S. Srinivas Reddy

1 of 10

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

NAGARKURNOOL

On Friday, this the 13th day of April, 2018

Present:- SRI SURA SRINIVAS REDDY

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

SC.No. 340 of 2014

Preliminary Register Case No.5 of 2014 committed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Achampet in Crime No.74 of 2013 of PS, Amrabad for the offences under sec.147,148,448,324,333,307 r/w 149 IPC and sec.4 of Arms

Act.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prosecution:Sri. T. Venkatarama Sharma, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nagarkurnool.

Defence :Sri. G. Prabhakar, Counsel for the accused

Description of accused: A1 Merajoth Narsimha s/o Somla, age : 21yrs A2 Merajoth Thirupathi s/o Hanuma, age : 25yrs

A3 Merajoth Chandhu s/o Nankya, age : 32yrs

A4 Merajoth Nankya s/o Maanya, age : 30yrs

A5 Merajoth Boddu s/o Thadya, age : 25yrs

A6 Kandravath Raghu s/o Gaajya, age : 36yrs

A7 Ramavath Pool Singh s/o Hanuma, age : 35yrs

A8 Merajoth Laxman s/o Soma, age : 30yrs

A9 Merajoth Balu s/o Maanya, age : 40yrs

A10 Gundu Beekya s/o Chathra, age : 40yrs

A11 Merajoth Devla s/o Balya, age : 33yrs

A12 MerajothThulasi s/o Balya, age : 30yrs

A13 Merajoth Hanma s/o Shukya, age : 42yrs

A14 Merajoth Papa s/o Shykya, age : 37yrs

A15 Merajoth Somla s/o Borya, age : 60yrs

A16 Merajoth Bhadru s/o Bapya, age : 55yrs

A17 Merajoth Tholya s/o Badya, age : 45yrs

A18 Merajoth Lalya s/o Shurya, age : 60yrs

A19 Kandlavath Prem s/o Gaajya, age : 19yrs

A20 Vakdavath Ravi s/o Poolya, age : 28yrs

A21 Vadkavath Kotya Naik s/o Hanma, age : 23yrs

A22 Jadavath Beechya s/o Seri, age : 42yrs 2 of 10

A23 Bilavath Nandha s/o Thavurya, age : 25yrs

A24 Vakdavath Swamy s/o Thulya, age : 35yrs

A25 Bilavath Thavurya s/o Gamya, age : 55yrs

A26 Kethavath Madhu s/o Beechya, age : 28yrs

A27 Ramavath Dharma s/o Badhara, age : 35yrs

A28 Kethvath Laskar s/o Lalya, age : 45yrs

A29 Jadavath Ramulu s/o Sevya, age : 35yrs

A30 Vakdavath hanma s/o Chandhru, age : 50yrs

A31 Nenavath Hari s/o Hanma, age : 28yrs

A32 Kethavath Peekla s/o Beechya, age : 27yrs

A33 Kethavath Laxman Naik s/o Beechya, age : 45yrs

All Caste : Lambada, Occ : Agriculture, r/o Ippalapally village of Amrabad mandal.

Offence under section:147, 148, 448, 324, 333, 307 r/w 149 IPC and sec.4 of Arms Act.

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty for the offences u/s147, 148, 448, 324, 333, 307 r/w 149 IPC and sec.4 of Arms Act.

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused No.1 to 26, 28 to 33 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s147,148,448,324,333,307 r/w 149 IPC and sec.4 of Arms Act. and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of accused

No.1 to 26, 28 to 33 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437 (A) Cr.P.C. The case against accused No.27 is abated due to his death on 24.11.2017. There is no order passed with regard to the case property vide CPR.No.6/2014 deposited before the JFCM, Achampet as the case against juvenile in conflict with law is still pending.

This Sessions Case is coming up for hearing before me on on this day, i.e., 13.04.2018 and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following :

3 of 10

JUDGMENT

1. The CI of police, Amrabad filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 33 for the offences punishable u/s147,148,448,324,333,307 r/w 149 IPC and sec.4 of Arms Act.

2.The brief averments of the case of the prosecution case are as follows :

On 04.11.2013 at about 12.30am LW16 Head Constable of Amrabad

PS received a petition endorsed by the LW17 SI of Police, Amrabad who was at Ippalapally village filed by the complainant Merajoth Harilal in which the complainant stated that on 03.11.2013 at 08.00am his brother-in-laws by name Lavudya Seetharam and Lavudya Papa quarreled with each other about the land disputes and upon which, Lavudya Papa filed a petition at

Police station, Amrabad against the Lavudya Seetharam and others and at the same day at about 9.00pm Lavudya Seetharam's followers were shelling crackeras in front of Muthyalamma Temple and in the mean time the

Complainant, Merajothi Badhya, Merajoth Beekya and Lxmya are going to their house and said persons threw crackers beside them and when they questioned them, the above said persons replied that they beat their brother- in-law about the issue of land and they will beat him also. The complainant further submitted that said persons threatened them and forcefully entered into their house and beat with axe pans, stones and sticks and abused them and in the meantime Amrabad police party came there to rescue and while dispersing the public, Merajoth Thulasi and Merajoth Dhevla threw the axe pans up on them and as a result of which one police has received bleeding injuires on his hand and then Merajoth Boddu beat the complaint with axe and as the result of which, he received bleeding injury on his left eye and one

Narsimha beat Merajoth Badhya with stick on his legs and left eye and

Thirupathi beat Merajoth Beekya on his head with stick and the other 4 of 10 accused hurld stones on them and then, after the police party controlling them, they were shifted to hospital in the police jeep and as such he requested to take necessary action the above said accused persons.

Basing on the above complaint endorsed by LW17 G. Ravinder, SI of police, the Head Constable registered a case in Cr.No.74/2013 u/s 147, 148, 448, 324, 333, 307 r/w 149 IPC and Sec.4 of Arms Act and issued FIR. The

CI of police further submitted that during the course of investigation the

LW17 SI of police examined and recorded the statements of the LW1 M.

Harilal, LW2 M. Badya, LW3 M. Bikya and LW4 D. Laxmi at Ippalapally village of Amrabad Mandal and secured the presence of LW11 R. Sevya and

LW12 M. Beekya and conducted scene of offence panchanama, drawn rough sketch and seized 3 axes and 15 sticks and 10 stones from the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and he referred the injured to the hospital.

CI of police further submitted that he took up the further investigation from LW17 G.Ravinder, SI of police and verified the investigation done by him and found on proper lines and during the course of investigation, he examined LW5 Anjan Rao, LW6 V. Thourya, LW7 V. Beema, LW8 K. Buri,

LW9 Bhupal Naik and LW10 Bangaru Babu and recorded their statements.

The CI of police further submitted that the accused No.4,9 and 13 to 34 were arrested on 05.11.2013 and produced before the court and the Juvenile in

Conflict with law Jadavath Santosh was produced before the Juvenile Justice board on 07.11.2013. The CI of police further submitted that on 11.11.2013 he arrested the accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 8 and 10 to 12 and recorded the confession statement of accused No.12 in the presence of LW13 N. Chakru and LW14 D. Ramulu and recovered one axe from the house of accused

No.12 and then, he effected their arrest and produced them before the court 5 of 10 for judicial custody. The CI of police further submitted that he obtained wound certificates of the injured from the medical officer Dr.A.Dasaratham and after completion of investigation by collecting the medical certificates, he filed the charge sheet against the accused and deposited the case property

before the court. The CI of police further submitted that the investigation

conducted by him revealed that the accused committed the offences u/s 147, 148, 448, 324, 333, 307 r/w 149 IPC and Sec.4 of Arms Act and hence the charge sheet.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Achampet has taken cognizance of the offences u/s 147, 148, 448, 324, 333, 307 r/w 149 IPC and

Sec.4 of Arms Act agianst the accused No.1 to 33 following committal procedure, committed the accused to the court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar along with case records. The court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar taken cognizance of the offences against accused No.1 to 33 and made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

4.Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this court framed the charges u/s 147, 148, 448, 324, 333, 307 r/w 149 IPC and

Sec.4 of Arms Act against the accused No.1 to 26 and 28 to 33, framed charges readover and explained to them, for which they denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case against accused No.27 is abated due to his death on 24.11.2017.

5.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17 and reported the closure of evidence.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 26, 28 to 33 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material in the prosecution witnesses against them, for which the accused No.1 to 26, 28 to 33 denied incriminating evidence and reported no defence.

6 of 10

7.Heard the arguments.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilty of the accused No.1 to 26, 28 to 33 for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 448, 324, 333, 307 r/w 149 IPC and Sec.4 of Arms Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.Point :

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17.

Out of the 11 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, PW1 is the defacto complainant/injured, PW2,PW3,PW7 and PW9 are the eye witnesses and injured and PW4 to PW6 and PW8 are the eye witnesses to the incident and PW10 and PW11 are the investigating officers. The learned

APP given up the evidence of mediators of scene of offence panchanama and also confession of accused No.12 and seizure of material objects and also the doctor who treated the injured and issued injury certificates.

Out of the 11 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW7 not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The only evidence available for appreciation is the evidence of PW8 who is one of the eye wintness and constable, PW9 eye witness, injured and constable and PW10 and PW11 investigating officers.

10.As per the evidence of PW8, on 03.11.2013 at about 8.45pm he along with PW9 Bhoopal Naik and LW10 Bangaru Babu accompanied their SI, i.e.,

PW10 G.Ravinder and proceeded to Ippalapally village on the information about the galata took place at Muthyalamma Temple and by the time they 7 of 10 reached the village two parties were quarreling with each other by pelting stones on each other and the said persons were in possession of axes, sticks and stones and they tried to pacify the quarrel and in the said incident

PW9 received axe injury to his right hand and then, immediately they were shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and after that their Inspector with force came to the village and apprehended the culprits and brought them to police station and registered a case. As can be seen from the evidence of PW8, he has not stated anything against the accused and he has not identified the accused who are present in the court hall as culprits.

PW9 is the injured/eye witness and as per his evidence, on 03.11.2013 at about 8.45pm he along with PW8 and LW10 Bangaru Babu accompanied their SI, G.Ravinder and proceeded to Ippalapally village on the information about the galata took place at Muthyalamma Temple of the village and by the time they reached the village the two parties were quarreling with each by pelting stones on each other and the said persons were in possession of axes, sticks and stones and they tried to pacify the quarrel and in the said incident he received axe injury in the hands of Tulasi and Devula on his right hand and then immediately, he was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and he undergone treatment for one month. PW9 in his chief examination itself categorically stated that he cannot identify the persons who attacked on him and caused injury due to lapse of time.

PW10 is the investigating officer who proceeded to Ippalapally vilalge along with PW8, PW9 and LW10 Bangaru Babu and shifted the injured to the hospital and sent Ex.P9 complaint lodged by PW1 to their Head

Constable for registration of the case and after registration of the case, he took up the investigation of the case, recorded the statements of the witnesses and also conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence 8 of 10 of witnesses and seized 3 axes, 15 sticks and 10 stones from the scene of offence place under the cover of Ex.P10 Crime details form.

PW11 is the investigating officer who took up further investigation from

PW10 and verified the investigation and arrested the accused and recorded the confession of Accused No.12 in the presence of LW13 and 14 and seized one axe from the house of accused No.12 and after copletion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

11.As can be seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, PW8 to

PW11 are the police officials and even the indipendent eye witnesses to the incident, i.e., PW8 and PW9 not stated anything against the accused and they have not identified the accused who are present in the court as culprits.

The prosecution also failed to examine the mediators for confession of accused No.12 and seziure of axe and the mediators of scene of offence panchanama and seizure of material objects from the scene of offence place and the doctor who examined the injured and issued medical certificates under Ex.P12 to P16.

Therefore on perusal of entire material available on record as PW1 to 7 not supported the case of the prosecution and PW1 even denied the lodging of Ex.P9 complaint and as PW8 and PW9 who are the injured constables not identified the accused as culprits and as the prosecution failed to examine the mediators of scene of offence panchanama and seizure of material objects and also the mediators of confession of accused

No.12 and seizure of axe from the possession of accuse No.12 and also the doctor who treated the injred and issued Ex.P12 to P16 injury certificates, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the alleged offences.

9 of 10

For the reasons stated supra, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of accused No.1 to 26, 28 to 33 for the alleged offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 448, 324, 333, 307 r/w 149 IPC and

Sec.4 of Arms Act and as such the accused are entitle for acquittal.

In the result, the accused No.1 to 26, 28 to 33 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s147,148,448,324,333,307 r/w 149 IPC and sec.4 of Arms Act. and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 26, 28 to 33 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437 (A) Cr.P.C. The case against accused No.27 is abated due to his death on 24.11.2017. There is no order passed with regard to the case property vide CPR.No.6/2014 deposited before the JFCM, Achampet as the case against juvenile in conflict with law is still pending.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 13 th day of April, 2018.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For prosecution:-

PW1 M. Harilal

PW2 M. Badya

PW3 M. Bikya

PW4 V. Thourya

PW5 V. Bheema

PW6 K. Buri

PW7 D. Laxmi

PW8 Anjan Rao

PW9 Bhupal Naik

PW10 G. Ravinder

PW11 P. Ramesh Kumar

For defence:-

NIL 10 of 10

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution :

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on the complaint

Ex.P2 to P8 are the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW1 to PW7

Ex.P9 is the complaint marked by PW10

Ex.P10 is the crime details form

Ex.P11 is the confession and recovery panchanama

Ex.P12 to P16 are the injury certificates marked by PW11

Ex.P17 is the FIR marked by PW11.

For defence : NIL MOs MARKED NIL Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool.

1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT

NAGARKURNOOL

On Friday, this the 13th day of April, 2018

Present:- SRI SURA SRINIVAS REDDY,

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

OS No.77 of 2013

Between:-

State Bank of India, Bijinepally Branch,

Represented by its Branch Managar.

... Plaintiff

And

1. Mudavath Kesili w/o Mudavath Devsingh, age : 77yrs, Occ : Agriculture (Died, defendant No.2 is LR of D1)

2. Mudavath Bheemla s/o Parsya, age : 57yrs, Occ : Agriculture

Both r/o Lattupally village of Bijinepally mandal, Mahabubnagar District

... Defendants

-0o0-

This suit came up before me for hearing on 22.02.2018 for disposal in the presence of Sri. V. Vignaneshwara Sharma, Advocate for the plaintiff and

Sri. V. Radha Krishna, Advocate for the defendant No.2 and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, the court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendants for recovery of Rs.3,94,717/- together with costs and interest by passing a preliminary decree against the mortgaged properties.

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

The defendant No.1 and 2 are agriculturalists and they approached the plaintiff bank for financial assistance to purchase tractor, power tiller and farm mahineries and submitted an application on 24.05.2006 and their 2 of 8 application was considered by the plaintiff bank and sanctioned an amount of

Rs.3,50,000/- for purchase tractor, power tiller and farm machineries and on the same day the defendant agreed to repay the loan amount with interest @10.75% per annum with half yearly rests commencing from May, 2007.

The plaintiff further submitted that after availing the loan amount, the defendants executed agreement of hypothecation in favour of the plaintiff bank and created equitable mortage of agriculatural lands by way of depositing title deeds for receiving the said loan as security and the same were confirmed by the defendants through letter dated 18.07.2006. The plaintiff further submitted that after availing th loan amount, the defendants failed to repay the loan amount as agreed by them and the plaintiff bank made several oral and written demands to repay the loan amount, but the defendants postponed the repayment on one or other pretext, but the defendants executed revival letters on 24.03.2009 and 06.01.2012 by admitting the loan amount and the plaintiff bank sold away the hypothecated tractor, power tiller and farm machinery in open auction and sale consideration was credited to the loan account of the defendants and the repayments made by the defendants were credited to the loan account which was shown in the statement of account. The plaintiff further submitted that defendants due an amount of Rs.3,94,717/- which inclues principal, interest and other charges as on the date of filing of the suit and as the defendants failed to repay the balance loan amount, they filed the present suit against the defendants and as such, the plaintiff prayed to decree the suit.

3.Having received the summons, the defendant No.2 made his appearance through an advocate and filed his written statement. The defendant No.1 reported died and defendant No.2 is recorded as sole legal heir of defendant No.1 as per orders dated 22.04.2014.

3 of 8

The brief averments of the written statement filed by defendant No.2 is as follows :

The defendant No.2 submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and plaintiff bank is not entitled to file the suit against the death person and further the plaintiff bank failed to follow the procedure with regard to the steps that are proposed to be taken when the person failed to pay the loan amount. The defendant No.2 further submitted that the defendant No.1 was died on 09.03.2008 as per the death certificate issued by the authorities and whereas the plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that the deceased defendant

No.1 executed revival letters on 24.03.2009 and 06.01.2012 and so it is clear that the said revival letters are false and cannot be looked into for any purpose and more particularly for considering the claim of the loan under the suit. Defendant No.2 further submitted that when the defendant No.1 died much earlier than the alleged revival letters then the plaintiff is not entitled to get a decree and in view of the said facts the suit is barred by limitation from the pleadings and liable to be dismissed. The defendant No.2 further submitted that on the death of the person who allegedly obtained loan then the liability on her will be waived off and the further course under law is to be followed, but in the present case, the plaintiff failed to take such steps and failed to file the suit on that angle as such, the suit is liable to dismissed and therefore, defendant No.2 prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff bank.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

i)Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for preliminary decree for recovery of suit claim with costs and future interest from the defendant No.1 and 2 as prayed for ?

ii) To what relief ?

4 of 8

5.In order to prove its case, the plaintiff bank examined its Deputy

Manager as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A17 and reported the closure of evidence. On the other hand, in order to prove his defence, defendant No.2 himself is examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 and reported the closure of evidence.

6.Heard arguments of both side counsels.

7. Issue No.1 :

In order to prove its case, the plaintiff bank examined its Deputy

Manager as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A17. The evidence of PW1 is on the same lines of the plaint.

As per the evidence of PW1, the defendant No.1 and 2 approached the plaintiff bank for financial assistance for purchase of tractor, power tiller and farm machinery and submitted Ex.A1 application and considering their application, the plaintiff bank sanctioned an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the defendants under Ex.A2 and at the time of availing loan, the defendant No.1 and 2 executed Ex.A3 agreement of hypothecation and deposited their sale deeds,pattadar pass books, title deeds and encumbrance certificates under

Exs.A5 to A12 and executed Ex.A4 memorandum of creation of mortgage by depositing title deeds and at the time of availing the loan, the defendants agreed to repay the loan amount with interest as per the terms of agreement, but after availing the loan amount, the defendants failed to repay the loan amount with interest inspite of repeated requests made by the plaintiff bank and the defendant No.1 and 2 executed Ex.A15 and A16 revival letters admitting the liability of loan and as the defendants failed to repay the outstanding loan amount with interestf inspite of repeated requests, the plaintiff bank filed the present suit for recovery of outstanding loan amount by passing preliminary decree against the mortgaged properties and Ex.A17 5 of 8 statement of account clearly goes to show that the defendants committed default in payment of loan amount to the plaintiff bank and as such PW1 prayed to decree the suit.

On the other hand, the contention of defendant No.2 examined as

DW1 is that, the plaintiff bank created Ex.A15 and A16 revival letters and filed the present suit and as on the date of Ex.A15 and A16, the defendant

No.1 is not alive in view of Ex.B1 death certificate issued by the authorities and as such, as Ex.A15 and A16 revival letters are not admissible in evidence, the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation. DW1 in his cross examination categorically admitted that he himself and his mother deposited pattadar pass books and title deeds and registered sale deeds at the time of availing the loan and they have paid some amounts to the plaintiff bank during the life time of his mother, but he has not filed any documents showing the repayment of loan amount. DW1 further admitted that he has not intimated the death of his mother to the plaintiff bank.

8.As can be seen from the evidence of DW1, he is not disputing the availment of loan by himself and his mother and he is disputing Ex.A15 and

A16 revival letters as the same were after to the date of death of defendant

No.1 and therefore, Ex.A15 and A16 are not admissible in evidence and in the absence of Ex.A15 and A16, the suit of the plaintiff bank is hopelessly barred by limitation and therefore, the defendant No.2 prayed to dismiss the suit.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff categorically submitted that eventhough, Ex.A15 and A16 revival letters are not admissible in evidence, the defendant No.1and 2 created equitable mortgage in respect of suit schedule properties at the time of availing the loan and therefore, in view of execution of mortgage by defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff bank 6 of 8 under Ex.A4, the suit filed by the plaintiff bank is within the period of limitation as the suit is filed basing on the mortgage executed by defendant

No.1 and 2.

On perusal of the record, it is a fact that the defendants availed the loan from plaintiff bank by mortgaging suit schedule properties and executed

Ex.A4 equitable mortgage by depositing of title deeds and admittedly, the defendant No.2 not denied the deposit of sale deeds, pattadar pass books with the plaintiff bank at the time of availing the loan and therefore, in view of admission of defendant No.2 about the availment of loan by mortgaging the suit schedule properties, I am of the opinion that the suit filed by the plaintiff bank is within the period of limitation eventhough, Ex.A15 and A16 revival letters are not considered and in view of mortage created by defendant No.1 and 2 at the time of availing the loan, Ex.A15 and A16 revival letters can be ignored, as in the absence of revival letters also the suit of the plaintiff is within the period of limitation basing on the mortgage executed by defendant

No.1 and 2.

9.Therefore on perusal of entire material available on record, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff bank by examining its Deputy Manager as PW1 and by marking Exs.A1 to A17 categorically proved the suit claim against the defendant No.2 for recovery of suit claim against the mortgaged properties and on the other hand, the defendant No.2 failed to prove that the suit filed by the plaintiff bank is barred by limitation in view of mortgage executed by himself and his mother and even as the defendant No.2 admited the availment of loan from the plaintiff bank and also deposit of title deeds by creating equitable mortgage and and as such, I hold that the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of suit claim from the defendant No.2 as prayed for.

Accordingly I answered this issue in favour of plaintiff bank.

7 of 8

Issue No.2 :

As issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank, the suit of the plaintiff bank is liable to be decreed.

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff bank is preliminarily decreed for Rs.3,94,717/- against the defendant No.2 together with costs and interest at the rate of 13.85% per annum from the date of suit to till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree to till its complete realization on the principal sum adjudged, i.e., Rs.3,94,717/-.

The time for redemption is (3) months.

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

me in open court, on this the 13 th day of April, 2018.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

8 of 8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintiff:-

PW1 B. Sreerama Reddy

For Defendants:

M. Bheemla

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 is the application form for loan dated 04.05.2006

Ex.A2 is the memorandum for sanction of loan dated 19.05.2006

Ex.A3 is the agreement of hypothecation

Ex.A4 is the memorandum for recording creation of mortage by deposit of title deeds

Ex.A5 and A6 are the registered sale deeds

Ex.A7 is the pattadar pass book

Ex.A8 is the land ownership rights patram

Ex.A9 is the pattadar pass book

Ex.A10 is the land ownership rights patram

Ex.A11 and A12 are the EC No.1202/2008 and 1177/2008

Ex.A13 and A14 are the E.M. Confirmation letters

Ex.A15 and A16 are teh revival letters dated 24.03.2012 and 06.01.2012

Ex.A17 is the statement of account dated 13.03.2013

For Defendant :

Ex.B1 is the death certificate of defendant No.1

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

NAGARKURNOOL

On Thursday, this the 12th day of April, 2018

Present:- SRI SURA SRINIVAS REDDY

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

SC.No. 315 of 2014

Preliminary Register Case No.4 of 2014 committed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Achampet in Crime No.75 of 2013 of PS, Amrabad for the offences under sec.147,148,323,307 r/w 149,109 IPC and sec.4 of Arms Act.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prosecution:Sri. T. Venkatarama Sharma, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nagarkurnool.

Defence :Sri. A. Parvath Reddy, Counsel for the accused

Description of accused: A1 V. Dakya s/o Poolya, age : 40yrs A2 V. Shankar s/o Kishu, age : 27yrs

A3 V. Ramesh s/o Chinna Mangya, age : 20yrs

A4 V. Rajesh s/o Somla, age : 28yrs

A5 V. Mothilal s/o Hanma, age : 24yrs

A6 K. Mothya s/o Dhammu, age : 42yrs

A7 K. Lachya s/o Bojya, age : 55yrs

A8 K. Tharya s/o Lalya, age : 40yrs

A9 K. Harya s/o Lalya, age : 28yrs

A10 Islavath Kishan s/o Rajya, age : 20yrs

A11 D. Papa s/o Denya, age : 28yrs

A12 M. Venkati s/o Vasya, age : 28yrs

A13 B. Chinna Balu s/o Gemya, age : 35yrs

A14 J. Devula s/o Shiva, age : 55yrs

A15 M. Hanma s/o Ramulu, age : 48yrs

A16 M. Mothilal s/o Dhansingh, age : 32yrs

A17 M. Badhru s/o Vasuram, Age : 26yrs

A18 M. Dhasru s/o Dhansingh, age : 27yrs

A19 M. Hamnanthu s/o Jagaram, age : 28yrs

A20 M. Laxma s/o Vasuram, age : 22yrs

A21 M. Pavan Kumar s/o Hanma, age : 21yrs

A22 M. Hareesh s/o Hanma, age : 20yrs

A23 M. Balu s/o Dhulya, age : 60yrs 2 of 7

A24 V. Somla s/o Chandru, age : 52yrs

A25 K. Ramulu s/o Dhammu, age : 35yrs

A26 K. Somani s/o Lachya, age : 26yrs

All Caste : Lambada, Occ : Agriculture, r/o Ippalapally village of Amrabad mandal.

Offence under section:147,148,323,307 r/w 149,109 IPC and sec.4 of Arms Act.

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty for the offences u/s 147, 148, 323, 307 r/w 149,109 IPC and sec.4 of Arms Act.

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused No.1 to 8, 10 to 26 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 323, 307 r/w 149,109 IPC and sec.4 of Arms Act and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of accused

No.1 to 8, 10 to 26 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437 (A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, i.e., 2 axes and 15 stones shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case against accused No.9 is abated due to his death on 24.11.2017.

This Sessions Case is coming up for hearing before me on 21.03.2018 and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

1. The CI of police, Amrabad filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 26 for the offences punishable u/s 147,148,323,307 r/w 149,109 IPC and sec.4 of Arms Act.

2.The brief averments of the case of the prosecution case are as follows :

3 of 7

On 04.11.2013 at about 1.30am LW9 K. Narsimhulu, Head Constable of PS Amrabad received a telugu written complainant from LW1 Merajoth

Balu in which he stated that, on 03.11.2013 at 8.30pm the complainant and his followers were shelling crackers in front of Muthyalamma Temple and in the meantime his villagers came there within their mind old grudges and questioned them as to why they are shelling crakers and then Vankdavath

Somla and Kethavath Ramulu came to the complainant with axes for killing him and he escaped from there and thereafter, the other accused threatened and came to them with stones and in the meantime Amrabad police came there and dispatched them and if police not came there, the accused would have killed him and Merajoth Nankya, Merajoth Narsimha and Jendavath

Beechya and finally he requested to take necessary action against the accused and the complainant further stated that, the entire incident was occurred with the instigation of Kethavath Somani, i.e., accused No.26.

Basing on the said complaint, LW9 Head Constable registered a case in Cr.No.75/2013 u/sec.147,148,323,307 r/w 149, 109 IPC and Sec.4 of Arms

Act and took up investigation and during the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of the LW1 M. Balu, LW2 M. Nankya,

LW3 M. Narsimha and LW4 J. Beechya and visited the scene of offence located at Ippalapally village and secured peresence of LW7 R. Sevya and

LW8 M. Beekya conducted the scene of offence panchanama, draw rough sketch of the scene and seized 2 axes and 15 stones from scene of offence the under cover of panchanama. The CI of police further submitted that, he took up further investigation of this case and verified the investigation done by Head Constable and found it on proper lines and during the course of investigation, LW10 P. Ramesh Kumar, CI of police visited the scene of offence and examined LW5 K. Sakru and LW6 V. Chinna Mangya who are the eye witnesses to the incident and recorded their statements and on 4 of 7 05.11.2013 the accused No.1 to 8, 10 to 25 were arrested and produced

before the Court and on 18.11.2013 the accused No.9 was arrested and

produced before the Court and the accused No.26 Kethavath Somani got anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble High Court on 12.12.2013 and surrendered

before the SHO, Amrabad and released. The CI of police further submitted

that from the evidence collected during the course of investigation, it is clearly established that the accused attacked the complainant and others by keeping previous grudges in their mind in order to do away their life with axes and stones and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable u/s 147,148,323,307 r/w 149,109 IPC and sec.4 of Arms Act and hence the charge sheet.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Achampet has taken cognizance of the offences u/s 147,148,323,307 r/w 149,109 IPC and sec.4 of Arms Act agianst the accused No.1 to 26 following committal procedure, committed the accused to the court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar along with case records. The court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar taken cognizance of the offences against accused No.1 to 26 and made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

4.Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this court framed the charges u/s 147,148,323,307 r/w 149,109 IPC and sec.4 of

Arms Act against the accused No.1 to 8, 10 to 26, framed charges readover and explained to them, for which they denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case against accused No.9 is abated due to his death.

5.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and reported the closure of evidence.

5 of 7

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 8, 10 to 26 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material in the prosecution witnesses against them, for which the accused No.1 to 8, 10 to 26 denied incriminating evidence and reported no defence.

7.Heard the arguments.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilty of the accused No.1 to 8, 10 to 26 for the offences punishable u/s 147,148,323,307 r/w 149,109 IPC and sec.4 of Arms Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.Point :

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9.

Out of the 7 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, PW1 is the defacto complainant, PW2 to PW6 are the eye witnesses to the incident and PW7 is the investigating officer.

Out of the 7 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to

PW6 who are the eye witnesses not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The learned APP given up the evidence of mediators of scene of offence panchanama and seizure of material objects and failed to produce LW9 Head Constable who registered the case and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW4.

In order to prove the guilty of accused for the offences punishable u/s 147,148,323,307 r/w 149,109 IPC and sec.4 of Arms Act, the evidence of

PW1 to PW6 attains more importance, but PW1 to PW6 not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Even during the cross 6 of 7 examination, nothing was elicited from PW1 to PW6 in support of the case of the prosecution and PW1 to PW6 categorically stated that they do not know anything about the case and PW1 who is the defacto complainant even denied the lodging of complaint by him. Now the only evidence left for appreciation is the evidence of PW7 investigating officer who recorded the statement of PW5 and PW6 and filed charge sheet. The prosecution failed to examine the investigating officer who registered the case and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW4 and seized the material objects from scene of offence place.

Therefore in the absence of evidence of indipendent witnesses as

PW1 to PW6 not supported the case of the prosecution, I am of the opinion that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of PW7 investigating officer to connect the accused with the alleged offences in the absence of any corrobating evidence by the indipendent witnesses and as such, I hold that absolutely there is no evidence before this court to connect the accused with the alleged offences.

For the reasons stated supra, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of accused No.1 to 8, 10 to 26 for the alleged offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 323, 307 r/w 149,109 IPC and sec.4 of

Arms Act beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused are entitle for acquittal.

In the result, the accused No.1 to 8, 10 to 26 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 323, 307 r/w 149,109 IPC and sec.4 of Arms Act and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 8, 10 to 26 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437 (A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, i.e., 2 axes and 15 stones shall be destroyed after expiry of 7 of 7 appeal time. The case against accused No.9 is abated due to his death on 24.11.2017.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 12 th day of April, 2018.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For prosecution:-

PW1 M. Balu

PW2 M. Nankya

PW3 M. Narsimha

PW4 J. Beechya

PW5 K. Sakru

PW6 V. Chinna Mangya

PW7 P. RameshKumar

For defence:-

NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution :

Ex.P1 to P6 are the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW1 to PW6

Ex.P7 is the complaint marked by PW7

Ex.P8 is the FIR marked by PW7

Ex.P9 is the crime details form.

For defence : NIL MOs MARKED NIL

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool.

1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT

NAGARKURNOOL

On Friday, this the 13th day of April, 2018

Present:- SRI SURA SRINIVAS REDDY,

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

OS No.169 of 2013

Between:-

State Bank of India, Bijinepally Branch,

Represented by its Branch Managar.

... Plaintiff

And

1. Kantham Narsimha Reddy s/o K. Ashi Reddy, age : 59yrs (Died)

2. Kantham Harshavardhan Reddy s/o K. Narsimha Reddy, age : 33yrs

3. Kantham Manemma w/o Kantham narsimha Reddy, age : 43yrs

4. K. Rajavardhan Reddy s/o K. Narsimha Reddy, age : 24yrs

All occ : Agriculture, r/o H.No.1-80, Lattupally village, Bijinepally mandal,

Mahabubnagar District.

(Defendant No.2 to 4 are brought on record as legal heirs as per orders in

IA.No.143/2014 dated 22.11.2017 )

... Defendants

-0o0-

This suit came up before me for hearing on 06.04.20418 for disposal in the presence of Sri. V. Vignaneshwara Sharma, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants being set exparte and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, the court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendants for recovery of Rs.6,23,025/- together with costs and interest by passing a preliminary decree.

2 of 5

2.The brief averments of the plaint is as follows :

The defendant No.1 and 2 approached the plaintiff bank for financial assistance for purchase of tractor, trailor and accessories and their application was considered by the plaintiff bank on 07.08.2006 and sanctioned an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- under ATL for purchase of tractor, trailor and accessories and the defendant No.1 and 2 agreed to repay the loan amount with interest @ 10.75% per annum with half yearly rests commencing from August, 2007. The plaintiff further submitted that after availing the loan amount, the defendant No.1 and 2 purchased a tractor and trailor bearing No.AP22L-0635 and AP22L-0634 and hypothecated in favour of the plaintiff bank and the defendant No.1 also executed memorandum for recording creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds on 29.07.2006. The plaintiff further submitted that defendant No.1 died leaving behind his legal heirs, i.e., wife and sons to his entire movable and immovable properties.

The defendant No.1 further approached the plaintiff bank on 04.12.2012 for crop loan and the plaintiff bank sanctioned an amount of Rs.72,000/- which is agreed to repay in six months @7% interest per annum with half yearly rests and executed agreement of hypothecation on 04.12.2012.

The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant No.1 failed to repay the loan amount along with agreed rate of interest even after demands made by the plaintiff bank, but the defendant executed a revival letters on 05.04.2009 abnd 01.03.2012 in favour of plaintiff bank by confirming the debt and thereafter, he failed to repay the loan amount and as such the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants on 20.08.2012 and 05.08.2013 calling upon them to repay the loan amount, but they failed to repay the loan amount and fell due of Rs.6,23,025/- under two loan accounts which includes

principal and interest as on the date of filing of the suit and as the defendants

3 of 5 failed to repay the outstanding loan amount with interest inspite of repeated requests made by the paintiff bank even after executing revival letter, the plaintiff bank filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of due amount of Rs.6,23,025/- by passing preliminary decree against the mortgaged properties and as such, the plaintiff prayed to decree the suit.

3.Having received the summons, the defendant No.2 to 4 failed to make their appearance to contest the matter and as such they were set exparte.

4.In order to prove its case, the plaintiff bank examined its Assistant

Manager as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15 and reported the closure of evidence.

5.Heard arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of suit claim from the defendants as prayed for ?

7. Point :

In order to prove its case, the plaintiff bank examined its Asst.Manager as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. The evidence of PW1 is on the same lines of the plaint.

As per the evidence of PW1, the defendant No.1 and 2 approached the plaintiff bank on 07.08.2006 and filed Ex.A1 loan application for sanction of loan of Rs.3,50,000/- for purchase of tractor, trailor and accessories and considering their reqeust, the plaintiff bank has sanctioned the said loan on the same day for which the defendant agreed to repay in 16 half yearly isntallments @ 21,875/- interest at the rate of 10.75% per annum and after availing the loan amount, they purchased a tractor and trailor and hypothecated the same in favour of the plaintiff bank under Ex.A3 and 4 of 5 executed Ex.A4 to A6. PW1 further submitted that after availing the loan amount, the defendants made part payments and failed to repay the loan amount with interest despite the several demands made by the plaintiff bank authorities. The plaintiff further submitted that during the pendecy of loan amount, the defendants approached the plaintiff bank on 04.12.2012 and obtained crop loan of Rs.72,000/- which is to be repaid in six months with interest @7% per annum. Plaintiff further submitted that after availing the loan amount, the defendants failed to repay the loan amount, but they executed Ex.A7 and A8 revival letters on 05.04.2009 and 01.03.2012 by confirming their debt in favour of the plaintiff bank, but evenafter execution of revival letters, they failed to repay the loan amount and as such, the plaintiff bank got issued Ex.A9 and A10 legal notices to the defendants on 20.08.2012 and 05.08.2013 calling upon them to repay the loan amount, but evenafter issuance of legal notices, the defendants failed to repay the loan amount to the plaintiff bank and Ex.A11 and A15 statement of accounts clearly goes to show that the defendants committed default in payment of loan amount, as such the plaintiff bank filed the present suit against the defendant No.2 to 4 for recovery of due amount of Rs.6,23,025/- and as such prayed to decree the suit.

8.The evidence of PW1 stood unchallenged as the defendant No.2 to 4 failed to appear before the court to rebutt the evidence of PW1.

Therefore on perusal of entire evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 to A15, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff bank proved the suit claim against the defendants and as such, I hold that the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of suit claim.

Accordingly I answered the point in favour of plaintiff bank.

5 of 5

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff bank is preliminarily decreed for Rs.6,23,025/- against the defendant No.2 to 4 together with costs and interest at the rate of 14.45% per annum from the date of suit to till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree to till its complete realization on the principal sum adjudged, i.e., for

Rs.6,23,025/-. The defendant No.2 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff bank. The time for redemption is (3) months.

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

me in open court, on this the 13 th day of April, 2018.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintiff:- PW1 B. Uday Kumar

For Defendants: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 is the application form for agriculture term loan

Ex.A2 is the sanction letter

Ex.A3 is the agreement of hypothecation for ATL

Ex.A4 is the land ownership rights patram

Ex.A5 is the memorandum for recording creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds

Ex.A6 is the E.M. Confirmation

Ex.A7 and A8 are the revival letters

Ex.A9 and A10 are the office copies of legal notices

Ex.A11 is the statement of account of ATL

Ex.A12 is the application form for Kisan credit card

Ex.A13 is the sanction letter of kisan credit card

Ex.A14is the agreement of hypothecation for KCC

Ex.A15 is the statement of account of KCC

For Defendants : NIL

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

1 of 4

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT

NAGARKURNOOL

On Friday, this the 13th day of April, 2018

Present:- SRI SURA SRINIVAS REDDY,

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

OS No.178 of 2014

Between:-

State Bank of India, Bijinepally Branch,

Represented by its Branch Managar.

... Plaintiff

And

Md. Sadiq Pasha s/o MD. Abdul Rasheed, age : 43yrs, Occ : Agriculture, r/o

Gouraram vilalge of Bijinepally mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

... Defendant

-0o0-

This suit came up before me for hearing on 06.04.2018 for disposal in the presence of Sri. V. Vignaneshwara Sharma, Advocate for the plaintiff and

Sri. V. Radha Krishna, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, the court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendant for recovery of Rs.1,10,769/- together with costs and interest by passing a preliminary decree.

2.The brief averments of the plaint is as follows :

The defendant approached the plaintiff bank for financial assistance for crop loan on 11.09.2009 and his application was considered by the plaintiff bank and sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as Kisan Credit Card which is to be repaid in six months @9% per annum with half yearly rests. The plaintiff further submitted that after availing the loan amount, the defendant 2 of 4 executed agreement of hypothecation and he failed to repay the loan amount as agreed by him and the plaintiff bank made several oral and written demands to repay the loan amount, but the defendant postponed the payment on one or other pretext, but the defendant executed revival letters on 10.08.2012 and finally the plaintiff bank got issued legal notice to the defendant on 11.08.2014 calling upon him to repay the loan amount, but he failed to repay the same and as such they filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of due amount of Rs.1,10,769/- by passing preliminary decree against the mortgaged properties and as such, the plaintiff prayed to decree the suit.

3.Having received the summons, the defendant made his appearance through an advocate but failed to file his written statement inspite of giving sufficient time and opportunity and as such, his right to file written statement is forefeated.

4.In order to prove its case, the plaintiff bank examined its Assistant

Manager as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 and reported the closure of evidence.

5.Heard arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of suit claim from the defendant as prayed for ?

7. Point :

In order to prove its case, the plaintiff bank examined its Assistant

Manager as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. The evidence of PW1 is on the same lines of the plaint.

3 of 4

As per the evidence of PW1, the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for financial assistance for crop loan and filed Ex.A1 application on 11.09.2009 and his application was considered by the plaintiff bank and sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as Kisan Credit Card under Ex.A2 which is to be repaid in six months @9% per annum with half yearly rests.

The plaintiff further submitted that after availing the loan amount, the defendant executed Ex.A3 agreement of hypothecation and deposited Ex.A4 land ownership rights patram and he failed to repay the loan amount as agreed by him and the plaintiff bank made several oral and written demands to repay the loan amount, but the defendant postponed the payment on one or other pretext, but the defendant executed Ex.A5 revival letter on 10.08.2012 and finally the plaintiff bank got issued Ex.A7 legal notice to the defendant on 11.08.2014 calling upon him to repay the loan amount, but he failed to repay the same and Ex.A6 statement of account clearly goes to show that the defendant committed default in payment of loan amount and as such they filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of due amount of Rs.1,10,769/- by passing preliminary decree against the mortgaged properties and as such, the plaintiff prayed to decree the suit.

8.The evidence of PW1 stood unchallenged as the defendant failed to participate in further proceedings of the suit and even failed to cross examine

PW1 to rebutt the evidence of PW1.

Therefore on perusal of entire evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 to A7, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff bank proved the suit claim against the defendant and as such, I hold that the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of suit claim.

Accordingly I answered the point in favour of plaintiff bank.

4 of 4

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff bank is preliminarily decreed for Rs.1,10,769/- against the defendant together with costs and interest at the rate of 14.75% per annum from the date of suit to till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree to till its complete realization on the principal sum adjudged, i.e., for Rs.1,10,769/-. The time for redemption is (3) months.

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

me in open court, on this the 13 th day of April, 2018.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintiff:- PW1 B. Uday Kumar

For Defendant: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 is the application form for agriculture loan

Ex.A2 is the sanction letter

Ex.A3 is the agreement of hypothecation

Ex.A4 is the land ownership rights patram

Ex.A5 is the revival letter

Ex.A6 is the statement of account

Ex.A7 is the office copy of legal notice

For Defendant : NIL

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.