Ms S.Sree Lakshmi

1O.S.55/2016 (Fair)

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAM

Present:- Ms S.Sree Lakshmi,

Senior Civil Judge, Rajam.

Thursday, this the 10th day of December, 2020 (10.12.2020)

.S.No.55/2016 O

Between:

1.Yerrabala Ramanamma, W/o. Govindarao, aged 36 years, Hindu, Household duties, residing at Devaravalasa Village of G.Sigadam Mandal, Sriakakulam District.

2.Golusupudi Jyothi, W/o.Ramana, aged 32 years, Hindu, Domestic, Residing at Kapparam village of G.Sigadam mandal, Srikakulam District. ….Plaintiffs And:

1. Jydam Appanna, S/o. Late Narayanarao, aged 34 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Residing at Vadama in Palakonda in Palakonda Mandal, Srikakulam District.

2. Jydam Appalanarayana, W/o. Late Narayanarao, aged 60 years, Hindu, residing Kapparam Village in G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District. …Defendants

This suit is coming on 09-10-2020 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri T.Seshachari Advocate for the

Plaintiffs and of Sri K.Ramana Murthy, Advocate for Defendant No.1, Defendant No.2 set exparte and upon hearing the both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the Defendant for partition of the plaint schedule “A” “B” “C” “D” “E” into four equal shares and allot 2/4th share to the plaintiffs after ejecting 2O.S.55/2016 (Fair) the defendants there from and to grant subsequent profits from the date of the suit till realization and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that:-

Both the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the daughters of the deceased Narayanarao who is the husband of defendant No.2.

The Plaintiffs are the sisters of defendant No.1 and daughters of defendant No.2, defendant No.1 is the son of defendant No.2.

The plaint schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. The father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 died 10 years back leaving behind plaintiffs and defendants as legal heirs of the deceased

Narayanarao. Subsequent to the death of their father the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are the joint possession of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs and defendants are undivided members of the joint family.

It is further averred in the plaint that the marriages of the plaintiffs were performed and the plaintiffs are living with their families. During the life time of the deceased ie., father of plaintiffs and 1st defendant, he used to give some produce to the plaintiffs, realized from the lands towards the plaintiffs share and subsequent to the death of father of plaintiffs, the defendants used to give some produce realized by them from the plaint schedule properties. Recently some differences arosed in 3O.S.55/2016 (Fair) between the plaintiffs and defendants and the defendants neglected them and failed to deliver the share of the profits realized by them from the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are no longer willing to continue in joint possession of properties with the defendants. The plaintiffs several times demanded the defendants for the partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and deliver two such shares to the plaintiffs. Whereas the defendants not to shown any interest to do partition then the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice dt 24.09.2015 requesting the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule properties. Hence the suit.

3.The averments of the Written statement of the defendant No.1 in brief are that:

The plaint A to D schedule properties and some other properties are ancestral properties of Jydam Narayanarao who is the father of the defendant No.1, plaintiff No.1 and No.2 and he was died. Defendant No.1 and 2 cultivating lands there are no “E” schedule property and there are imaginary. The above said

Jyadam Narayanarao ie., father of the plaintiffs and defendant

No.1 performed the marriage of 1st plaintiff by giving dowry of

Rs.3,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold ornaments and sarisamanu worth Rs.80,000/-. More over at the time of marriage of the 1st plaintiff the above said Jydam Narayanarao and defendant No.1 4O.S.55/2016 (Fair) gave Ac 1.00 cents dry land to the 1st plaintiff towards pasupukumkuma.

Subsequently, the 1st plaintiff and her husband sold away the aforesaid land to one Pothireddy Kodandam of Kapparam village. Later the 1st defendant and his father performed the marriage of 2nd plaintiff by giving Rs.4,50,000/- and presented 15 tulas of gold ornaments and paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards saresamanulu at the time of the marriage of the 2nd plaintiff. The 1st defendant and his father Jydam Narayanarao gave Ac 0.80 cents of dry land to the 2nd plaintiff as

Pasupukumkuma. Subsequently after the death of Narayanarao, the defendants registered a settlement deed dt 30.06.2012 in favour of 2nd plaintiff in respect of AC 0.17 cents of land situated at Chettupodilam and delivered the same and the aforesaid land is part of AC 0.80 cents of dry land. After the death of Jydam

Narayanarao, the 2nd plaintiff got constructed of new house, she got sold AC 0.82 cents of dry land under the registered sale deed

dated 12.03.2015 to one Makina Chinna Apparao for valuable

consideration of Rs.1,82,000/- and delivered the same. After the death of Jydam Narayanarao, 2nd defendant got the pass book and tile deed mutated in her name she is managing the joint family properties. So the plaintiffs are entitle for their shares in the plaint schedule properties. The 1st defendant's marriage is a 5O.S.55/2016 (Fair) love marriage which is against the will of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 and they bore grudge against him and got filed this suit. Some properties other plaint schedule properties were not shown in the plaint schedule. So the suit is not maintainable, as the plaintiffs were already given their shares. Hence prays to dismiss the suit.

Defendants No.2 set exparte.

4.Basing on the rival contention of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial.

1.Whether the suit is bad for non claiming of all the properties for partition?

2.Whether the plaint schedule properties are not in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1?

3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of the plaint schedule properties as prayed for?

4.To what relief?

5.On behalf of the Plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff herself examined as PW.1, 2nd plaintiff examined herself as PW.2 and plaintiffs got examined PW.3 & PW.4 on their behalf and got marked Ex A.1 and Ex A.2. On behalf of defendants, the defendant No.1 himself examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex B.1 to Ex B.5.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

6O.S.55/2016 (Fair)

7.ISSUE NO. 1 to 3 1.Whether the suit is bad for non claiming of all the properties for partition?

2.Whether the plaint schedule properties are not in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1?

3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of the plaint schedule properties as prayed for?

The burden is on the plaintiffs to prove that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and Hindu joint family properties. To prove the same the plaintiff No.1 herself examined as PW.1 and filed his sworn chief affidavit. Accordingly her evidence is that 2nd plaintiff is her sister and both are the daughters of deceased Jydam Narayanarao who is the husband of defendant No.2 and they Plaintiffs No.1 and No.2 sister of defendant No.1 and daughters of defendant No.2 and defendant

No.1 is the son of defendant No.2. The plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties and the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants. The father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 was died 10 years back leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants as his legal heir during life time of their father. The deceased Narayanarao used to cultivate the lands as shown in the plaint schedule land and residing “D” schedule tiled 7O.S.55/2016 (Fair) house. After the death of their father the plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs and defendants are undivided members of the Hindu joint family, after their marriages the plaintiffs are living with their families. The deceased ie., father of plaintiffs and defendants used to give some produce realized from joint family properties as shown in the plaint schedule, subsequently after the death of their father, the defendants used to give some produce realized by them from the joint family properties shown in the plaint schedule to the plaintiffs. Recently some differences arosed in between the plaintiffs and defendants and the defendants neglected and failed to deliver the share of produce realized by them from the plaint schedule lands. So they are no longer willing to continue the joint possession of the plaint schedule properties with the defendants. The plaintiffs demanded the defendants several times for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and deliver two such share to the plaintiffs. Whereas the defendants used to postpone the same on one pretext or other. At last the plaintiffs got issued legal notice to the defendants, received the same the defendants got issued reply with false allegations.

8O.S.55/2016 (Fair)

8.The 2nd plaintiff examined herself as Pw.2 and filed her sworn chief affidavit. Accordingly she reiterated what was mentioned in the sworn chief affidavit of Pw.1.

In support of their evidence of plaintiffs got examined

PW.3 and PW.4 on their behalf. PW.3 and PW.4 filed their sworn chief affidavits. Accordingly their evidences are that they know both parties. Suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. The father of the plaintiff died 9 years back leaving behind plaintiffs and defendants. The Plaintiffs and defendants are only legal heirs of the deceased Narayanarao during the life time deceased husband of D2 and father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 used to cultivate the plaint schedule properties and residing “D” schedule tiled house. After the death of plaintiffs and defendants succeeded to the properties of Narayanarao. The plaintiffs and defendants are the undivided members of the Hindu joint family.

It is further evidence of PW.3 and Pw.4 after the marriages of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are living their families and during life time of their father he used to give some produce realized from the lands towards their share and subsequent to his death the defendants used to give some produce realized by them from the plaint schedule lands. Later differences arosed in between the plaintiffs and defendants and the defendants neglected and 9O.S.55/2016 (Fair) failed to deliver the share of profits realized by them from the plaint schedule properties, as such the plaintiffs are no longer willing to continue in joint possession to the defendants. The plaintiffs raised dispute through PW.3. PW.3 asked the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule property and defendants did not heed their advise. Though the learned 1st defendant counsel cross examined PW.3 and PW.4 but not elicited anything which override the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 on record in favour of the plaintiffs.

In the decision reported in

Mudigowda Godappa Sankh

Vs

Ramachandra Revgowda sankh (dead) by his L.Rs.

AIR 1969 SC page 1076.

In which their Lordships held that

There is no presumption that a Hindu family merely because it is joint, possess any joint property.

"The burden of proving that any particular property is joint family property, is, therefore, in the first instance upon the person who claims it as a joint family property".

The facts of the above decision are applicable to the present case on hand as the plaintiff claims that the plaint schedule property is a joint family property so that the burden is 10O.S.55/2016 (Fair) on the plaintiff to prove the same. As per the above discussion of evidence the plaintiff got proved that the plaint schedule property is a joint family property.

9.Whereas, it is contention of the defendant No.1 that the plaint A to D schedule properties and some other properties are ancestral properties of Jydam Narayanarao who is the father of the defendant No.1, plaintiff No.1 and No.2 and he was died.

Defendant No.1 and 2 cultivating lands they are “E” schedule property and they are imaginary the shares Jyadam Narayanarao ie., father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 performed the marriage of 1st plaintiff by giving dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold ornaments and sarisamanu worth Rs.80,000/-. More over at the time of marriage of the 1st plaintiff the above said

Jydam Narayanarao and defendant No.1gave Ac 1.00 cents dry land to the 1st plaintiff towards pasupukumkuma.

10.Subsequently, the 1st plaintiff and her husband sold away the aforesaid land to one Pothireddy Kodandam of

Kapparam village. Later the 1st defendant and his father performed the marriage of 2nd plaintiff by giving Rs.4,50,000/- and presented 15 tulas of gold ornaments and paid an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards saresamanulu at the time of the marriage of the 2nd plaintiff. The 1st defendant and his father Jydam

Narayanarao gave AC 0.80 cents of dry land to the 2nd plaintiff as 11O.S.55/2016 (Fair)

Pasupukumkuma. Subsequently after the death of Narayanarao, the defendants registered a settlement deed dt 30.06.2012 in favour of 2nd plaintiff in respect of AC 0.17 cents of land situated at Chettupodilam and delivered the same and the aforesaid land is part of AC 0.80 cents of dry land. After the death of Jydam

Narayanarao, 2nd plaintiff at the time of construction of their new house, she got sold AC 0.82 cents of dry land under the registered sale deed dated 12.03.2015 to one Makina Chinna

Apparao for valuable consideration of Rs.1,82,000/- and delivered the same. After the death of Jydam Narayanarao, the 2nd defendant got the pass book and tile deed mutated in her name she is managing the joint family properties. So the plaintiffs are not entitle for the share in the plaint schedule properties. The 1st defendant marriage is a love marriage which is against the will of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 and so they bore grudge against him and got filed this suit. Some properties other than the plaint schedule properties are there and they were not shown in the plaint schedule so the suit is not maintainable, the defendants already given share to the plaintiffs and so the plaintiffs are not entitle for share in the plaint schedule properties.

11.In support the version of the 1st defendant, examined himself as Dw.1 and filed his sworn chief affidavit. Accordingly his evidence is that he and plaintiffs are the children of Late Jydam 12O.S.55/2016 (Fair)

Narayanarao, 2nd defendant is their mother and wife of Late

Jydam Narayanarao and the plaintiffs are his sisters and plaint schedule properties are not the ancestral properties of him and the plaintiffs. After his father died 14 years back leaving behind the plaintiffs and 2nd defendant. After the marriages of the plaintiffs they are living with their families. After the death of his father, his mother ie., defendant No.2 used to cultivate the lands.

The plaint schedule A to D schedule properties and some other properties are the ancestral properties of Jydam Narayanarao and there are no movables in his possession as shown in plaint “E” schedule properties. The plaint “E” schedule properties are only imaginary. During the life time of Jydam Narayanarao he used to cultivate the plaint A & B schedule properties and other properties. The revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour in respect of ancestral joint family properties.

12.It is the further evidence of DW.1 that the defendant

No.1 and deceased Jydam Narayanrao performed the marriage of 1st plaintiff and gave dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-, 10 tulas of gold and sarisamanulu worth Rs.80,000/- and give dry land towards pasupukumkuma. Subsequently 1st plaintiff's husband sold away the land to one Pothiredcdy Kodandam of Kapparam village and defendant No.1 and his father performed the marriage of 2nd 13O.S.55/2016 (Fair) plaintiff by giving dowry of Rs.4,50,000/- and 15 tulas of gold ornaments and worth Rs.1,00,000/- towards saresamanulu and gave AC 0.80 cents of dry land as Pasupukumkuma. Subsequently after the death of Narayanarao, defendants registered a settlement deed dt 30.06.2012 in favour of 2nd plaintiff in respect of Ac 0.17 cents and delivered the same aforesaid land of AC 0.82 cents of dry land. After the death of Narayanarao, 2nd plaintiff got constructed a new house, she got sold Ac 0.82 cents of dry land under register sale deed dt 12.03.2015 to one Makina

China Apparao for valuable consideration of Rs.1,82,000/- and delivered the same.

13. So, the above evidence goes that DW.1 deposed in his evidence that A to D schedule properties and some other properties are ancestral properties of Narayanarao who is the father of one Jaydam Sanyasi who is his paternal grand father acquired plaint A to D schedule properties and some other properties. PW.1 in her cross examination deposed that the plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties of her father. After demise of the father of plaintiffs and 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant acted as Kartha and her name is mutated in the revenue records and she is managed the joint family properties.

So the above evidence goes to show that 1st defendant admitted 14O.S.55/2016 (Fair) in his cross examination that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of his father.

14.The learned defendant No.1 counsel submitted that the father of the 1st defendant and 1st defendant performed the marriage of plaintiff No.1 and at the time of mariage of the 1st plaintiff, dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- was given and said Narayanarao and defendant No.1 presented 10 tuals of gold ornaments and saresamanulu worth Rs.80,000/-. Moreover at the time of marriage of 1st plaintiff the above siad Narayanarao and defendant No.1 gave AC 1.00 cents of dry land to the 1st plaintiff towards pasupukunkuma. Subsequently, she sold the same to one Pothi Reddy Kodandam. The same was suggested to PW.1, whereas Pw.1 denied the said suggestion. Whereas no document filed in support of the version of the 1st defendant that Ac 1.00 cents dry land given to the 1st plaintiff.

15.Though DW.1 deposed that the 1st plaintiff sold the said

Ac 1.00 dry land to one by named Pothireddy Kodandam of

Kapparam village in support of his version the defendant No.1 got filed Ex B.1 to Ex B.5. Whereas Ex B.1 is the register sale deed executed by Yerabolu Narayanarao, Suryanarayana, Jydam

Appanna and Jydam Appalanarayana in favour of Makina

Chinnaapparao whereas the recitals shows that the schedule properpty under Ex B.1 is sold by Narayanarao and others in order 15O.S.55/2016 (Fair) to discharge debts and family expenses but not as deposed by the defendant No.1 that it was given as Pasupukumkuma to the 1st plaintiff. The defendant No.1 got filed Ex B.3 which is the register sale deed executed by Yerabolu Ramulu and Golusupudi

Jyothi in favour of Gadi Suryarao and also Ex B.4 which is a register sale deed executed by Jaydam Appala Narayana in favour of Vovinda and Golusupudi Ramana which also not prove the version on the defendant No.1 that he gave Ac 1.00 cents land to the 1st plaintiff at the time of her marriage, documents 1, 3,4 are no way related to the facts of this case.

16. Defendant No.1 got filed Ex B.5 register settlement deed dt 22.05.2015 executed by Jaydam Appalanarayana in favour of Gorisipudi Bhavani ie., 2nd plaintiff. The contents of Ex

B.2 goes to show that they were executed in favour of 2nd plaintiff, Ex B.5 goes that it was executed in favour of the daughter of 2nd plaintiff as token of love and affection but not as a share. So the equities will be worked out in the final decree petition. So also PW.2 in her cross examination denied the suggestion given to her by the learned 1st defendant counsel that her parents gave Rs.4,50,000/- in cash and 10 tulas of gold ornaments and saresamanulu worth Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of her marriage. The learned 1st defendant counsel suggested

PW.2 that at the time she constructed her house both the 16O.S.55/2016 (Fair) defendants sold an extent of AC. 0.82 cents to Makina Chinna

Apparao on 12.03.2015 to meet the construction expenses of the 2nd plaintiff house. Whereas, PW.2 denied the said suggestion.

Moreover PW.2 deposed that she got constructed her house with the self earning of her husband. So the burden is on the 1st defendant to prove that they sold AC 0.82 cents of land for the purpose to meet the construction expenses of plaintiff No.2 house. The 1st defendant got filed Ex B.1 whereas the recitals of

Ex B.1 goes to show that Yerabolu Narayanarao, Suryanarayana,

Jaydam Appanna and Jaydam Appanarayana executed a register sale deed in favour of Makina Chinna Apparao in order to discharge debts and meet the family expenses. So Ex B.1 do not prove the version of the 1st defendant that they sold Ac 0.82 cents land for the purpose of construction expenses for the house of plaintiff No.2.

17.Though, it is the contention on the 1st defendant that they are some other properties other than the suit schedule properties and those properties were not shown in the plaint schedule and so the suit is liable to be dismissed. Whereas Dw.1 in his cross examination admitted that the descriptive particulars of the other properties other than the suit schedule properties were not mentioned in his sworn chief affidavit and that he do not filed any documentary proof to show that they are some more 17O.S.55/2016 (Fair) properties ie., an extent of Ac 0.67 cents in S.No. 2267 Ac 0.42 cents in S.No. 14.12 so also particulars of the property in S.No. 5- 13, S.No.12-6. DW.1 admitted that he had not got filed any document to show that they are other joint family properties apart from the suit schedule property. So the admission of PW.1 itself goes that they are no other joint family properties except the suit schedule properties. So the suit is not liable to be dismissed for the sake of non mention of some other joint family properties.

18.Dw.1 denied in his evidence regarding the existence of the property mentioned in plaint “E” schedule and stated that those vessels are mentioned in plaint “E” schedule are only imaginary. The burden is on the plaintiffs to prove that the plaint “E” schedule property are in existence. The plaint “E” schedule property are some vessels and the plaintiffs not got proved the existence of "E" schedule property and it all supports the version of the 1st defendant that plaint "E" schedule properties are imaginary. The plaintiffs not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to prove the existence of plaint “E” schedule property.

So the question of partition of plaint “E” schedule properties does not arise.

19.PW.1 and PW.2 deposed in their evidences that the defendants are not giving share in the produce realized from suit schedule properties from “A” “B” “C” “D” and claimed the mense 18O.S.55/2016 (Fair) profits from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization. It is not the version of the 1st defendant that he gave some produce derived from the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiffs. So the plaintiffs are entitle for mense profits realised from plaint “A” “B” “C” “D” schedule properties from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

20.Therefore, it goes that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and Hindu joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs demanded the defendants to give their respective share. Whereas the defendants not inclined, then the plaintiffs got issued a register legal notice to the defendants demanding them to the partition of the suit schedule properties. In proof, the plaintiffs got filed the office copy of register notice dt 24.09.2015 ie., Ex A.1 issued to the defendants. Then the defendants got issued reply notice dt 02.11.2015 ie., Ex A.2. The plaintiffs are entitle for the share in the suit schedule properties “A” “B” “C” “D” as class-I heirs of the deceased Jydam Narayanarao as equal to that of defendant No.1 and No.2. Accordingly Issue No.1 to No.3 were decided in favour of plaintiffs.

In the light of above discussion of oral and documentary evidence the plaintiff got proved that the suit schedule properties are the Hindu joint family properties of the plaintiffs and 19O.S.55/2016 (Fair) defendants and the plaintiffs demanded the defendants for partition of plaint schedule properties, but the defendants not partition the plaint schedule properties and so the plaintiffs are entitle for share in the plaint “A” “B” “C” “D” schedule properties.

21.ISSUE NO.4

To what relief?

In the result, a Preliminary decree partly passed with costs as follows:

a) The properties in the plaint schedule “A” “B” “C” “D” shall be divided into four equal shares and allot one such share each to the plaintiff No.1, Plaintiff No.2, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2.

b) The suit is dismissed for partition of plaint “E” schedule property.

c) The parties are directed to file a separate petition for mense profits in the final decree petition.

Equities if any, shall be worked out in the final decree proceedings.

Dictated to the Copyist, transcribed by her, corrected, signed

and pronounced by me in the open court of this the 10th day of December, 2020.

Sd/- S.Sree Lakshmi,

Senior Civil Judge,

Rajam.

20O.S.55/2016 (Fair)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR Plaintiffs: FOR Defendants:

PW.1: DW.1: Jayadam Appanna Yerrabala Ramanamma PW.2:Golusupudi Jyothi

PW.3:Golusupudi Adinarayanamma PW.4:Pothureddi Sureedamma

Documents Marked

FOR Plaintiffs: FOR Defendants:

Ex Office copy of legal Ex Certified copy of registered A.1notice dt 24.09.2015 B.1sale deed issued by Sub Registrar Office, Ponduru dt 12.03.2015

Ex Reply notice Ex Certified copy of settlement A.2 B.2deed dt 30.06.2012

dt 02.11.2015

executed by both defendants in favour of 2nd plaintiff

Ex Certified copy of registered B.3sale deed dt 05.03.2015

Ex Certified copy of registered B.4sale deed dt 22.05.2015

Ex Certified copy of registered B.5settlement deed dt 22.05.2015

Sd/- S.Sree Lakshmi,

Senior Civil Judge,

Rajam.

S.C.No.51/2019 111

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: RAJAM

PRESENT:- Ms. S.Sree Lakshmi, Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam.

Wednesday, this the 25th day of November, 2020 (25.11.2020)

SESSIONS CASE No. 51 of 2019

(P.R.C. No. 08/2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Rajam corresponding to Cr. No. 251/2016 of Rajam Police Station)

Name of the Complainant: The State of A.P., represented by Inspector of Police, Rajam Police Station. Name of the Accused: 1. Sannidhi Sriinivasarao, S/o. Late Krishnarao, age 52 years, Brahmina by caste, Plot No.203, Kalki Apartments, Rajam town and Mandal.

2. Sannidi Nandini Kumari, W/o. Srinivasarao, age 36 years, Brahmina by caste, Kalki Apartments, Plot No. 203, Rajam town and Mandal.

Date of offence : 06.10.2016

Date of report/complaint : 07.10.2016

Date of appearance of the accused : 19.11.2018

Date of commitment : 08.01.2019

Date of commencement of trial : 11.03.2020

Date of closure of trial : 24.11.2020

Date of sentence or order : 25.11.2020

Explanation for the delay:-

In the committal Court: (Copy of docket extract of committal Court is herewith enclosed)

S.C.No.51/2019 222

In this Court:

This case is filed by the Inspector of Police, Rajam P.S. against the accused A1 & A2 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 306, 201 of IPC and it was taken on file as P.R.C.No.08/2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Rajam for the offence under Sections 498-A, 306, 201 of IPC against the accused A1 & A2 and committed the same to the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam.

After receiving the record, the case is numbered as S.C.No.51/2019 and made over to this Court for disposal according to Law.

On 13.08.2019, accused A1 & A2 present, Sri K.Ramana Murthy and Smt B.Manjula, Advocates filed memo of appearance on behalf of accused A1 & A2. On 09.10.2019, charge under Sections 498-A, 306, 201 of Indian Penal Code against accused A1 & A2 framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. On 03.03.2020, schedule is fixed for trial.

On 11.03.2020, prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked; on 19.11.2020, P.W.4 was examined and got marked Exs.P.6 to P.9 and M.O.1 were marked, prosecution side evidence closed and posted for 313 Cr.P.C. examination; on 23.11.2020, accused A1 & A2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and posted for arguments; on 24.11.2020, heard arguments on both sides and posted for judgment; on 25.11.2020, judgment pronounced.

In the result, the accused A1 & A2 were found not guilty for the charges under Sections 498-A, 306, 201 of IPC and acquit them under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

MO.1 ie., Saree shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Sd/- S.Sree Lakshmi,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam.

S.C.No.51/2019 333

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, RAJAM

PRESENT:- Ms. S.Sree Lakshmi, Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam.

Wednesday, this the 25th day of November, 2020 (25.11.2020)

SESSIONS CASE No. 51 of 2019

(P.R.C. No. 08/2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Rajam corresponding to Cr. No. 251/2016 of Rajam Police Station)

Between:

The State of A.P., represented by Inspector of Police, Rajam Police Station.

... Complainant.

And:

1. Sannidhi Sriinivasarao, S/o. Late Krishnarao, age 52 years, Brahmina by caste, Plot No.203, Kalki Apartments, Rajam town and Mandal.

2. Sannidi Nandini Kumari, W/o. Srinivasarao, age 36 years, Brahmina by caste, Kalki Apartments, Plot No. 203, Rajam town and Mandal.

... Accused.

This Sessions Case coming on 24.11.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri R.Rama Murthy, Advocate for accused, and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Rajam Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 201 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.

251/2016 of Rajam Police Station.

S.C.No.51/2019 444

2.The brief averments of the prosecution case are:

The deceased by named Sannidhi Ramadevi is the adopted daughter of LW.2/Pilli Venkata Ramana and LW.3/Pilli

Nancharamma. The accused A1 is working as R.M.P had married one Madhavi of Rambilli village and lead conjugal life with her for few years. After that while the accused A1 doing practice at

Chintaguntapalem, loved the deceased Sannidhi Ramadevi and married her as 2nd wife in the year 1996 and during their conjugal life they were blessed with male son ie.,LW.1 ie.,Sannidhi Sai kumar. Accused A1 looked after the deceased Sannidhi Ramadevi properly for 6 years, after that A1 left the deceased and Lw.1 at the house of LW.2 ie., Pilli Venkata Ramana and LW.3 ie., Pilli

Nancharamma and went to Nakkapalli where he continued as practice as R.M.P. Then he married accused A2 by named Nandini

Kumari as 3rd wife. Later the accused migrated to Rajam and taken a flat to lead conjugal life with accused A2 by neglecting the deceased Sannidhi Ramadevi and LW.1 ie.,Sannidhi Sai Kumar.

While so, accused A1 telephone to the deceased and promised her to look after her and LW.1 ie.,Sannidhi Sai Kumar properly and asked to come to Rajam and but the deceased

Sanndhi Ramadevi refused. After that the accused A1 went to

Chintaguntapalem and requested LW.2 ie., Pilli Venkata Ramana and LW.3 ie., Pilli Nancharamma to send the deceased Sanndhi

S.C.No.51/2019 555

Ramadevi to his house stating that he look after the deceased

Sanndhi Ramadevi and Lw.1 ie., Sannidhi Sai kumar properly.

On 21.05.2016 the deceased and LW.1 ie.,Sannidhi

Saikumar came to Rajam and joined the accused A1 and all of them resided in the same flat. As there is no alternative the deceased adjusted with accused A1. Accused A1 joined LW.1 ie.,

Sannidhi Saikumar in Venkateswara college, Etcheral for studying

Polytechnic. Since then, the accused A1 and A2 harassed the deceased Sannidhi Ramadevi both mentally and physically with a view to drive away the deceased from their house, scolded her in foul language and not provided her minimum necessities , treated her as maid-servant, and humiliated her with hatred words. While so again on 06.10.2016 the accused A1 and A2 altercated with the deceased unnecessarily and scolded her and around 3.30 PM due to unbearable harassment the deceased vexed with life and committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan with a saree. The deceased was shifted to the hospital by the accused A1 and A2 in a car of accused at Chintaguntapalem without informing the local police in order to screen away the evidence. Thus accused A1 and

A2 committed offences under Sections 498-A, 306, 201 of I.P.C.

Hence the charge.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Rajam took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498-A, 306, 201 of

S.C.No.51/2019 666

Indian Penal Code against the accused A1 & A2 and registered the same as PRC.No.8/2018 and committed the same to the Court of

Sessions, Srikakulam. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Srikakulam

registered the said PRC as Sessions Case No.51/2019 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.After appearance of the accused 1 & 2 before the Court, they were examined under Section 228 of Criminal Procedure

Code, read over and explained the contents of the charge for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 201 of Indian Penal

Code against the accused No.1 & 2 in Telugu to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P.1 to P.9, MO.1 got marked. On behalf of the accused no witness examined no document marked.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is explained to them in

Telugu, having understood the same they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

S.C.No.51/2019 777

8.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused 1 & 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 201 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.P O I N T:

The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused A1 and A2 harassed the deceased Sannidhi Ramadevi and abated her to commit suicide. To prove the same the prosecution got examined PW.1 to PW.4 on its behalf. PW.1 is the person who gave the report and the son of the deceased ie.,

Sannidhi Ramadevi deposed in his evidence that accused A1 is his father, deceased is his mother, he do not know accused A2.

About 2 years back the incident happened and he gave report to the police on the date of incident he went to the college, by that time, he came to the house, he found the deceased was died. He cannot say how the deceased was died. The inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased in Machilipatnam.

On the next day his father ie., A1 informed him that his mother died by hanging. He signed on the inquest report, but he do not know the contents. So his only signature on the inquest report dt 07.10.2016 is marked ie., Ex P.1. He gave report to the police, but he do not know the contents. So his only signature was marked

S.C.No.51/2019 888 on the report dt 06.10.2016 ie., Ex P.2 and he did not stated

before the police as in Ex P.3.

10.The prosecution got examined Pw.2 who is the father of the deceased Ramadevi and he deposed that about 2 or 3 years back his son-in-law ie., A1 did a phone call and informed to him that his daughter ie., deceased Sannidhi Ramadevi was died by hanging. Then he asked his son-in-law to bring the dead body to

Machilipatnam as he is not well to come to Rajam. Police examined him and obtained his LTI on some papers and he do not know whether it is blank or written and he did not state before the police as in Ex P.4. Police never reduced anything in writing so at one point of time he deposed that police examined him and other point of time he deposed that police never examined him and he also deposed that police never reduced anything in writing and that he did not state before the police as in Ex P4. So it goes that it is not safe to rely on the evidence of Pw.2 to convict the accused.

11.The prosecution got examined PW.3 who is the mother of the deceased Sannidhi Ramadevi and she also deposed that she do not know how the daughter was died and she came to know that the deceased was died when accused A1 did a phone call to PW.2. She do not know anything more in this case and police never examined her and she did not state before police as

S.C.No.51/2019 999 in Ex P.5. So PW.3 not deposed anything against the accused A1 that he harassed the deceased Sannidhi Ramadevi so also A2.

12.So, the above evidence goes that the material witness ie., Pw.1 who gave the report and who is the son of the deceased not deposed anything against the accused A1 and A2 that they harassed the deceased, so also the material witness ie., PW.2 and

PW.3 who are the parents of the deceased also not deposed anything against the accused that the accused committed the offence under Section 498-A, 306, 201 of I.P.C.

13.The evidences LW.4 ie., Pandiri Satyam, LW.5 ie.,

Arnepalli Ome Naidu, LW.6 ie.,Kimidi Narendra Naidu, LW.7 ie.,Gorle Durgarao, LW.8 ie.,Thota Subbulu, LW.9 ie.,Putti

Krishnarjunarao, LW.10 ie.,Jogimahanti Sudhakar rao, LW.11 ie.,Shaik Nazar Khadir Valli @ Bujji, LW.12 ie., Pathan Ibrahim,

LW.13 ie., Md.Jamin Ansar Ali, LW.14 ie., Sammeta Ramesh, LW.15 ie., Kosuru Larksome Nancharaiah, LW.16 ie., Alajangi Eswara rao,

LW.17 ie., Kolli Ramu @ Abbas, LW.18 ie., Sontyana Sasikumar,

LW.19 ie., Pitta Subbarao, LW.20 ie., P.Bhaskar, LW.21 ie.,

Dr.J.Rajasekhar, LW.22 ie., Dr.B.Srinu Naik, LW.23 ie.,

K.Satyanarayana, LW.24 ie., D.Durga Mahesh, LW.25 ie., V.Prasad,

LW.26 ie. Mukundarao, LW.27 ie., S.Sankara rao was given up by

Additional Public Prosecutor. So there is no incriminating evidence

S.C.No.51/2019 1011 against the accused A1 and A2 to prove the charges levelled against them.

14.In the above said circumstances the evidence of Pw.4 who is the Investigation Officer in this case who deposed that on 25.11.2017 he took up investigation and went to scene of offence and secured the witnesses and examined them and recorded their statements. Later he secured the mediators in their presence, he observed the scene of offence and drafted the mediators, report and drawn the rough sketch at the scene of offence and he seized the silk saree of the deceased in the presence of mediators ie.,

MO.1. On 09.01.2018 he sent requisition to Medical Officer. On 07.02.2018 he received medical opinion ie., Ex P.6 of the Medical

Officer, District Hospital, Machilipatnam.

15.It is the further evidence of Pw.4 that on 04.04.2018 a compliant was given by PW.1 in the police station ie., Ex P.7.

Basing on the said compliant he altered the section of Law from

Sections 306, 201 r/w 34 of I.P.C and issued First Information

Report ie., ExP.8 and examined the witnesses and recorded the statements. On 24.04.2018 on reliable information he arrested the accused A1 and A2 in the presence of mediators basing on confessional statement ie., Ex P.9. Later he secured the witnesses and examined them and after completion of investigation he filed

S.C.No.51/2019 11111 the charge sheet is no way helpful to prove the case of the prosecution.

In the light of above discussion of oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16.In the result, the accused A1 @ A2 found not guilty for the charges under sections 498-A, 306, 201 of Indian Penal Code and acquit them under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after 6 months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

MO.1 ie., Saree shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Dictated to the Copyist, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 25th day of November, 2020.

Sd/- S.Sree Lakshmi,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1:Sannidhi Sai Kumar -None-

PW.2:Pilli Venkata Ramana

PW.3:Pilli Nancharamma

PW.4:N.Venugopalarao, Inspector of Police

S.C.No.51/2019 1211

Documents Marked

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1:Inquest report -Nil-

Ex.P2:Report

Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

Ex.P4:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex.P5:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex.P6:Opinion of Medical Officer

Ex P.7Compliant dt 04.04.2018

Ex P.8Altered First Information Report

Ex P.9Confessional Statement

Material Objects

Saree

Sd/- S.Sree Lakshmi,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam.

11 S.C.No.59/2019

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: RAJAM

PRESENT:- Ms. S.Sree Lakshmi, Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam.

Tuesday, this the 3rd day of November, 2020 (03.11.2020)

SESSIONS CASE No. 59 of 2019

(P.R.C.No.06/2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Rajam corresponding to Cr.No.58/2017 of R.A Valasa Police Station)

Name of the Complainant: The State of A.P., represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, R.A Valasa Police Station. Name of the Accused: 1. Kovagana Ramakrishna, S/o. Annam Naidu, age 38 years, Kapu by caste, Resident of Reddipeta Village of R.A Valasa Mandal.

2. Kovagana Annam Naidu, S/o. Late Chinnappala Naidu, age 70 years, Kapu by caste, Resident of Reddipeta Village of R.A Valasa Mandal.

3. Kovagana Seethamma @ Sattamma, W/o. Annam Naidu, age 60 years, Kapu by caste, Resident of Reddipeta Village of R.A Valasa Mandal

Date of offence : Prior to 24.07.2017

Date of report/complaint : 24.07.2017

Date of appearance of the accused: 12.12.2017

Date of commitment : 12.06.2018

Date of commencement of trial : 02.01.2020

Date of closure of trial : 02.11.2020

Date of sentence or order : 03.11.2020 22 S.C.No.59/2019

Explanation for the delay:-

In the committal Court: (Copy of docket extract of committal Court is herewith enclosed) In this Court:

This case is filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, R.A Valasa

P.S. against the accused A1 to A3 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 306 R/w 34 of IPC and it was taken on file as

P.R.C.No.06/2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class,

Rajam for the offence under Sections 498-A, 306, R/w 34 of IPC against the accused A1 to A3 and committed the same to the

Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam.

After receiving the record, the case is numbered as

S.C.No.59/2019 and made over to this Court for disposal according to Law.

On 19.08.2019, accused A1 to A3 present, Sri R.Rama

Murthy, Advocate filed memo of appearance on behalf of accused

A1 to A3. On 21.10.2019, charge under Sections 498-A, 306, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against accused A1 to A3 framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. On 05.12.2019, schedule is fixed for trial.

On 02.01.2020, prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 & 2 and

Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked; on 11.03.2020, P.W.3 was examined and got marked Ex P4; on 18.03.2020, P.W.4 was examined and

Exs.P.5 to P.9 were marked and posted for 313 Cr.P.C.

examination; on 20.03.2020, accused A1 to A3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and posted for arguments; on 16.10.2020, heard arguments on the prosecution side and posted to hear arguments on defence side; on 02.11.2020, heard 33 S.C.No.59/2019 arguments on defence side and posted for judgment; on 03.11.2020, judgment pronounced.

In the result, the accused A1 to A3 were found not guilty for the charges under Sections 498-A, 306 R/w 34 of IPC and acquit them under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after 6 months under

Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/- S.Sree Lakshmi,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam.

44 S.C.No.59/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, RAJAM

PRESENT:- Ms. S.Sree Lakshmi, Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam.

Tuesday, this the 3rd day of November, 2020 (03.11.2020)

SESSIONS CASE No. 59 of 2019

(P.R.C. No. 06/2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Rajam corresponding to Cr. No. 58/2017 of R.A Valasa Police Station)

Between:

The State of A.P., represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, R.A Valasa Police Station.

... Complainant.

And:

1. Kovagana Ramakrishna, S/o. Annam Naidu, age 38 years, Kapu by caste, Resident of Reddipeta Village of R.A Valasa Mandal.

2. Kovagana Annam Naidu, S/o. Late Chinnappala Naidu, age 70 years, Kapu by caste, Resident of Reddipeta Village of R.A Valasa Mandal.

3. Kovagana Seethamma @ Sattamma, W/o. Annam Naidu, age 60 years, Kapu by caste, Resident of Reddipeta Village of R.A Valasa Mandal.

... Accused.

This Sessions Case coming on 02.11.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri R.Rama Murthy, Advocate for accused, and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

55 S.C.No.59/2019

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, R.A Valasa Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No. 58/2017 of R.A.Valasa Police Station.

2.The averments of the prosecution case in brief are that:

LW.1 ie.,Majji Tirupathirao is the resident of Chinnasirlam

Village, A1 to A3 are the residents of Reddipeta village. A1 married the deceased Kovagana Chinnammadu as per the caste customs, they lived happily for some time. They were blessed with 2 sons during their wedlock. Since 4 years, A1 addicted to alcohol and harassed the deceased Kovagana Chinnammadu both mentally and physically. Further A2 and A3 joined with A1 and harassed the deceased Chinnammadu both mentally and physically. A1 further used to bring the pension amount of LW.2 ie.,Majji Appalanarasamma. Accordingly the deceased

Chinnammadu brought the pension amount of LW.2 ie.,Majji

Appalanarasamma and gave the same to A1. The deceased

Chinnammadu timely informed the said fact to LW.3 ie.,Tankala

Eswara rao and LW.4 ie.,Tankala Gowrieswari. LW.5 ie., Tankala

Govindarao and they conducted counseling to A1 to A3 and deceased Chinnammadu, at the time of conducting counseling A1 66 S.C.No.59/2019 to A3 to lookafter the deceased Chinnammadu properly, but the accused continued their harassment.

On 24.07.2017 night A1 returned the house in late night in drunken state , when the deceased Chinnammadu asked him about his acts, A1 beat the deceased indiscriminately. Due to that the deceased Chinnammadu vexed on her life and decided to commit suicide. In pursuance of her decision on 24.07.2017 morning the deceased Chinnammadu went to Reddipeta Village and brought pesticide poison which is kept in their house for using agricultural purpose and reached the house of LW.2 ie., Majji

Appalanarasamma at Chinnasirlam village. The deceased

Chinnammadu further proceeded to the cattle shed of LW.2 ie.,Majji Chinnammadu and committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison and fallen in the cattle shed in an unconscious state. LW.3 ie.,Tankala Eswara rao and LW.4 ie., Tankala

Gowrieswari saw the same and shifted the deceased

Chinnammadu to the Area hospital, Rajam for treatment. While undergoing treatment the deceased Chinnammadu died on 24.07.2017.

On the report given by LW.1 ie.,Majji Tirupathirao who is the brother of the deceased Chinnammadu, basing on the same a First Information Report was registered as a case in Cr.No.

77 S.C.No.59/2019 58/2017, under Section 306, 498-A r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation LW.22 ie., G.Bhaskararao inspected the scene of offence and got drafted observation report and seized pesticide bottle with some pesticide poison and preserved the vomiting of the deceased Chinnammadu in the presence of LW.13 ie.,Anchanala Venkata Satyanarayana and Lw.14 ie., Pakki

Chinnappayya, drawn rough sketch and took photos of the scene of offence and visited the accused house and seized one stick.

Further conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of blood relatives and inquestdars and send the corpse for autopsy. After receiving RFSL report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Rajam took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code against the accused A1 to A3 and registered the same as PRC.No.06/2017 and committed the same to the Court of

Sessions, Srikakulam. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Srikakulam

registered the said PRC as Sessions Case No.59/2019 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.After appearance of the accused 1 to 3 before the Court, they were examined under Section 228 of Criminal Procedure 88 S.C.No.59/2019

Code, read over and explained the contents of the charge for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code against the accused No.1 to 3 in Telugu to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P.1 to P.10 got marked.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is explained to them in Telugu, having understood the same they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under

Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. P O I N T:

The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused harassed the deceased Chinnammadu both mentally and physically and beat her and abetted her to commit suicide. To prove the same the prosecution got examined PW.1 to PW.4 on his behalf. PW.1 is the brother of the deceased Chinnammadu and the person who gave the report deposed in his evidence that 99 S.C.No.59/2019 about 2 years back he received an information through phone that his sister was died. Immediately he rushed to the Government hospital, Rajam and found that she was died. He do not know the reasons why she was died. He signed on the report dt 24.07.2017 ie., Ex P.1, but he do not know the contents of it and he did not state before the police as in Ex P.2.

10.Moreover PW.1 in his cross examination deposed that the accused looking after the 2 sons of the deceased

Chinnammadu. The prosecution has got examined Pw.2 who has to speak about the harassment of A1 to A3 towards the deceased

Chinnammadu and shifted the deceased to the hospital and he deposed that he know the accused, the deceased Chinnammadu is his niece. About 2 years back he received phone that his niece was died, as she consumed poison. Immediately we went to the

Government hospital, Rajam and found her as dead, he do not know the reasons about her death. He did not stated before the police as in Ex P.3.

11.The prosecution has got examined PW.3 who came to know about the incident and blood relative of the deceased

Chinnammadu deposed in his evidence that he was called by the police at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased by name Kovagana Chinnammadu who is his younger sister.

11 S.C.No.59/2019

About 1 ½ year back the inquest took in the Government hospital,

Rajam over the dead body of the deceased, during the inquest it was found that the deceased Chinnammadu was died as she consumed poison. The inquest report dt 27.07.2017 ie., Ex P.4 drafted at the scene of offence and he signed on it.

12.Whereas, in his cross examination he deposed that he do not know who drafted the inquest report and he do not know the contents of the inquest report he was informed by the deceased Chinnammadu during her life time that the accused

No.1 used to look after her and her children. So the material witnesses who has given report not deposed anything against the accused that the accused harassed the deceased Chinnammadu and beat her and abetted her to commit suicide, so also PW.2 and

PW.3 evidence. The evidence of LW.4 ie., Tankala Gowrieswari,

LW.5 ie., Tankala Govindarao, LW.6 i.e, Kovagana Durga Prasad,

LW.7 ie., Kovagana Durga Prasad, LW.8 ie., Sunkar Chandri Naidu,

LW.9 i.e., Kovagana Raminaidu and LW.12 ie., Mandala

Suryakumari, LW.13 ie., Anchanala Venkata Satyanarayana, LW.14 ie., Pakki Chinnappayya, LW.15 ie., Tanakala Govinda rao, LW.16 ie., Manthina Usharani, LW.17 ie., Tankala Suryanarayana, LW.18 ie., Smt G.Jansibhai, LW.19 ie., T.Karthik, LW.20 ie., Dr.C.Konda

Reddy, LW.21 ie., Dri Viswanadh to LW.21 evidence was given up 111 S.C.No.59/2019 by the Additional Public Prosecutor. LW.2 evidence was closed as died.

13.In the above said circumstances the evidences of PW.4 who is the investigation office in this case who deposed that evidence PW.1 gave report in the Police station ie., Ex P.1. Basing on the report he registered the same as case in Cr.No. 58/2017 under sections 306, 498-a, r/w 34 of IPC and issued F.I.R ie., Ex P.5 and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and send the dead body of the deceased Chinnammadu to the

Government hospital, Rajam. Then he visited the scene of offence situated at Chinnasirlam village, located cattle shed belongs to

Majji Appalanarasamma ie., LW.2 along with mediators and prepared rough sketch dt 24.07.2017 ie., Ex P.6 and drafted mediator report dt 24.07.2017 ie., Ex P.7 at the scene of offence and seized vomiting of the deceased Chinnammadu and also bottle which contains the poison and examined the witnesses, seized the Bamboo stick in the Reddipeta village at the house of the accused and examined the witnesses and got drafted inquest report and got conducted Postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and received Postmortem certificate dt 25.07.2017 ie.,

Ex P.8.

11 S.C.No.59/2019

Basing on the information he went to the house of the accused situated at Reddipeta village and arrested A1 to A3 and sent the poison bottle, vomiting and viscera to FSL,

Visakhapatnam and received the FSL report on 30.08.2017 ie., Ex

P.9 and received final opinion from the Medical Officer dt 04.09.2017 ie., Ex P.10 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet and he is no way helpful to prove the case of the prosecution. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused to prove that the accused A1 to A3 committed charge under Sections 498-A, 306 R/w 34 Indian Penal Code.

In the light of above discussion of oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14.In the result, the accused A1 to A3 were found not guilty for the charges under sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code and acquit them under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after 6 months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Copyist, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 03rd day of November, 2020

Sd/- S.Sree Lakshmi,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam.

11 S.C.No.59/2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1:Majji Tirupathirao -None-

PW.2:Tankala Eswara rao

PW.3:Majji Satyanarayana

PW.4:G.Bhaskararao, Sub-Inspector of Police

Documents Marked

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1:Report -Nil-

Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex.P4:Inquest report

Ex.P5:Original FIR

Ex.P6:Rough sketch

Ex P.7Mediators report

Ex P.8Postmortem Certificate

Ex P.9FSL Report

Ex P.10Final opinion

Material Objects

-NIL-

Sd/- S.Sree Lakshmi,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam.

1 S.C.No.15/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, RAJAM

PRESENT:- Ms. S.Sree Lakshmi, Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam.

Thursday, this the 19th day of November, 2020 (19-11-2020)

SESSIONS CASE No. 15 of 2015

(P.R.C. No. 16 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Rajam corresponding to Cr. No. 36 of 2013 of Ponduru Police Station)

Between:

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

Ponduru Police Station. ... Complainant.

And:

1. Avurupalli Ganapathi, S/o. Seethayya, age 24 years, Sreesaina by caste, Resident of Kotipalli Village of Ponduru Mandal.

2. Avurupalli Seethayya, S/o. Late Ramulu, age 58 years, Sreesaina by caste, Resident of Kotipalli Village of Ponduru Mandal.

3. Avurupalli Appalanaidu @ Appanna, S/o. Seethayya, age 22 years, Sreesaina by caste, Resident of Kotipalli Village of Ponduru Mandal.

... Accused.

This Sessions Case coming on 16.11.2020 for trial

before me in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for prosecution and of Sri T.Seshachari, Advocate for accused, and upon hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponduru Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable 2 S.C.No.15/2015 under Section 307, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No. 36 of 2013 of Ponduru Police Station.

2.The brief averments of the prosecution case are:

On 10.04.2013 in the evening hours LW.1 ie.,Perumala

Kali ie.,defactco complainant went to Ponduru for marketing. After completion of his purchase he left Ponduru village and boarded an auto got down the auto at Kotipalli center and while proceeding to his house at about 19.30 hours when he reached Rama temple of his village, A1 dashed against LW.1 ie., Perumala Kali ie., Defacto complainant with his motorcycle and slightly and the motorcycle touched LW.1 ie., Perumala Kali ie.,Defacto complainant, but A1 did not stop his motor cycle and ran away without any mercy. As a result LW.1 ie., Perumala Kali ie., Defacto complainant sustained a small injury on his leg. Immediately LW.1 ie., Perumala Kali went to the house of A1 and questioned A2 about the rash behaviour of his son ie., A1.

While LW.1 ie., Perumala Kali ie., Defacto complainant is discussing with A2 suddenly A1 taken a kattava which is available in his house and beat LW.1 ie, Perumala Kali ie., Defacto complainant with kattava on his head with an intention to kill him.

The iron sharpener of kattava touched the head of LW.1 ie.,

Perumala Kali ie., Defacto complainant and he received severe bleeding injury. A2 and A3 also beat LW.1 ie., Perumala Kali ie., 3 S.C.No.15/2015 Defacto complainant with their hands. In the scuffle the LW.1 ie.,

Perumala Kali ie., Defacto complainant , forcibly taken a stick from a cot which is available beside his house and beat A1 to A3 which is subject matter in Cr.No. 37/2013. On noticing the incident LW.3 ie., Perumala Ramana, LW4 ie., Adangi Syamalarao,

LW.5 ie., Kasimkota Satyannarayana, Lw.6 ie., S.M.Puram Govinda rescued LW.1 and separated both groups and sent them from the scene of offence. Hence the charge.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Rajam took cognizance of the offence under Sections 307, 323 R/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code against the accused and registered the same as

PRC. 16 of 2013 and committed the same to the Court of Sessions,

Srikakulam. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Srikakulam registered the said PRC as Sessions Case No. 15 of 2015 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.After appearance of the accused before the Court, he was examined under Section 228 of Criminal Procedure Code, read over and explained the contents of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused in Telugu to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4.

4 S.C.No.15/2015

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is dispensed with.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. P O I N T:

The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused A1 to A3 attempted to kill PW.1 ie.,Defacto complainant .

To prove the same the prosecution got examined Pw.1 to PW.3 on his behalf. PW.1 is the person who has given the report and who is the injured deposed in his evidence that police asked him to sign on the report, he do not know the contents of the said report and he signed on the said report, dt 10.04.2013 ie., Ex P.1. Police never examined him and he did not state before the police as in

Ex P.2.

10.The prosecution got examined Pw.2 who is the wife of

PW.1 and she is the person who has to corroborative the evidence of Pw.1, deposed in her evidence that she do not know anything about this case, police never examined her and she did not state

before the police as in Ex P.3.

5 S.C.No.15/2015

11.The prosecution got examined PW.3 who said have been present at the time of incident and rescued PW.1 from the hands of the accused. Whereas he also not deposed anything against the accused and deposed that he do not know about the case.

Police never examined him and he did not state before the police as in Ex P.4.

12.The evidence of LW.4 ie., Adangi syamalaray, Lw.5 ie.,

Kasimkota Satyannarayana, LW.6 ie., S.M.Puram Govinda, LW.7 ie.,

Lotta Venkatarao, LW.8 ie., Polaki Trinadtha, LW.9 ie.,

Dr.K.Sunnilkumar, LW.10 ie., K.Madhusudhanarao were given up by the prosecution.

13.So there is no evidences to show that PW.1 received the injury to his head and he was treated by the Doctor, so also as the evidence of LW.8 ie., Polaki Trinadtha given up by prosecution. So there is no evidence to show that Kattava was seized at the scene of offence in the presence of mediators ie., LW.8 ie., Polaki

Trinadtha, so the material witnesses who has given evidence, not deposed anything against the accused that the accused drove his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed PW.1 and he went to the house of A1 and questioned A2 about the action of

A1, while so A1 brought kattava and beat on the head of PW.1 and he sustained injury, so also no eye witnesses deposed against the accused.

6 S.C.No.15/2015

14.So there is no incriminating evidence against the accused to show that the accused committed the offence under charges under section 307, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

In the light of above discussion of oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the case of prosecution against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.In the result, the accused A1 to A3 found not guilty for the charges under Sections 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and acquit them under Section 232 of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused A1 to A3 shall stand canceled after 6 months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

The unmarked property ie., Kattava shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Dictated to the Copyist, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of November, 2020.

Sd/- S.Sree Lakshmi,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1:Perumali Kali -None-

PW.2:Perumali Suramma

PW.3:Perumali Ramana 7 S.C.No.15/2015 Documents Marked

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1Signature of PW.1 on the -NIL- report dt.10.04.2013.

Ex.P2 Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1.

Ex.P3 Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2.

Ex.P4 Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3.

Material Objects

-NIL-

Sd/- S.Sree Lakshmi,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam.

OS.6/20201

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAM

Present:- Ms S.Sree Lakshmi,

Senior Civil Judge, Rajam.

Tuesday, this the 22nd day of December, 2020 (22.12.2020)

O.S.No. 6/2020

Between:

Yenne Balaraju, son of late Simhachalam, aged 42 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at D.No. 132, Ramarayapuram village, Manthina post, Santhakaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District. ….Plaintiff

And:

Yedla Ramakrishna, son of late Suryanarayana, aged 45 years, Hindu, cultivation and business, residing at Garikipadu village of Santhakaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District. …Defendant

This suit coming on 21.12.2020 for plaintiff's evidence

before me in the presence of Sri M.Damodararao,Advocate for the

plaintiff, and the defendant having remained exparte, and upon hearing the Counsel for the plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The plaintiff filed this suit to pass a preliminary decree in his favour and against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.20,59,200/- (Rupees twenty lakhs, fifty nine thousand and two hundred only) from the defendant with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the suit till realization and for costs of the suit.

OS.6/20202

2. The averments of the plaint in nutshell are that:-

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 28.09.2016 for the purpose of his family expenses and for clearance of his debts and also for development of his business and he agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and also agreed to pay the interest amount on

principal amount of Rs.12,00,000/- at every 5th day of every

month, and also the defendant agreed to endorse the payment on the back side of the mortgage deed, and if he fails to pay the interest amount on the principal amount that he will not ask the plaintiff to return the interest amount paid by him to the plaintiff.

The defendant also agreed that he fail to pay interest amount on

principal amount, the total interest amount including principal

amount will be paid with the highest interest i.e., chakravaddi within three years i.e., from the date of document till 27.09.2019 to the plaintiff.

It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant agreed that the schedule property will be security for the amount, till discharge of the total amount of principal including interest paid by 27.09.2019 to the plaintiff and to obtain full payment receipt and the document will be received by the defendant from the plaintiff and the defendant also agreed that he do not execute any documents prior to this document on the property to other

OS.6/20203

persons and he agreed the above, with the conditions executed a registered mortgage deed on 28.09.2016 without handover the possession in favour of the plaintiff with security of the schedule property mentioned in the mortgage deed i.e., wet land of

Rs.12,00,000/-.

It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant received the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff at the time of execution of registered mortgage deed dt.28.09.2016 in the presence of attestors and scribe. Subsequently after the execution of mortgage deed by the defendant, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest agreed by him in every month, but the defendant did not pay any interest or principal amount to the plaintiff and postponed the same. The plaintiff raised dispute through elders.

Then the defendant agreed to pay the same and postponed and he did not pay any amount with interest to the plaintiff. Recently the plaintiff came to know that the defendant is trying to alienate the mortgage deed property to others for highest price. The defendant has no right to alienate the property to others.

Subsequently the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice dt.11.09.2019 to the defendant through his Counsel demanding the defendant to pay the amount with interest. The defendant

OS.6/20204

received the notice and kept quiet and he did not give any reply nor paid the amount due under mortgage deed. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant remained exparte.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked.

5. Heard arguments on the plaintiff side.

6. Now, the points for determination are:-

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

7.POINT NO.1:-

In a suit for recovery of money, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant executed a simple mortgage deed dated 28.09.2016 under document No.3595/2016 and registered the same on 28.09.2016 in favour of the plaintiff after receipt of full consideration amount in the presence of attestors and scribe shown in the document. To prove the same, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and filed his sworn chief affidavit. Accordingly his evidence is that the defendant executed

Ex.A.1 simple mortgage deed dated 28.09.2016 in his favour in the presence of attestors and scribe after receipt of full consideration amount only the defendant executed simple mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff.

OS.6/20205

8.On perusal of evidence of P.W.1 there are no discrepancies in explaining the sequences of execution of Ex.A.1 by the defendant on receipt of full consideration amount under it.

The plaintiff got proved the due execution of Ex.A.1 by the defendant after receipt of full consideration amount by examining himself as P.W.1 and in support of Exs.A.1 to A.4. Once the plaintiff discharged initial burden then onus shifts to the defendant to show Ex.A.1 is not supported by consideration and

Ex.A.1 is no way related to the suit transaction but as per the evidence the defendant did not turn up to file written statement and he remained exparte. The defendant utterly failed to prove that Ex.A.1 is not binding on him and he never executed any mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff. The defendant failed to appear before the Court to discredit the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to Ex.A.1 transaction. On contra plaintiff placed cogent evidence of P.W.1, exhibited Ex.A.1 to prove the execution of the said document. On considering the unchallenged testimony of

P.W.1 establishes that the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from him and executed registered simple mortgage deed dated 28.09.2016 in his favour and agreed to repay the same with interest, but despite the demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the due amount under Ex.A.1 simple registered mortgage deed, and

OS.6/20206

hence it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim against the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

9.POINT NO.2:-

In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for

Rs.20,59,200/- (Rupees twenty lakhs, fifty nine thousand and two hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only).

Time for redemption is 3 months.

If the defendant failed to pay the amount, the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed against the suit schedule property under due process of law for recovery of decretal amount of the suit.

Typed to my dictation by Copyist, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22nd day of December,

2020.

Sd/- S.Sree Lakshmi,

Senior Civil Judge,

Rajam.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

OS.6/20207

P.W.1: Yenne Balaraju. -None-

Exhibits marked For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1/dt.28.09.2016 : Registered mortgage deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A.2/dt.11.09.2019 : Office copy of registered legal notice.

Ex.A.3/ --- : Postal receipt.

Ex.A.4/ --- : Postal acknowledgment.

For Defendant: -NIL-

Sd/-S.SreeLakshmi,

Senior Civil Judge,

Rajam.