pullamma W/o S. Subbi Reddy, had sold the land to

O.Venkateswramma, plaintiff herein. The schedule shown in Ex.A.4 is corresponds to the suit schedule property. Ex.A.5 is the copy of notice dt.30.05.2005, go to show that the Mandal Surveyor, Mandal Revenue Office,

Kadapa, issued the said notice to Jalaluddin, O.Venkateswaramma/plaintiff,

A.Suvarnamma and Secretary, Putlampalli Panchayat, Kadapa mandal, asking them, to attend, the land in Sy.No.98/1, on 09.06.2005 at about 9.00 a.m., along with documents, to fix up the boundaries. Ex.A.6 is the true copy of adangal issued by Mandal Head Assistant, Kadapa on 05.03.1993, go to show that Gangamma is pattadar and anubhavadar, the land in Sy.No.98/1A, to an extent of Ac.2.30 cents. According to Ex.A.6, Gangamma was pattadar to the suit schedule property. In this regard, it is the specific claim of plaintiff that,

B.Ganga Raju and K. Munemma, are the pattadar to the suit schedule property, that they executed general power of attorney in favour of B.

Ramanaiah under Ex.A.1. Thus, Ex.A.6 adangal, cut the case of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff, that the suit schedule property, originally belongs to B. Ganga Raju and K. Munemma, is creates a doubt. Ex.A.7 is the true copy of 1-B namuna, issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa, dt.15.09.2005, go to show that B. Ramanaiah, was pattadar and anubhavadar, the land in Sy.No.98/1A to an extent of Ac.2.30 cents. In column No.8, in 11

Ex.A.7, it is shown as B.Ramanaiah, got the suit land, by way of inheritance.

According to Ex.A.1, B. Ganga Raju and K. Munemma, executents, the original owners of suit land, had executed, the G.P.A, in favour of

B.Ramanaiah, to lease, or sell the suit land. Whereas, Ex.A.7, 1-B namuna would shows that B. Ramanaiah, got the suit land by way of inheritance.

Therefore, Ex.A.1, general power of attorney, is contradicting the contents of

Ex.A.7, 1-B namuna, the manner in which, B.Ramanaiah, got the suit land.

As such, Ex.A.7, document, is not support the plaintiff. Ex.A.8 is the 10 (1) account extract, issued by Administrative Officer, Collector's Office, Kadapa, dt.26.06.2005, go to show that B.Ramanaiah, was the owner, the land in

Sy.No.98/1A to an extent of Ac.2.30 cents. This document does not reveal, the fact that how B. Ramanaiah, become the owner of the suit land. Thus,

Ex.A.8 document, is not support the plaintiff. Ex.A.9 is the xerox attested copy of family member certificate, issued by Mandal Revenue Officer,

Chennur, dt.09.09.2002, go to show that S. Subbi Reddy, died on 16.8.2002, leaving behind him his wife, son, daughter-in-law and grand son namely, S.

Pullamma, S. Rama Mohan Reddy, S. Bhagamma and S. Harshavardhan

Reddy, respectively. This document, do not helpful to the plaintiff in any manner. Ex.A.10 is the No.3 adangal, issued by Panchayat Secretary,

Putlampalli Grama Panchayat, Kadapa, for fasli 1413, go to show that B.

Ramanaiah, was pattadar and anubhavadar, the land in Sy.No.98/1A, to an extent of Ac.2.30 cents. According to Ex.A.1, G.P.A., Battu Gangaraju, and 12

Kotte Munemma are original owners of the suit land. According to Ex.A.10,

Battu Ramanaiah, is original owner of suit land. Thus, Ex.A.10, is not support, the plaintiff claim. Ex.A.11 is the fair adangal extract, issued by

Administrative Officer, Collector's Office, Kadapa, dt.22.06.2005, go to show that, which does not contain the suit schedule land. Thus, this document is not helpful to the plaintiff, in any manner. Ex.A.12 is the true copy of fair adangal issued by Administrative Officer, Collector's Office, Kadapa, dt.21.05.2005, shows that G. Gangamma, is the pattadar, the land in Sy.No.98/1 to an extent of Ac.4.75 cents. According to Ex.A.12, one G.Gangamma, was pattadar, the land in Sy.No.98/1 to an extent of Ac.4.75 cents. Whereas, the claim of the plaintiff that, B.Ganga Raju and K.Munemma, are the pattadars to the suit schedule property. Thus, Ex.A.12, is contradicting the claim of the plaintiff, as to who are rightful owners of the suit schedule land.

24.The plaintiff examined one more witness on her behalf namely N.

Surya Chandra Reddy as P.W.2. He stated in his examination in chief that G.

Gangamma @ Gangamma Devatha is the owner of the suit schedule property.

Her elder's sister's daughter Papulamma. Papulamma, begot a daughter. She begot a son B.Ramanaiah. B.Ramanaiah, had succeeded the suit schedule property. According to P.W.2, Gangamma, is the owner of the suit schedule property. According to P.W.1, B.Ganga Raju and K. Munemma, are the original owner of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 is contradicting the evidence of P.W.1, as to who are the original owner of the 13 suit schedule property. As such, the evidence of P.W.2 is not worthy acceptable.

25.P.W.2, N. Surya Chandra Reddy, has stated in his cross examination that B. Ramanaiah, is not a resident of Putlampalli village, but he is a resident of Chinna Katterapalli village of Muddanur mandal.

According to P.W.2, N.Suryta Chandra Reddy, that, B.Ramanaiah, is not a resident of Putlampalli village. Admittedly, the suit land is situate at

Puttlampalli village fields.

26.Admittedly, the plaintiff has not examined her vendor Pullamma, to prove that, how she got the suit schedule property, under Ex.A.4 sale deed.

There is no explanation from plaintiff, as to why she did not examine her vendor to prove Ex.A.4 sale deed. Non examination of the vendor of plaintiff, an adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiff, and the sale deed

Ex.A.4, is create a doubt. The plaintiff has not filed any revenue records, evidencing to show that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land in pursuance of Ex.A.4, sale deed. In the absence of any revenue record, i.e., 10-1, land revenue receipt, it cannot be said that, plaintiff, is in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit land as on the date of filing the suit.

27.It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff, O. Venkateswaramma, did not enter into witness box, to prove the fact and clear the cloud over the title of the suit land that, her vendor got the right title and possession over the suit 14 schedule property, till she purchased the said property Ex.A.4 sale deed that, she is in possession and enjoyment of the property as on the date of filing the suit.

28.The oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.12, is not inspiring the confident of this court, in so far as the claim put forth by the plaintiff that she got right title to the suit schedule property and is in possession and enjoyment of the said property as on the date of filing the suit.

29.The 3rd defendant, S. Kursheed Begum, has filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination as D.W.1. She reiterated the same facts as narrated in the written statement. She relied upon Ex.B.1 to B.5 documents.

According to D.W.1, the suit schedule property originally belongs to

K.Subbaiah. The government has recognized the title and possession of the said K.Subbaiah, granted a patta on 02.10.1960, by the Assistant Settlement

Office to K.Subbaiah. He sold the entire land ie., Sy.No.98/1 to an extent of

Ac.4.75 cents to Shaik Modin Saheb, under a register sale deed dt.15.06.1967 and delivered the possession. Shaik Modin Saheb, died in the year 1983 leaving behind him, three daughters namely S. Kursheed Begum (D.W.1),

M.D. Mustari Begum (defendant No.4) and S. Athari Begum (defendant

No.5), and they succeeded the suit land. The suit land is a dry land depending on rain fall. This piece of evidence of D.W.1 was disputed during the cross examination, but nothing has been elicited which render her evidence 15 unbelievable.

30.Ex.B.1 is the rough patta, issued on 02.10.1960 in the name of K.

Subbaiah, the land in Sy.No.98/1 to an extent of Ac.4.75 cents. This document is not disputed or challenged by the plaintiff, before the revenue authority. Thus, Ex.B.1 makes the fact is clear that K. Subbaiah, was granted rough patta by settlement officer in respect of land in Sy.No.98/1 to an extent of Ac.4.75 cents. Ex.B.2 is the original register sale deed dt.15.06.1969, go to show that K. Subbaiah ie., rough patta holder (Ex.B.1) had sold away the land to Shaik Modin Saheb (father of the defendants No.3 to 5) i.e., land in

Sy.No.98/1 to an extent of Ac.4.75 cents. The schedule shown in Ex.B.2, is exactly tally with schedule i.e., rough patta Ex.B.1. This document is not challenged by the plaintiff before revenue authority. As such Exs.B.1 and B.2 are true and valid documents. According to Ex.B.2, K.Subbaiah, the patta holder, had sold the property to Shaik Modin Saheb, the father of the defendants No.1 to 3, for valid consideration of Rs.1,5+00/- and delivered possession. A perusal of Ex.B.2, it is recited that K. Subbaiah, got rough patta having right and possession, over the schedule property. Ex.B.3 is the family member certificate, issued by Special Deputy Tahsildar, (Land Reforms),

Kadapa, mentioning the family members of S. Mohaddin Saheb ie., S.

Kursheed Begum, S. Mustari Begum, and S. Athari Begum etc., as defendants 3 to 5. Ex.B.4 is the family member certificate issued by Mandal Revenue

Officer, Kadapa, dt.01.06.2005, shows that S. Moiddin Sab died on 16 21.06.1983 leaving behind three daughters as family members namely Sd.

Kursheed Begum, Sd. Mohammad Mustari Begum and Sd. Aktar Begum ie., defendants No.3 to 5. According to Ex.B.4, the defendants No.3 to 5, are the daughters of S. Moiddin Saheb. Ex.B.5 is the encumbrance certificate.

31. The defendant No.2, Y. Suvarna, has claimed in her written statement that she purchased the land in Sy.No.98/1A to an extent of Ac.0.85 cents out of Ac.2.30 cents from O. Ravindra Reddy, under a registered sale deed and she is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. In this regard, the defendant No.2 would have appeared before the court, to prove that she purchased the land in Sy.No.98/1A to an extent of Ac.0.85 cents, out of

Ac.2.30 cents from O. Ravindra Reddy and she is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is pertinent to note that the defendant No.2 did not appear before the court and enter into the witness box to put forth her claim as set out in the written statement. Non examination of 2nd defendant and enter into the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against her and claim put forth by her in the written statement is not correct.

32.The above foregoing discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to establish her title to the suit schedule land and lawful possession in the said as on the date of filing the suit.

Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled the relief of declaration of title to the suit schedule property and consequential permanent injunction. Accordingly, these issues are answered against the plaintiff and 2nd defendant, in favour of 17 defendants No.1, 3 to 5.

33. ISSUE NO.4:- In the result, the suit is dismissed. Both parties, do bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of February, 2017.

Sd/-S.Prasad,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Kadapa.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for plaintiff:

P.W.1: O. Subba Reddy.

P.W.2: N. Surya Chadnra Reddy.

Witnesses examined for defendants:

D.W.1: S. Kursheed Begum.

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Certified copy of General Power of Attorney dt.11.5.1990.

Ex.A.2: Original registered sale deed dt.31.3.1993.

Ex.A.3: Original registered sale deed dt.18.6.2001.

Ex.A.4: Original registered sale deed dt.25.4.2005.

Ex.A.5: Notice issued by Mandal Survey, MRO, Kadapa dt.30.5.2005.

Ex.A.6: No.2 adangal.

Ex.A.7: 1-B namuna.

Ex.A.8: 10 (1) account.

Ex.A.9: Family member certificate.

Ex.A.10: No.3 adangal for fasli 1413.

Ex.A.11: Fair adangal copy.

Ex.A.12: Certified copy of fair adangal.

Exhibits marked for defendants:-

Ex.B.1: Rough patta.

18

Ex.B.2: Original registered sale deed dt.15.6.1967.

Ex.B.3: Proceedings of the Special Deputy, Tahsildar, Land Reforms, Kadapa in C.C.No.393/1975.

Ex.B.4: Family member certificate.

Ex.B.5: Encumbrance certificate.

Sd/-S.Prasad,

ASCJ

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ­CUM­ FAMILY COURT­

CUM­ VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KADAPA.

Present: Sri S. PRASAD, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal­ Cum­ Judge, Family Court­ Cum­ VI Additional

District Judge, Kadapa.

Wednesday, this the 04th day of April, 2018

M.V.O.P. No.458/ 2016

1. Palakunta Anuradha D/o Late Sahadeva, Hindu, Student, aged 14 years, Minor.

2. Palakunta Anasuyamma W/o Late Narasimhulu, aged 63 years, Hindu, House wife, (Grand­mother)

Petitioner No.1 is Minor, represented by its Natural guardian, next friend, Grand­mother Petitioner No.2.

Both are residing at Poola Thota Madigapalli, Chennamukkapalli Post, Now care of I.Swami Das, D.No.64/177­1, Mariyapuram, R.V.Nagar Post, Kadapa town and City. … Petitioners/Claimants

Vs.

1. Mr. Peeran Khan S/o Khasim Khan, Muslim, aged 43 years, Owner of the lorry bearing No.APKA­34­2538, residing at D.No.8­72­7, Pingani Factory, Vayalpadu town and mandal, Chittoor District.

2. S. Ismail @ Saleem S/o Nanne Saheb, Muslim, aged 50 years, Lorry driver, residing at Mahaboob Nagar Street, State Bank of India rear side, Rayachoty town, Kadapa District.

3. Reliance GeneralInsurance Company Limited, Tirupathi, represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Legal Office, 2nd Floor, D.No.19­6­37, DR Mahal Road,

Tirupathi town and City, Chittoor District. ... Respondents

This petition coming on 02­04­2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.V. Chalapathi, Advocate for the petitioners/claimants and of Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.3,

Respondent No.1 and 2, having been set exparte, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

­: 2 :­

O R D E R

This claim petition was filed by the Petitioners/Claimants, U/S.166 168 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, R/w Rule 476 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, seeking the relief, to award compensation of Rs.6,10,000/­ (Rupees six lakh ten thousand only) and for costs. 

2. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

On 30.5.2009 at about 9.30 P.M. when the deceased, Sahadeva, was traveling in the lorry bearing No.AK­34­2538, as a cleaner, the driver of the said lorry, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, of which the lorry turned turtle at ghat road on Rayachoty – Kadapa, as a result, the deceased sustained fracture injuries on his left leg, left hand, fore­arm and head.

Immediately, the injured was shifted to the Government Hospital, Pileru for treatment. After taking first aid, the injured was admitted to S.V.R.R. Hospital,

Tirupathi for treatment. While undergoing treatment, the injured died in the hospital due to injuries. 

3. Based on the complaint, a case in Crime No.62/2009 for the offence under sections 337 and 304­A IPC was registered against the driver of the offending lorry by the Station House Officer, K.V.Palli Police Station.

4. It is further averred that, the deceased, Sahadeva was hale and healthy, working as a cleaner, 28 years old and earning Rs.7,500/­ (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) per month at the time of accident. The wife of the deceased, Smt. Sumalatha, died due to the death of her husband and due to mental agony. The first claimant is the minor daughter and the 2nd claimant is the mother­ in­law of the deceased, who is representing on behalf of the minor as ­: 3 :­ natural guardian. The first respondent is being the owner and the 3rd respondent is being the insurer of the lorry bearing No.KA­34­2538 and they are held liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

5. The respondent No.1 and 3, remained exparte, whereas the 2nd respondent, has resisted the claim petition, by way of filing a written­statement.

The brief averments of the written­statement are as follows:

The claimant is not entitle compensation from the 3rd respondent, as the deceased was travelling in the first respondent vehicle as an unauthorized passenger. The first respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is contended that, the first respondent has not paid premium to cover the risk to the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the first respondent and 3rd respondent are alone liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent had no valid and effective driving licence to drove the offending lorry at the time of accident. The other allegations made in the petition are denied and prayed the court to dismiss the claim petition with costs. 

6. Based on the pleadings, my learned predecessor in office has framed the following issues for trial. 

1. Whether the accident occurred is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.KA­34­2438, that resulted in causing death of Palakunta Sahadeva?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitle for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? 

3. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the claimants, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A8 documents. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, none were examined, and no documents are marked.

­: 4 :­

8. Both side counsels did not advance arguments.

9.  ISSUE No.1 :­ It is the claim of the claimants that on 30.5.2009 at about 9.30 P.M. when the deceased, Sahadeva, was traveling in the lorry bearing

No.AK­34­2538, as a cleaner, the driver of the said lorry, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, of which the lorry turned turtle at ghat road on

Rayachoty – Kadapa, as a result, the deceased sustained fracture injuries on his left leg, left hand, fore­arm and head. Immediately, the injured was shifted to the

Government Hospital, Pileru for treatment. After taking first aid, the injured was admitted to S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupathi for treatment. While undergoing treatment, the injured died in the hospital due to injuries. 

10. Based on the complaint, a case in Crime No.62/2009 for the offence under sections 337 and 304­A IPC was registered against the driver of the offending lorry by the Station House Officer, K.V.Palli Police Station.

11. It is further averred that, the deceased, Sahadeva was hale and healthy, working as a cleaner, 28 years old and earning Rs.7,500/­ (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) per month at the time of accident. The wife of the deceased, Smt. Sumalatha, died due to the death of her husband and due to mental agony. The first claimant is the minor daughter and the 2nd claimant is the mother­ in­law of the deceased, who is representing on behalf of the minor as natural guardian. The first respondent is being the owner and the 3rd respondent is being the insurer of the lorry bearing No.KA­34­2538 and they are held liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

12. However, it is the contention of the 3rd respondent that the claimant is not entitle compensation from the 3rd respondent, as the deceased ­: 5 :­ was travelling in the first respondent vehicle as an unauthorized passenger. The first respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is contended that, the first respondent has not paid premium to cover the risk to the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the first respondent and 3rd respondent are alone liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent had no valid and effective driving licence to drove the offending lorry at the time of accident. The other allegations made in the petition are denied and prayed the court to dismiss the claim petition with costs. 

13. In order to substantiate the claim of the claimants, the claimant

No.2 P.Anasuyamma, who is minor guardian of 1st claimant, examined as PW.1.

She filed chief­affidavit in lieu of chief­examination, in which she reiterated the same facts as narrated in the claim petition. The evidence of PW.1 was disputed during the cross­examination by the respondent No.3. In the cross­examination, she admitted that, she is not entitle any compensation and the first claimant

Anuradha, minor girl is only entitle to compensation. The witness has denied the suggestion that, her son­in­law, (the deceased) Sahadeva was not working as a cleaner in the first respondent vehicle and was traveling in the lorry at the time of accident. The witness has denied the suggestion that the 2nd respondent has no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident to drive the offending vehicle. Except, the said suggestions, nothing has been elicited which render her evidence unbelievable. Admittedly, the PW.1 is not an eye witness, but her evidence, is supporting the claimant No.1 that the deceased Sahadeva died in the road accident, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent lorry.

­: 6 :­

14. The claimants examined one more witness, namely P. Narasimhulu as PW.2. He filed chief­affidavit, in lieu of chief­examination. He stated that, the deceased, he were working under the employment of 1st respondent. On the instructions of 1st respondent, the deceased and he were proceeding in the lorry bearing No.KA­34­2538 on 30.5.2009 for loading ground­nut. After loading, the driver of the lorry drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the lorry and was turned turtle, as a result, the deceased, Sahadeva and he had sustained injuries. The deceased was the cleaner at the time of accident.

15. The evidence of Pw.2 was disputed during the cross­examination by the 3rd respondent. The witness has denied the suggestion that, the deceased was not working as a cleaner to the offending vehicle at the time of accident.

Except, the said suggestions, nothing has been elicited which render his evidence unbelievable. The evidence of PW.2 would support the claimant that the deceased, Sahadeva was working as a cleaner of the offending lorry at the time of accident and he witnessed the driver of the said lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the lorry turned turtle, in which the deceased sustained injuries and died while undergoing treatment. As such, the evidence of

PW.2 is reliable and is accepted. 

16. The claimants have relied upon Ex.A1 to A8 documents to support the claimants. Ex.A1 is certified copy of Altered First Information Report in crime

No.62/2009 of K.V. Palli Police Station, dated 09­6­2009, shows that based on the complaint of V. Sudhakar, a case in Crime No.62/2009, for the offence under section 337 and 304­A IPC was registered against the lorry driver S.Ismail of the ­: 7 :­ offending lorry bearing No.KA­34­2538. This document is not been denied by the respondents.

Ex.A2 is the certified copy of first information report, shows that the

Station House Officer, K.V. Palli, registered a case in Crime No.62/2009, dated 31.5.2009, for the offence under section 337 IPC initially, based on the complaint of P. Sudhakar, against the driver of the lorry, S. Saleem, bearing No.LA34­2538.

This document is not denied by the respondents. 

Ex.A3 is certified copy of Postmortem Certificate, issued by the Civil

Assistant Surgeon, S.V. Medical College, Tirupathi, shows that, P.Sahadeva, died due to head injuries. This document is not denied by the respondents. 

Ex.A4 is Certified copy of inquest report, shows that inquest was held over the dead body of P. Sahadeva on 09.6.2009, shows that the deceased, P.

Sahadeva, died in the accident. This document did not dispute by the respondents.

Ex.A5 is Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector, Piler of Chittoor district, shows that, the accident is not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle bearing No.KA34­2438. These documents are not been denied by the respondent. 

Ex.A6 is Certified copy of charge sheet in Crime No.62/2009 of K.V.

Palli Police Station, shows that, the Sub­Inspector of Police, K.V.Palli Police

Station, has laid a charge sheet on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Court, Piluru against the driver S. Ismail of the lorry bearing No.KA­34­2538, drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased,

P.Sahadeva. A perusal of Ex.A6, the name of P. Narasimhulu is shown as an eye witness to the occurrence, who is examined as PW.2 in this case. This document is ­: 8 :­ not denied by the respondents. 

Ex.A7 is certificate issued by P. Peeran Khan, shows that, Sahadeva was working as a cleaner in the lorry bearing No.KA­34­2538 at the time of accident and paid Rs.7,500/­ (Rupees seven thousand, five hundred only) per month as wage. In this regard, the author of the Ex.A7 was not examined, by the claimants, to prove th fact that, the deceased was earning Rs.7,500/­ (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) as wage, at the time of accident. Therefore, this document do not help the claimants.

Ex.A8 is the copy of two death certificates, issued by Panchayat

Secretary, Chennamukkapalli, Rayachoty mandal, shows that P. Narasimhlu died on21.9.2015 and P. Sumalatha died on 27.8.2009.

17. The 3rd respondent insurance company, has taken a plea in the written­statement that, the deceased was traveling in the first respondent vehicle bearing No.KA34­2538, as an unauthorized passenger and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The respondent No.3 has taken another contention in the written­statement that, the first respondent vehicle driver, do not have a valid and effective driving licence to drove the lorry at the time of accident and on that ground, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

18. To substantiate this contention, the 3rd respondent, there is no oral or documentary evidence by way of rebuttal evidence, that the deceased was traveling in the lorry as an unauthorized passenger and that the driver of the first respondent vehicle did not possess, a valid driving licene at the time of accident.

Admittedly, the 3rd respondent did not issue notice to the driver or the owner of the offending vehicle, with a request to produce the driving licence of the driver of the ­: 9 :­ lorry, who drove the offending vehicle at the time of accident during the course of trial. In this regard, no explanation has been offered by the 3rd respondent.

Therefore, the 3rd respondent has not proved the defence raised in the written­ statement. Therefore, the contention raised by the 3rd respondent in the written­ statement is not accepted.

The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Rukmini Vs. New India Assurance

Company Limited, 1999, ACJ, page 171 (SC) that; “when the record is not summoned from the transporting authority, which has to be valid, the insurer failed to discharge his burden”

It is pertinent to note that the insurance company did not produce insurance policy of the offending vehicle that the insurance policy was not in force at th time of accident. Therefore, it can be safely presumed that the insurance policy was not in force at the time of accident.

19. The oral testimony of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A6 documents, the claimants has established that the accident occurred, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.KA34­2538, as a result,

Sahadeva, sustained injuries and died on the spot on 30­5­2009. Admittedly, the respondent No.1, is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle, and they both jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 

20. ISSUE NO.2 : Admittedly, the 1st respondent, is the owner of and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of offending vehicle i.e. Lorry bearing

No.KA34­2538 at the time of accident. Since, the respondents are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle at the time of accident, they are jointly and severally ­: 10 :­ liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 

21. Admittedly, the deceased Sahadeva, was 28 years old at the time of accident as per first information report and charge sheet. As per the contention of the claimant, the deceased, Sahadeva was earning Rs.7,500/­ (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) per month as cleaner of the lorry. In this regard, the claimants, did not place a proof of document, to show that, the deceased,

Sahadeva was earning Rs.7,500/­ (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) per month towards wages at the time of accident. Now a days, a coolie can earn

Rs.4,500/­ (Rupees four thousand five hundred only) per month. Considering the contention of the claimants, this court is of the consider opinion that it is just and reasonable, to fix the monthly income of the deceased, Sahadeva, at Rs.4,500/­ (Rupees four thousand five hundred only) per month, is reasonable.

22. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, The Hon'ble Apex Court, Five Judges Bench, delivered the judgment on 31.10.2017 in  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.25590 OF 2014 , wherein it was held that in case of deceased was a self employee in addition 40% income should be warrant, where the deceased was below the age of 40 to 50 years.

23. Considering the age of the deceased, P.Sahadeva, it is based on the multiplier as “17” keeping in view of the age of the deceased, P. Sahadeva, as 28 years old, at the time of accident as laid down in Sarla Verma and others Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ, 1298.

Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would comes to Rs.4,500/­ ­: 11 :­ (Rupees four thousand, five hundred only) and after deducting 1/3rd amount i.e.

Rs.1,500/­ (Rupees one thousand, five hundred only) towards personal living expenses of the deceased, as the deceased was self employed and below the age of 40 to 50 years, would comes to Rs.3,000/­ + 40% i.e. Rs.1,200/­ (Rupees one thousand two hundred only), and total monthly income of the deceased would comes to Rs.3,000/­ + 1,200/­ = Rs.4,200/­ (Rupees four thousand two hundred only). I fixed the monthly income of the deceased is Rs.4,200/­ (Rupees four thousand two hundred only). The annual income of the deceased would be

Rs.4,200/­ X 12 = Rs.50,400/­ (Rupees fifty thousand, four hundred only) and the multiplier is “17” i.e. Rs.50,400/­ X 17 = Rs.8,56,800/­ (Rupees eight lakh, fifty six thousand eight hundred only) is just and reasonable.

24. Further, the claimant No.1 is entitle, to Rs.15,000/­ (Rupees fifteen thousands only) towards funeral expenses; Rs.15,000/­ (Rupees fifteen thousands only) towards loss of estate. Therefore, the claimant No.1 is, entitle to claim total compensation of Rs.8,56,800/­ + Rs.15,000/­ + Rs.15,000/­ =

Rs.8,86,800/­ (Rupees eight lakh, eighty six thousand, eight hundred only).

25. The learned counsel of the claimant, submitted that the Hon'ble

Apex Court, enhanced the rate of interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, till the date of payment of compensation. To support his arguments, he relied upon a citation reported in V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another, 2014, ACJ page 1441; wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, granted compensation of Rs.30,93,000/­ (Rupees thirty lakhs, ninety three thousands only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum based on the principles of the Apex

Court reported in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims  ­: 12 :­ of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC). 

26. In view of the above discussion, the claimant No.1 is therefore, entitle, to claim total compensation of Rs.8,86,800/­ with interest at 9% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.8,86,800/­ (Rupees eight lakh, eighty six thousand, eight hundred only) from the date of filing of claim petition, till deposit into court. Accordingly, this issue is answered. 

27. ISSUE NO.3 : In the result, claim petition is allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.8,86,800/­ (Rupees eighteen lakh, eighty six thousand, eight hundred only) with costs and future interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition, till the date of realization. The respondent 1 and 3 are liable to pay the above said compensation amount to the claimant No.1 only. The respondents 1 and 3, further directed to deposit the compensation amount, within a month from the date of this order.

The compensation amount is awarded to the claimant as follows:

The 1st claimant, Palakunta Anuradha, is being the minor daughter of the deceased P. Sahadeva, is only entitle to total compensation of Rs.8,86,800/­ (Rupees eight lakh, eighty six thousand and eight hundred only).

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.8,000/­ (Rupees eight thousands only).

On deposit of compensation amount of Rs.8,86,800/­ (Rupees eight lakh, eighty six thousand and eight hundred only), the same shall be kept in the

Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank, till the 1st claimant, attains the majority.

After attaining the majority, the 1st claimant is permitted to withdraw the same along with accrued interest thereon and costs. 

­: 13 :­

The claimant No.1 is hereby directed to pay court fee on excess compensation amount of Rs.2,76,800/­ (Rupees two lakh, seventy six thousand, eight hundred only).

On payment of court fee paid by the claimant on excess compensation amount of Rs.2,76,800/­ (Rupees two lakh, seventy six thousand, eight hundred only), the office is directed to prepare a decree. 

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 4th day of April, 2018. Sd/­ S. Prasad,

CHAIRMAN,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal –Cum­ Family Court­ Cum­ VI Addl. District

Judge, Kadapa.

Appendix of evidence. Witness examined for Petitioners Respondents PW.1: P. Anasuyamma N I L PW.2: P. Narasimhulu

Exhibits marked for Petitioners/Claimants:

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of Altered First Information Report in crime No.62/2009 of K.V. Palli Police Station. Ex.A2 : Certified copy of First Information report in Crime No.62/2009 of K.V. Palli Police Station. Ex.A3 : Certified copy of Postmortem Certificate. Ex.A4 : Copy of inquest report. Ex.A5 : Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector report. Ex.A6 : Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A7 : Wages Certificate issued by 1st Respondent. Ex.A8 : Death Certificate copies in two numbers. 

Exhibits marked for Respondents:

N I L

Sd/­ S. Prasad, 

CHAIRMAN,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal­Cum­ Family Court­ Cum­ VI Addl.

District Judge, Kadapa. 

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ­CUM­ FAMILY COURT­

CUM­ VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KADAPA.

Present: Sri S. PRASAD, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal­ Cum­ Judge, Family Court­ Cum­ VI Additional

District Judge, Kadapa.

Tuesday, this the 03rd day of April, 2018

M.V.O.P. No.685/ 2016

1. Akula Aruna W/o Akula Raghu Babu, aged 37 years, Hindu, House wife.

2. Akula Venkata Krishna S/o Raghu Babu, aged 17 years, Student, Minor,

3. Akula Vyshnavi D/o Raghu Babu, aged 6 years, Hindu, Student, Minor

Petitioners 2 and 3 are minors, represented by their natural guardian, next friend mother, who is 1st petitioner herein.

All are residents of 6/131, Gajulapalem of Tadipatri town and mandal, Ananthapur District, now residing at 1/1700, Yerramukkapalli Gandhi Nagar, Kadapa City and district. … Petitioners/Claimants

Vs.

1. P. Siva Kumar S/o M. Perumal, aged 46 years, Hindu, Owner­Cum­Driver of the lorry, bearing No.AP03­U­0489, resident of D.No.37, M.V. Devaraj Nagar, Pallavansathu Kuppam, Vellore­2, Tamilnadu State.

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Opp: to District Court, Kadapa City and District.

Policy issued by Divisional Office, Vellore. Policy No.413500/31/2016/6295,

Valid from 24.01.2016 to 23.01.2017. ... Respondents

This petition coming on 28­03­2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Venugopal, Advocate for the petitioners/claimants and of Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2,

Respondent No.1, having been set exparte, having stood over for consideration till ­: 2 :­ this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This claim petition was filed by the Petitioners/Claimants, U/S.166 r/w Section 166(2) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, R/w Rule 475 of A.P. Motor

Vehicles Rules, 1989, as amended Act 54/1994, seeking the relief, to award compensation of Rs.15,00,000/­ (Rupees fifteen lakh only) and for costs. 

2. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

B.Prathap Reddy, was a cleaner and A. Raghu Babu were proceeding in the lorry bearing No.AP02­TC­6417, after loading coal in the lorry. Akula

Raghu Babu was driving the lorry in a normal speed. When the lorry reached near

East Arundhatiyapalem on N.H. 16 at about 1.40 A.M., the 1st respondent lorry bearing No.AP03­U­0489, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the lorry bearing No.AP02­TC­6417, as a result of which the lorry bearing No.AP02­TC­6417, got extra speed and hit to another lorry, which was proceeding in front of the lorry. Due to which the cabin of the lorry was crushed, and Raghu Babu, struck in the cabin and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Basing on the complaint, the police Kovvuru Police Station, registered a case in crime No.150/2016 against the driver of the lorry bearing

No.AP03­U­0489 belongs to the 1st respondent.

3. It is averred that, the 1st claimant is the wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased, A.Raghu Babu. The deceased, was a lorry driver and earning Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees ten thousand only) per month as wages and Rs.250/­ (Rupees two hundred and fifty only) per day as batta and was contributing his earnings for his family. Due to the sudden death of Raghu Babu ­: 3 :­ (deceased), the claimants lost love and affection. The 1st respondent is being the owner cum driver of the lorry and the 2nd respondent is being the insurer of the offending vehicle, both are liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Having no other go, forcing the claimants filed the present claim petition. 

4. The respondent No.1, remained exparte, whereas the 2nd respondent, has resisted the claim petition, by way of filing a written­statement.

The brief averments of the written­statement are as follows:

It is contended that, the deceased, Raghu Babu was driving the lorry bearing No.AP02­TC­6417 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, who lost control over the same and dashed on the rear side of one unknown lorry, which was proceeding ahead of his lorry and the 1st respondent lorry was following the lorry bearing No.AP02­TC­6417, in which the deceased was proceeding and the 1st respondent lorry applied strong break to his lorry and was not controlled and touched the lorry bearing No.AP02­TC­6417 on its rear side. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent manner of the deceased only and no contribution of 1st respondent at the time of accident. The Kovvur Police, put the entire negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and filed charge sheet against the 1st respondent as the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP02­TC­6417 was died.

5. It is contended that, the deceased was more than 45 years old at the time of accident, and not 39 years, as mentioned in the petition. The claimants have to prove the age, occupation and income of the deceased at the time of accident. The petition has to be dismissed against this respondent No.2, as this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition, as the accident occurred at

Nellore district, ­: 4 :­ the petitioners belongs to Ananthapur district, and the 1st respondent belongs to

Tamilnadu State and prayed the court to dismiss the claim petition against this respondent.

5. Based on the pleadings, my learned predecessor in office has framed the following issues for trial. 

1. Whether the accident occurred is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP03­U­0489, that resulted in causing death of Akula Raghu Babu?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitle for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? 

3. To what relief?

6. On behalf of the claimants, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 documents. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, none were examined, but Ex.B1 document is marked.

7. Written­arguments filed on behalf of the claimants, whereas the 2nd respondent did not advance the arguments.

8. ISSUE No.1 :­ It is the claim of the claimants that, B.Prathap

Reddy, was a cleaner and A. Raghubabu were proceeding in the lorry bearing

No.AP02­TC­6417, after loading coal in the lorry, on 26.8.2016, they left Nellore and was proceeding towards Tadipatri. Akula Raghu Babu was driving the lorry in a normal speed. When the lorry reached near East Arundhatiyapalem on N.H. 16 at about 1.40 A.M., the 1st respondent lorry, bearing No.AP03­U­0489, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the lorry bearing No.AP02­TC­6417, as a result of which the lorry bearing No.AP02­TC­ 6417, got extra speed and hit to another lorry, which was proceeding in front of the lorry. Due to which the cabin of the lorry was crushed, and Raghu Babu, ­: 5 :­ struck in the cabin and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Basing on the complaint, the police Kovvuru Police Station, registered a case in crime

No.150/2016 against the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP03­U­0489 belongs to the 1st respondent.

9. It is averred that, the 1st claimant is the wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased, A.Raghu Babu. The deceased, was a lorry driver and earning Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees ten thousand only) per month as wages and Rs.250/­ (Rupees two hundred and fifty only) per day as batta and was contributing his earnings for his family. The 1st respondent is being the owner cum driver of the lorry and the 2nd respondent is being the insurer of the offending vehicle, both are liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Having no other go, forcing the claimants filed the present claim petition. 

10. However, it is the contention of the 2nd respondent that the deceased, Raghu Babu was driving the lorry bearing No.AP02­TC­6417 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed who lost control over the same and dashed on the rear side of one unknown lorry, which was proceeding ahead of his lorry and the 1st respondent lorry was following the lorry bearing No.AP02­TC­6417, in which the deceased was proceeding and the 1st respondent lorry applied strong break to his lorry and was not controlled and touched the lorry bearing No.AP02­

TC­6417 on its rear side. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent manner of the deceased only and no contribution of 1st respondent at the time of accident.

The Kovvur Police, put the entire negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and filed charge sheet against the 1st respondent as the driver of the lorry bearing

No.AP02­TC­6417 was died.

­: 6 :­

11. It is contended that, the deceased was more than 45 years old at the time of accident, and not 39 years, as mentioned in the petition. The claimants have to prove the age, occupation and income of the deceased at the time of accident. The petition has to be dismissed against this respondent No.2, as this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition, as the accident occurred at

Nellore district, the petitioners belongs to Ananthapur district, and the 1st respondent belongs to Tamilnadu State. 

12. In order to substantiate the claim of the claimants, the claimant

No.1 A. Aruna, the wife of the deceased, Raghu Babu examined as PW.1. She filed chief­affidavit in lieu of chief­examination, in which she reiterated the same facts as narrated in the claim petition. The evidence of PW.1 was disputed during the cross­examination by the respondent No.2. She denied the suggestion that, the lorry bearing No.AP03­U­0489, was not involved in the accident. The witness has denied the suggestion that, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of 1st respondent vehicle in causing the accident The witness has denied the suggestion that, the 1st respondent driver had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, and the 2nd respondent is not responsible to pay compensation. Except, the said suggestions, nothing has been elicited which render her evidence unbelievable. Admittedly, PW.1 is not an eye witness t the occurrence. However, her evidence is supporting her claim that her husband

Raghu Babu, died in the accident, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of th lorry bearing No.AP03­U­0489.

13. The claimants examined, one more witness namely, B.Prathap

Reddy as PW.2. He filed chief­affidavit, in lieu of chief­examination. He stated ­: 7 :­ that, the deceased, A. Raghu Babu, died in the motor vehicle accident, occurred on 26.8.2016 at about 1.40 A.M. near East Arundathiyapalem on National High way 16, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP03­U­ 0489 belongs to the1st respondent. He further stated that, he was the cleaner of the lorry bearing No.AP02­TC­6417, at the time of accident. He sustained injuries in the said accident. He lodged a complaint to the police about the accident, which is registered as a case in Crime No.150/2016 by Kovvur Police station. The claimants are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased. The deceased was earning Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees ten thousand only) per month and Rs.250/­ (Rupees two hundred and fifty only) per day towards batta.

14. The evidence of PW.2 was disputed during the cross­examination by the 2nd respondent. In the cross­examination, the witness has denied the suggestion that, there is no negligence on the part of th driver of the lorry bearing

No.AP03­U­0489 in causing accident. Except, the said suggestion, nothing has been elicited, which render his evidence unbelievable. According to the evidence of PW.2, he is an eye witness to the accident. Thus, the evidence of PW.2, is very much support the claimants that, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP03­U­0489 drove the said lorry, in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, in which, the deceased Raghu Babu died due to the injuries. As such, his evidence is credible and is accepted. 

15. The claimants, have relied upon Ex.A1 to A5 documents to support the claimants. Ex.A1 is certified copy of First Information Report in crime

No.150/2016 of Kovvur Police Station, shows that based on the complaint of

B.Prathap Reddy (PW.2), a case in Crime No.150/2016, for the offence under section 337 and 304­A IPC was registered against the lorry driver.

­: 8 :­

Ex.A2 is Certified copy of inquest report, shows that inquest was held over the dead body of Raghu Babu, by the Station House Officer, Kovvur police station. According to Ex.A2, the deceased Raghu Babu, died in the road accident.

This document did not dispute by the respondents.

Ex.A3 is certified copy of Postmortem Certificate, issued by the Civil

Assistant Surgeon, C.H.C. Kovvur of Nellore district, shows that, Raghu Babu, died due to shock and fracture of cervical spines. This document is not denied by the respondents. 

Ex.A4 is Certified copy of charge sheet, shows that, the Sub­Inspector of Police, Kovvur Police Station, has laid a charge sheet in Cr.No.150/2016 under section 304­A, 337 IPC, against the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP02­TC­6417, namely, P.Siva Kumar, on the file of the Judl. Magistrate of I Class Court, Kovvur stating that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing

No.AP02­TC­6417, the accident occurred on 26.8.2016 at 1.40 A.M. in which,

A.Raghu Babu (deceased) sustained injuries and died. This document is not been denied or challenged by the respondent. 

Ex.A5 is Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector, Nellore, shows that, the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle involved in the accident. Ex.A6 is the original driving licence of the deceased, A.

Raghu Babu. These documents are not been denied by the respondent. 

16. The 2nd respondent insurance company, has taken a plea in the written­statement that, the due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, the accident was occurred. In this regard, the 2nd respondent insurance company, has not examined any witness, to support, to prove the fact that the deceased, was ­: 9 :­ responsible in causing the accident, in which he died due to the injuries. The 2nd respondent insurance company has filed insurance policy copy is marked as Ex.B1.

According to Ex.B1, the insurance policy, of the offending vehicle, was in force as on the date of accident.

17. The oral testimony of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A6 documents, the claimants have established that the accident occurred, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP03­U­0489, as a result,

Raghu Babu, sustained injuries and died on the spot on 26.8.2016.

18. Admittedly, the respondent No.1, is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle, at the time of accident. As such, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 

19. ISSUE NO.2 : Admittedly, the 1st respondent, is the owner of and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of offending vehicle i.e. Lorry bearing

No.AP04­TT­0483 at the time of accident. Since, the respondents are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle at the time of accident, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 

20. Admittedly, the deceased Raghu Babu, was 39 years old at the time of accident as per first information report and charge sheet. As per the contention of the claimants, the deceased, Raghu Babu was earning Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees ten thousand only) per month and Rs.250/­ (Rupees two hundred and fifty only) per day, towards batta, as driver of the lorry. In this regard, the claimants, have not filed any proof of document, to show that, the deceased, ­: 10 :­

Raghu Babu was earning Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees ten thousand only) per month towards wages and Rs.250/­ (Rupees two hundred and fifty only) per day, towrds batta at the time of accident. Now a day a driver would earn Rs.7,500/­ (Rupees seven thousand, five hundred only) per month. Considering the contention of the claimants, this court is of the consider opinion that it is just and reasonable, to fix the monthly income of the deceased, Raghu Babu, at Rs.7,500/­ (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) per month, is reasonable.

21. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, The Hon'ble Apex Court, Five Judges Bench, delivered the judgment on 31.10.2017 in  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.25590 OF 2014 , wherein it was held that in case of deceased was a self employee in addition 40% income should be warrant, where the deceased was below the age of 40 to 50 years.

22. Considering the age of the deceased, Raghu Babu, it is based on the multiplier as “15” keeping in view of the age of the deceased, A. Raghu Babu,

as 39 years old, at the time of accident as laid down in Sarla Verma and others

Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ, 1298.

Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is being Rs.7,500/­ (Rupees seven thousand, five hundred only) and after deducting 1/3rd amount i.e. Rs.2,500/­ (Rupees two thousand, five hundred only) towards personal living expenses of the deceased, as the deceased was self employed and below the age of 40 to 50 years, would comes to Rs.5,000/­ + 40% i.e. Rs.2,000/­ (Rupees two thousand only), and total monthly income of the deceased would comes to Rs.5,000/­ + 2,000/­ = Rs.7,000/­ (Rupees seven thousand only). I fixed the monthly income ­: 11 :­ of the deceased is Rs.7,000/­ (Rupees seven thousand only). The annual income of the deceased would be Rs.7,000/­ X 12 = Rs.84,000/­ (Rupees eighty four thousand, only) and the multiplier is “15” i.e. Rs.84,000/­ X 15 = Rs.12,60,000/­ (Rupees twelve lakh, sixty thousand only) is just and reasonable.

23. Further, the claimants entitle, to Rs.40,000/­ (Rupees forty thousand only) towards consortium; Rs.15,000/­ (Rupees fifteen thousands only) towards funeral expenses; Rs.15,000/­ (Rupees fifteen thousands only) towards loss of estate. Therefore, the claimants, are entitle to claim total compensation of Rs.12,60,000/­ + 40,000/­ + Rs.15,000/­ + Rs.15,000/­ =

Rs.13,35,000/­ (Rupees thirteen lakh, thirty five thousand only).

24. The learned counsel of the claimant, submitted that the Hon'ble

Apex Court, enhanced the rate of interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, till the date of payment of compensation. To support his arguments, he relied upon a citation reported in V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another, 2014, ACJ page 1441; wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, granted compensation of Rs.30,93,000/­ (Rupees thirty lakhs, ninety three thousands only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum based on the principles of the Apex

Court reported in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC). 

25. In view of the above discussion, the claimants therefore, are entitle to claim total compensation of Rs.13,35,000/­ with interest at 9% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.13,35,000/­ (Rupees thirteen lakh, thirty five thousand only) from the date of filing of claim petition, till deposit into court.

Accordingly, this issue is answered. 

­: 12 :­

26. ISSUE NO.3 : In the result, claim petition is allowed partly, awarding compensation of Rs.13,35,000/­ (Rupees thirteen lakh, thirty five only) with costs and future interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition, till the date of realization. The respondent 1 and 2 are liable to pay the above said compensation amount to the claimants. The respondents 1 and 2, further directed to deposit the compensation amount, within a month from the date of this order. The rest of the claim is concerned, dismissed.

The compensation amount is awarded to the claimants as follows:

The 1st claimant, Akula Aruna, is being the wife of the deceased

Akula Raghu Babu, is entitle compensation of Rs.9,35,000/­ (Rupees nine lakh thirty five thousand only), the 2nd claimant, Akula Venkata Krishna and the 3rd claimant, Akula Vyshnavi, are being the minor children of the deceased, Akula

Raghu Babu, are entitle compensation of Rs.2,00,000/­ (Rupees two lakh only) each.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.8,000/­ (Rupees eight thousands only).

On deposit of compensation amount, the 1st claimant, Akula Aruna, is being the wife of the deceased, Akula Raghu Babu, is permitted to withdraw, initially, a sum of Rs.6,35,000/­ (Rupees six lakh thirty five thousand only) along with accrued interest thereon, and costs. The balance of compensation amount of

Rs.3,00,000/­ (Rupees three lakh only) shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any

Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. After expiring said period, the 1st claimant is permitted to withdraw the same along with accrued interest thereon.

The compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ (Rupees two lakh only) each of the 2nd claimant, Akula Venkata Krishna and the 3rd claimant, Akula ­: 13 :­

Vyshnavi, are being the minor children of the deceased, Akula Raghu Babu, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank, till they attains the majority. After attaining the majority, the 2nd and 3rd claimant are permitted to withdraw the amount along with accrued interest thereon. 

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 3rd day of April, 2018. Sd/­ S. Prasad,

CHAIRMAN,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal –Cum­ Family Court­ Cum­ VI Addl. District

Judge, Kadapa.

Appendix of evidence. Witness examined for Petitioners Respondents PW.1: A. Aruna N I L PW.2: B. Prathap Reddy

Exhibits marked for Petitioners/Claimants:

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of First Information Report in crime No.150/2016 of Kovvur Police Station. Ex.A2 : Certified copy of inquest report. Ex.A3 : Copy of Postmortem Certificate, Ex.A4 : Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A5 : Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector report. Ex.A6 : Original Driving Licence of the deceased, A. Raghu Babu.

Exhibits marked for Respondents:

Ex.B1: Copy of Insurance Policy. 

Sd/­ S. Prasad,

CHAIRMAN,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal­Cum­ Family Court­ Cum­ VI Addl.

District Judge, Kadapa. 

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT, KADAPA.

Present :- Sri S.Prasad, B,Sc.,LLM.,

Additional Senior civil Judge:: Kadapa.

Tuesday this the 14th day of February, 2017.

O.S.No.230 of 2014.

S.Md.Yunus S/O S.Abdual Latheef, 33 years, Muslim, employee, R/a D.No.49/52/3/1, Ravindranagar, Kadapa.

….Plaintiff....

Vs

1. The Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Sven roads, Kadapa.

2. Sareddy Aruna W/O Nagi Reddy, 40 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/a.D.No.1/2705, new D.No.1/2/105, near little flower High School, A.P.H.B.,colony, Kadapa.

…..Defendants....

This suit is coming on 07.02.2017, for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.S.Masthanvalli, advocate for the plaintiff and

Sri.S.R.Sreerama Murthy, advocate for defendant No.1, and the defendant

No.2, remained exparte, and after hearing arguments on both sides, and upon perusing records, and having stood over for consideration, till this day this court delivered the following:- ::: JUDGEMENT :::

This suit is filed by the plaintiff, seeking the relief, to declare his title to the suit schedule property and consequential permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for costs.

2

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

3.S.Abdual Latheer S/O Peeran Saheb, the father of the plaintiff, had purchased the suit schedule property, under a register sale deed

dt:14.07.1980. Abdual Latheef, died leaving behind him, his sons and

daughters on 04.03.2011. After death of Abdual Latheef, his children, got partitioned, the joint family property on 29.09.2012. In the said partition, B schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff and is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is averred that, the plaintiff, saw the paper publication, dt:11.12.2012, that the plaint schedule property is being conducted public auction by the Manger, State Bank of India, Kadapa (D.1).

Having no other go, forcing the plaintiff, filed the present suit, for declaration of his title to the suit schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction.

4.The second defendant, remained exparte. Whereas, defendant

No.1, has filed written statement.

5. The brief averments of the written statement of the defendant

No.1, are as follows:

6.The defendant bank had sanctioned housing loan to Bhavani,

Nagireddy and Aruna(D.2). Bhavani, mortgage her vacant site plot No.7, in

S.No.204/1, Chinnachowk village fields, in favour of the plaintiff bank, by creating equitable mortgage by deposing her original register sale deed.

S.Aruna(D.2), had mortgaged her vacant site plot No.6, in S.No.204/1, 3

Chinnachowk village fields in favour of the defendant bank, by creating an equitable mortgage by way of deposing her original register sale deed and

K.Venu Gopal Reddy, had mortgaged his vacant site plot No.8, in S.No.204/1,

Chinnachowk, fields by creating an equitable mortgage by way of depositing his original register sale deed.

7.It is contended that, the said persons, have failed to discharge the loan amount to the defendant bank. The defendant bank, is being the secured creditor and got charge over the property of the said three persons and initiated the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, for bringing the assets of the said persons for sale, for realization of the debt. The defendant bank, got issued a notice to the said persons and took the possession of their assets for sale.

8.It is further contended that, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant bank on 17.12.2012, alleging that, the property mortgaged to the bank belongs to him. The defendant, bank gave a suitable reply that, the property claimed by the plaintiff is different from the property mortgaged by the said three persons. The plaintiff has been claiming the property, in

S.No.204/2, and S.No.204/3, to an extent of Ac.0.06 cents out of Ac.0.58 cents and Ac.0.50 cents i.e., plot Nos.5 and 6. Whereas, the property mortgaged by the said three persons, in favour of defendant bank, is

S.No.204/1, plot Nos.6 to 8. The boundaries shown in the alleged property 4 claiming by the plaintiff are not tallying with the boundaries mentioned in the property of the said three persons. The plaintiff has not filed any documentary proof that, the alleged property in S.No.204/1 is belongs to him. The plaintiff is not entitle the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendant bank. No cause of action arose to the plaintiff in filing the present suit and prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

9.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title over the suit

schedule property and consequential permanent injunction as

prayed for?

2. Whereas this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as per Sec.34 of Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, as set out in the written

statement?

3. To what relief?

10.On behalf of the plaintiff, Younus, himself examined as P.W.1, and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 documents. On behalf of the defendant bank, its manager, L.Sreenivasa Rao, examined as D.W.1 and no documents are marked.

11.Heard the arguments of both the counsel.

12.Issue No.1: In a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish the better title, affirmatively and prove that, he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

5

The defendant herein, having not denied the land in S.No.204/2 and 204/3, to an extent of Ac.0.06 cents belongs to the plaintiff. It is contended that, the three persons namely, Bhavani, Nagireddy and Aruna (D.2), had availed loan from the defendant No.1, bank, by mortgaging their property, in S.No.204/1, plot Nos.6 to 8 respectively. The suit schedule is different from the property mortgaged by the said three persons.

13.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, Younus, has filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief exhumation as P.W.1. He reiterated the same facts as narrated in the plaint averments. P.W.1, Younus, has stated in his cross examination that, he filed the suit seeking the relief to declare his title to the

S.No.204/2 and 204/3. His family do not possess any property in S.No.204/1.

This piece of evidence of P.W.1, would shows that, the plaintiff is nothing to do with the property in S.No.204/1.

14.The plaintiff, Younus, as P.W.1, has admitted the facts in his cross examination, which would support the defendant No.1 bank. For better appreciation, I would like to extract the relevant portion, which read as hereunder:

“It is true that, since three

persons have failed to pay the

mortgage debt to the bank, that bank

authority, initiated auction for sale of

mortgage property, under Sarfaci Act.

6

I do not know whether bank, sold

away the property in S.No.204/1

already”.

15. The aforesaid admission made by the plaintiff as P.W.1, would shows that, the defendant bank, had already initiated auction, for sale of land in S.No.204/1, to realize the mortgage debt due by three persons. However, it is not the claim of the plaintiff that, plot Nos.6 to 8, in S.No.204/1 is belongs to him that, the bank had sold away that property, though it has no right over it. Admittedly the defendants, have not claiming the suit schedule property. In such a case, the question of declaring the title of the plaintiff to the suit schedule property and consequential permanent injunction does not arise.

16. Ex.A.1, is the original register sale deed dt:14.7.1980, go to show that, Abdual Latheef, had purchased the land from Rahamthulla, for a valid consideration of Rs.1000/- and took the possession on the same day.

The schedule shown in Ex.A.1, is S.No.204/2, and S.No.204/3, , in an extent of Ac.0.10 cents plot, with specific boundaries. Ex.A.2, is the register partition deed dt:29.09.2012, go to how that, the legal heirs of Abdual

Latheef, got partitioned their joint family property, as ABCDE and they took their respective shares. A close perusal of Ex.A.2, which does not disclose, the land in S.No.204/1, is belongs to the joint family property. Ex.A.3, is the office copy of legal notice dt:17.12.2012, go to show that, the plaintiff herein, got issued a legal notice to the official receiver, State Bank of India, Kadapa, 7 main branch, and Bhavani, alleging that, not to proceed sale, in respect of the plots No.6 and 7, situate in S.No.204/2, and 204/3. Ex.A.4, is the valuation certificate.

18. The oral testimony of P.W.1, coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.4, is not inspiring the confident of this court that, the defendants herein, interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in

S.No.204/2 and 204/3, plot Nos.6 and 7, as on the date of filing the suit.

19. The defendant No.1, Bank Manager, L.Sreenivasa Rao, has filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination as D.W.1. According to the evidence of D.W.1, Bhavani, Aruna (D.2) and Venugopal Reddy, had availed housing loan from defendant No.1 bank; by mortgaging their vacant cites i.e., plot Nos.6 to 8, in S.No.204/1, Chinnachowk, village fields and by creating equitable mortgage deeds by deposing their original sale deeds. Since, the said persons have failed to discharge, the loan amount, the bank has initiated the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and took the possession of the said plots and brought the plots for sale.

20. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, put a suggestion to D.W.1, that, the defendant No.1 bank, has been claiming the suit schedule; as if

S.No.204/1, plot Nos.6 to 8. However, the said suggestion, was promptly denied by the witness. The property mortgaged by the defendant No.2, Aruna, to the bank is situate in S.No.204/1, plot Nos.6 to 8. The evidence of D.W.1, 8 is very clear the fact that, the defendant bank, has not brought the suit schedule property, for sale, or trying to interfere, with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The plaintiff, has not come to the court with cleans hands, to get the relief of declaration of title to the suit property and bare injunction, for the reason that, he could not identify his property.

21. The above foregoing discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that, the plaintiff has not established the fact that, the defendant having denied, his title to the suit schedule property. When the defendant

No.1 bank, has not denied right title and possession of plaintiff to the suit schedule property, the question of granting, the relief of declaration of title of plaintiff to the suit schedule property, and consequential permanent injunction, does not arise. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the 1st defendant.

22. Issue No.2: In fact, this issue has been framed based on the specific contention of the defendant No.1, as set out in the written statement.

Thus, the burden lies on the defendant No.1, to prove this issue. The defendant No.1, has not filed any piece of document to show that, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as set out in the written statement.

Accordingly, this issue is answered against the defendant No.1, and in favour of the plaintiff.

23. Issue No.3: In the result, the suit is dismissed. However, both 9 parties do bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 14th day of February, 2017.

Sd/-S.Prasad,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Kadapa. Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for plaintiff:

P.W.1. S.Md.Younum

Witnesses examined for defendant:

D.W.1. L.Sreenivasula Rao

Exhibits marked for plaintiffs:

Ex.A.1. Original register sale deed dt:14.7.1980

Ex.A.2. Original partition deed dt:29.9.2012,

Ex.A.3. Office copy of legal notice dt:17.12.2012,

Ex.A.4. Valuation certificate.

Exhibits marked for defendants:

Sd/-S.Prasad,

ASCJ

In the Court of :Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty

Case No. :SC/0000283/2014 S.H.O. Rayachoty P.S. Vs Syed Anwar

Date  : 22-04-2015

Business: The accused, Syed Anwar is produced from sub-jail, Rayachoty. Judgment pronounced in the open court. \ In the result, the accused, Syed Anwar is found not guilty, for the charge punishable u/sec. 307 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/sec. 235(1) cr.p.c. For the said charge. However, the accused, Syed Anwa, is found guilty for the charge punishable u/sec. 324 IPC accordingly, he is convicted u/sec. 235(1) cr.p.c for the said charge. \ After recording the conviction, I heard the accused personally, on the point of sentence to be imposed on him, for which he submitted that he has been in judicial custody more than eight months, and prayed the court that a lenient view may be taken. \ The record would reveal that, the accused is having criminal back ground. Since, the accused, is in judicial custody and considering the prayer of the accused, this court, is not inclined to invoke u/sec. 360 IPC,or P.O.Act. However, this court feel it just and proper sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only), for the offence punishable under sec. 324 IPC and n default of payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. However, the set of is given u/sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. However,, M.O.1, Hammer, M.O.2, Screwdriver, shall be destroyed after expiring of appeal time. Nature of Disposal: CONVICTED Disposal Date: 22-04-2015

Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty

Business: Notice given to both parties. Judgment pronounced in the open court (V.S.) \ In the result, the suit is decreed preliminarily with costs for partition of suit schedule properties into four equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff by metes and bounds taking good and bad qualities of the property. It is hereby declared that the suit sale deed dated 10.6.2008 executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of 4th defendant is not valid and not binding on the plaintiff. Nature of Disposal: DECREED WITH COSTS Disposal Date: 03-11-2015

Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty

Updated Annexure I CONSENT BY FATHER/MOTHER/LEGAL GUARDIAN

OF STUDENT FOR APAAR ID GENERATION

School Name: KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA KADAPA

I, ____________________________________ as the Natural/Legal

Guardian of

___________________________ with my Identity Proof _______________

voluntarily give my

consent to share his/her Aadhaar Number and demographic information

issued by UIDAI with

Ministry of Education for the sole purpose of creation of APAAR ID and

opening of

DIGILOCKER account of my child for the following intents and purposes.

I understand that my APAAR ID may be used and shared for limited

purposes as may be notified

by Ministry of Education from time-to-time for educational and related

activities. Further I am

also aware that my personal identifiable information (Name, Address,

Age, Date of Birth, Gender

and Photograph) may be made available to entities engaged in various

educational activities such

as UDISE+ database, scholarships, maintenance academic records,

other stakeholders like Educational Institutions and recruitment agencies.

I authorise Ministry of Education to use my Aadhaar number for

performing Aadhaar based

authentication with UIDAI as per provision of the Aadhaar (Targeted

Delivery of Financial and

Other Subsidies, Benefits, and Services) Act, 2016 for the aforesaid

purpose. I understand that

UIDAI will share my e- KYC details, or response of "Yes" with Ministry of

Education upon successful authentication.

I understand that the information shared by me shall be kept

Confidential and shall not be divulged to any third party except as may be required by law.

I understand that I can withdraw my consent for all or any of the

purposes at any time by and on

withdrawal of my consent, the processing of my shared information will

stop, however, any

personal data already been processed shall remain unaffected on such

withdrawal of consent. Date of Physical Consent: _____________________ Place of Physical Consent: (Signature)

I, Munesh Meena as Head of the School declare that the Natural/Legal

Guardian of

______________________________ as mentioned above has given the

Consent for Providing

AADHAAR to create APAAR ID, opening of DIGILOCKER Account and

Identity Verification in UDISE Plus. Date..........

______________ (Signature)