Sri.S.Venkateswara Reddy

1

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.351/2016

Dated 15.11.2022

PITHAPURAM

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

PITHAPURAM

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by Sri S.Venkateswara Reddy, Principal Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Pithapuram for the month of November, 2022

C.C.NO.351/2016

Date of Offence 26.04.2016 Prior to Complaint 26.04.2016 Apprehension of Accused 28.04.2016 Served notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. to A.2 Release on Bail 02.05.2016 (A.1) 04.07.2016 (Station Bail) Commencement of trial 12.03.2021 Closure of trial 22.09.2022 Heard arguments 04.11.2022 Sentence or Order 15.11.2022 Explanation for delay Due to Covid-19 situation the witnesses not produced. Crime No. 74/2016 of Pithapuram Town Police Station. Name of Complainant: State, Sub Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Town Police Station Name of the accused: 1.Appalabathula Sathish Kumar, S/o. Late Ranga Rao, A/27 years, Door No. 51 S F4, II Floor, Marikavalasa Colony, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

2.Appalabathula Chandra Kala @ Kalavathi, W/o. Late Ranga Rao, A/42 years, D.No.51, Rajeev Gruha Kalpa Colony, Marikavalasa Colony, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam. Nature of offence: U/s.498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 Plea of accused: Not guilty Finding of Judge: Found not guilty

Sentence or order

In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused No.1 and 2 and their sureties shall be continued for a period of six months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/- S.Venkateswara Reddy

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

PITHAPURAM

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate (Principal Senior Civil Judge), Rajamahendravaram.

2

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.351/2016

Dated 15.11.2022

PITHAPURAM

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE : PITHAPURAM

Present: S.Venkateswara Reddy

Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram

Tuesday, this the 15th day of August, 2022

C.C.351/2016

Between:

State, Sub Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Town Police Station.

.. Complainant

And

1.Appalabathula Sathish Kumar, S/o. Late Ranga Rao, A/27 years, Door No. 51 S F4, II Floor, Marikavalasa Colony, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

2.Appalabathula Chandra Kala @ Kalavathi, W/o. Late Ranga Rao, A/42 years, D.No.51, Rajeev Gruha Kalpa Colony, Marikavalasa Colony, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

.. Accused No.1 and 2

This case came up on 04.11.2022 before this Court for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M.Raja Rao, Advocate appeared on behalf of Accused No.1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 and 2 in Cr.No.74/2016 for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

(i)The Accused No.1 and 2 resident of Marikavalasa Colony, Madhurawada,

Visakhapatnam City. Accused No.2 is mother of Accused No.1. LW.1

Appalabathula Swathi is resident of Jaggayya Cheruvu, Pithapuram. LW.1 3

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.351/2016

Dated 15.11.2022

PITHAPURAM

marriage performed with Accused No.1 on 13.02.2011 at Sri Veera Venkata

Satyanarayana Swami Vari Devasthanam, Annavaram in the presence of her relatives and elders according to the Hindu rites and caste customs. At the time of marriage, as demanded by Accused No.1 and 2, LW.2 by name

Malladi Lakshmi, mother of LW.1 presented cash of Rs.1,50,000/-towards dowry and other lanchanams.

(ii) After consummating the marriage LW.2 sent the LW.1 to the house of her mother-in-law with sare articles for leading conjugal life. Accused No.1 is working in a private company, Visakhapatnam. During their conjugal life

LW.1 blessed with one son and daughter. Later Accused No.1 and 2 started harassment towards the LW.1 both physically and mentally and demanding to bring Rs.3,00,000/- towards additional dowry from her mother, otherwise they will not lead family life with her and assaulting her by abusing in filthy language often. When LW.1 fallen sick and getting blood vomiting but did not take her to hospital and at last they both necked out the LW.1 from their house with her children on 02.06.2015. As there is no other go, LW.1 is staying in the house of her mother at Jaggayya Cheruvu, Pithapuram with her children with pond hope that her husband will take her to matrimonial home, but in vain.

(iii) At the request of LW,2 the elders intervened and tried to settled but the

Accused No.1 and 2 did not mend their mind and openly proclaimed that they will not allow the LW.1 without bringing additional dowry amount as demanded by them. As there is no other go, LW.1 is staying with her mother at Jaggayya Cheruvu, Pithapuram, Accused No.2 visited the house of LW.2 at 4

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.351/2016

Dated 15.11.2022

PITHAPURAM

Pithapuram twice or thrice and demanding the LWs.1 and 2 to give additional dowry amount for allowing the LW.1 to matrimonial home.

(iv) Due to their unberable, harassment, LW.1 attended Pithapuram town Police

Station along with LWs.2 and 3 on 26.04.2016 at 5.00 p.m., and submitted a report. Basing on the said report, LW.8 registered the case in Crime No.

74/2016 under section 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 and investigated into.

(v) During the course of investigation LW.8 arrested the Accused No.1 on 28.04.2016 at about 10.00 a.m., and produced before the Hon'ble Judicial

First Class Magistrate Court, Pithapuram for judicial custody. Later he was

enlarged on bail. LW.8 served notice to the Accused No.2 under Section 41(1) of Cr.P.C. on 04.07.2016, after completion of investigation filed the charge.

3. This case taken on file by taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Issued summons to the Accused No.1 and 2.

4. On appearance of the Accused No.1 and 2, case copies were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and charge under

Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 framed and read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.351/2016

Dated 15.11.2022

PITHAPURAM

6. During course of trial the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5, marked Exs.P.1 to

P.3.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence Accused No.1 and 2 examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., explained to them in Telugu the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defence. Perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the defence.

9. Now the point for determination is that, “Whether the prosecution have

proved the guilty of the Accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under

Sections 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

1961, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:During the course of arguments, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor submitted that PWs.1 and 2 categorically stated in their chief examination about the harassment of the Accused towards PW.1 for additional dowry, their evidence is corroborated with the evidence of PWs.3 and 4, by examining PWs.1 to 4, the prosecution proved the guilty of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed to convict the accused.

11. The learned defence counsel submitted that the marriage of the PW.1 with the

Accused No.1 is love marriage, as such no dowry presented, there are several contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 with the Ex.P.1 police report and her 161 Cr.P.C.

statement. The evidence of PW.2 also contradicting with the evidence of PW.1. The evidence of PWs.3 and 4 is only hear say. In view of the contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 the hear say evidence of PWs.3 and 4 is not considered as trust worthy 6

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.351/2016

Dated 15.11.2022

PITHAPURAM

evidence. The PW.1, who examined as PW.1 in M.C.No.12/2017 admitted that since 2014 ending, she along with her children have been residing with her parents at

Jaggayya Cheruvu, Pithapuram. Taken into consideration of such admission there is no possibility for harassment of PW.1 by the accused and necked out her from matrimonial home in the month of May, 2015. There was a delay of nearly one year from the date of alleged necked out by the accused and submission of the report to the police, the said delay was not properly explained. The Investigating Officer not at all examined any witness at Visakhapatnam where the alleged offence was taken place. In view of the contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, and delay in lodging the report to the police, the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and prayed to acquit the accused under the benefit doubt.

12. Before going to the discussion, the undisputed facts are that the Accused No.1 is husband of defacto complainant (PW.1), Accused No.2 is her mother-in-law, the marriage of PW.1 (Swathi) performed with Accused No.1 on 13.02.2011 at Sri Veera

Venkata Satyanaayana Swami Vari Devasthanam, Annavaram and their marriage is a love marriage.

13. Whereas, the specific case of the prosecution is that the Accused No.1 and 2 harassed the PW.1 physically and mentally and demanded Rs.3,00,000/- as additional dowry and necked out her from matrimonial home, this Court has to ascertain the truth from the material available on record.

14. The defacto complainant by name A.Swathi examined as PW.1. In her chief examination she deposed that her marriage performed with Accused No.1 on 13.02.2011 at Annavaram Devasthanam as per Hindu rites and caste customs in the presence of elders, their mother and elder brother gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- 7

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.351/2016

Dated 15.11.2022

PITHAPURAM

towards dowry and Sari samans worth of Rs.1,50,0000/- to their mother-in-law. After their marriage set up family at her parents’ home, resided there for one year, there after shifted to Visakhapatnam, they resided at their in-laws house for a period of six months, her husband and mother-in-law harassed her for additional dowry of

Rs.3,00,000/-. She further deposed that her husband having extra marital relationship with one woman, when she questioned the same her husband and mother-in-law beat her and necked out from her matrimonial home. Even though, the matter placed before the elders, she was not taken to matrimonial home. Her husband and herself set up separate family at Visakhapatnam as she was not feeling well her husband not admitted her in to Hospital. Their mother came to Visakhapatnam and taken her to Kakinada

Hospital and provided treatment. Even though her mother requested her husband to take back her to matrimonial home and her husband not taken to matrimonial home, then she report to the police (Ex.P.1). Her husband and another woman residing at

Visakhapatnam and her mother-in-law also residing with them.

15. PW.1 in her cross examination admitted that the relatives and parents of the her husband not attended their marriage. She had not submitted any report to the Police in the year 2012 and she submitted a police report on 26.04.2016 and not submitted any report against her husband on 02.06.2015. She denied the suggestion that on 02.06.2015 her husband and mother-in-law not at all necked out her by demanding dowry, she never resided with her mother-in-law at Visakhapatnam and never demanded additional dowry.

16. PW.2 by name M.Lakshmi (Mother of PW.1) deposed that after marriage their daughter and son-in-law (Accused No.1) lived happily for a period of one year at their house, she presented sari samans and also Rs.1,50,000/- towards dowry and sent her daughter to their in-laws house, the Accused looked after very well some period, 8

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.351/2016

Dated 15.11.2022

PITHAPURAM

thereafter, Accused No.1 and 2 beat her daughter and demanding additional dowry.

She gave an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the Accused No.1 as he demanded for purchase of bike, there after again Accused No.1 started harassing her daughter suspected her fidelity.

17. PW.2 further deposed that her daughter informed the harassment of her husband through telephone, whenever she question the A.1 about the same he demanded to register her house in his name. Due to the harassment of the accused towards her daughter she went to Visakhapatnam and found her daughter with bleeding injuries and taken her to their home, their daughter delivered a female baby, after that A.1 demanded Rs.3,00,000/- towards expenses of female child as she failed to pay the huge amount Accused No.1 and 2 beat her daughter and necked out her from her matrimonial home. Their daughter came to Pithapuram with the help of some body with injuries, they sent one elder man to the Accused for settlement, Accused No.1 not come forwarded, and not taken back her to her matrimonial home, as such her daughter submitted a report to the Police.

18. PW.2 in her cross examination admitted that the parents and relatives of her son- in-law not attended for marriage, no police report submitted at Visakhapatnam by her daughter and their daughter is residing with them at Jaggayya Cheruvu, Pithapuram since 2014. She denied the suggestion that, their daughter never resided at her matrimonial house at Visakhapatnam and her son-in-law never beat for additional dowry.

19. PW.3 by name Bandi Ravi deposed in his chief examination that Swathi informed that her husband harassing her as no dowry given to him and he used to beat her in a drunken condition. PW.4 by name P.Rajitha deposed that after the marriage of Swathi 9

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.351/2016

Dated 15.11.2022

PITHAPURAM

and her husband set up their family at parents house of Swathi, there after disputes arose in between them, her husband used to beat his wife, there after Swathi and her husband went to Visakhapatnam with sari samans, again disputes arose and Swathi came to her parents house.

20. The police report submitted by PW.1 to the Sub Inspector of Police, Pithapuram

Town Police Station marked as Ex.P.1. As per contents of the police report subsequent to the marriage Rs.1,50,000/- and sari samans presented, her husband lead marital life well for some days, there after her husband and her mother-in-law harassed her both mentally and physically by demanding Rs.3,00,000/-, even though she was not feeling well they had not admitted in Hospital and necked out her from matrimonial home on 02.06.2015.

21. With regard to the presentation of dowry and sari samans there are contradictions with Ex.P.1 contents and the evidence of PW.1 as PW.1 in her chief examination stated that Rs.1,50,000/- towards dowry and sari samans worth of

Rs.1,50,000/- presented to their mother-in-law. As admitted by PWs.1 and 2 the parents and relatives of A.1 not attended the marriage. As such, there was no possibility for presentation of dowry and sari samans by the mother of PW.1 to the accused at the time of marriage.

22. Admittedly Ex.P.1 police report submitted on 26.04.2016. As admitted by PW.1 in her cross examination she did not submitted any police report in the year 2014 and also on 02.06.2015. As stated by PW.1 in her chief examination herself and her husband set up separate family at Visakhapatnam. In such circumstances there is no possibility to Accused No.2 to reside along with Accused No.1 and PW.1 at

Visakhapatnam.

10

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.351/2016

Dated 15.11.2022

PITHAPURAM

23. Even assuming for a moment that, the accused harassed the PW.1 and necked out her from her matrimonial home on 02.05.2015, the PW.1 not at all submitted any report to the police at Visakhapatnam. With regard to the set up a family immediately to the their marriage, there are contradictions from the contents of Ex.P.1 report and with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Even though PW.2 deposed in her chief examination that the matter placed before the elders, however the Accused No.1 not taken to her matrimonial home, but the names of the elders before whom, the matter was placed not deposed by her.

24. The Investigating Officer also not examined any witnesses before whom the dispute was placed. It is pertinent to mention here that the Investigating Officer not at all examined any witnesses at Visakhapatnam where the alleged offence was taken place. PW.1 in her cross examination denied the suggestion that since 2014 she had been residing at Jaggayya Cheruvu, Pithapuram at her parents’ house and there is no possibility to demand additional dowry and necked out her from matrimonial home on 02.06.2015.

25. During the course of arguments, the learned defence counsel submitted that

PW.1 in M.C.No.12/2017 in her cross examination specifically stated that since 2014 year ending she along with her children have been residing with her parents house without depending upon any of the Respondent (Accused No.1) herein. The learned counsel for defence further submitted that as the PW.1 residing at her parents house since 2014. There is no possibility and probability for demanding additional dowry and necked out the PW.1 by the Accused on 02.05.2015.

11

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.351/2016

Dated 15.11.2022

PITHAPURAM

26. The certified copy of deposition of PW.1 in M.C.No.12/2017 filed along with the written arguments, as stated by PW.1 since 2014 year ending she along with her children have been residing with her parents. Whereas, the said deposition of PW.1 in

M.C.No.12/2017 in between the same parties, if taken into consideration of the said

deposition, the same contradicting with the contents of PW.1 report and so also chief examination of PW.1. Even assuming for a moment that the Accused harassed the

PW.1 for additional dowry and necked out her from her matrimonial home on 02.05.2015, she definitely submitted a report to the police at Visakhapatnam or at least to the police at Pithapuram. The PW.1 had not submitted any report to the police at

Visakhapatnam or immediately to the police at Pithapuram.

27. Admittedly Ex.P.1 report submitted on 26.04.2016. There is a delay nearly 11 months. Even though PWs.1 and 2 deposed that the matter placed before the elders, the elders names not mentioned, so also Investigating Officer not at all examined any witnesses alleged to be acted as a elders.

28. The evidence of PWs.3 and 4 is only hear say, as there are contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1, 2, so also with Ex.P.1 police report, and there is delay of nearly 11 months from the date of alleged offence and submission of report. The said contradictions, improvements in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, and the said delay raises a doubt in the mind of this Court with regard to the alleged offence.

29. In view of the above discussion this Court came to a conclusion that, there is no cogent and convincing evidence to prove the guilty of the Accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and the Accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

12

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.351/2016

Dated 15.11.2022

PITHAPURAM

30. In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under

Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused No.1 and 2 and their sureties shall be continued for a period of six months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation on Computer by the Stenographer; corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 15th day of November, 2022.

Sd/- S.Venkateswara Reddy

PRINCIPAL JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PITHAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1: Appalabattula Swathi

PW.2: M.Lakshmi

PW.3: Bandi Ravi

PW.4: P.Rajitha

PW.5: V.Koteswara Rao

FOR DEFENCE:

None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Complaint

Ex.P.2: Original FIR In Crime No.No.74/2016

Ex.P.3: Rough Sketch

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

NIL

Sd/- S.Venkateswara Reddy

PJFCM

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT 1 OS 95/2018

PITHAPURAM Dated 15.11.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PITHAPURAM

Present: S.Venkateswara Reddy

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram

Monday, this the 15th day of November, 2022

O.S.95/2018

Between :

Tammanaboina Ayyanna, S/o. Venkatapathi Suryarao, A/52 years, Cultivation, Door No. 4-73, Pallapu Street, Virava, Pithapuram Mandal.

..Plaintiff

And

Karu Mohana Rao @ Yesu, S/o. Late Dharmaraju, A/48 years, Auto owner, Door No. 1-1-129/C, Near C.B.M., School, Agraharam, Pithapuram.

..Defendant

This suit came up on 04.11.2022 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri

S.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff; and Sri M.Raja Rao, Advocate for the

Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.49,240-00 with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit, till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

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

(i) The Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the Plaintiff on 06.12.2015 for the purpose of his family expenses and sundry debts agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 2/- per month per hundred on demand or to the order of the Plaintiff and executed demand promissory note on the same day in the presence of attestors and scribe. Subsequently in spite of repeated demands of the Plaintiff, the Defendant postponing repay the same

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT 2 OS 95/2018

PITHAPURAM Dated 15.11.2022 on one pretext or the other. The Plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the

Defendant demanding the repayment of the said promissory note amount due to the Plaintiff, the Defendant intentionally refused to received the said notice.

Hence the suit.

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

The Defendant denied the material averments of the plaint and further submitted that he has no acquaintance with the Plaintiff. Hence, there is no any of the transaction with the Plaintiff. The Defendant came to understand and suspected that Gandeti Dasu, 1st attestor of the suit promissory note behind the present litigation. There are family disputes in between Gandeti Dasu and his brother

Gandeti Nageswara Rao. The Defendant is the supporter of the Gandeti Nageswara

Rao in that family disputes. Thereby said Gandeti Dasu having bore grudge against the Defendant, then only the said Gandeti Dasu got filed the present suit through, the Plaintiff by fabricating the suit promissory note. Nothing was happened in between the Plaintiff and Defendant as alleged in the plaint. The said Gandeti Dasu i.e., 1st attestor of the suit promissory note converted unfilled promissory note containing the signature of the Defendant and filed the present suit by fabricating the same only to threaten the Defendant and get wrongful gain. The Defendant never borrowed any amount and never executed any promissory note and no consideration passed under the alleged suit promissory note. There is no cause of action for the suit. Therefore, the Defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

(1) Whether the suit promissory note dated 06.12.2015 is true, valid and binding on the Defendant?

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT 3 OS 95/2018

PITHAPURAM Dated 15.11.2022 (2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

(3) To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 3 examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 marked on behalf of the Plaintiff. DW.1 examined on behalf of the Defendant.

6. Heard the arguments of the respective counsels.

7.ISSUE Nos.1: The plaintiff by name Thammanaboina Ayyanna filed his chief-examination affidavit reiterating the material contents of the plaint and examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3.

Ex.A.1 is the promissory note dated 06.12.2015 executed by Karu Mohana Rao in favour of Thammanaboina Ayyanna

Ex.A.2 is the Office copy of the legal notice dated 27.06.2017 got issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant

Ex.A.3 is the returned cover addressed to the Defendant

8. One Gunnabhathula Eswara Rao filed chief examination affidavit supporting the material contents of the Plaintiff and further stating that he is 2nd attestor of suit promissory note, examined as PW.2.

9. One Vipparthi Gopala Krishna examined as PW.3. In his chief examination categorically stated about the suit promissory note transaction taken place in his presence and in the presence of attestor.

10. The Plaintiff by examining himself as PW.1, marking of Exs.A.1 to A.3 initially proved that the Defendant borrowed the amounts from the Plaintiff and executed

Ex.A.1 promissory note and subsequently failed to discharge the same.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT 4 OS 95/2018

PITHAPURAM Dated 15.11.2022

11. In view of the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff this Court invoked the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act as laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kundanlal Vs Custodian, Evacuee

Property, Bombay reported in AIR 1961, SC 1361 which held that:

“The initial burden would rest on the plaintiff to show that the suit promissory note was executed by the defendant. As soon as the execution of promissory note is proved the rule of presumption laid down in section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act helps to shift the burden to the other side.”

In another case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in Air 2010 SC 1898 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that:

“The presumption drawn under section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be discharged by merely making some baseless suggestions.”

As per the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, now it is the burden of the Defendant to rebut the said presumption as invoked under Section 118 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

12. It is the main contention of the Defendant that the Plaintiff fabricated the suit promissory note with the assistance of attestor, as per Defendant supported his brother by name Nageswara Rao in a family dispute and filed false suit through the

Plaintiff. The Defendant cross examined PWs.1 to 3 in support of his pleadings.

PW.1 in his cross examination denied the suggestion that due to family disputes

Gandeti Dasu and Mohana Rao, Gandeti Dasu filed false suit through him. Even though the Defendant cross examined PWs.1 to 3, no favourable answers elicited from them.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT 5 OS 95/2018

PITHAPURAM Dated 15.11.2022

13. The Defendant filed his chief examination affidavit reiterating the material contents of written statement and examined as DW.1. In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the signature and thumb impression on the revenue stamp on the suit promissory note belongs to him. In his further cross examination he admitted that Gandeti Dasu filed false suit O.S.121/2017 against his brother, he filed chief affidavit as DW.2, further he had been examined as DW.2. Even assuming for a moment that, Gandeti Dasu had fabricated the suit promissory note and filed present suit through the Plaintiff. The Defendant not satisfactorily explained how his blank signed promissory note came to the possession of the Gandeti Dasu. Generally no one signed on the blank promissory note without any financial transaction and hand over to the 3rd parties. Even though, the Defendant has taken a plea of fabrication he had not initiated any steps to send the Ex.A.1 promissory note along with admitted signatures to the handwriting expert. Further the Defendant not at all elicited any favourable answers in the cross examination of PWs.1 to 3. Mere taking of plea of fabrication, no way helpful to the Defendant to rebut the presumption under 118 of N.I. Act.

14. In view of the above discussion, this Court came to a conclusion that the suit promissory note dated 06.12.2015 is true, valid and binding on the Defendant.

Accordingly issue No.1 is answered in favour of the Plaintiff and against the

Defendant.

15. ISSUE No.2: As discussed in Issue No, this Court came to a conclusion that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the Defendant. The Plaintiff claiming interest as agreed, as such the Plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT 6 OS 95/2018

PITHAPURAM Dated 15.11.2022

16. ISSUE No.3:In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of the

Plaintiff against the Defendant, directing the Defendant to pay an amount of

Rs.49,240-00 (Rupees forty nine thousand two hundred and forty only) to the

Plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.30,000-00 (Rupees thirty thousand only) from the date of suit i.e., 09.08.2018 till the date of decree i.e., 15.11.2022 and thereafter at 6% per annum till the realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court, on this the 15th day of November, 2022

Sd/- S.Venkateswara Reddy

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PITHAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

PW.1: Thammannaboina Ayyanna

PW.2: Gunnabhathula Eswara Rao

PW.3: Vipparthi Gopala Krishna

FOR DEFENDANT:

DW.1: Karu Mohana Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1: Promissory note dated 06.12.2015 executed by Karu Mohana Rao in favour of Thammanaboina Ayyanna

Ex.A.2: Office copy of the legal notice dated 27.06.2017 got issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant

Ex.A.3: Returned cover addressed to the Defendant

FOR DEFENDANT:

Nil

Sd/- S.VenkateswaraReddy

PJCJ

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.385/2016

PITHAPURAM Dated 14.11.2022 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

PITHAPURAM

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by Sri S.Venkateswara Reddy, Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram for the month of November, 2022

C.C.NO.385/2016

Date of Offence 21.05.2010 Complaint 21.05.2010 (Mediators Report) Apprehension of Accused 21.05.2010 Release on Bail 22.05.2010 Commencement of trial 03.11.2022 Closure of trial 03.11.2022 Argument heard 10.11.2022 Sentence or Order 14.11.2022 Explanation for delay Due to Covid-19 situation the witnesses not produced. Crime No. 92/2010 of Pithapuram Town Police Station Name of Complainant: State, Sub Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Town Police Station. Name of the accused: Pragadala Vijay Kumar, S/o. Venkataramana, A/34 years, Video Exhibitor, Kumar Musicals CD Shop, Near Adarsha Vidyalayam, Pithapuram. Nature of offence: U/s. 52(A) r/w 68(A) of Copy Right Act, 1957 Plea of accused: Not guilty Finding of Judge: Found not guilty

Sentence or order

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 52(A) r/w 68(A) of Copy Right Act 1957 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall be continued for a period of six months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 6 shall be ordered to be destroyed after expiry of Appeal period.

Sd/- S.Venkateswara Reddy

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

PITHAPURAM

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate (Principal Senior Civil Judge), Rajamahendravaram.

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.385/2016

PITHAPURAM Dated 14.11.2022 2

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE:PITHAPURAM

Present: S.Venkateswara Reddy,

Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram

Monday, this the 14th day of November, 2022

C.C.385/2016

Between :

State, The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Town Police Station.

.. Complainant

And

Pennada Ramana Venkateswarulu, S/o. Veera Naghavulu, A/36 years, Video Exhibitor, Sri Gurudatha Audio and Video Shop, Stuvartpeta, Pithapuram.

.. Accused

This case came up on 10.11.2022 before this Court for hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri K.Vijaya Kumar, dvocate appeared on behalf of the Accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Town Police Station laid charge sheet against the Accused for the offence under Section 52(A) r/w 68(A) of Copy Right Act, 1957 in Cr.No.92/2010.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

The accused is resident of Stuvartpeta, Pithapuram and absolute owner of Sri

Gurudatha Audio and Video Shop, situated at Stuvartpeta, Pithapuram. On receipt of credible information that the accused is circulating piracy DVDs and also taking copies of the DVDs, then LW.3 (Sub Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Town Police Station) conducted raid over the shop of the accused in the presence of mediators on 21.05.2010 at 2.00 p.m., arrested the accused and seized 18 piracy DVDs in Telugu

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.385/2016

PITHAPURAM Dated 14.11.2022 3 for Telugu pictures, Computer, DVD player, LCD monitor and key pad which objects are useful for the commission of the offence in the presence of mediators under cover of mediators report. Slips signed by the mediators and LW.3 pasted to the said material objects. LW.3 registered case in Crime No. 92/2010 basing on the mediators report, investigated into, and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet.

Hence the charge.

3. The case was taken on file under Section 52(A) r/w Section 68(A) of Copy

Right Act 1957.

4. On appearance of Accused case copies are furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and a charge framed for the offence under Section 52(A) r/w 68(A) of Copy Right Act, 1957 against Accused read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, PW.1 examined and marked Exs.P.1 to P.3, M.Os.1 to 6 marked on behalf of the Prosecution.

6. After closer of prosecution evidence Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., explain to him in Telugu the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of Prosecution, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7. Heard arguments on behalf of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned

Defence Counsel. Perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has

proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence under Section 52(A) r/w

68(A) of Copy Right Act, 1957 beyond all reasonable doubt?

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.385/2016

PITHAPURAM Dated 14.11.2022 4

9. POINT: PW.1 by name K.Sridhar Kumar in his chief examination deposed that on 21.05.2010 at about 2.00 p.m., he received information about violation of Copy

Right and selling of piracy CDs, he secured mediators by name Pachala

Subrahmanyam, Bisetti Kannayya. Thereafter, he along with his staff and mediators proceeded to the Gurudatta Audio and Video Shop at Stuvartpeta, Pithapuram searched the said shop in the presence of mediators and found 18 Telugu piracy

DVDs, 1 LCD Monitor, 1 CPU, 1 Key Board, 2 DVD players when he questioned the accused, the accused revealed his name and confessed the offence. PW.1 verified the said 18 Telugu piracy DVDs, 1 LCD Monitor, 1 CPU, 1 Key Board, 2 DVD players, in the presence of mediators, affixed the slips on the same, arrested the accused and produced the accused before the Court for judicial custody. In the cross examination

PW.1 stated that he did not remember any registered company submitted report to him about the selling of piracy CDs and DVDs and had not sent the CDs and DVDs to the lab to ascertain whether the same are original or piracy. He admitted that the identification slips are not found on M.Os.2 to 6. He denied the suggestion that the accused not at all confessed the offence before him and a false case foisted against the accused for statistical purpose.

10. Whereas, the Defence counsel seriously contesting that no property seized from the possession of accused, to ascertain the truth, this Court carefully gone through the mediators report and alleged seized property i.e., M.Os.1 to 6. In the mediators report the signatures of Accused is found no slips affixed to the M.Os.1 to

6. If, really M.Os.1 to 6 seized from the possession of the Accused under the mediators report his signatures must be obtained by the Investigating Officer on the slip and affixed on the M.Os.1 to 6. However, no slips found on the M.Os.1 to 6.

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.385/2016

PITHAPURAM Dated 14.11.2022 5

11. As discussed above the Investigating Officer not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., for securing the local persons to act as mediators. There are contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the alleged time of raid, the Investigating Officer (PW.1) not received any authorized company for the alleged violation of Copy Right Act.

12. It is pertinent to mention here that to explain the manner of downloading and storing of the movies and songs in the Computer, expert opinion is required.

However, the Investigating Officer not at all examined any expert.

13. In view of this discussion this Court came to a conclusion that there is no cogent and convincing evidence to prove the guilty of the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 52(A) r/w 68(A) of Copy Right Act and the Accused are entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

14. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 52(A) r/w 68(A) of Copy Right Act 1957 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall be continued for a period of six months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 6 shall be ordered to be destroyed after expiry of Appeal period.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court, on this the 14th day of November, 2022

Sd/- S.Venkateswara Reddy

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

PITHAPURAM

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, C.C.385/2016

PITHAPURAM Dated 14.11.2022 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1: K.Sridhar Kumar

FOR DEFENCE:

None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Report submitted on behalf of Anu Graphic Systems

Ex.P.2: Mediators report

Ex.P.3: FIR in Crime No.No.92/2010

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

M.O.1: 18 DVDs

M.O.2: 1 Samsun LCD monitor

M.O.3: 1 Intel CPU

M.O.4: 1 Logitech Key Board

M.O.5: 1 Panasonic DVD Player

M.O.6: LG DVD Player

Sd/- S.Venkateswara Reddy

PJFCM

1

PRC. No_2/2017 Dated 25.04.2022

IN THE OURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: TUNI, EAST

GODAVARI DISTRICT

Present: Sri K.Bala Koteswara Rao

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Monday, the 25th day of April, 2022.

P. R. C. No.2/2017

Between: State: Inspector of Police, Tuni Rural Circle. Crime No.118/2013 of Tuni Rural police station. …Complainant

and

1. Balasani Vasudevarao @ Vasu @ Devaraju, S/o Late Venkatarao, age 35 years, C/Yerukula, Dr.No.13-717, Sector II, V.V.Krishna Heights, B-Block, Plot No.501, Arilova Visakhapatnam.

2. Seerapu Gopireddy, S/o Ganesh Reddy, Age 19 years, C/Reddy, Event Boy, Srikanya Hotel, Dwaraka Nagar, R/o Opposite to Bangalore Backery and Iswarya Beauty Parlour, Near Gandhi Statue, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam.

3. Voduri Seethamma @ Seetha, W/o Apparao, age 40 years, C/Rajaka, Nakkavanipalem Street, Koramandol Gate, Visakhapatnam. …Accused (Case against A2 and A3 are separated)

This case is coming on today before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. N. Suneetha, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant; and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood for considered till this day, the Court made the following__

COMMITTAL ORDER

The Inspector of Police, Tuni Rural Circle filed this case in

Crime No.118/2013 of Tuni Rural police station alleging that A1 has committedtheoffencespunishableunderSections 302,380,202,404,201r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

2

PRC. No_2/2017 Dated 25.04.2022 One Gummadi Devi (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’) is the wife of (late Arjunarao), and that deceased was working as

House Keeping worker and known to Voduri Seethamma @ Seetha (A3) , A1 is a good for nothing character, got criminal record to his credit as he was figured as accused in motorcycle theft and cheating cases in Visakhapatnam in the past and he is swerved character. Due to involvement in criminal cases he left his ancestral house and living separately in Arilova, Visakhapatnam.

He is a womanizer and used the services of A3 as tout for arranging women for his sexual enjoyment. Like wise A1 got acquintance with the deceased through A3 and then used to take the deceased to his rent-hold apartment in Flat No.501, V.V.Krishna

Heights, Arilova Vizag, but the deceased is demanded money from

A1 and also threatened to publicize her connection with A1, if A1 is would neglected her. On 10.11.2013 the deceased has contacted

A1 and informed him that she would come to his apartment on 12.10.2013. On that A1 hatched out a plan with A2, his old friend to get rid of the deceased.

(b) On 12.10.2013 at about 5.00 P.M, while the deceased was sleeping on the cot in the bed room of A1, the A1 and A2 have murdered the deeased by smothering the deceased with the help of a pillow, took away the Gold chain, pair of Gold ear ornaments.

Thereafter the concealed the corpse of the deceased as a parcel in hard board packing material, sealed therein and disposed the same at bushes at Gedlabeedu. On the night of 12/13.10.2013 at 3

PRC. No_2/2017 Dated 25.04.2022 about 2.00 A.M, the younger brother of A1, threw the cell phone of the deceased at Marripalem and later disposed off the Gold chain for Rs.23,000/- and shared the amount between them. A1 also informed the offence of murder of the deceased to A3 by taking her into confidence. A3 knowingly and willfully concealed the information about the commission of this offence.

(c) On 13.10.2013 on receipt of a complaint from Kirthi Anil

Kumar of S.Annavaram about the presence of a female dead body in a well knilt parcel bundel on the road side bushes at

Gedlabeedu, (LW.22) Sub-Inspector of Police, Tuni Rural P.S registered FIR in Cr.No.118/2013 under Section 302, 201 of IPC.

During the course of investigation on 27.12.2013 (LW.23)

N.V.Bhaskara Rao Tuni Rural Circle arrested A1 and seized two plastic bags, two sunfeast package hard board boxes, one jute gunny bag, white Hospital plaster tape piece, cut plastic tape pieces, white colour cotton rope pieces eight, three pieces of copra rope from the scene, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, forwarded the same for autopsy to the Medical officer issued preliminary Postmortem certificate and later based on the pinion of the chemical examiner of RFSL Vijayawada vide File

NO.VJA/TOX/1450/2013 dated 08.11.2013 and after completion of investigation, he laid a charge sheet against the A.1 to A.3.

3. The case against A2 and A3 is separated vide PRC.6/2016 against A1 dated 24.03.2017.

4

PRC. No_2/2017 Dated 25.04.2022

4.On prosecution of the Accused No.1 brought warrant copies of case documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were furnished to the accused.

When Accused No.1 is questioned, he stated that he has got no means to engage a counsel to defend his case before the Hon’ble

Court of Session. Hence, this court was appointed the Legal Aid

Counsel to him to deferred his.

5.Having heard learned counsel on either side and upon perusing the material on record and keeping in view the fact that as the offences under Sections 302, 380, 201 r/w 34 of IPC are exclusively triable by a Court of Session, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to commit the case to the Hon'ble Court of

Session, East Godavari Division, Rajamahendravaram.

6. In the result, the case is committed to the Court of Hon'ble

Court of Session, East Godavari Division, Rajamahendravaram, under Section 209 (a) of Cr.P.C. Accused, who is in Jail, is informed that he will appear before the Hon'ble Court of Session, East

Godavari Division, Rajamahendravaram, as and when summons are received as provided under Section 209 (b) of Cr.P.C. The office is directed to submit the entire case record along with the property to the Hon’ble Court of Session, East Godavari Division,

Rajamahendravaram under Section 209 (c) of Cr.P.C. Notify the committal of the case to the learned Public Prosecutor under

Section 209(d) of Cr.P.C.

5

PRC. No_2/2017 Dated 25.04.2022

7. The Accused is hereby directed to attend the Court as and when his presence is required before the Honourable Sessions

Court.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 25th day of April, 2022..

Sd/- K.Bala Koteswara Rao

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,TUNI.

Appendix of Evidence

Nil

Sd/- K.Bala Koteswara Rao

PJCJ-CUM-JMFC

6

PRC. No_2/2017 Dated 25.04.2022 7

PRC. No_2/2017 Dated 25.04.2022

P R O F O R M A

Intimation of the Commitment of the Preliminary Register Cases to the

Hon’ble Court of Session by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the

First Class, Tuni.

1. Number of P.R.C.: 2/2017

2. Name of the Police Station and its Cr. No.: Tuni Rural Police Station Cr.No.118 of 2013

3. Date of commitment: 13.10.2013

4. a) No. of persons committed: Three

b) No. of persons on bail: Two

c) No. of persons in jail: One

5. Nature of offence : under Section 302, 380, 202, 404, 201 r/w 34 of IPC

6. No. of witnesses cited: Twenty-five

7. a) Whether any of the properties were sent to the chemical examiner : No

b) Whether properties sent to the chemical examiner have been received back or not : No

c) Whether the chemical examiner report received or not : No

8. a) Whether the accused has means or intended to engage an Advocate : Yes to defend him at trial

b) Whether the accused engaged or intended to engage an Advocate : Yes to defend him at trial

9. Special circumstances if any to : -- take into account

Sd/- K.Bala Koteswara Rao

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TUNI.

8

PRC. No_2/2017 Dated 25.04.2022

E.P.119/2015 in O.S.37/2011 Dt.22.04.2022

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,TUNI

Present: S.Venkateswara Reddy

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram

(FAC) Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni.

Friday, this the 22nd day of April, 2022

E.P.119/2015 In O.S.37/2011

Between :

Lokavarapu Ramanamma, W/o Sathibabu, Hindu, aged 36 years, Housewife, resident of K.O.Mallavaram, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District. ..D.Hr/Plaintiff

And

Lokavarapu Appalanaidu, S/o Atchiraju, Hindu, aged 42 years, Business, K.O.Mallavaram, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District. ..J.Dr./Defendant

This Petition came up on 22.04.2022 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Krishna Sekhar, Advocate for DHr/Plaintiff; and Sri B.V.V.Ramana, Advocate for JDr/Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This Execution Petition filed under Order XXI Rule 64 to 66 of Civil

Procedure Code (CPC) for sale of the Execution Petition schedule property for realization of the Execution Petition amount.

2.The Decree Holders filed affidavit in support of this Execution Petition contending that he obtained the decree dated 21.12.2022, the schedule property in I.A.137/11 already attached by the Court, the Execution Peititon schedule property putup for realization of the decree amount. Hence, the

Execution Petition.

3.The Judgment-debtor No.1 filed counter denying the material contents of the affidavit and further submitted that he sold away the schedule proeprty to one Chintareddy Ramanamma wife of Chittibabu of

K.O.Mallavaram village nearly 8 years back i.e. prior to filing of the suit.

E.P.119/2015 in O.S.37/2011 Dt.22.04.2022

2

Hence, the petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the Execution

Petition.

4. The JDr No.2/Purchaser filed counter denying the material contents of the affidavit and further submitted that, she purchased the schedule property on 23.02.2011 under registered sale deed from Lokavarapu Applanaidu (Respondent No.1/Jdr) and since then she is in exclusive, absolute, possession and enjoyment of the same with right, title and interest to the knowledge of all concerned including the Decree-holder. The suit has been filed in the month of March, and the sale transaction was held on 23.02.2011.

Hence, as on the date of purchase there was no attachment against the property. The extent mentioned in the EP schedule is only 100 Square yards, but in the sale deed she purchased 124.44 Square yards. The boundaries of the document also not tally with the Execution Petition schedule. There was no cause of action for the petition, the Decree-holder and Judgment-debtor collused to defraud the interest of the respondent/purchaser. Therefore, the respondent/purchaser prays to dismiss the Execution Petition.

4. During the course of enquiry, no oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of Decree-Holder and Judgment-debtor.

5. Heard arguments and perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is, Whether the Execution Petition schedule property is liable for sale for realization of the decree amount?

7.POINT: The Execution Petition schedule property is RCC Slab house bearing Door No.1-11, Assessment No.25 with in an extent of 100 Sq.Yds situated at K.O.Mallavaram Village Tuni Mandal within the following boundaries:

E.P.119/2015 in O.S.37/2011 Dt.22.04.2022

3

East: House of Surla Butchiyyanaidu

South: Road.

West: House of Surla Nookaraju

North: Vacant site and House of Animireddi Krishna.

8.The Judgment-debtor specifically pleaded in his counter that he sold away the schedule property to Chintareddi Ramanamma nearly 8 years prior to filing of the suit itself. Respondent No.2/Purchaser also specifically stated in her counter that, she purchased the property from Lokavarapu

Appalanaidu (Judgment-debtor) through registered sale deed dated 23.02.2011. The respondent No.2/purchaser along with her counter filed the certificate copy of sale deed dated 23.02.2011 executed by Lokavarapu

Appalanaidu in favour of Chintareddi Ramanamma. As per the said registered sale deed Chintareedi Ramanamma purchased RCC Slab House bearing Door No.1-11 situated in K.O.Mallavaram vilalge Tuni Mandal within the following boundaries:

East: House of Surla Butchiyyanaidu

South: Road.

West: Passage towards House of son of Surla Nookaraju

North: House of Surla Sanysi Naidu.

9. Upon careful verification the schedule mentioned in the sale deed executed by Lokavarapu Applanaiduy (Judgment-debtor) in favoaur of

Chintareddi Ramanamma, and the Execution Petition schedule property, both are one and the same i.e. Door No.1-11 situated in K.O.Mallavaram village Tuni Mandal. As per the statement of Encumbrance certificate through registered sale deed dated 23.02.2011.

E.P.119/2015 in O.S.37/2011 Dt.22.04.2022

4

10.In view of the above discussion, this Court came to conclusion that the

Judgment-debtor is not the absolute owner of the Execution Petition schedule property and one Chintareddi Ramanamma is the absolute owner of the schedule property. Hence, the Judgment-debtor is not absolute owner and no salable interest over the Execution Petition schedule property, as such the

Execution Petition schedule property is not liable for sale for realization of the decretal amount. As such the Execution Petition is not maintainable.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

11. In the result, the Execution Petition is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of April, 2022

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PITHAPURAM

(FAC) ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUNI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR DHR/PLAINTIFF: FOR JDR/DEFENDANT:

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on both sides.

(FAC)AJCJ, TUNI.