Sri S.Praveen Kumar

A.S.No.16 of 2024

1

APKD070000672024

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJAMPET.

PRESENT:- SRI S. PRAVEEN KUMAR,

III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, RAJAMPET.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026

A.S.NO.16 OF 2024

Between:-

1. Enamala Brahmaiah, S/o.Chinna Chengaiah, aged about 67 years, Hindu,

Hardware Merchant, residing at Main Road, Kodur. Having died his L.Rs.,

Appellants No.2 to 4

2. Enamala Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o.Enamala Brahmaiah, aged about 73 years,

Home Maker,

3. Ramayanam Lakshmi Narasamma, D/o.Enamala Brahmaiah, aged about 52 years, Home Maker,

4. Enamala Narasimhulu, S/o.Enamala Brahmaiah, aged about 50 years,

Business and Cultivation,

All are residing at D.No.2/17, Main Road, Railway Kodur, Tirupati District.

(Appellants No.2 to 4 are added as per orders in I.A.No.363/2025 dt.19.08.2025) …Appellants / Plaintiffs.

Vs

1. Ramayanam Nagadevi, W/o.Late Narasimhulu, aged about 50 years,

2. Ramayanam Sivaram Prasad, S/o.Late Narasimhulu, aged about 30 years,

3. Ramayanam Sujatha, W/o.Late Chengala Rayudu, aged about 45 years,

A.S.No.16 of 2024

2

4. Ramayanam Raghavaiah, S/o.Late Chengaiah, aged about 48 years,

5. Thiruveedhula Subbarathnamma, W/o.Achari, aged about 65 years,

6. Paturi Suvarna, W/o.Gopi Kumar, aged about 50 years,

7. Enamala Kumari, W/o.Srinivasulu, aged about 47 years,

All are Hindus, Employees and Household, Defendants No.1, 2, 5 and 7 are residents of Old Bazar Street, Railway Kodur, Tirupati District, Defendant

No.3 is residing at Moolabavi Street, Rajampet, Kadapa District Defendant

No.4 is residing at Main Road, Near Lakshmi Paradise Theatre, Railway

Kodur, Tirupati District and Defendant No.6 is residing at Housing Board

Colony, Near Polytechnic College, Ongole, Prakasam District.

…Respondents / Defendants.

An appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by the

learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet in O.S.No.162

of 2014 dated 16.06.2024.

Between:-

Enamala Brahmaiah…Plaintiff.

AND

1. Ramayanam Nagadevi

2. Ramayanam Sivaram Prasad

3. Ramayanam Sujatha

4. Ramayanam Raghavaiah

5. Thiruveedhula Subbarathnamma

6. Paturi Suvarna

7. Enamala Kumari …Defendants.

This Appeal coming on 18.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Vallabha Rao, Advocate for Appellants / Plaintiffs and Sri K.J.P. Reddaiah, Advocate for Respondents / Defendants and having stood over till this day, after perusing the records and upon hearing arguments this court delivered the following:-

A.S.No.16 of 2024

3

J U D G M E N T

Upon aggrieving the decree and judgment dated 18.06.2024 in O.S.No.162/2014 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Rajampet, the appellant being plaintiff preferred this appeal seeking to set aside the said decree and Judgment and to decree the suit with costs.

2. The appellant No.1 herein is the plaintiff. The respondents herein are the defendants in the said suit. During pendency of this appeal, the 1st appellant died. Upon that the appellants No.2 to 4 were brought on record being the Legal heirs of the 1st appellant. 2nd appellant is the wife and the appellants No.3 and 4 are the children of appellant No.1. Thus, it is appropriate to refer the parties herein with their original status as the appellant

No.1 as Plaintiff and the respondents No.1 to 7 as the defendants No.1 to 7 for better understanding of the Judgment.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

4. In brief, the averments of the plaint are that one Enamala

Chinna Chengaiah is the father of plaintiff and he purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 22.01.1950. The said father

Enamala Chinna Chengaiah had two wives by name Enamala Subbamma and Enamala Ankamma @ Subbamma. Enamala Sankaraiah, Enamala

Mahadevaiah and Ramayanama Achamma are the children of the 1st wife.

Enamala Brahmaiah (Plaintiff) and Enamala Brahmanandam, Avisa

Sarojamma, Ramayanam Rajeswaramma, Nadigundam Rajya Lakshmi and

Yenkolu Uma Maheswari are the children of 2nd wife. Ramayanam

Narasimhulu, Tiruveedula Subbarathnamma (Defendant No.5), Enamala

Vijaya Lakshmi (Wife of plaintiff), Paturu Suvarna (Defendant No.6),

Ramayanam Chengal Rayudu (Husband of Defendant No.3), Ramayanam

A.S.No.16 of 2024

4

Raghavulu (Defendant No.4) and Enamala Kumari (Defendant No.7) are the children of said Ramayanam Achamma.

5. On 09.11.1967 the plaintiff executed a Registered Will in a sound and disposing state of mind in respect of suit schedule property and other properties in favour of his second wife Ankamma @ subbamma with limited rights and thereafter vested reminder infavour of plaintiff and said brother Brahmananam. The said father Enamala Chinna Chengaiah died on 11.11.1967. The mother of plaintiff who is the 2nd wife of Enamala Chinna

Chengaiah died on 19.11.1997. Thus, the Will came into force and the plaintiff and his brother became absolute owners of suit schedule property. On 07.07.2004 the plaintiff purchased the half share of his brother under a registered sale deed for valuable consideration. As such the plaintiff became the full owner of property. The plaintiff has been enjoying the suit schedule property with absolute rights without any interruption beyond the statutory period of 12 years. The plaintiff further obtained Rythwari passbook from revenue authorities. The name of plaintiff was also incorporated in 1B and

No.3 Adangal. The plaintiff had also erected 10HP electric motor and pump shed for drawing the water from bore well in suit schedule property. The plaintiff also availed loan from Andhra Bank, Railway Kodur by mortgaging the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has also incurred more than Rs.6,00,000/- for reclamation. In the year 2006 the defendants demanded a share in suit schedule property. The plaintiff out of compassion obliged the request of defendants and paid Rs.1,80,000/- to the defendants No.2, 4 and husband of

Defendant No.7. Further, these three persons being male family members executed an agreement in this regard on 12.07.2006. The said agreement was attested by defendant No.3. The said Enamala Mahadevaiah who is full brother of Achamma has also attested the agreement. Thus, the said

Achamma is common predecessor of Defendants No.1 to 7 and their children.

Plaintiff planted 115 mango trees, 100 Teak trees and 50 coconut trees in suit

A.S.No.16 of 2024

5 schedule property. The prices of neighborhood lands of suit schedule property were increased. Thus, the defendants resorted to unfair and unhealthy methods and tried to enter into the suit schedule property. The plaintiff resisted their attempts and constrained to file the suit.

6. Defendant No.2 filed written statement. Remaining defendants adopted the written statement of Defendant No.2. Thus, the pleadings of the written statement of defendants No.1 to 7 are that on 20.08.1951 the said Enamala Chinna Chengaiah executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of his daughter by name Ramayanam Achamma who is the daughter of the 1st wife in respect of suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was purchased by the said Enamala Chinna Chengaiah from one Kalaiah under registered sale deed dated 22.01.1950. Thus, the said

Achamma was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

The father of 2nd defendant being legal heir of said Achamma came into possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by inheritance after the death of said Achamma. Plaintiff being Manager of joint family was looking after the assets of joint family. With ulterior motive the plaintiff managed revenue authorities and obtained revenue records by misrepresentation and playing a fraud. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff are created and not binding on the defendants. The defendants are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties being Legal heirs of said Achamma. As the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property he is not entitled to seek equitable relief of permanent injunction. There is no cause of action to file the suit. The suit is also not maintainable as the same was filed without seeking the relief of declaration. With these submissions, the defendants have prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

7. In view of the above pleadings of plaintiff and defendants, the trial Court framed the following issues.

A.S.No.16 of 2024

6

1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked on behalf of plaintiff. D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of defendants.

9. Upon considering the evidence let in by both parties, the trial Court delivered the Judgment on 18.06.2024 as follows:

“ In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.”

10. Thus, the plaintiff approached this Court with the following grounds of appeal.

(i) The trial Court ought to have decreed the suit basing on the evidence of plaintiff.

(ii) The trial Court ought to have considered Exs.A1 to A13 and ought to have held that the plaintiff proved his possession over the suit schedule property.

(iii) The trial Court ought to have considered the evidence of

PW1 to PW3 which is corroborative with each other.

(iv) The trial Court ought to have disbelieved the evidence of

DW.1 and DW.2 and ought to have rejected Exs.B1 and B2.

(v)The trial Court utterly failed to understand the litigation between the parties and possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

(vi) The trial Court has travelled beyond the pleadings and issues of the parties.

(vii) The plaintiffs have pleaded that they came into possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by virtue of inheritance.

Therefore, the defendants are proved that they are co-sharers and they not in

A.S.No.16 of 2024

7 joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.

(viii) The trial Court travelled alone under the impression of coparcener property and examined the documents and evidence accordingly.

(ix) Exs.A1 and A12 clearly reveals that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

(x) The Revenue authorities recognized the possession and title of plaintiff over the suit schedule property and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds on the name of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property

(xi) The defendants pleaded that the said Achamma was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property under Ex.B1.

The defendants never pleaded that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property with undivided share under Ex.B1 along with plaintiff.

(xii) DW.1 has made clear admission in his evidence that he has not pleaded in written statement or in his chief-affidavit that the suit schedule property is in their joint possession and enjoyment.

(xiii) DW.1 further made an admission about spending of

Rs.6,00,000/- and plantation of mango trees by the plaintiff in his cross- examination. Therefore, it is made clear that the suit schedule property is not in joint possession and enjoyment of plaintiff and defendants.

(xiv) The written statement of defendants is silent about contribution of Rs.3,00,000/- towards their share in developing the property.

(xv) The plaintiff has failed to prove Ex.A2 Registered Will as per the mandatory requirements under Section.68 of Indian Evidence Act.

(xvi) Ex.B1 registered gift settlement deed was executed about 50 years back and prior to the execution of Ex.A2 Registered Will.

(xvii) The trial Court misinterpreted Ex.A12 and held that

Enamala Chinna Chengaiah instructed to pay half share in the income during the lifetime of said Achamma.

A.S.No.16 of 2024

8

(xviii) The trial Court recorded a strange finding that by the date of Ex.A12 the defendants were not aware of the fact that they also have got right over the property by virtue of Ex.A1.

(xix) The trial Court further recorded a wrong observation that the defendants have no knowledge about the Ex.B1 as on the date of Ex.A12.

(xx) The trial Court further erroneously held that Ex.A12 and

A13 are not helpful even to consider for collateral purpose thought no rights are attached and relinquished under the said documents.

(xxi) The trial Court erroneously held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he got exclusive right over the suit schedule property and therefore he can be considered as co-sharer of Achamma.

(xxii) The trial Court erroneously relied upon the oral evidence of defendants and concluded that the suit schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of plaintiff and defendants.

(xxiii) The trial Court has not considered the Judgments relied upon by the plaintiff along with written arguments.

(xxiv) The Trial Court ought to have decreed the suit.

With the above grounds of appeal, the plaintiff including the remaining appellants have prayed to decree the suit with costs.

11. Heard the respective counsels of both parties and perused the written arguments filed by them.

12. The points for consideration are:-

1) Whether the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff has proved Ex.A2 Will as per Section.68 of Indian Evidence Act?

3) Whether the Trial Court property appreciated the evidence on record in dismissing of the suit?

A.S.No.16 of 2024

9

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of decree as prayed for?

5) Whether this Court is required to interfere with the observations and findings recorded by the trial Court?

6) To what relief?

POINTS NO.1 TO 3:-

13. There is no dispute with regard to relationship of parties as admitted by both parties. The plaintiff strongly relied upon Exs.A1 to A12 in proving his exclusive possession over suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. It is the serious contention of defendants that there is serious title dispute between the plaintiff and defendants in respect of suit schedule property. As such the suit is not maintainable in seeking injunction in the absence of the relief of declaration of title. The further case of defendants is that the defendants have succeeded to suit schedule property by inheritance being the legal heirs of Achamma. However the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that he was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff strongly relied upon

Ex.A2 Registered Will in order to show his title over the suit schedule property.

PW1 being plaintiff reiterated the averments of the plaint in his evidence.

14. PW2 being the relative of plaintiff and defendants deposed that he being document writer prepared Ex.A12 agreement dated 02.07.2006. PW2 further deposed that the plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property and the suit schedule property was purchased by the father of plaintiff under Ex.A1 and the father of plaintiff executed Ex.A2 Registered Will on 09.11.1967 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing the schedule property and other immovable and immovable properties to his second wife Enamala Ankamma @ Subbamma with limited rights and thereafter to the plaintiff and his younger brother

Enamala Brahmanandam. PW2 further deposed that the defendants have

A.S.No.16 of 2024

10 made demand for share on suit schedule property and on 12.07.2006 a mediation was conducted in the village by the brother of plaintiff Mahadevaiah and husband of Defendant No.7 Enamala Srinivasulu and accordingly the defendants No.2 to 4 executed Ex.A12 agreement in favour of plaintiff by relinquishing their right over suit schedule property and received Rs.1,60,000/- and he prepared the said agreement through his computer at his house as per the instructions of plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4. PW2 further deposed that the defendants No.2 to 4 have also received an additional amount of

Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff and the same was endorsed on the back of Ex.A12 and accepted to pay the amount of Rs.30,000/- to the daughters of said

Ramayanam Achamma. PW2 further deposed that the plaintiff planted 115 mango trees and Teak trees and 54 coconut trees along with other varieties of trees in suit schedule property and on 04.10.2014 the defendant tried to trespass into the suit schedule property to disturb the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property with the help of unknown persons.

15. PW3 being supporting witness of plaintiff deposed as per the pleadings of the plaint. PW3 further deposed that he prepared Ex.A8 discharged mortgaged receipt dated 17.07.2012. PW2 and PW3 are not the attestors of Ex.A2 Will. The plaintiffs strongly relied upon Ex.A2 document to prove his right over the suit schedule property. It is for the plaintiff to place evidence of any of the attestors as per Sec.68 of Indian Evidence Act. But the plaintiff has failed to place the evidence of any of the attestors of Ex.A2. Thus, it can be said that Ex.A2 Will is not proved in accordance with provisions of

Indian Evidence Act. In the cross examination of PW1 it also came into light that Ex.A2 was executed prior to two days of the death of Enamala Chinna

Chengaiah. It is also elicited in the evidence of PW1 that the said Enamala

Chinna Chengaiah was suffering from paralysis and got bedridden since several years prior to execution of Ex.A2 Will. Therefore, it can be said that it

A.S.No.16 of 2024

11 is not proper to believe that the said Enamala Chinna Chengaiah executed

Ex.A2 Will in sound disposing state of mind. Ex.B1 registered settlement deed was executed on 20.08.1951 in favour of Achamma by the said Enamala

Chinna Chengaiah in respect of half share of suit schedule property. Therefore the law also does not allow the said Enamala Chinna Chengaiah to execute

Ex.A2 Registered Will on same property in favour of his second wife and her two sons.

16. It is also appropriate to extract Section.68 of Indian

Evidence Act and Section.63 of Succession Act.

68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.

“If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence :

[Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.]”

63. Execution of unprivileged Wills.

“Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:

(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.

(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will.

(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal

A.S.No.16 of 2024

12 acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.”

17. In the instant suit it is already stated supra that none of the attesting witnesses of Ex.A2 is examined to prove the Will. It is well settled that mere registration of document would not sanctify a document by attaching to it an irrebuttable presumption of genuineness.

18. In this regard, the counsels of respondent relied upon the

Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in a case between C.T.Ravikumar and

Sanjay Kumar, JJ. reported in 2024 (1) ALD 62 (SC) wherein their lordships were pleased to observe that; “to prove that a Will has been executed, the requirements in clauses

(a), (b) and (c) of Section 63 of the Succession Act have to be complied with. It was pointed out that the most important point is that the Will has to be attested by two or more witnesses and each of these witnesses must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or must have seen some other person sign the Will in the presence of and by the direction of the testator or must have received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark or of the signature or mark of such other person and each of the witnesses has to sign the Will in the presence of the testator. It was further held that, a person propounding a Will has got to prove that the Will was duly and validly executed and that cannot be done by simply proving that the signature on the Will was that of the testator, as the propounder must also prove that the attestations were made properly, as required by Section 63(c) of the Succession Act. These observations were affirmed and quoted with approval by this Court in its later judgment in Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and others, 2009 (2) ALD 19 (SC) = (2008) 15 SCC 365.

23. Viewed in the context of the legal requirements and the law laid down by this Court, we find that neither of the attesting

A.S.No.16 of 2024

13 witnesses in this case fulfilled the mandate of Section 63(c) of the Act of 1925 to prove the Will. Though Lok Nath Attri claimed that Leela Devi affixed her signatures in the Will in their presence, which was vehemently denied by the other attesting witness, Chaman Lal, the fact remains that Lok Nath Attri also did not state that he affixed his signatures in the Will in the presence of Leela Devi. This is one of the compulsory requisites of Section 63(c) of the Succession Act)”

19. The trial Court elaborately discussed in Para No.20 of its judgment with relevant observations. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove about the genuineness of the transaction under Ex.A2 Will.

20. Ex.B1 is a registered settlement deed dated.20.08.1951.

The plaintiff failed to prove that Ex.B1 is a created document. Further, it can be said that Ex.B1 was executed about 70 years back. At this juncture, it is also relevant to extract Section.90 of Indian Evidence Act.

90. Presumption as to documents thirty years old.

“Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.”

21. As the plaintiff failed to substantiate that Ex.B1 is a created document safely it can be presumed that Ex.B1 is a genuine document. As such, it can be said that the said Enamala Chinna Chengaiah executed Ex.B1 Registered settlement deed in favour of his daughter

Achamma.

22. The crucial aspect is on the plaintiff to substantiate that he was in exclusive possession of suit schedule property as on the date of

A.S.No.16 of 2024

14 filing of the suit. The plaintiff further mainly relied upon Exs.A4 to A11. Ex.A4 is pattadar passbook which is standing on the name of plaintiff. Ex.A5 is the title deed which is also standing on the name of plaintiff. Ex.A6 is the Adangal which is also standing on the name of plaintiff. Ex.A7 1B Namuna is also standing on the name of plaintiff. Ex.A8 is discharge receipt dated 17.07.2012 in respect of mortgage of suit schedule property and wherein it discloses that the plaintiff herein had paid the mortgage debt to Andhra Bank, Railway Kodur and got released the suit schedule property. Ex.A9 electricity receipts also standing on the name of plaintiff. Ex.A10 Adangal also standing on the name of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.A11 is the proceedings issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Railway Kodur dated 15.06.2005 in giving permission in favour of plaintiff to drill a new borewell in suit schedule property.

The trial Court has also made lengthy discussion in this regard in Para No.25 of its judgment. But it is the strong contention of the defendants that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property along with plaintiff and the suit schedule property is not in exclusive possession of plaintiff.

23. Upon going through the evidence of PW1 and DW1 it is also made out that the plaintiff obtained permission under Ex.A11 proceedings from Mandal Revenue Officer, Railway Kodur to drill borewell in suit schedule property. It is also made out under Ex.A9 electricity receipts that the plaintiff is paying electricity charges on his name. It is also made out that the plaintiff planted 115 Mango trees, 100 Teak trees and 50 Coconut trees apart from other trees in suit schedule properties by incurring an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/-. But an explanation was given by DW1 in his evidence that they have also contributed half of the amount for doing all these works in suit schedule property. Upon perusal of Exs.A4 to A7 and A10, it also goes to show that the name of plaintiff was mutated in revenue records in respect of suit schedule property. As per the recitals of Ex.B1 Registered settlement deed the said daughter Ramayanam Achamma has got half share in the suit

A.S.No.16 of 2024

15 schedule property. It also further made out that the plaintiff married the daughter of said Ramayanam Achamma. Therefore, it can be also said that the plaintiff is the son-in-law of said Achamma as well as step brother to her.

On going through the entire evidence of PW1 and DW1 it also came into light that the plaintiff is the elder one in the entire family. The recitals of Ex.A12 agreement dated 02.07.2006 speaks that the said Ramayanam Achamma had been receiving half share of income derived from the suit schedule property as co-sharer and later it was stopped. Therefore, it can be said that the plaintiff is the co-sharer of suit schedule property. Ex.A12 is not a Registered document.

On the other hand, the plaintiff failed to substantiate that he was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property for more than 12 yeas.

The trial Court elaborately made discussion in Para Nos.27 to 35 of its

Judgment. This Court is also appreciated the observations recorded by the trial Court in the said paragraphs to consider that the plaintiff / appellant herein is the co-sharer of defendants in suit schedule property. Thus, the plaintiff further failed to substantiate with relevant evidence that he was in exclusive possession of suit schedule property. Basing on Exs.A1 to A13 this Appellate

Court is also unable to held that the plaintiff alone was in exclusive possession of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

24. No doubt, the plaintiffs have not pleaded in written statement that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property along with plaintiff. But as per Ex.B1 the legal heirs of Ramayanam

Achamma are having half share in suit schedule property. It is also stated supra that the plaintiff has not seriously challenged about the existence of

Ex.B1 document. As such, non taking plea of co-sharer by defendants in their written statement alone cannot give strength to raise a presumption that the plaintiff alone is having right and legal possession over suit schedule property.

Therefore, the plaintiff being co-sharer of suit schedule property he is not permitted to seek permanent injunction against the defendants who are co-

A.S.No.16 of 2024

16 sharers in suit schedule property.

25. However, there is a serious doubt about the existence of

Ex.A2 Will. Ex.B1 clearly speaks about the right of Ramayanam Achamma in respect of half share of suit schedule property. As DW1 gave an explanation that they too contributed the amount for developing the plants in suit schedule property and digging a borewell and as it came into light that the plaintiff being elder of the family is in possession of suit schedule property on behalf of defendants, this Court is of the strong view that the trial Court properly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly dismissed the suit. Hence, the points No.1 to 3 are answered against the appellants.

24. Points No.4 and 5:

Since this Court accepted the Judgment of trial Court in all aspects, it is not required to interfere with the observation and findings of trial

Court. As such, the Judgment of trial Court cannot be set aside. Accordingly, these two points are also answered against the appellants.

25. Point No.6: To what relief?

In the result, the Appeal is dismissed by confirming the decree and Judgment of trial Court dated.18.06.2024. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 23rd day of

April, 2026.

Sd/- S.Praveen Kumar

III Additional District Judge, Rajampet.

Appendix of Evidence

- Nil -

Sd/- S.P.K.

III A.D.J, RJPT.

Crl.A.No.68 of 2025.

1

APKD070001402025

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJAMPET.

PRESENT: - SRI S. PRAVEEN KUMAR,

III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJAMPET.

Friday, this the 24 th day of April, 2026.

Criminal Appeal No.68 of 202 5

Name and description of theSingiri Gangadhar, S/o.Subbaramaiah, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Business, residing at Appellant. D.No.10/264-1, Near Soujanya Houspital, Bala Nagar, Railway Kodur Town and Mandal, Tirupati District. Name and description of the Kokkanti Ravi S/o.Venkatesh, aged about 45 years, Hindu, residing at Sai Nagar, Railway Respondent. Kodur Town and Mandal, Tiruapti District. The sentence and law under In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of which it was imposed in the lower Negotiable Instrument Act and he is convicted court.of the same under Sec.255(2) Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen lakhs only) as compensation to the complainant as provided under Sec.357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. in default of payment of compensation, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of three (03)

Crl.A.No.68 of 2025.

2 months. (The power to award sentence for default in payment of compensation was recognized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijayan Vs Sadanandan cited in (2009) 6 SCC 652). The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stands cancelled. Since, the accused did not undergo imprisonment at any stage of the present case, the provisions of Sec.428 of Code of Criminal Procedure are not applicable. The accused is appraised of his right to appeal and the availability of free legal aid at the appellate stage. The copy of this order is hereby furnished to the accused on free of cost. It is reiterated that the accused is at liberty to mention the details of payment made by him in the present case if any during the course of Civil proceedings, provided both the proceedings emanate out of the same subject matter.” Whether confirmed, modified, or In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment of trial Court in Reversed, and if modified, the C.C.No.303 of 2019, dt.30.08.2023 is Confirmed. modification. The sentence of imprisonment and compensation passed by the Trial Court on 25.08.2025 is confirmed. No costs.

Date of

PresentationFilingNotice issued HearingJudgment by court 16.09.202525.09.202503.10.202508.04.202624.04.2026

This appeal coming on 08.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Giri Chandra Reddy, Advocate for Appellant / Accused and Sri

R.C.Suresh Babu, Advocate for Respondent / Complainant and upon perusing the grounds of appeal and other papers on record and on hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

Crl.A.No.68 of 2025.

3

J U D G M E N T

1. This is an appeal filed by challenging the Judgment of trial

Court dated 25.08.2025 being an accused. The appellant herein is an accused whereas the respondent herein is complainant in C.C.No.303/2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur. Thus, it is appropriate to refer the parties herein with their original status as accused and complainant.

2. The complainant filed a complaint under Sec.200 Code of

Criminal Procedure against the accused herein for the offence punishable under Sec.138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the trial Court.

The Trial Court taken up the matter as C.C.No.303 of 2019 and conducted an enquiry and on 30.08.2023 the trial Court delivered the Judgment as under:

“In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and he is convicted of the same under Sec.255(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. When the accused was questioned with regard to quantum of sentence the accused has given reply submitting that he is having aged parents and no other person is there to look after them and he is having small children and hence he prayed the Court to take lenient view. The counsel for the accused represented that the accused is having a Civil case for the same subject matter and his property was attached in that decree simultaneously and hence prayed to take lenient view to show mercy over the accused in the interest of Justice.

The Court after considering the same he is inclined to take lenient view and the accused is hereby sentenced to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- only. The accused is explained about his right of appeal and free legal aid.”

Crl.A.No.68 of 2025.

4

3. Then, the complainant herein preferred an appeal before this court in Crl.A.No.147 of 2023 by challenging the sentence passed by the trial

Court against the accused. On 24.07.2025 this Court allowed the said appeal with the following.

“In the result, the appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the trial Court (Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur) in C.C.No.303 of 2019 alone is set aside. The matter is sent back to the trial Court with a direction to pass appropriate sentence on the accused after hearing both sides as per the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court recorded in a case between Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs Jagadeeshan reported in 2002 (1) ALD (Crl) 417.”

The office is directed to forward the entire case material to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur after duly indexed and to call the matter on bench on 11.08.2025. The complainant and accused shall appear before the trial Court without fail on 11.08.2025 to enable the trial Court to take up the matter.”

4. Then the trial Court again taken up the matter in C.C.No.303 of 2019 for passing appropriate sentence and passed the following sentence on 25.08.2025.

“In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees nineteen lakhs only) as compensation to the complainant as provided under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of compensation, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. (The power to award sentence for default in payment of

Crl.A.No.68 of 2025.

5 compensation was recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijayan Vs. Sadanandan, cited in (2009) 6 SCC 652.) The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled. Since the accused did not undergo imprisonment at any stage of the present case, the provisions of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not applicable. The accused is appraised of his right to appeal and the availability of free legal aid at the appellate stage. A copy of this order is hereby furnished to the accused free of cost. It is reiterated that the accused is at liberty to mention the details of the payment made by him in the present case, if any, during the course of the civil proceedings, provided both the proceedings emanate out of the same subject matter.”

5. Thus, the accused has come up with the present appeal by challenging the entire Judgment and sentence of trial Court. The accused further moved Crl.M.P.No.111 of 2025 seeking to suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner awarded to him by the trial Court. Thus, on 09.12.2025 this Court passed the following in Crl.M.P.No.111 of 2025.

“In the result, the sentence imposed by the trial Court on 25.08.2025 in C.C.No.303 of 2019 is suspended on condition that the petitioner / appellant / accused shall deposit 20% of compensation amount of Rs.19,00,000/- within one month from the date of this order before the court of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Railway Kodur. Further, the petitioner shall attend

each and every adjournment before this Appellate Court unless his absence is condoned on petition. Failing which, the order herein passed by the Court shall stand cancelled without prior notice to the petitioner / appellant / accused.”

6. Again the accused filed a memo which was received by this

Court vide Crl.M.P.No.117/2025 in Crl.M.P.No.111/2025. On 02.03.2026 this appellate Court recorded the following on the said memo.

Crl.A.No.68 of 2025.

6 “Heard the counsel of respondent. The present memo is filed to waive the condition imposed by the Court for the deposit of 20% of compensation amount vide Crl.M.P.No.111 of 2025. The order in

Crl.M.P.No.111 of 2025 was passed on merits by the Court. Further,

no judicial order can be passed on memo. It is for the petitioner / appellant / accused in preferring an appeal against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.111 of 2025. Thus, the memo is not accepted.”

7. On 17.04.2026 this Court recorded in the docket sheet of this appeal that the counsel of respondent /complainant reported that no amount is paid by the appellant / accused as directed by this Court in Crl.M.P.No.111 of 2025. Appellant is also called absent. The counsel of appellant is also called absent. Heard the counsel of respondent. However, the appellant / accused is not permitted to advance the arguments as he failed to pay the amount as per the order dated 09.12.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.111 of 2025. Hence, for Judgment call on 24.04.2026.

8. As per the above facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the appellant herein did not choose to deposit amount as directed by this Court in Crl.M.P.No.111 of 2025. Further, the counsel of appellant has also not appeared before the Court on the date of adjournment to advance the arguments in the present appeal. Moreover, the appellant being an accused has also failed to appear before this Court to proceed with present matter for disposal. Further, the appellant did not choose to represent the matter on this

Judgment day also to reopen the matter in permitting him to comply the direction given by the Court in Crl.M.P.No.111 of 2025. No information is also given by the appellant that a stay is pending against the order dated 02.03.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.111 of 2025 before the Hon’ble authority concerned.

Crl.A.No.68 of 2025.

7

Thus, this Court proceeded further and heard the arguments of the respondent / complainant and proceeded further for disposal of the matter.

9. In brief, the facts of the complaint in nut shell are that the complainant is none other than the brother-in-law of accused. On 03.07.2017 the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from complainant and executed two promissory notes for Rs.6,00,000/- each on the same day in favour of complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Later, though the complainant had made repeated demands the accused has failed to discharge debt of said promissory notes and finally gave a cheque bearing No.000004 for Rs.18,08,000/- dated 13.08.2019 towards

principal and interest as on 13.08.2019. On 14.08.2019, the complainant had

presented the said cheque for collection through his bank. On 19.08.2019 the complainant received cheque return memo stating that the said cheque was got dishonoured on the ground of “insufficient funds” in the account of accused. Then on 21.08.2019 the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused requesting him to discharge the said cheque amount. On 22.08.2019 the accused received said legal notice and gave a reply notice dated 03.09.2019 by admitting about borrowing of the amount under the said two promissory notes and issuance of said cheque and further given false story and failed to pay the cheque amount in time.

10. The trial Court has taken the cognizance of the said complaint under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and proceeded with trial and recorded conviction against the accused.

11. Thus, the accused being appellant filed the present appeal with the following grounds of appeal.

Crl.A.No.68 of 2025.

8

1) The Judgment of trial Court is unjust, contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2) The trial Court convicted the appellant by blindly applying the presumptions under Sec.118 and 139 of Negotiable Instrument

Act.

3) The trial Court failed to consider contradictory intimacy between the accused and complainant.

4) The trial Court failed to record that there is no legal enforceable debt existing between the complainant and accused.

5) PW.1 clearly made an admission in his cross-examination that

Exs.P1 and P2 promissory notes were executed for the purpose of Cinema Distribution business. They are not issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt.

6) The complainant further made an admission in his cross- examination that he has not given a cheque for an amount of

Rs.18,08,000/- to the appellant and the complainant obtained

Exs.P.1 to P3 from the accused.

7) The trial Court blindly rejected the Judgments relied upon by the counsel of accused.

8) No discussion was also made by the trial Court by referring the said Judgments at relevant point of discussion.

9) There are sufficient suspecting features in the case of complainant. There is no proper discussion in the Judgment of trial Court.

10)No income tax returns of the complainant are filed before the Court. Therefore the non filing of the income tax returns

Crl.A.No.68 of 2025.

9 clearly speaks that there is no legally enforceable debt between the complainant and accused.

11) The complainant is not having capacity in advancing the said amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the accused.

With the above grounds of appeal, the appellant being an accused has prayed to set aside the Judgment and sentence of trial Court and to acquit him in the interest of justice.

12. The points for consideration are :

1. Whether the trial Court properly appreciated the evidence on record in recording guilt of accused under Sec.138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act?

2. Whether the trial Court passed the sentence against the accused as per law?

3. Whether this Court is in need to interfere with the observations and findings of the trial Court?

4. Whether the accused is entitled for acquittal?

5. Whether the judgment of trial Court is liable to be set aside?

6. To what relief?

Points No.1 to 5:

13. The complainant adduced his evidence as PW1. The accused also adduced his evidence as DW1. Ex.P1 is the promissory note dated 03.07.2021 which is said to be executed by the accused herein in favour of complainant for Rs.6,00,000/-. Ex.P2 is the another promissory note dated.03.07.2021 which is said to be executed by the accused herein in favour of complainant for Rs.6,00,000/-. Ex.D3 is the Judgment in O.S.No.97 of 2019 which was delivered by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur on 26.09.2022. On perusal of Ex.D3 judgment it came into light that the complainant herein filed the said suit in O.S.No.97 of 2019 against the

Crl.A.No.68 of 2025.

10 accused herein basing on Exs.P1 and P2 promissory notes herein and the said court decreed the suit with costs for total sum of Rs.17,76,000/- with interest at 12 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at 6% per annum. Ex.D3 Judgment was pronounced by the Court concerned on contest. The accused herein had also contested the suit in O.S.No.97 of 2019 with relevant evidence.

Therefore, it can be said that the complainant herein had obtained decree basing on Exs.P.1 and P2 promissory notes herein against the accused. As such, the accused cannot take plea that there is no legal enforceable debt existing between himself and complainant.

14. It is the specific case of complainant that Ex.P3 cheque was issued by the accused towards principal and interest on 13.08.2019 in connection with Exs.P1 and P2 promissory note. It is the admission of DW1 in his evidence that on 03.07.2017 he had given empty signed cheque to the complainant. It is also an admission of DW1 that he is liable to pay the decreetal amount with interest as per Ex.D3 judgment to the complainant. It is also the further admission of DW1 that Ex.P3 cheque which was given by him was got dishonoured. It is also the further admission of DW1 that an order for attachment of property was obtained by the complainant in I.A.No.284 of 2019 in O.S.No.97 of 2019 as per Ex.D4. It is also the further admission of DW1 that the Court concerned has also recorded that the attachment effected against the property of accused “made absolute”.

15. It is further elicited in the evidence of DW1 that the accused has sold the RCC building covered under Ex.D4 for Rs.45,00,000/- to one

Ungarala Chandra Sekhar. It is also further elicited that the said Ungarala

Chandra Sekhar has filed a suit against the accused herein in O.S.No.28 of 2019 basing on agreement of sale dated 23.03.2019 for seeking specific performance of agreement of sale and the same is pending. It is also further

Crl.A.No.68 of 2025.

11 elicited that the accused filed insolvency proceedings in I.P.No.08 of 2019. No copy of such insolvency proceedings is filed before the Court by the accused for consideration. However it is for the accused to substantiate that Ex.P3 cheque was not given by him voluntarily in connection with Exs.P1 and P2 promissory notes. The accused admitted about subscribing of his signature on

Ex.P3 cheque. Except the oral evidence of DW1, there is no satisfying evidence on record to consider that the complainant has obtained empty cheque from the accused with his signature.

16. The complainant relied upon Exs.P1 to P8 in order to discharge his burden. The trial Court made a lengthy discussion in believing

Exs.P1 to P8 documents in support of complainant. This Court is also satisfied with the discussion of trial Court. Initially the accused has not challenged the

Judgment of trial Court dated 30.08.2023. The accused has come up with present appeal when the trial Court passed sentence afresh as per the directions of this Court in Crl.A.No.147 of 2023 dated 24.07.2025. There is no information to the Court that the complainant has recovered the amount from accused basing on Ex.D3 Judgment. The trial Court made elaborate discussion in right way from Para Nos.15 to 28 in its judgment as per law. The appellant maintained that the trial Court ignored and refused to consider the evidence let in by him to disprove the case of complainant. The trial Court property applied the presumption available under Sec.139 of Negotiable

Instrument Act in favour of complainant. Now also either the appellant or the counsel of appellant did not show interest to submit arguments on this appeal.

Hence, this Court is satisfied with the observations and findings of the trial

Court in all aspects. The trial Court further passed appropriate sentence against the accused on 25.08.2025 by imposing fine towards compensation and sentence of imprisonment. As such, there is no necessity to interfere with the Judgment of trial Court dated 30.08.2023 and sentence passed by the trial

Crl.A.No.68 of 2025.

12

Court dated 25.08.2025 against the accused. As such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The Points No.1 to 5 are answered against the Appellant /

Accused.

17. POINT NO.6:-

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the

Judgment of trial Court in C.C.No.303 of 2019, dt.30.08.2023 is Confirmed.

The sentence of imprisonment and compensation passed by the Trial Court on 25.08.2025 is confirmed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 24 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- S.Praveen Kumar

III Additional Sessions Judge, Rajampet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- Nil -

Sd/- S.P.K.

III ASJ., RJP.

Copy to the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Railway Kodur.

Crl.R.P.No.19 of 2025. 1

APKD070001912025

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJAMPET.

PRESENT: - SRI S. PRAVEEN KUMAR,

III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJAMPET.

Wednesday, this the 22 nd day of April, 2026.

Criminal R.P.No. 19 of 2025

Name of the court from which the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajampet. Crl. R.P is received. No. of the case in that Court.Crl.M.P.No.811 of 2023 in M.C.No.08/2023

Name and Description of the Akula Kishore S/o.Late Subramanyam, Hindu, Employee, aged about 45 years, parties in that court. residing at D.No.5/506, Vinayaka Nagar, Rajampet, Kadapa District. … Petitioner / Respondent. Vs.

1. Akula Saritha W/o.A.Kishore, Employee aged about 40 years,

2. Akula Jathin, S/o.A.Kishore, student, aged about 10 years, (Minor, Rep by his natural guardian mother i.e., 1st respondent herein) Both are residing at D.No.2/25, Boyapalem Street, Rajampet, Kadapa District. … Respondents / Petitioners.

Crl.R.P.No.19 of 2025. 2

The sentence and law under In the result, the petition is allowed in part.

which it was imposed in the lower The respondent is directed to pay a monthlyinterimmaintenanceof Court. Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner No.2 from the date of the petition i.e., 14-07-2023. The interim maintenance shall be paid on or

before the tenth day of every succeeding

month. The arrears of interim maintenance shall be paid by the respondent within three months from the date of this order.

The quantum of interim maintenance paid shall be set off against the maintenance, if any, that may be ordered in favour of the petitioners. The petition with regard to the petitioner No.1 and the lumpsum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- per year stands dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Whether the sentence is In the result, the petition is dismissed by confirmed / modified / reversed upholding the order dated.19.09.2025 in

Crl.M.P.No.811/2023 in M.C.No.08/2023

and modified the modification. delivered by the Court of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet.

Date of PresentationFilingNotice HearingJudgment issued by court 27.11.202528.11.202511.12.202515.04.2026 22.04.2026

This Revision Petition coming on 15.04.2026 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri S.Mastan Valli, Advocate for the Revision

Crl.R.P.No.19 of 2025. 3

Petitioner / Respondent and Sri P.Vallaubha Rao and Smt.B.Shobharani,

Advocates for Respondents No.1 and 2 / Petitioners No.1 and 2 and upon perusing the grounds of Revision Petition and other papers on record and on hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is a Revision Petition filed seeking to set aside the order

dated 19.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.811/2023 in M.C.No.08/223 on the file of the

Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet on the following grounds.

a. The order passed by the trial Court is not maintainable either in law or on facts.

b. The trial Court has not perused the entire pleadings of the counter.

c. The trial Court has also not given an opportunity to place the evidence on behalf of Revision Petitioner which is erroneous unjust and contrary in the eye of law.

d. The trial Court failed to properly assess the income of Revision

Petitioner.

e. The maintenance amount fixed by the Trial Court is excessive / in adequate.

f. The 1st respondent herein as voluntarily left from the matrimonial home along with her belongings and neglected to maintain the Revision

Petitioner and his parents.

g. The respondent No.1 further failed to take care of the 2nd respondent.

Crl.R.P.No.19 of 2025. 4 h. The 1st respondent being an advocate working as Software Engineer and she is having sufficient capacity to maintain the 2nd respondent and she is also an income tax assessee and paying regular income tax.

i.The mother of Revision Petitioner is suffering from Arthritis and Kidney problem since long time.

j.The mother of Revision Petitioner is depending on the income of

Revision Petitioner.

k. The Revision Petitioner is providing treatment to his mother with his income.

l.The Revision Petitioner is unable to pay the Interim Maintenance granted by the Trial Court to the 2nd respondent.

m. The Revision Petitioner is ready for reunion and to receive the respondents No.1 and 2 to lead happy marital life with them.

n. The parents of 1st petitioner are having good financial capacity apart from properties.

o. The Revision Petitioner is not having sufficient means and capacity to pay Rs.20,000/-per month to the 2nd respondent towards Interim

Maintenance.

2. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed petition against the Revision

Petitioner before the Trial Court for seeking Interim Maintenance of

Rs.40,000/- per month each, apart from an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- per year.

Crl.R.P.No.19 of 2025. 5

The marriage of Revision Petitioner herein was performed with Respondent

No.1 on 01.11.2012 and they lead happy marital life for about three months at

Chennai and blessed with 2nd respondent herein on 08.11.2013. Thereafter the

Revision Petitioner started harassing the Respondent No.1 herein on account of additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-. The respondent no.1 further came to know that the Revision Petitioner has developed illegal intimacy with another woman and she caught them in a hotel at Chennai on 17.10.2019. On 16.02.2021 the Revision Petitioner and his family members driven out the respondents No.1 and 2 herein from the matrimonial home. Thus, the respondents No.1 and 2 are taking shelter in the house of the parents of respondent No.1. The Revision Petitioner had necked out the respondents

No.1 and 2 to contact another marriage in order to get more dowry. The

Revision Petitioner is working as Software Engineer and getting a monthly income of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Revision Petitioner is also having movable and immovable properties and refused to maintain the Respondents No.1 and 2.

The respondents no.1 and 2 herein are not in a position to maintain themselves.

3.The Revision Petitioner being respondent filed counter in the said petition contending that, the respondent No.1 herein joined in a computer course at Bangalore and the Revision Petitioner herein incurred the expenses of the Course. The respondent No.1 is irresponsible towards the

Crl.R.P.No.19 of 2025. 6

Revision Petitioner. The Respondent No.1 is also working as Software

Engineer and getting annual income of Rs.10,80,000/- since 01.07.2019. On the influence of Revision Petitioner, the Respondent No.1 acquired the job.

The respondent No.1 always used to go to her parents house and evading to see the welfare of the in-laws. The respondent No.1 herein further used to send her salary to her parents without the knowledge of the Revision

Petitioner. The Respondent No.1 further used to quarrel with Revision

Petitioner in respect of salary. In the month of February, 2021 the Respondent

No.1 left from the matrimonial home on her own accord on the pretext that her parents house was under renovation. Inspite of several mediations the respondent No.1 did not turn up to join in the matrimonial home. Respondent

No.1 is getting a monthly salary of more than Rs.90,000/-. Respondent No.1 is also getting more income than the income of Revision Petitioner. Respondent

No.1 is also an income tax assessee. The income of Revision Petitioner is hardly sufficient for the medical expenses of his mother. Respondent No.1 is having sufficient means and capacity to maintain herself and to maintain the 2nd respondent. With these submissions, the Revision petitioner / Respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.Upon considering the oral arguments of the counsels of both parties, the trial Court delivered the following on 19.09.2025.

“In the result, the petition is allowed in part. The respondent (Revision petitioner herein) is directed to

Crl.R.P.No.19 of 2025. 7 pay a monthly interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner No.2 (Respondent No.2 herien) from the date of the petition i.e., 14-07-2023. The interim maintenance shall be paid on or before the tenth day of every succeeding month. The arrears of interim maintenance shall be paid by the respondent (Revision petitoner herein) within three months from the date of this order. The quantum of interim maintenance paid shall be set off against the maintenance, if any, that may be ordered in favour of the petitioners (Respondents No.1 and 2 herein). The petition with regard to the petitioner No.1 (Respondent No.1 herein) and the lumpsum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- per year stands dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.”

5. Heard the respective counsels of Revision Petitioner and

Respondents No.1 and 2. Perused the material available before the Court.

6. The points for consideration are:-

1) Whether the Interim Maintenance of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the 2 nd respondent granted by the Trial Court is burden to the Revision Petitioner?

2) Whether the Revision Petitioner is not having sufficient means and capacity to pay Interim Maintenance of

Rs.20,000/- per month to the 2 nd respondent?

Crl.R.P.No.19 of 2025. 8

3) Whether the Trial Court properly appreciated the evidence on record while fixing the quantum of maintenance

of Rs.20,000/- in favour of Respondent No.2 herein?

4) Whether there is necessity to interfere with the order of

Trial Court in reducing the Interim Maintenance of Rs.20,000/- as pleaded by the Revision Petitioner?

5) To what relief?

Points No.1 to 4 :

The points No.1 to 4 are taken up together for proper understanding of the present order.

7.There is no dispute that the marriage of the Revision

Petitioner was performed with Respondent No.1 on 01.11.2012. There is also no dispute that the 2nd Respondent was blessed to Revision Petitioner and

Respondent No.1 on 08.11.2013. According to the version of Revision

Petitioner he is getting a monthly salary of Rs.90,000/-. It is also the strong contention of Revision Petitioner that the respondent No.1 is getting more than the salary of the Revision Petitioner. It is also the further contention of

Revision Petitioner that the Respondent No.1 is also getting additional income through her Advocate profession. It is also the further contention of Revision

Petitioner that the parents of Respondent No.1 are having good financial capacity. It is also further version of Revision Petitioner that he is maintaining

Crl.R.P.No.19 of 2025. 9 his aged mother and his salary is also not sufficient to meet the medical expenses of his mother.

8.According to the case of Revision Petitioner, the

Respondent No.1 has left from the matrimonial home in the month of February, 2021. It is also the specific case of Respondent No.1 that the Revision

Petitioner and his family members necked out the Respondents No.1 and 2 from matrimonial home on 16.02.2021 as the Revision Petitioner intended to contact another marriage in order to get good dowry. When these pleadings of both parties are taken into consideration, it can be said that the Revision

Petitioner and Respondent No.1 are residing separately since the month of

February, 2021. It is the specific case of Respondent No.1 that she is taking shelter in the house of her parents along with Respondent No.2.

9. It is not at all the case of Revision Petitioner that he is not getting income and there is no job for him. Both parties failed to place their respective salary certificates before the Court for consideration.

10. It is the burden of father / husband to provide either Interim

Maintenance or Maintenance to his wife / children. In the absence of sufficient documentary evidence it cannot be considered that the Respondent No.1 herein is getting more salary than the salary of Revision Petitioner. It is not the specific plea of Revision Petitioner that he is getting less than of Rs.90,000/- towards his salary. No medical record is filed by the Revision Petitioner that

Crl.R.P.No.19 of 2025. 10 the Revision Petitioner alone is maintaining his mother and incurring medical expenses.

11.It is the submission of the parties that the 2nd respondent is now joined in 7th class. The Revision petitioner cannot avoid his responsibility of providing maintenance to the 2nd respondent merely because Respondent

No.1 is also getting income. The trial Court refused to grant maintenance to the respondent No.1. It is also brought to the notice of the present Court by the counsel of respondents No.1 and 2 that no amount is paid so far by the

Revision Petitioner towards Interim Maintenance of Respondents No.1 and 2 though he is getting regular salary. In the absence of any documentary evidence, it cannot be said that there is difficulty on the part of Revision

Petitioner in paying of Rs.20,000/- towards Interim Maintenance to the

Respondent No.2. There is no plea from the side of Revision Petitioner that he is also having liabilities. When the facts and circumstances are taken into consideration, it cannot be said that the Revision Petitioner and Respondents

No.1 are working as Software Engineers and getting nearly an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- each per month. When such is the situation, this Court is of the view that it is for the Revision Petitioner to provide the same standard of life to his son in which he is enjoying in the society. There is no admission from the side of Respondent no.1 that she is getting income of more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Since the month of February, 2021 the Respondent No.1 had alone

Crl.R.P.No.19 of 2025. 11 is extending love and affection and maintaining Respondent No.2 under her care and custody. The physical presence of 2nd respondent is giving some comfortable life to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is school going child.

The 2nd respondent is not getting education on free of cost. Thus, this Court is of the view that there is no burden on the part of Revision Petitioner in paying an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month towards Interim Maintenance as directed by the Trial Court. This Court is also satisfied with the reasons recorded by the

Trial Court in fixing an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards Interim Maintenance of 2nd respondent. The Revision Petitioner is also liable to pay the said Interim

Maintenance amount from 14.07.2023 onwards as per the direction of Trial

Court. No strong reasons are noticed to reduce the Interim Maintenance granted by the Trial Court. No additional responsibilities also seen on the part of Revision Petitioner to reduce the Interim Maintenance granted by the Trial

Court. Further, it clearly goes to show that there are no bonafides on the part of Revision Petitioner being father in paying of any amount towards maintenance of 2nd respondent from the month of February, 2021. Thus, no merits are seen to allow the present Revision. Accordingly, the Revision is liable to be dismissed with a liberty to the Respondent No.2 in taking appropriate steps to recover the arrears of Interim Maintenance immediately against the Revision Petitioner.

Crl.R.P.No.19 of 2025. 12

Point No.5:

12.In the result, the petition is dismissed by upholding the order dated.19.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.811/2023 in M.C.No.08/2023 delivered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 22 nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/- S.Praveen Kumar

III Additional Sessions Judge, Rajampet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- N I L -

Sd/- S.P.K.

III A.S.J, RJPT.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER THE PROTECTON OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, KADAPA.

Present:- Sri S. Praveen Kumar,

III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajampet. FAC/ Judge, Special Court for Trial of Offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Kadapa.

Monday this the 23rd day of February, 2026

S.C.POCSO Case No.63 of 2022

Name of the complainant:State: Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC, ST Cell-II, Kadapa.

1. Name of the accused:1) Aspiri Masthan @ Mahendra S/o Masthan Valli, aged 31 years, Dudekula, Cooli, native of Jayamma Colony, Pulivendula town and now resiidng in D.No.2/50, Chandragiri Village, Pulivendula Mandal, YSR District. 2) Yerraguntla Sagudu Suhasini W/o Murali Prasad, aged 40 years, D.No.4/9-94, Sri Sainagar Colony, near Sreerama Hall Road, Pulivendula town, YSR District.

2. Charges framed:Under Sections 376, 313, 506 of IPC, and U/Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sec.5 (2) of MTP Act, 1971 against the accused 1 and 2.

3. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

4. Finding of the Judge: IN THE RESULT, the accused 1 and 2 arefound not guilty for the offense punishable under Sections 376 (2) (I), 313, 506 of IPC, and U/Sec.5 (l) r/w.6of POCSO Act and Sec.5 (2) of MTP Act, 1971 and accordingly, he is acquitted u/sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.1 and A.2 shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal time. The Un-marked property if any shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

5. Sentence or order: --

6. Prosecution conducted by:Sri Kommineni Venu Gopal, Special Public Prosecutor for Spl. Court 2 for trial of POSCO Court, Kadapa

7. Name of the Advocate for :Sri P. Prabhanjan, Accused.Advocate for the accused.

8. Crime number and name of : Cr.No.221 of 2019 of Pulivendula U/G the Police Station.PS

9. Committed by: ---

This Sessions Case came before this court on 16.02.2025 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned Special Public

Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P. Prabhanja, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

This is a case filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Kadapa against the A.1 and A.2 for the offence punishable under

Sections 376, 313, 506 of IPC., and U/Sec.6 of POCSO Act and Sec.5 (2) of MTP Act, 1971 in Cr.No.221 of 2019 of Pulivendula U/G Police station.

2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that A.1 is the cousin brother of victim girl. A.2 is doing medical practitioner unauthorizedly at Pulivendula town. On 18.03.2019 the victim came to the house of A.1 along with her sister A. Masthan Bee to watch TV.

Then A.1 had given money to the said sister Masthan Bee and sent her out from the house. Thereafter, A.1 mixed sleeping pills in puffed rice and accordingly the victim had it and underwent into insensibly sleep.

Then A.1 committed penetrative sexual assault. Again on 19.03.2019 3

A.1 took the victim into his house and provided sweets mixing with sleeping pills, after having said sweets again the victim underwent to sleep. Again A.1 committed penetrative sexual assault against the victim. On 20.03.2019 again the accused took the victim into his house and gave Gobhi and accordingly the victim had it and underwent into insensibly sleep. Again A.1 committed penetrative sexual assault against the victim. A.1 further threatened the victim not to disclose all these things to any one. On 17.08.2019 the victim was suffering from severe stomach pain. Then A.1 took the victim to the hospital of A.2.

Then A.2 conducted abortion as the victim was carrying baby.

Thereafter, A.1 dropped the victim at her house. On coming to know all these things, the mother of victim went to the Police Station and given report. Thus, a case was got registered and investigated into. The statement of victim was recorded by Women Sub Inspector of Police,

Galiveedu PS. The medical officer who examined the victim issued ultrasonography report for which mild bully uterus was impressed, no

RPOC. The another medical officer who had examined the victim and who collected material objects had given an opinion after receiving the report from RFSL that there is evidence of sexual intercourse and abortion might have been done or not cannot be confirmed or conclusively said. The medical officer who conducted potency test against A.1 is of the opinion that there is nothing to suggest that A.1 is not capable of peforming sexual act. The statement of victim is also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., by the Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Jammalamadugu. On 28.08.2019 the Deputy Superintendent of

Police arrested A.1 and recorded his statement and seized his cloths and also seized Cipla alprazolam tablets under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators and sent him to judicial custody. A.2 obtained 4 anticipatory bail. After completion of the investigation, the accused 1 and 2 were charge sheeted.

3. Upon perusal of the charge sheet and other material, this

Court taken the cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 313, 506 of IPC., and U/Sec.6 of POCSO Act and

Sec.5 (2) of MTP Act, 1971.

4. On appearance of the accused 1 and 2, they were furnished with the copies of documents as required under section 207 of

Cr.P.C. Later, the accused 1 and 2 were examined u/s.228 of Cr.P.C., and charges under Sections 376, 313, 506 of IPC., and U/Sec.6 of

POCSO Act and Sec.5 (2) of MTP Act, 1971 were framed against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu. The accused 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has let in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.10 and got marked

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25.

6. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused 1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., with regard to incriminating material found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused 1 and 2 denied the same and reported that they have no defence evidence to be let in.

7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel of the accused.

8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges leveled against the accused 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt?

5

9. P O I N T:

The mother of victim is examined as P.W.1. The victim is examined as P.W.2. The sister of victim is examined as P.W.3. The another sister of victim is examined as P.W.4. The VRO who acted as mediator and who alleged to have present at the time of arrest of A.1 is examined as P.W.5. The Inspector of Police who registered the present case is examined as P.W.6. The medical officer who conducted potency test on accused is examined as P.W.7. The Women Sub Inspector of

Police who recorded the statement of under videography is examined as P.W.8. The Radiologist who conducted ultra sound examination over the victim is examined as P.W.9. The Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted investigation and who laid charge sheet after completion of the investigation is examined as P.W.10.

10. It is the clear case of the prosecution that A.2 maintained a private nursing home without having valid license and conducted abortion over the pregnancy of the victim. No relevant record is filed to consider that A.2 was running a private nursing home unauthorizedly. P.W.9 who conducted radiology examination on victim is of the opinion that abortion might have been done or not that cannot be confirmed or conclusive said. When these expression were given by

P.W.9, it can be said that there is no evidence from the side of the prosecution to consider that the victim underwent abortion.

11. P.W.2 being victim deposed that she is not aware of the case facts and on one day the police took her along with her mother and produced before some Judge and accordingly she had given a statement as per the instructions of police and now she is unable to recollect the same. The victim further deposed that the police also 6 obtained her signatures in the presence of Women Sub Inspector of

Police.

12. P.W.1 being mother of victim deposed that she is not aware of the case facts and the police obtained her signatures on some empty papers.

13. P.W.3 and P.W.4 being sisters of victim deposed that they are not aware of the case facts.

14. Thus as per the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, it can be said that P.W.1 to P.W.4 did not come forward to speak anything against

A.1 and A.2. Further, A.1 is none other than cousin brother of victim. All these four witnesses turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

Though the learned Special Public Prosecutor cross examined these witnesses nothing is elicited against the accused.

15. P.W.5 being VRA deposed that nothing was conducted in his presence and he is also not aware of the case facts and the police obtained his signature of some panchanams.

16. P.W.6 being Inspector of Police deposed that on 21.08.2019 he had registered the present case basing on the report of

P.W.1.

17. P.W.7 being medical officer deposed that on 07.09.2019 he conducted potency test against the A.1 and he is of the opinion that there is nothing to suggest that the A.1 is not capable of performing of sexual act.

18. P.W.8 being Women Sub Inspector of Police deposed that on 21.08.2019 she recorded Ex.P.4 statement under video coverage.

7 19. P.W.9 being Radiologist deposed that on 22.08.2019 he conducted ultra sound examination over pelvis of victim and issued

Ex.P.12 report.

20. P.W.10 being investigating officer deposed that he took up further investigation in this matter and forwarded the victim to

Government Hospital for medical examination and later he recorded the statement of witnesses and later he visited the scene of offence and drawn the rough sketch of the scene in the presence of mediators and he had also collected study and conduct certificate of victim and on 28.08.2019 he arrested A.1 in the presence of mediators and seized the cloths of accused and 4 tablets of Cipla alprazolam in the presence of the mediators under cover of panchanama and sent him to judicial custody and later he has also forwarded the material collected from victim to RFSL examination and later he got produced the victim before the Court of Jammalamadugu for recording the statement of victim and

A.2 was on absconding and he filed charge sheet against A.1 and after completion of the investigation and later A.2 obtained anticipatory bail.

21. Though the evidence of medical officer speaks about the sexual intercourse of victim, there is no supporting evidence from the side of victim, mother and sister of victim to consider that A.1 had taken the victim to his house and committed repeated penetrative sexual assault. There is also no conclusive evince to consider that the victim conceived pregnancy. However, it clearly goes to show that in view of the relationship of A.1 with the family of victim, P.W.1 to P.W.4 might have adopted the method of giving hostile evidence before the

Court. Absolutely, there is no sufficient evidence on record to bring home the guilt of A.2 for the alleged conducting of abortion. Under these 8 circumstances, it is required to give benefit of doubt in favour of A.1 and

A.2.

22. In the light of foregoing reasons, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges leveled against them. Accordingly, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

23. In the result, the accused isfound not guilty for the offense punishable under Sections 376 (2) (i), 313, 506 of IPC., and

U/Sec.5 (l) r/w.6 of POCSO Act and Sec.5 (2) of MTP Act and accordingly, they are acquitted u/sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of A.1 and A.2 shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal time.

The un-marked property if any shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of February, 2026.

Sd/- S. Praveen Kumar

III Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajampet.

FAC/Judge, Special Court for trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Kadapa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

P.W.1A. Masthanamma. P.W.2Victim. P.W.3K. Reshma. P.W.4A. Masthan Bee. P.W.5K. Obaiah. P.W.6V. Seetha Rami Reddy, Inspector of Police. P.W.7Dr. S. Sudhakar. P.W.8S. Gayathri, WSI.

9

P.W.9Dr. B. Jaya Lakshmi. P.W.10N.Sudhakar, DSP. P.W.11

Witnesses examined for defence

- NIL -

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P.1 Signature of P.W.1 on report.

Ex.P.2 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P.3Four signature of victim on statement statement recorded by L.W.16.

Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.5161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.6161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P.7Signature of P.W.5 on scene observation panchanama.

Ex.P.8Signature of P.W.5 on arrest panchanama.

Ex.P.9Signature of P.W.5 on seizure panchanama.

Ex.P.10First Informatory Report.

Ex.P.11Potency certificate.

Ex.P.12Ultra sound examination report.

Ex.P.13Report of P.W.1.

Ex.P.14Study certificate-cum-date of birth certificate of victim.

Ex.P.15Medical examination certificate.

Ex.P.16Final opinion in respect of Ex.P.15.

Ex.P.17Scene observaton panchanama.

Ex.P.18Seizure panchanama dt.22.08.2019.

Ex.P.19Arrest and seizure panchanama dt.28.08.2019.

Ex.P.20 Rough sketch.

Ex.P.21FLS report in respect of tablets/cipla restyle

Ex.P.22FSL report in respect of the specimens collected from victim and cloths of victim.

Ex.P.23Letter of advise in forwarding of specimens collected from the body of victim 10 along with clothes of victim.

Ex.P.24Letter of advise in respect of forwarding cipla alprazolam tablets.

Ex.P.25Statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

Exhibits marked for defence

- Nil -

Material objects marked

- Nil -

Sd/- S.P.K.

III Addl.S.J., Rajamept.

FAC/Judge, POCSO Court, Kadapa

OS No.24/2017 1 S.C.J Court, PDTR, Dt.17.9.2024

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PRODDATUR

Present:- Smt. K. Satya Kumari,

Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur.

Tuesday, this the 17th day of September, 2024

OS No.24/2017

Between: Shaik Saddam Hussain, S/o. Mahaboob Basha, Aged 25 years, Muslim, Jewellary Business, r/o. D.No.7/3853-4, Srinivasa Nagar, Proddatur town and Mandal, Kadapa District.

.... Plaintiff

And.

Animela Abdul Basha, S/o. A. Peer Sab, Aged 24 years, Dudekula, Proprietor of ADG Jewellers and APR Silvers, Room No.11/251, Sankaraiahgari Street, Proddatur town and Mandal, Kadapa District, r/o. D.No.17/214-1-5, Nadimpalli Street, Proddatur town and Mandal, Kadapa District.

.... Defendant

This suit came up on 14.8.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A. Sudarshana, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri

G.Srinivasulu, Advocate for defendant and having heard, stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.6,58,118/- (Rs.1,13,533/- +

Rs.1,13,533/- + Rs.1,13,533/- + Rs.1,13,533/- + Rs.1,13,533/- and Rs.90,453/-) being the principal and interest due on five promissory notes dt.01.7.2016 for

Rs.1,00,000/- each and promissory note dt.08.7.2016 for Rs.80,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with an interest at 24% per annum with future interest and for costs of the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief are as follows:

The defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 01.7.2016 from the plaintiff for his family-cum-business necessities agreeing to repay the

OS No.24/2017 2 S.C.J Court, PDTR, Dt.17.9.2024

same with an interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed five promissory notes each for Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.7.2016 in favour of the plaintiff at

Proddatur town.

Again the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff for his business necessities on 08.7.2016 agreeing to repay the same with an interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed promissory note for

Rs.80,000/- on 08.7.2016 in favour of the plaintiff at Proddatur town.

Subsequently, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to repay the said suit promissory notes debts with interest. But the defendant did not pay anything and postpone the same. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that, the plaintiff has been doing business in jewels under the name and style of M/s. Saddam Jewelers and works, but it is false to state that the defendant is doing business under the name and style of M/s. ADG

Jewelers and APR silvers. The defendant while doing business in supplying the silver jewelers to the business people as well as to the customers directly besides attending as manual worker to A.D.G. Jewelers. While in the business, the defendant used to take jewels to show the best design to other shops or to other customers, by that time the plaintiff used to take signature in the blank promissory note or in any other record as a matter of security. As such, the signatures of the defendant are available with the plaintiff. Since the defendant did not continue the business with the plaintiff in supplying good designed jewels and this defendant marketing the said jewels through other shops. Thus, the plaintiff being heart burnt altercated with the defendant and developed hostile attitude, thus the plaintiff taking undue advantage of signatures available with him forged the suit promissory notes besides planting his henchmen as attestor

OS No.24/2017 3 S.C.J Court, PDTR, Dt.17.9.2024

anticipating dispute and denial of those promissory notes by the defendant. In fact this defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed suit promissory notes as alleged in the plaint. The regular maintaining accounts of the plaintiff also disclose the suit truth that he never lend any amount to the defendant at any point of time, at the same time the accounts of this defendant disclose that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory notes, much less the suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the suit promissory notes are rank forgery, they are not true, valid and binding upon the defendant. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by my learned predecessor in the office for trial:

1Whether suit pronotes are true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2Whether plaintiff is entitled to suit claim?

3To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were got marked. On behalf of the defendant, no evidence was adduced and no documents were got marked.

6.Heard on both sides.

7. Issue Nos.1 and 2 :- 1Whether suit pronotes are true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2Whether plaintiff is entitled to suit claim?

The burden lies upon these issues are on the plaintiff. This is a suit based on promissory notes. The law regarding burden of proof as to execution of promissory note is well-settled and it is no more res-integra.

OS No.24/2017 4 S.C.J Court, PDTR, Dt.17.9.2024

8.In this suit, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to

A.6 were got marked. The evidence of PW.1 is almost all reiterated the plaint averments. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant on 01.7.2016 under the suit promissory notes and defendant received the consideration and executed

Exs.A.1 to A.5. The plaintiff also lent an amount of Rs.80,000/- to the defendant on 08.7.2016 and the defendant received the consideration and executed Ex.A.6 promissory note and failed to repay the debt on demand.

9.The initial burden lies on the holder of the promissory note to prove its execution. Once execution is proved, burden shifts to the defendant to disprove it as was held in Ponuganti Subba Rao Vs Sikhakollu Pulla Rao, 1999 (3) ALT 144. This is well-settled principle of law as to promissory note is concerned. In this suit on hand this Court carefully perused the recitals of the suit promissory notes i.e., Ex.A.1 to A.5. Those recitals shows that the defendant executed Exs.A.1 to A.5 on 01.7.2016 for consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- each agreeing to repay the same with an interest at 24% per annum. Ex.A.6 shows that the defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff on 08.7.2016 and executed Ex.A.6 in favour of the plaintiff for the purpose of his family-cum-business necessities. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 also supported to that extent. No doubt, with the support of Exs.A.1 to A.6 and the oral evidence, the plaintiff discharged his initial burden to hold that the defendant executed suit promissory notes for valid consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- as per

Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Rs.80,000/- as per Ex.A.6. As much as the plaintiff discharged his initial burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the same.

OS No.24/2017 5 S.C.J Court, PDTR, Dt.17.9.2024

10.One of the attestor of Exs.A.1 to A.6 examined as PW.2. The evidence of PW.2 who is second attestor of Exs.A.1 to A.6 categorically stated that on 01.7.2016, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family-cum-business necessities and executed Exs.A.1 to A.5 in favour of the plaintiff in his presence and in the presence of another attestor. The evidence of PW.2 further discloses that the defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- on 08.7.2016 and executed Ex.A.6 in favour of the plaintiff in his presence and he signed as second attestor of Exs.A.1 to A.6.

11.In the written statement, the defendant admitted that the plaintiff is doing jewels business under the name and style of M/s. Saddam Jewelers and works and plaintiff and defendant are known persons with each others. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is doing jewels business under the name and style

M/s. Saddam Jewelers and works and he has capacity to lend the amount. The evidence of PW.2 clearly shows that he signed on Exs.A.1 to A.6 as an attestor.

Of course, attestation is not compulsory for a promissory note.

12.On the other hand, it is the specific case of the defendant pleaded in his written statement that the defendant is doing the business in supplying the silver jewelers to the business people as well as to the customers directly besides attending as manual worker to A.D.G. Jewelers. In that business, the defendant used to take jewels to show the best design to other shops or to other customers, by that time the plaintiff used to take signatures of the defendant in the blank promissory note or in any other record as a matter of security. As such, the signatures of the defendant are available with the plaintiff. Since the defendant did not continue the business with the plaintiff in supplying good designed jewels and used to supply the jewels through other shops, due to that the plaintiff bore grudge and taking undue advantage of signatures available with

OS No.24/2017 6 S.C.J Court, PDTR, Dt.17.9.2024

him, he forged the suit promissory notes with the help of his henchmen. The suit promissory notes are forged and they are not true, valid and binding upon the defendant. But in this suit, except filing of the written statement, the defendant did not turn up to adduce his evidence to prove his contentions as pleaded in the written statement. In the absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that the suit promissory notes are forged documents.

13.On the other hand, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with

Exs.A.1 to A.6 shows that the defendant borrowed amounts covered under

Exs.A.1 to A.6 in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant failed to repay the debt amount to the plaintiff, it follows that the suit promissory notes dt.01.7.2016 and 08.7.2016 are true, valid and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount. Accordingly, issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendant.

14.Issue No.3: To what relief?

In view of the findings in Issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for. Accordingly, issue is answered.

15. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.6,58,118/- (Rs.1,13,533/- + Rs.1,13,533/- + Rs.1,13,533/- + Rs.1,13,533/- +

Rs.1,13,533/- and Rs.90,453/-) together with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.80,000/- respectively.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17th day of September, 2024.

Sd/- K. Satya Kumari,

Senior Civil Judge,

Proddatur

OS No.24/2017 7 S.C.J Court, PDTR, Dt.17.9.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Plaintiff

PW.1: Shaik Saddam Hussain PW.2: Dammala Venu Gopal

Exhibit marked for Plaintiff

Ex.A.1:A-marked suit promissory note dt.01.7.2016 for Rs.1,00,000/-

Ex.A.2:B-marked suit promissory note dt.01.7.2016 for Rs.1,00,000/-

Ex.A.3:C-marked suit promissory note dt.01.7.2016 for Rs.1,00,000/-

Ex.A.4:D-marked suit promissory note dt.01.7.2016 for Rs.1,00,000/-

Ex.A.5:E-marked suit promissory note dt.01.7.2016 for Rs.1,00,000/-

Ex.A.6:Suit promissory note dt.01.7.2016 for Rs.80,000/-

Witness examined for Defendant -None-

Exhibits marked for Defendant - Nil - Id/- K.S.K.

SCJ, PDTR