Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: KURNOOL

AT NANDYAL

Present: Sri.Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed III Additional Sessions Judge

Thursday, the 18th day of April, 2019

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.172 of 2018

From what Court the appealCourt of the Judicial Magistrate of first Class, is preferredNandyal

Number of case in that CourtS.C.No.64/2017

Number of the AppealCriminal Appeal No.172/2018

Name and description of the1.G.Yesupadam, s/o.Ravi, aged about 24 years, Appellants/A1 & A2r/o.Pulimaddi village, Nandyal mandal, Kurnool District. 2.G.Madhu, s/o.Daveedu, aged about 34 years, native of Pulimaddi village, Nandyal mandal, Now at Kurnool The sentence and law underIn the result, Accused No. 1 and 2 are found which it was imposed in theguilty for the offence punishable U/sec.326 lower Courtr/w.34 IPC and they are convicted U/sec.235(2) Cr.P.C and that they are sentenced to undergo with rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/­each, in default A1 and A2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and that the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.323, 307 r/w.34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said offences U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C and that the Accused No.4 to 6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.323, 326, 307 r/w.34 IPC and they are acquitted U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The remand period undergone by the Accused No.1 and 2 shall be set off U/sec.428 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused No. 4 to 6 shall be in force for six months from the date of this judgment as per Section 437­A (1) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, is ordered to be returned to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Nandyal, with a direction to destroy

the same after expiry of appeal period.

2

Whetherconfirmed,Reversed modified or reversed; and if modified the modification The appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against appellants/A1 and A2 in

S.C.No.64/2017 Dated 11.10.2018 by the II

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,

Nandyal 

The appellants/all the accused are found not guilty and acquitted for the offence punishable under section 326 r/w 34 of IPC. The bail bonds of the appellants/A1 and A2 shall stand canceled subject to section 437­A of Cr.P.C, after six months, as per provisions.

The fine amount paid by the appellants/A1 and A2 in the trial court, shall be refunded to them, after expiry of appeal

time.

The order passed by the trial court in respect of the property, stands good. Date of Presentation29.10.2018

Date of filing29.10.2018

Date of Notice issued by31.10.2018 Court to appear

Date of Bail Bond if­­ appellant has been let out on bail

Date of appellant/s ordered26.11.2018 to appear

Date of hearing10.04.2019

Date of Judgment 18.04.2019 3

Vs.

State rep., by the S.H.O.of Police Station, Nandyal, Kurnool District … Respondent/Complainant

This appeal coming on 10.04.2019 for final hearing before me, upon perusing the appeal grounds and the record of the evidence and proceedings and upon duly considering the same and after hearing Sri

M.V.Ramana, Sri.G.Naga Seshaiah, Sri.S.I.Khaleel, Sri.Y.C.Pullaiah and Sri

M.Jakeer Hussain, Advocates for the appellants; the Additional Public

Prosecutor for the Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:­

J U D G M E N T

01)This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants/A1 and A2 against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.10.2018 in

S.C.No.64/2017 passed by the learned II Additional Assistant Sessions

Judge, Nandyal.

02)For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the judgment of the lower court.

03)The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge­ sheet are that the complainant Gundi Rama Subba Rayudu is resident of

Pulimaddi Village of Nandyal Mandal, and neighbour of A1. Both families have got ill­feelings between them and they used to quarrel on petty issues. On 02.06.2016 at 7.30 a.m., mother of A1 and the complainant’s family quarreled with each other over a site issue and they both sustained injuries. In this connection a case and counter case were registered at 4

Nandyal Taluk P.S. vide Cr.Nos.148/2016 U/sec.324, 509 r/w 34 IPC and

Cr.No.150/2015 U/sec.324 r/w 34 IPC.

Again on the same day night at 9.00 p.m., both families quarreled between them once again. A1 and A2 were not present during the quarrel in the morning time. They came to know about the incident from the mother of A1, who is also sister of A2, When A1 and A2 visited District

Government Hospital, Nandyal and saw the injuries of Gundi

Eleeshamma. Keeping the same in mind came to Pulimaddi Village about 9.00 p.m., A1 and A2 went to the house of complainant holding sticks in their hands and abused complainant’s family. On hearing the same complainant and his father Gundi Bhakthudu came outside the house to pacify the matter but all of a sudden A1 and A2 attacked Gundi

Bhakthudu (LW2) with an intention to kill him and beat with sticks causing bleeding injuries on his head. While the complainant (LW1) tried to rescue his father, A3 called JCL.1, A4 to A7 and JCL.2 who are standing at the house of A1 and altogether beat the complainant (LW1) and his parents with hands and legs, due to which the complainant and his parents (LWs 1 to 3) received injuries. 

At the same point of time A1 and A5 also received injuries. Later, all the injured persons were admitted in Government Hospital, Nandyal for treatment and they have lodged complaints against each other. Basing on the report of the De­facto Complainant Gundi Rama Subba Rayudu (LW1) a case was registered by Head Constable (LW10) in Cr.No.152/2016 under Section 324, 307 r/w 34 of IPC of Nandyal Taluk Police Station and 5 submitted the original F.I.R. to the Court and copies to all concerned.

Subsequently the Sub­Inspector (LW.11) took up investigation in the case and examined LWs 1 to 8, recorded their statements. On 01.07.2016

LW.11 arrested the accused A1, A2 and A4 to A6 and sent them for

Judicial custody. On 02.07.2016 at 11.00 a.m., LW.11 arrested JCL.1 (A3) and JCL.2(A7) and send them to Juvenile Justice Board, Kurnool for custody. He filed a separate charge sheet against JCLs.1 and 2 on the file of Juvenal Justice Board, Kurnool. The medical officer (LW9) who gave treatment to LWs.1 to 3 issued wound certificate opining that LWs.1 and 3 sustained simple injuries and LW.2 sustained grievous injury. Thus the

Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the accused A1, A2 and

A4 to A6 U/sec.323, 326 307 r/w 34 IPC.

04)The learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandyal, took cognizance of the case U/Sec.323, 326, 307 r/w 34 IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as envisaged U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

05)On appearance of accused, the learned II Additional Assistant

Sessions Judge, Nandyal, charges U/Ss.323, 326, 307 r/w 34 IPC were

framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06)In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of the accused none were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked.

07)The accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C and the 6 incriminating material appearing against them was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

08)On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandyal, found the accused A1 and A2 guilty of the offence U/secs.326 r/w 34 of IPC and they are convicted U/sec.235(2) Cr.P.C and that they are sentenced to undergo with rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/­each, in default A1 and A2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and that the accused A1 and

A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.323, 307 r/w.34

IPC and they are acquitted for the said offences U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C and that the Accused No.4 to 6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.323, 326, 307 r/w.34 IPC and they are acquitted. The remand period undergone by the Accused No.1 and 2 shall be set off

U/sec.428 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused No. 4 to 6 shall be in force for six months from the date of this judgment as per Section 437­A (1) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, is ordered to be returned to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal with a direction to destroy the same after expiry of appeal period.

09)Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/A1 and A2 preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

7

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

i)The conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court on the accused is against law, weight of evidence.

ii)The appreciation of evidence is not proper.

iii)The lower court ought to have disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses Pws 1 to 10 and Exhibits P1 to P9 and ought to have acquitted the accused.

iv)The lower court erred in coming to the conclusion the evidence of Pws 1 to 5 is corroborated though their evidence is not corroborated on material facts and they are interested witnesses.

v)The lower court failed to appreciate the evidence of these witnesses with regard to overt­acts, these witnesses never say before the police or in complaint (Ex.P1) that A1 beat PW.2 on his left eye.

vi)The lower court failed to appreciate that Exs.P4 to P6 are not admissible in evidence as the author of those documents were not examined by the prosecution with regard to the Supreme Court judgment reported in 2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) Page 1 was not appreciated by the lower court.

vii)The lower court failed to appreciate on the point that the injuries on the persons are accused were not explained by the prosecution though there was a counter case.

viii) The lower court failed to appreciated that the commotion took place in the night time and there is no possibility to identify the accused persons.

8 ix)The lower court ought to have appreciated the Hon’ble High

Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court filed on behalf of the defence.

x)The lower court failed to observe that when the participation of other accused is not proved the participation of remaining accused in the commission of offence is itself is doubtful.

xi)The lower court is failed to observe that the X­Rays of the alleged fracture injuries are not produced by the prosecution.

xii)The lower court has not considered the citations submitted by the appellants xiii) Therefore, prays to allow the appeal and set­aside the sentence passed by the Hon’ble II Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge Court, Nandyal passed in SC.No.64/2017, dated 11.10.2018 among the above and the other grounds of appeal.

10)Heard the arguments of both sides. 

11)Now the point for determination is whether the judgment of learned trial judge convicting and sentencing the appellants/A1 and A2 for the offence U/Sec.326 r/w 34 IPC, is sustainable under law, or warrants any interference by the Appellate Court?

12)Point:

The learned counsel for appellants vehemently argued before this court that the learned trial judge without appreciating the evidence on record, wrongly convicted the accused, thus arguing prayed to allow the appeal. He further argued that the evidence of witnesses is not 9 consistent with regard to the material aspects. The learned counsel argued that the medical evidence cannot be looked into as the wound certificates are not marked through the author of the document and prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower court.

13)Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the trial judge after considering the entire evidence on record has rightly convicted the accused and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

14)In view of contentions of both sides, this court has perused the entire record including the oral and documentary evidence.

15)According to the Prosecution version, their family and the accused family are neighbors and they have got ill­feelings between them since long time and they used to quarrel with each other on petty issues.

While so on 02.06.2016 at 7.30 a.m., while PWs.1 to 3 were cleaning their house surroundings on the occasion of marriage function of PW1, their neighbour Elishamma and her mother Mariyamma along with Sudhakar, who is brother of Elishamma quarreled with PWs.1 to 3 and beat them. In that course as per the version of the PW1, his father sustained bleeding injuries on the left side of the lower jaw, when Elishamma, her mother and brother hit them with brick stone. Immediately they went to Taluk

Police Station, Nandyal and filed a report and then went to the

Government Hospital, Nandyal for treatment of their injuries. It is the version of the PWs 1 to 3 that they returned home by 3.00 p.m.

10

Later at 9.00 p.m. or 9.30 p.m., while PWs.1 to 5 having dinner in their house, A1 and A2 came in front of their house holding sticks in their hands abusing them in filthy language and challenging them to come in front of them if they are men and insulted them for beating the mother of the A1 in their absence. Then PW2 went outside the house to pacify the matter and told them that cases are registered by police on the morning incident and they will investigate into the matter. A1 and A2 did not heed the words of PW2 and A1 beat PW2 with a stick on his left eye and caused injury. PW1 deposed that A2 beat his father with a stick on his head, due to which he sustained injury on the occipital region of his head and fell down on the ground. Then PW1 and 3 tried he rescue PW2, but all the accused including Praveen and Ravindra Babu (JCLs.1 and 2) beat PWs.1 to 3 and specifically PW2 with sticks indiscriminately. PW1 further stated that the accused stopped beating PW2 when they thought that he is dead.

Then Sumath, Dandu Yesaiah, Gundi Rajanna rescued PWs.1 to 3 from the hands of accused. Then the neighbours took Pws.1 to 3 to hospital at

Nandyal for treatment. PW2 was referred to the Government Hospital,

Kurnool for better treatment, but PW2 lost his eye vision due to the injury caused to him by the accused. Taluk Police Station people came to hospital and recorded the statement of PW1 on 02.06.2016.

16)In the Cross examination of PWs.1 to 3, they have admitted that there are counter cases filed between them on the same incident, and the counter case filed against them is in Cr.No.152/2016 is U/sec.324 and 307 IPC. PW1 denied that he has stated before police that when A1 tried to beat PW2 with stick on his head, it caused injury on the left eye of

PW2. He further added that if a blow is given on the head of the individual, there is no possibility to sustain injury on the eye. He further 11 deposed that A2 is not resident of Pulimaddi village and he belongs to

Kurnool, A4 belongs to U.Bollavaram, A5 is resident of Jupadu Bunglow

Village. He also deposed that A6 is physically challenged woman, as her both legs and hands are not properly working. PW1 further stated that he saw A6 holding a stick but he did not observe whether she beat any of them or not. He deposed that due to head injuries he could not remember the exact time when they were shifted to hospital, but it was around 10.30 p.m. or 11.00 p.m.,

17)PW.2 who is the injured states in chief examination that A1 beat him on his eye, for which he sustained injury on his left eye and lost to his vision. In the cross examination he states that A1 beat him on eye but not on his head. He did not state before the police that A1 beat with stick on his head.Whereas PW.10 Investigating Officer stated in his cross examination that PW.1 stated before him as in Ex.D1. PW.1 is none other than the son of the injured. A1 beat the father of the PW.1 (PW.2) on his head, the left eye was received bleeding injury. The prosecution could not explain the Ex.D1. It is a commonsense that blow on head cannot receive injury on the left eye. How this is possible. Hence, the evidence of injured witness could not believable.

18)PW3 deposed that A2 beat her husband with a pestle and that pestle belongs to them which is kept outside of their house. She further stated that A1 beat her husband on the right side of the eye but not on his head.

It is pertinent to note that the prosecution case is that A1 and A2 12 beat the PW.2 with the stick and PW.2 received injuries on his left eye.

But surprisingly PW.3, who is the wife of PW.2 states that the total contradictory version with regard to the weapon used by A1 and A2 and place of injury. Basing on the evidence of PW.3 the prosecution case cut from its route level. Hence, the evidence of PW.3 is not believable.

19)PW.4 is the sister of PW.1, daughter of Pws 2 and 3 and wife of PW.5 states in her chief examination that the accused caused injuries by beating her parents and they all went Taluka police station and gave a report on 02.6.2016 at 7.30 a.m. At that time she was present in her parents’ house for delivery. At about about 9.00 p.m while they are all having dinner at home A1 and A2 came in front of their house calling them to come out side and raising cries “Randira Mogollu aithe memu lenappadu maa ammanu kodatharu ani”. A1 caused hurt to his father on left eye, A2 beat her father on his head and other accused shouting saying ‘Champandi naa kodukulanu’ and they beat Pws 1 to 3 with hands and legs and caused injuries on their body. She states in her cross examination that she denied that the alleged motive is only created to connect a crime against the accused though they high handedly committed the offence against the accused.

20)PW.5 is the son­in­law of PWs.2 and 3 and husband of PW.4 states in his chief examination that A1 and A2 beat PW.2 with stick. He states in his cross examination that he cannot specifically say how many times he has been stayed in his in­laws’ home but to his knowledge he used to go to his in­laws’ house rarely. PW.5 admits that he has no 13 acquaintance with the accused either personally or by name prior to the alleged incident. PW.5 further states that none of the accused possess or committed any offence with pestle, but with the sticks they committed the offence.

21)PW.10 states that PW.5 stated before him as in Ex.D2. Ex.D2 is A1 beat PW.2 with stick on his head, left eye received bleeding injury.

This court has got a doubt that the alleged eye witnesses states that A1 beat PW.2 with stick on his head, PW.2 received bleeding injury on his left eye. How this could be happen, prosecution failed to prove the above aspect. Hence, the alleged eye witness PW.5 is not believable. More over

PW.10 admits that none of the witnesses stated to him that the accused beat PW.2 on his eye. Ex.D3 is the FIR in a counter case, Ex.D4 is the charge sheet in the counter case.

22)PWs.6 and 7, who are said to be the eye witnesses completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution deposing that they do not know anything about the case and they denied their 161 Cr.P.C statements marked as Exs.P2 and P3 in their cross examination by the APP.

23)PW8 is the Medical Officer who identified the signature of the medical officer issued wound certificates deposed that the wound certificates were issued by Dr.Uma and marked the wound certificate of

PW1 as Ex.P4 and the wound certificate of PW2 as Ex.P5 and the wound certificates of PW3 as Ex.P6. These Exs.P4 to P6 are marked subject to objection from the defence counsel. PW8 in her cross examination deposed that she was not present during the treatment of the patients 14 covered under Exs.P4 to P6. PW8 admitted that the injuries mentioned in

Exs.P4 to P6 are possible if the persons met with an accident. 

24)PW9 is the Head Constable, who registered the crime deposed that he received MLC intimation on 03.06.2016 midnight and immediately rushed to the hospital and identified PW1 and recorded his statement. He returned back to the Police Station by 1.30 a.m., and registered a case in Cr.No.152/2016 U/sec.324, 307 r/w.34 IPC. MLC intimation marked as Ex.P7 and the original FIR marked as Ex.P8. In his cross examination he deposed that there are four counter cases between accused and PWs.1 to 3.

25)PW10 is the investigating officer deposed that he took case file from PW9 and visited the Government Hospital, Nandyal, examined PW1 and recorded his statement. He learnt that PW2 was referred to

Government General Hospital, Kurnool and visited there and recorded the statements of PW.2 and PW.3. On the same day he visited the Pulimaddi

Village by 4.00 p.m., and secured PWs.4 to 7 and recorded their statements. He identified the scene of offence in front of the house of PWs 1 to 3 and prepared the rough sketch marked as Ex.P9. On 01.07.2016 at 1.30 p.m., he arrested A1, A2 and A4 to A6 at Police Station on their surrender. After receiving wound certificates he filed charge sheet against accused herein and a separate charge sheet against JCL.1 and JCL.2

before Juvenile Justice Board.

26)PW.10 in his cross examination deposed that Pws.1 and 5 stated to him as in Exs.D1 and D2. He also stated that he has not 15 mentioned about availability of light in Ex.P9. He admitted that there is a counter case in respect of the present case filed by A1. The certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.153/2016 marked as Ex.D3 and the certified copy of charge sheet in CC.No.949/2016 U/sec.324, 506 r/w.34 IPC is marked as

Ex.D4.

27)As observed from the evidence of prosecution it is a clear case that the family of PWs.1 to 3 and accused family are neighbours and have got ill­feelings and they were been quarreling upon petty issues since long time. It is the case of prosecution witness that while Pws.1 to 3 cleaning in front of their house on the occasion of Marriage function of PW1,

Elishamma and her mother Mariamma along with Sudhakar were quarreling among themselves and beat parents’ of PW1 who are none other than Pws.2 and 3 herein. Elishamma along with her mother and brother caused hurt to Pws.2 and 3 without any cause or any disputes between them at that point of time is not believable. Further more there are counter cases between Pws.1 to 3 and accused family in respect of the incident occurred at 7.30 a.m., and both parties were also referred to the

Government Hospital, Nandyal for treatment of their injuries. In these circumstances where the above incident was occurred in the absence of

A1 and A2 and after knowing the same, A1 and A2 going to the house of

Pws.1 to 3 holding sticks in their hands and abusing them and thereby

PW2 coming out of the house and tried to pacify the matter, but A1 and

A2 without heeding to the words of the PW2 beat him with sticks on his head and eye and caused grievous injuries.

16

28)The learned defence counsel submitted that in group rivalry and in a free fight between them, the evidence has to be considered carefully and only qualitative evidence should be taken for consideration.

In the present case the independent witness who are said to be the eye witnesses i.e., PW6 and PW7 completely turned hostile.

29)PW.6 and PW.7, who are the eye witnesses to the incident did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile, their Sec.161

Cr.P.C statements were marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. The independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution.

30)From the above discussion one can conclude that the Pws 1 to 5 evidence are not consistent with regard to the material facts. Moreover

Pws 1 to 5 are belongs to one family one can conclude that Pws 1 to 5 are interested witnesses.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE:

31)Dr.M.Uma, Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government District

Hospital, Nandyal as treated the injured persons and issued Exs.P4 to P6 wound certificates.

32)PW8 is the Medical Officer who identified the signature of the medical officer issued wound certificates deposed that the wound certificates were issued by Dr.Uma and marked the wound certificate of

PW1 as Ex.P4 and the wound certificate of PW2 as Ex.P5 and the wound certificates of PW3 as Ex.P6. These Exs.P4 to P6 are marked subject to objection from the defence counsel. PW8 in her cross examination 17 deposed that she was not present during the treatment of the patients covered under Exs.P4 to P6. PW8 admitted that the injuries mentioned in

Exs.P4 to P6 are possible if the persons met with an accident. 

33)The appellant counsel argued that Exs.P4 to P6 cannot be marked as the treated doctor M.Uma was alive. This court is also accepted the settled legal principle that the author of the document has to be examined and through him the document is marked.

The appellant counsel relied on decisions (1) 2010 (2)ALD (Crl).Page.1 (SC) between Malay Kumar

Ganguly V/s.Sukumar Mukherjee and others. Their Lordships held that “a document becomes inadmissible in evidence unless author of the document is examined. The contents thereof cannot be held to have been proved unless he is examined and subjected to cross examination in court of law.

(2) 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.)Page 621 (AP) between Erlapalli

Prakasham V/s.State of A.P.held that marking of document without following procedure contemplated under section 294 Cr.P.C. is bad in law.

(3) 2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) page 280 (AP) between Korrai Chilakaiah and others V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh. Their Lordships held that

Sec.34 and Sec.149 IPC cannot be invoked on free fight between two groups. Hence, the judgements are applicable to the present case.

(4) 1997 (1) ALD (Crl.) Page.19 (A.P.) (D.B) between G.Subas

Reddy V/s.State of Andhra Pradesh and Others. Their Lordships held that appreciation of evidence between group rivalry, the court has to look 18 into the quality of evidence.

(5) 1999 (1) ALD (Crl.) Page 519 (AP) between Kota Peda

Nagesh V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh Their Lordshipsheld that author of the document must come and depose before the Court. Otherwise the document not treated as authentic. The above judgments are squarely applicable to their case. Hence non marking of documents (wound certificates) through the Author is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

In the absence of reliable evidence conviction cannot be laid on the basis of official witnesses.

34)On conglomeration of the above material, evidence of prosecution witnesses, it shows that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of all the accused for the offence U/s.326 r/w 34 of IPC. Therefore, this court feels that, all the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. As such, the judgment of the lower court is liable to be set aside. This point is answered accordingly.

35)In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the

judgment of conviction and sentence passed against appellants/A1

and A2 in S.C.No.64/2017 Dated 11.10.2018 by the II Additional

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandyal 

The appellants/all the accused are found not guilty and

acquitted for the offence punishable under section 326 r/w 34 of IPC.

The bail bonds of the appellants/A1 and A2 shall stand canceled

subject to section 437­A of Cr.P.C, after six months, as per provisions.

19

The fine amount paid by the appellants/A1 and A2 in the

trial court, shall be refunded to them, after expiry of appeal time.

The order passed by the trial court in respect of the property, stands good.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 18th day of April, 2019.

III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at NANDYAL

Copy to the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandyal 20

Correct

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 1

In the Court of the III Additional District Judge,

Kurnool at Nandyal

Present:­ Sri.Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed, III Additional District Judge

Monday, the 8th day of April, 2019

APPEAL SUIT No.8 OF 2015

Delhi Masa Bee.. Appellant

Versus

Mitaigiri Mahaboob Saheb… Respondent

On appeal against the Decree and Judgment dated 01.3.2013 in

Original Suit No.848/2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Nandyal.

Between

Delhi Masa Bee, aged about 58 years, w/o.Madar Saheb, Muslim, Housewife, r/o.H.No.7/178, Nadigadda, Nandyal, 

Kurnool district ... Plaintiff

Versus

Mitaigiri Mahaboob Saheb, s/o.Abdul Rasool, aged about 63 years, Muslim, r/o.H.No.7­72B, Nadigadda, Nandyal town, Kurnool district.… Defendant

This appeal coming on 14.03.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.V.Rama Chandra Rao and Sri.P.Venkata

Ramana, Advocates for the Appellant/Plaintiff, Sri.B.Satya Narayana,

Advocate for the Respondent/Defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 2

J U D G M E N T

01)The unsuccessful Plaintiff in O.S.No.848/2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandyal, preferred the present appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC against the impugned Judgment and decree dated 01.03.2013.

02)For the sake of convenience, the parties will be addressed as arrayed in the judgment of the lower court. The appellant is the

Plaintiff in the lower court and the respondent is defendant. The appellant hereinafter will be referred as plaintiff and the respondent as defendant.

03)The brief averments of the Plaint in O.S.No.848/2005 are that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to one Contractor

Jaithun Bi wife of Abdul Jabbar Saheb of Nandyal town, and the plaintiff purchased same from the said contractor Jaithun Bi under registered sale deed dated 23.05.1980. Since, then the plaintiff/appellant has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in her own independent right, title and possession over the same till today without any interruption. Immediately after purchasing the open site, the plaintiff/appellant has erected a hut in the plaint schedule property, and Nandyal Municipality has assigned

D.No.7­72/J to the hut erected by the plaintiff. The plaintiff/appellant

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 3 used to let out the said hut to the tenants for rent all these years. Now the plaintiff has removed the hut and laid 11 pillars in the plaint schedule property for construction of the house and remaining construction work is stopped temporarily for want of funds. Therefore, the plaint schedule property has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff/appellant without any interruption continuously even till today.

It is further submit that the defendant/respondent is residing in the same ward near by the plaint schedule property, and without any manner of right and title over the plaint schedule property was trying to trespass into the plaint schedule property, and on 23.11.2005 and tried to trespass with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff/appellant over the plaint schedule property on the basing of false and frivolous and fabricated record in respect of the suit schedule property with a malafide intention to grab the same in any manner whatsoever. The highhanded acts of defendant/respondent were temporarily prevented by the timely intervention of the elders of locality, but, the defendant is openly proclaiming that he will trespass into the suit schedule property and interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiff. The plaintiff/appellant is a lady and having no adequate support in the

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 4 locality against the highhandedness and rowdy elements of the defendant/respondent.

It is further submit that the defendant is claiming title and possession over the plaint schedule property basing on impugned sale deed dated 18.08.1998 covering the plaint schedule property, but the plaintiff never sold the plaint schedule property to the defendant and delivered the possession thereof. The signatures in the impugned sale deed are not signature of the plaintiff, and attestor identifying witness and scribe are not known to the plaintiff and all of them are best friends to the defendant and the defendant created the said sale deed by forging the signatures of the plaintiff with the malafide intention to knock the plaint schedule property from the plaintiff and the said impugned sale deed not binding upon the plaintiff, and the defendant will not get right or title and possession over the plaint schedule property. Hence the suit.

04)The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant/respondent in brief are as follows:

The defendant/respondent filed his written statement and denied the entire material allegations made in the plaint and the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. It is stated that the husband of the plaintiff/appellant by name Dilli Madar Saheb has no property in his

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 5 name and he is a flower vendor at Hyderabad. The plaintiff approached the defendant to give her a loan of Rs.30,000/­ to her family necessities including the investment amount required by her husband for his trade in flowers, and she has also agreed to execute registered mortgage deed in favour of the defendant to secure the repayment of the said loan. As per the terms and conditions that were mutually agreed, on 02.11.1993 the plaintiff borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/­from the defendant and agreed to repay the said amount with compound interest at 24% p.a.

with annual rests and she mortgaged the plaint schedule mentioned site with hut there on bearing D.No.7­72­J1. The plaintiff could not pay the interest or any part payment as agreed to and whenever the defendant demanded her to pay the money the plaintiff was postponed to do so.

Being unable to discharge the mortgage debt and as the plaintiff was not having the means to pay the at least interest, the plaintiff requested the defendant to purchase the mortgage site with hut so, that the mortgage may be discharged without further accumulation of interest.

The prize was settled between the plaintiff and defendant at

Rs.98,000/­. Accordingly, on 18.08.1988 the plaintiff received the amount of Rs.98,000/­in cash and executed registered sale deed in favour of the defendant and she sold the plaint schedule property to the defendant/respondent and delivered the possession of the same. From out of sale consideration of Rs.98,000/­ the plaintiff has paid the

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 6 defendant the amount due to him under mortgage deed dated 02.11.1993.

It is further submit that after purchasing the said site with the hut bearing D.No.7­72­J­1, it has been transferred in the name of the defendant by the local Municipality and consequently the defendant paying the property tax for that hut to the municipality the said hut bearing D.No.7­72­J­1 is also provided with electricity service bearing

No.18613 and defendant paying the current consumption charges to the electricity department. The plaintiff is never in possession of the said hut since she sold it to the defendant under registered sale deed dated 18.08.1993, and defendant alone he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property till now.

It is further submit that the defendant has removed the hut with a view to construct the residential house over the plaint schedule property and has laid pillars for constructing a pillar type house and defendant has purchased the iron and steel worth of Rs.23,370/­ from the shop of Sri Venkatasai Enterprises. Once again the defendant purchased the iron rods for Rs.3,810/­from the above said shop on 19.11.2005. The plaintiff is very well versed in litigation and she has also filed the suit before the lower court in OS.402/1999 against one

Shaik Yusuf Basha in respect of house property in Nandyal on untenable grounds. The defendant is a trader, and doing business in lemon and

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 7 other fruits, and he obtained the loan of Rs.1,00,000/­from the Vijaya

Bank, Nandyal by mortgaging the plaint schedule property with the hut and also other properties and he also discharged the said loan. As the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as its owner, the question of defendant trying to trespass into the same does not arise the sale deed and mortgage deed executed by the plaintiff bears her left hand thumb impression also. There is absolute no need for defendant to fabricate any record and trespass into the plaint schedule property.

05)After amendment of the plaint, the additional written statement of the defendant is as follows:­

The plaintiff purposefully did not state in the plaint about the execution of the registered mortgage deed dated 02.11.1993 and the consideration has passed there under. But, the plaintiff has clearly admits the execution of mortgage deed and consideration there under in her affidavit i.e., in support of her petition in IA.No.388/2006 and in

IA.2381/2006. IA.No.388/2006 filed by the plaintiff is a petition

seeking amendment of plaint and IA.No.2381/2006 is a petition to send the sale deed date 18.08.1998 to the hand writting expert. In both petitions the plaintiff has clearly admits the execution of the mortgage deed dated 02.11.1993. The sale deed dated 18.08.1998 contains her signature in Urdu and her left hand thumb impression obtained by the

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 8

Sub­Registrar, Nandyal in his presence and identified witness. It is necessary to submit that even the mortgage deed dated 02.11.1993 the signature of the plaintiff in Urdu and also her left thumb impression found in that document. By saving the suit property by the plaintiff to the defendant and as a consequence of it as the defendant has became the owner of the plaint schedule property that was mortgaged to his earlier, the mortgage debt is thus redeemed. So, the defendant who has either to a mortgagee has became the owner of the mortgaged property.

The defendant also taking steps to send both the documents executed by the plaintiff to the finger print expert for comparison about the facts these two impressions are identical and they belongs to the plaintiff.

There is no cause of action in the suit and this is only a chance suit filed by the plaintiff. Hence, he is sought to the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

06)Basing on the above pleadings, the learned predecessor, framed the following issues have been settled for trial; 1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

2.To what relief?

07)After amendment of the plaint, the following additional issues have been settled the learned predecessor is as follows:

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 9

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property as prayed for?

8)After hearing both sides and on considering the evidence on record, the trial court dismissed the suit without costs.

9)Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellant/plaintiff preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

1. That the decree and judgment of lower court is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2. That the lower court ought to have decreed the suit with the costs of the appellant.

3. That the appellant proved her case by examining herself as PW.1 and exhibiting Exs.A1 and A2.

4. That the respondent contended that the appellant transferred plaint schedule property under Ex.B2 to him.

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 10

5. That the lower court ought to have held that respondent admitted title of appellant and contended that she transferred plaint schedule property under Ex.B2 and so the onus of proof shifted to respondent and that he had to prove Ex.B2.

6. That the lower court ought to have held that DW,1 admitted in the cross examination that Ex.B2 does not contain the photograph of appellant, he cannot say whether the Urdu signature on

Ex.B2 reads as ‘Mabasasi’, he is not acquainted with the executant of

Ex.B2 and so he admitted that he cannot say whether the executant of

Ex.B2 is ‘Mabasasi’. So, the lower court ought to have held that the evidence of DW.1 is not sufficient that DW.1 executed Ex.B2.

7. That the lower court ought to have held that DW.2 admitted that he instructed to his counsel only that he purchased property from plaintiff, he does not know the contents in his written statement and chief evidence, he does not know reading of Urdu, he does not know the

Urdu signature on Ex.B2 is ‘Mabasasi’ and Ex.B9 is no way concerned with suit property. So, the lower court ought to have held that the evidence of DW.1 is not sufficient that DW.1 executed Ex.B2.

8. That the lower court ought to have held that DW.3 admitted that he cannot say the executant’s signature on Ex.B2 is ‘Mabasasi’, he made his signature on Ex.B2 at 3.00 p.m.in Sub­Registrar

Office, where as Ex.B2 was registered in between 4.00 p.m and 5.00

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 11 p.m. So, the lower court ought to have held that the evidence of DW.3 is not sufficient that DW.1 executed Ex.B2.

9.That the lower court ought to have held that appellant’s title is admitted by respondent and the respondent failed to prove his title over the plaint schedule property.

10.That the lower court wrongly applied the general principle of law in respect of declaration and ejection, as per section 101 to 103 of Evidence Act, but the principal under section 110 of

Evidence Act is applicable to facts and circumstances of this case. As such the lower court committed error in appreciating evidence and so the judgment of lower court is not correct.

For the grounds urged and to be urged at the time of hearing of appeal, the Hon’ble court may be pleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment of lower court and decree the suit with costs.

10)  To prove her contention, the plaintiff herself is examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. On behalf of the defendant,

Dws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B11.

11) Heard on both sides.

12)The points that arise for consideration are (1) Whether the Judgment of the Lower Court is sustainable under law?”

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 12 (2) To what relief?

13)To prove the case, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1.

PW.2 chief examination affidavit filed and the same was eschewed

on 27.07.2012. To substantiate the case of defendant, the defendant got himself examined as DW.1 and also examined as Dws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.B1 to B11. The plaintiff reiterated the contents of plaint. Ex.A1 is the registration copy of sale deed dt.23.05.1980 and

Ex.A2 is the Encumbrance Certificate.

On the cross examination of PW.1 deposed that her husband name is Madar sa. Her marriage was took place more than 33 years.

From the date of marriage of her to till today she was living in the plaint schedule property H.B.No.7/72­J. She do not know name of the counsel who filed the suit. She never seen the counsel who filed the present suit. She do not remember whether she gave instructions to her counsel to prepare the plaint. She do not remember whether she signed or put her thumb impression on the plaint. She sign on chief affidavit.

She do not remember whether signatures shown on her chief affidavit is that of her or not. The signature shown on her chief affidavit is not that of her. Her husband was doing flower business. The defendant was doing chicken and mutton and also fruit business. She know the defendant since 8 or 9 years. She has no ill­feelings with the defendant.

According to her there is no electricity connection and house tax in

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 13 respect of plaint schedule property. She do not remember whether she filed a suit in OS.402/1999 against the Yusuff, and the said suit was dismissed and also the 1st appeal also dismissed and the 2nd appeal is pending on this court. According to her, her husband where about not known from 1990. She denied that she executed registered sale deed dt.18.08.1998 in favour of the defendant/respondent. She denied the formal suggestions.

14)On behalf of defendant/respondent, the document writer was examined as DW.1. He deposed that he worked as document writer from 1952 to 2004. He scribed sale deed dt.18.08.1998, executed by Maasabi in favour of Mahaboob Saheb. She sold the property for Rs.98,000/­and she received total sale consideration from

Mahaboob Saheb. On the subject matter is hut situated in Nadigadda,

Nandyal. The registered sale deed runs into 6 pages. The Maasabi made signatures on a every page of registered sale deed. Her signature is in Urdu language. After completion of document it was attested by

Kareem Basha (her son) and Abdul Rahman. After executent making signature, attestors made signatures. Later on he made endorsements as a scribe. The sale deed was registered on 18.08.1998. In Sub­

Registrar’s Office, the executant affixed her thumb impression and the same was attested by Shalimiah and Yashin. He was present in Sub­

Registrar’s Office at that time. The executant Maasabi received

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 14 consideration in his presence. She made signature in Urdu language on sale deed in his presence.

On the cross examination of DW.1 he deposed that he was Senior

Document Writer by the date of execution of registered sale deed dt.18.08.1998. At that time his two sons and other two assistants were with him. His eldest son Nagaraju was in documentation from 1976 onwards along with him. Out of 5 members with him, anybody may present document for registration. He did not submit the sale deed dt.18.08.1998 for registration. The executant submitted the registered sale deed to the Sub­Registrar, Nandyal for registration. He did not submit the sale deed dt.18.08.1998 for registration. Everyday he used to scribe about 6 to 7 documents. He was very busy in documentation during his tenure at that time. There is no evidence in sale deed dt.18.08.1998 that he was present in Sub­ Registrar’s Office from the time of submission of sale deed dated.18.08.1998 by the executant for registration and till the completion of registration of the same. There is no photograph of Maasabi in the registered sale deed dt.18.08.1998.

He can identify the person made signatures on the sale deed as executant. The person made signatures as executant on the sale deed came to him in “Buraka”. She entered into Sub­Registrar Office in ‘Buraka’. She removed her veil of the Buraka on her face and made signatures. The person who made signatures on the sale deed is not

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 15 present here. He cannot read the Urdu language. He has not written the name of the executant as Maasabi in Telugu underneath her signature on sale deed. He cannot say whether the Urdu signature in sale deed is Mabasasi. He can identify the Shaik Abdul Rahman, one of the attestor of sale deed. He cannot identify the other attestor Kareem

Basha and proof attestors Shalimiah and Yashin. He has not seen

Maasabi earlier to register sale deed 18.08.1998 and later on till date.

The person who came to him and made signature on regd.sale deed dt.18.08.1998 since informed him that she is a Maasabi. He was deposing that she is a Maasabi. The same person made signature on sale deed as executant. He do not know whether the executant of regd.sale deed dt.18.8.1998, who informed him that she is a Maasabi is not Masabi, she is Mabasasi.

On the re­examination of DW.1 by the defendant counsel he states that the executant was introduced to him by her husband and defendant.

15)The witness was re­cross examined he deposed that he came to know the executant was Maasabi, by getting information from her, defendant and the person who introduced her husband only.

Witness adds that he got information by her son also. He know Madar

Saheb who introduced himself as husband of Maasabi. There is no evidence either on sale deed or in Sub­Registrar Office that Madar

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 16

Saheb was present at the time of scribing and registration of sale deed and denied the formal suggestions.

16)The defendant himself was examined as DW.2 and reiterated the contents of his written statement and Exhibited Exs.B1 to

B11. Ex.B1 is original registered mortgage deed, dt.02.11.1993. Ex.B2 is the original registered sale deed, dt.18.08.1998. Ex.B3 is the house tax demand receipt in 3 nos. got issued by Nandyal Municipality. Ex.B4 is the property tax issued by Nandyal Municipality in 2 nos. Ex.B5 is the receipt issued by Sri Venkata Sai Enterprises Nandyal, dt.27.10.2005. Ex.B6 is the receipt issued by Venkateswara Steel traders, Nandyal, dt.19.11.2005. Ex.B7 is Electricity bill in 3 nos.

Ex.B8 is certificate issued by the Manager, Vijaya Bank, Nandyal, dt.05.12.2005. Ex.B9 is suit registered extract of OS.402/1999. Ex.B10 is death certificate issued by Nandyal, Muslim Welfare Association, dt.08.03.2009. Ex.B11 is photographs of suit building with CD.

On the cross examination of DW.2 deposed that he do not know the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from whom. He has not enquired the property purchased by the plaintiff from whom.

There are no specific reason for not inquiry the property purchased by the plaintiff from whom. His counsel did not read over the contents of plaint to him. He informed to his counsel that he purchased the property from the plaintiff only, and except above said instructions he

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 17 did not give any other information to his counsel. He do not know the contents mentioned in his written statement as well as his chief affidavit. He do not know to read in Urdu. He purchased the property in the year 1999 under Ex.B2. The executants of Ex.B2 made signatures in Urdu language only on six pages. He do not know the signature of executants on Ex.B2 as Mabasasi. According to him, the plaintiff let out the plaint schedule property to the tenant on lease. He was resided in the rented house at the distance of 30 yards from the plaint schedule property in the month of May, 1998. DW.2 admits that after disposal of the Interim injunction petition, he made a construction in the plaint schedule property. On further cross examination he deposed that he filed the mortgaged deed, registered sale deed and suit registered extract of another suit only in the court. The mortgage deed was scribed by Subramanyam and attested by K.M.Basha and Abdul

Khader. The sale deed was scribed by DW.1 and attested by Kareem

Basha, Abdul Rahiman, Nimmakalaya Shalu and Yasin. He know the boundaries of disputed property under suit register extract. He do not know the House number mentioned in Ex.B9. The suit schedule property is no way concerned the suit schedule property mentioned in

Ex.B9 and denied the formal suggestions.

17)DW.3 is the attestor of registered sale deed dt.18.08.1998 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in respect of hut

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 18 bearing No.7/72­J in Nadigadda, Nandyal and received consideration of

Rs.98,000/­.

On the cross examination of DW.3 he deposed that he do not know reading and writing of Urdu language. Ex.B2 contains signatures of executants in Urdu language. He cannot say the executants signature on Ex.B2 is “Mabasasi”. He went Sub Registrar Office at 3.00p.m on the date of registration of Ex.B2 and denied the formal suggestions.

ADMITTED FACTS : 

18)Originally the plaintiff filed for suit for permanent injunction, later the plaint was amended in IA.388/2006 and the same was dismissed. Later the plaintiff was preferred revision

CRP.1355/2007 before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. and the same

was allowed. The plaint was amended. Now the relief claimed by the plaintiff is for declaration and delivery of possession of plaint schedule property. Then the court is framed the additional issues under

Order.14 Rule.5 of CPC. Additional issues are framed above.

19)Now in suit for declaration to have to look for title of plaintiff for three generations. The plaintiff failed to produce the vendor’s, vendor’s title. The settled principle is that plaintiff has to prove her case on her own strength and did not harp (weakness) on the defendant and it is reported in APLJ 1977 Supreme Court 30.

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 19

Ex.A1 is the registration copy of sale deed dt.23.5.1980 and

Ex.A2 is the Encumbrance Certificate. On keen perusal of Ex.A1 sale deed dt.23.5.1980 the executant is the Jaithun Bi and Maasabi is the purchaser from Jaithun Bi and the schedule is the plaint schedule property. Ex.A2 is the Encumbrance certificate with regard to the plaint schedule property dt.14.11.2005. On keen perusal of Ex.A2 the executant is Jaithun be and claimant is Maasabi with regard to the plaint schedule property. The defendant is relied on Ex.B2 original registered sale deed dt.18.08.1998. Hence the defendant is claiming title from the plaintiff.

20)PW.1 states in her cross examination that from the date of marriage till today she was living in plaint schedule property. She further states that she has no ill­feelings with the defendant. As admitted by both parties the plaint schedule property is a hut. More over there is no dispute that the plaintiff has not filed any piece of document to show that she was in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property even till today.

21)The plaintiff contention is that defendant has accepted the title of the plaintiff and the defendant is claiming title through the plaintiff. The plaintiff never mortgaged and sold the plaint schedule property to the defendant at any point of time. To prove the same she did not examine any independent witness to show the same.

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 20

According to Sec.101 of Indian Evidence Act who assets the claim must prove. Here the plaintiff is contended that she never executed the mortgage deed and sold the plaint schedule property. To prove her contention she did not produce any of documents and oral evidence.

Hence plaintiff failed to prove her contention. Hence suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. There is no need to discuss the defendant evidence.

22)The appellant argued that Sec.110 of Indian Evidence Act applied in this case Burden of proof as to ownership­ “ When the

question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is

shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the

owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner”. Here in the present case defendant admitting the title of the plaintiff. Hence sec.110 of Indian Evidence Act does not apply in the present case. 

The other contentions which are raised by the appellant counsel has no legs to stand.

23)The lower court judgment is on sound principles of law and there is no interference of judgment of the lower court.

24) In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs,

confirming the judgment and decree dated 01­03­2013 in Original

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 21

Suit No.848/2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's

Court, Nandyal.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 8th day of April, 2019.

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

 KURNOOL AT NANDYAL.

Appendix of Evidence No Additional Evidence on both sides.

III ADJ, Knl at Ndl.

Copy to The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

III ADJ, NDL. AS.8/2015 22

Correct ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

V-A.D.S.J. COURT, ALG C.A.NO.90/2017 1

IN THE COURT OF THE V­ ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE: ALLAGADDA.

Present: Sri Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal,

FAC. V­Additional Sessions Court, Allagadda.

Thursday, the 26th day of July, 2018

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.90 of 2017

From what Court theCourt of the Judicial Magistrate of first appeal is preferredClass, Allagadda.

Number of case in thatC.C.No.207 of 2012 Court (Cr.No.162/2012 of Sirivel Police Station)

Number of the AppealCriminal Appeal No.90 of 2017

Name and description ofSirigiri Nagi Reddy, Aged 46 years, the Appellant/AccusedS/o. Nagireddy, R/o. Gundampadu Village, Sirvel Mandal, Kurnool District.

Thesentenceand law The Accused is found guilty for the under which it was imposedoffences punishable under sections 342, in the lower Court353 and 506 of IPC and thereby he is convicted under section 248[2] of Cr.P.C.

The Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for each count for the offences punishable under sections 342, 353 and 506 of IPC. The sentences shall run concurrently. The Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC and thereby he is acquitted under section 255[1] of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

Whetherconfirmed,REVERSED. modified or reversed; and if In the result, the Appeal is allowed, modified the modification setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15­03­2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda in C.C.No.207 of 2012.

V-A.D.S.J. COURT, ALG C.A.NO.90/2017 2

The Appellant/Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/ss. 342, 353 and 506 of IPC and thereby he is acquitted for the same U/s.386 (b) (i) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Appellant/Accused shall stand cancelled subject to section 437­A of Cr.P.C, after six months, as per provisions.

Date of Presentation30­03­2017

Date of filing31­03­2017

Date of Notice issued by03­04­2017 Court to appear

Date of Bail Bond if­­ appellant has been let out on bail

Date of appellant/s ordered07­06­2017 to appear

Date of hearing23­07­2018

Date of Judgment 26­07­2018

Versus

State rep., by the Station House Officer,

Sirvel Police Station … Respondent/Complainant

This Criminal Appeal is coming on 23­07­2018 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri M.V.Ramana,

Counsel for the Appellant/Accused; and the Additional Public

Prosecutor for the Respondent/ Complainant; and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:­

J U D G M E N T

01.This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused against the Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 15­03­2017 in

V-A.D.S.J. COURT, ALG C.A.NO.90/2017 3

C.C.No.207/2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Allagadda.

02.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the judgment of the lower court.

03.The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge­sheet are as follows:

The Complainant by name, Rokkam Vinodbabu [LW1] is working as Junior­Lineman in Gundampadu Village from the year 2011. As usually, the Complainant [LW1] had attending the duty at

Gundampadu Village on 15.08.2012 and moved in the village at about 15.00 hours, he found that the Accused Sirigiri Nagi Reddy used to theft current to his house, and on seeing that, Rokkam Vinodbabu [LW1] informed to the Accused as not to use theft current, and it is offence; for that, the Accused Sirigiri Nagi Reddy had grown up angry upon Rokkam Vinodbabu [LW1] and stating that “NEEVU YEMI

PEEKUTHAVURA VAADUKUNTA NAKODAKA” and threatening and caught the shirt of Rokkam Vinod Babu [LW1] and also beat him with hands and legs; and thereafter the Accused dragged Rokkam Vinod

Babu [LW1] and wrongfully confined him in the house of the Accused and locked the house. After that, the Accused threatening to Rokkam

Vinod Babu [LW1] to pour the Petrol and to be set fire and went into the village for getting petrol. In the meanwhile, Rokkam Vinod Babu [LW1] had raised cries loudly, on hearing cries of Rokkam Vinodbabu

V-A.D.S.J. COURT, ALG C.A.NO.90/2017 4

[LW1], Lws.4 and 5 [Gangavarapu Rami Reddy and Sirigiri Rama

Subba Reddy] respectively came there, and on seeing the incident, they informed to AP TRANSCO Office, Sirivel and also informed to the neighbours. At about 18.00 hours, Lws.2 to 6 [S.Narayana Reddy,

Ponapati Rajasekhar, Gangavarapu Rami Reddy, Sirigiri Rama Subba

Reddy and Dande Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy] went to the house of Accused and opened the doors of the lock and took Rokkam Vind Babu [LW1] from the outside and the same was witnessed by Lws.2 to 6 [ S.Narayana Reddy, Ponapati Rajasekhar, Gangavarapu Rami Reddy,

Sirigiri Rama Subba Reddy and Dande Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy respectively ] about the assaulting the complainant Vinod Babu [LW1] by the Accused.

Basing on the above, the Endorsed Complaint of Rokkam

Vinod Babu [LW1], the Sub Inspector of Police, Sirvel P.S. [LW7] had registered the case as in Cr.No.162 of 2012 under sections 352, 323, 342, 506 of IPC of Sirivella P.S. and submitted the FIRs to all concerned and took up investigation into the case. During the course of investigation, LW7 [P.Ashok] Sub Inspector of Police, Sirvel P.S. had examined Lws.1 to 6 [ Rokkam Vinod Babu, S.Narayana Reddy,

Ponapati Rajasekhar, Gangavarapu Rami Reddy, Sirigiri Rama Subba

Reddy and Dande Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy] and recorded their

Statements. Then, on 24.08.2012, the Sub Inspector of Police, Sirvel

P.S. had arrested the Accused and sent him for judicial remand to the

Hon’ble Court for judicial custody. After completion of all legal

V-A.D.S.J. COURT, ALG C.A.NO.90/2017 5

formalities, he filed the Charge sheet against the Accused under the above section of law. Hence, the Charge.

04.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda, took cognizance of the cases U/ss.323, 342, 353 and 506 IPC. On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as envisaged U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

05.On appearance of Accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda, had examined them U/s.239 Cr.P.C and a charges U/ss. 323, 342, 353 and 506 IPC were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution had examined Pws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and Ex.D1 is marked.

07.Accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material appearing against him was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

08.On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Allagadda, found the

Accused is guilty for the offences punishable under sections 342, 353 and 506 of IPC and thereby he is convicted under section 248[2] of

Cr.P.C.

V-A.D.S.J. COURT, ALG C.A.NO.90/2017 6

The Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for each count for the offences punishable under sections 342, 353 and 506 of IPC. The sentences shall run concurrently. The Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC and thereby he is acquitted under section 255[1] of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

09.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the

Appellant/Accused preferred the present Appeal on the following grounds:

i)That the Order of the Lower Court is against law and probabilities of the case.

ii)The Lower Court failed to observe that the contradictions and omissions by the Prosecution.

iii) The Lower Court failed to observe that PW2 who is an independent witness did not support the version of the Prosecution.

iv)The Lower Court failed to observe that PW1 have no loco­standee to visit the scene of offence and inspected the House of

Appellant. It is an admitted fact by the Prosecution witnesses there is a separate authority to inspect the House of the Appellant and to register the case against the Appellant.

V-A.D.S.J. COURT, ALG C.A.NO.90/2017 7

For the above said reasons and others that submitted the arguments, the Appellant prayed the court to allow the Appeal and to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court.

10.Heard the arguments of both sides.

11. Now the point for determination is :­ Whether the judgment of learned trial judge convicting and sentencing the

Appellant/Accused for the offences U/ss.342, 353 and 506 of IPC, is sustainable under law, or warrants any interference by the appellate court?

12. Point:

The learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued before this court that the learned trial judge without appreciating the evidence on record, wrongly convicted the Appellant/Accused and thus prayed to allow the Appeal. Further, the learned counsel for Appellant also submitted that there is a delay in lodging the FIR and the lower court could not observed the same. Further, there are contradictions in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses and not supported to the

Prosecution. Hence, prayed to allow the Appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower court.

13.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the trial judge after considering the entire evidence on record has rightly convicted the accused and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.

V-A.D.S.J. COURT, ALG C.A.NO.90/2017 8

14.In view of contentions of both sides, this court has perused the evidence on record.

It is the case of the prosecution is that PW1 is working as a

Lineman in the Electrical Department, working in the Village of the

Accused and that On 15.08.2012, PW1 was on duty he was identified that the Accused using Electrical power from the direct line without having the Meter number. For which, he questioned the same to the

Accused on holding the illegal connection, on that, the Accused beat him with hands and legs and using filthy language and also wrongfully confined him in a room of his house and also threatened him that he would pour petrol on him and he locked the said room and went away.

15.On his cross examination, he states that he do not know whether the resident of Giddalur Village and they used to maintain a record to the village houses which are having regular meters and they did not furnish any record to the Police that the Accused is not having any regular meeting. The house for which the power unauthorizedly the Accused was not residing in it and the same was used for cattle shed. The said Cattle shed was having the meter. PW1 ads that there is no connection. He know the facts prior to two months of the incident and also intimated the same to the Accused. PW1 admits that there is a separate authority in their department to take action against the offences of the usage of power unauthorizedly. He did not report the illegal usage of power to any vigilance authority directly, but, he

V-A.D.S.J. COURT, ALG C.A.NO.90/2017 9

informed the same to his A.E. He do not know whether their A.E.

reported the same to the Vigilance Authority or not. He was released by their staff approached the scene with the police. The scene of offence is situated in residential locality. He admits that the checking the lines of transformers in the fields is also part of their duty and all the formers used to give paddy bags containing 70­75 Kgs as well as the amount i.e., Service charge including Gundampadu Village

Formers. He never received any paddy as well as the amount from the formers of the Gundampadu Village. He did not went to the Doctor.

He did not receive any sufferance due to confining in the room on such reason he did not went to the hospital. At the time of incident, the total village people may be 300 members were gathered. He made an averment in Ex.P1 as to the time duration of his confinement.

Thereafter, he denied all the formal suggestions.

16.PW2 who witnessed the incident and rescued PW1 from the

Accused. Whereas PW2 did not support to the case of prosecution and he turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement marked as Ex.P2.

17.PW3 who worked Senior Line Inspector of AP Transco,

Sirivella Village, who witnessed the incident and rescued PW1 from the

Accused. In his Chief examination, he states that on 15.08.2012, while he was present in his office at about 12.00 to 12.30 PM, he received a Phone call from the villagers that PW1 was confined by the

Accused on that he immediately gave information to their A.E. and

V-A.D.S.J. COURT, ALG C.A.NO.90/2017 10

A.D.E. On their suggestion, he visited the scene of offence along with his staff, he came to know that the Accused was wrongfully confined

PW1, on that he warned the Accused as himself committed the offence of stealing the power and again committing the wrongful act against the Public Servant. On that, they returned to their office, when he suggested to put up a police complaint. Subsequently, PW1 lodged a complaint against the Accused on the next day.

18.On his cross examination of PW3, he admitted that to find out electricity pilferage, a separate vigilance is set up. He do not know the house service connection number of the Accused. He do not know at which time, he was present at the village. He do not know whether the Accused committed electric pilferage prior to the incident. He came to know through PW1 that the Accused is committing electricity pilferage and he denied the formal suggestions.

19. PW4 who witnessed the incident and rescued PW1 from the

Accused. He is a private electrician. He reiterate the incident and states that the police arrived to the place of confinement and their villagers break down the lock of the room and brought out PW1 from the room. 

20.On his cross examination, he states that the Police examined him at the scene of offence. His house is situated far away from the place of offence. He do not know the Accused making cultivation at Giddalur, but he used to visit Giddalur. PW4 admits

V-A.D.S.J. COURT, ALG C.A.NO.90/2017 11

that he do electrical work at the request of the Lineman and Villagers as well as PW1 in his village. PW4 denied the formal suggestions.

21.PW5 who witnessed the incident and rescued PW1 from the

Accused. On 15.8.2012, he noticed that the Accused confined PW1 in a room on that PW4 and LW5 went and break down the lock and brought out from the Room.

22.On his cross examination of PW5, he states that the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Police the averment is not correct which was marked as Ex.D1 as “ Ramireddy and Sirigiri Rama Subbareddy and some other people belongs to his village are there, after some time, Sirivella AP Transco senior Line

Inspector M.Narayana Reddy and some other persons came after that they opened the locks of the door, then, found that Line man [PW1] belongs to his village came out “. PW5 admits that his house is not situated in the surrounding area of the scene of offence. He ads that he is bye­passers. He further admits that he did not witnessed the incident that the Accused himself confined PW1 in a Room. Mostly 20­30 people gathered at the time of incident and he denied the formal suggestions.

23.PW6 who is the investigating officer in this case. He received written complaint from PW1, basing on which, he registered a case as in Cr.No.162 of 2012 of Sirivella P.S. for the offences under section 353, 323, 342, 506 of IPC marked as Ex.P3 is the FIR. He

V-A.D.S.J. COURT, ALG C.A.NO.90/2017 12

examined and recorded the Statements of PW1 and PW3 at the Police

Station. He examined PW2 and recorded his statement at the scene of offence and he prepared the Rough Sketch marked as Ex.P4. He visited the scene of offence and examined PW4, PW5, LW5 [Sirigiri

Rama Subba Reddy] and recorded their statements and on credible information, he arrested the Accused and sent him to Judicial custody.

After completion of investigating, he filed the charge sheet against the

Accused.

24.On his cross examination, he admits that the houses of

PW2, PW4,PW5 and LW5 [Sirigiri Rama Subba Reddy] are not located near to the scene of offence. Further admits there is a house of

Sangireddy Pedda Narayana Reddy near to the scene of offence. He ads that he was not available on that day. PW6 admits that he did not make investigation into the aspect that the Accused has committed the offence of electrical pilferage as well as he did not perused any record for that sake.

25.On perusal of Ex.P1, Ex.P3, the offence was occurred at 03.00 Clock, whereas PW3 states in his chief examination, he was present at his office at 12­00 to 12.30 PM, he received a phone call from his villagers that PW1 was confined by the Accused on that he immediately gave the information to his A.E. and A.D.E. So, the evidence of PW3 is contrary to the case of prosecution. Hence his evidence cannot be believed.

V-A.D.S.J. COURT, ALG C.A.NO.90/2017 13

26.PW2 is eye witness to the incident and he did not support to the case of prosecution and he turned hostile. PW3 did not state anything about the confinement of PW1. PW4 states that Police arrived to the place of confinement and the villagers break down the lock of the room. Why the Police was not prefer the Special Report even though they witnessed the incident. PW6 admitted that the houses of PW2, PW4, PW5 and LW5 [Sirigiri Rama Subba Reddy] are not located near to the scene of offence. PW4is a private electrician an he works for PW1. Hence, PW4 is henchmen of PW4 and hence the evidence of interested witness PW4 is not believable.

27.PW5 who is said to be eye witness to the incident.

Surprising he states in his cross examination that he did not witnessed that the Accused himself confined PW1 in a room.

On his cross examination of PW5, he states that the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Police the averment is not correct which was marked as Ex.D1 as “ Ramireddy and Sirigiri Rama Subbareddy and some other people belongs to my village are there after some time, Sirivella AP Transco senior Line

Inspector M.Narayana Reddy and some other persons came, after that, they opened the locks of the door, then, found that Line man [PW1] belongs to his village came out “.

28.From the admission of PW5, his house is not situated to the surrounding scene of offence. The evidence of PW5 is not helpful to the prosecution.

V-A.D.S.J. COURT, ALG C.A.NO.90/2017 14

Motive :­ 29.Accused committed theft of electricity and the same was noticed by PW1 two months prior to the incident and he informed the same to his A.E. and A.D.E. PW3 admits that to find out of electricity pilferage a separate vigilance is set up. He came to know through PW1 that the Accused committed Electricity pilferage. PW1 states in his cross examination that he used to maintain a record to the village houses which are having regular meters. They did not furnish any record to the police that the Accused is not having any regular meter.

PW6 admits in his cross examination that he did not make any investigation into the aspect that the accused has committed the offence of electricity pilferage as well as he did not perused any record for that sake.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the motive for the offence is that the Accused is committed electricity pilferage is false. Hence, motive is not proved.

30.PW1 to PW5 did not state anything about that the Accused confinement the PW1. Further, On perusal of Ex.P3 FIR, 8th column states that the reason for delay in reporting by the Complaint “ after consulting superior”. On perusal of Ex.P1, he states that after deliberations from his A.E. he made a complaint. Hence, the delay in lodging the FIR is for deliberations. From the above aspect, there is a any sought of doubt creates in the mind of the Court. Hence, from the

V-A.D.S.J. COURT, ALG C.A.NO.90/2017 15

above reason, Conviction is not laid upon the Accused.

 31.On conglomeration of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not corroborating with each other in all material aspects. Pw2 is the independent eye witness to the incident, did not depose anything and turned as hostile. . The evidence of Pws.1 and 3, 4, 5 who are the interested witnesses to each other, and it cannot be relied upon in the absence of any independent evidence from the eye witnesses. In such circumstances, it is not safe to convict the accused based on the interested testimony of Pws.1,3,4 and 5; ans as such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused for the offences punishable u/secs.342, 353, 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The lower court, without going into the above material aspects, convicted the accused basing on the evidence of Pws.1, 3, 4, and 5. As such, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside and the Appellant/Accused is entitled for acquittal.

This point is accordingly answered in favour of the Appellant/Accused.

32. In the result, the Appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15­03­2017 passed by the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda in C.C.No.207 of 2012.

The Appellant/Accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/s.342, 353 and 506 IPC and thereby, he is acquitted for the same

V-A.D.S.J. COURT, ALG C.A.NO.90/2017 16

U/s.386 (b) (i) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Appellant/Accused shall stand canceled subject to section 437­A of Cr.P.C, after six months, as per provisions.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of July, 2018.

III Additional Sessions Judge,

Kurnool at Nandyal.

FAC. V­Additional Sessions Court, Allagadda.

Appendix of Evidence

No additional evidence in the Appeal.

III A.D.S.J., 

Knl at Ndl. FAC. V­A.D.S.J., ALG.

Copy to the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Allagadda.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: KURNOOL .

Present: Sri Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed, III Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

Tuesday, the 9th day of April, 2019

A.S.No.27 of 2015

Dusara Bala Maddileti, aged about 40 years son of Pedda Venganna, Hindu, Business, R/o.Cherlopalli village, Owk mandal,

Kurnool District ... Appellant/Defendant

V/s.

Pula Venkataiah, aged about 50 years, S/o.Pula Thirupalu, Hindu, Business, R/o.Cherlopalli village, Owk mandal,

Kurnool District ... Respondent/Plaintif

On appeal preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 10-3-2015 in Original Suit No.259 of 2012 on the file of the Principal

Senior Civil Judge's Court, Nandyal.

Between

Pula Venkataiah, aged about 50 years, S/o.Pula Thirupalu, Hindu, Business, R/o.Cherlopalli village, Owk mandal, Kurnool District . . . . .. Plaintif a n d

Dusara Bala Maddileti, aged about 40 years son of Pedda Venganna, Hindu, Business, R/o.Cherlopalli village, Owk mandal,

Kurnool District ... Defendant

This appeal coming before me for final hearing on 03-04-2019 in the presence of Sri Midde Ramakrishnaiah, Smt.V.Rajeswari and

Sri.P.Naga Krishna Kumar, Advocates for the appellant; Sri.

G.V.N.Suresh, Advocate for the Respondent; and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:- 2

J U D G M E N T

01)The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.259/2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Nandyal, filed the appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 CPC against the impugned judgment dated 10.03.2015.

02)For the sake of convenience, the parties will be addressed as they arrayed in the judgment of the lower court.

03)The factual matrix of the plaintiff's case is that on 23.8.2009 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff again on the same day on 23.8.2009 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed two promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same.

Subsequently, on repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the same. Hence the suit.

04)The defendant filed his written statement and denied the entire allegations made in the plaint. The defendant further submits that he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff on 23.8.2009 and never executed any suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is relative of the defendant previously the plaintiff and the defendant have done stone and quarry business in Owk town. In this business there are some disputes and misunderstandings between the plaintiff and defendant so that the plaintiff forged the signatures of the defendant on the promissory notes and filed the suit for wrongful gain.

The defendant is Ex-Surpanch of Cherlopalli village and financially very sound, hence the defendant has no need to borrow the amount from the plaintiff. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

3

05)For trial the following issues have been framed:

1. Whether the suit promissory notes are forged

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount with costs as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

06)At the time of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is suit promissory note, dt.23.8.2009 for Rs.2,00,000/-, Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice, dt.23.12.2011, Ex.A3 is postal receipt, dt.26.12.2011, Ex.A4 is returned postal cover, dt.3.1.2011, Ex.A5 is another suit promissory note, dt.23.8.2009, Ex.A6 is office copy of legal notice, dt.23.12.2011, Ex.A7 is postal receipt, dt.26.12.2011, Ex.A8 returned postal cover, dt.3.1.2011. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself was examined as DW.1 and no documents were marked.

07)After hearing both sides and on careful perusal of the entire evidence and documents, the lower decreed the suit for

Rs.4,00,000/- with costs and subsequent interest shall be paid at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization only on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-.

08)Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment of the lower court, the defendant preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

i)The decree and judgment of the lower court are against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

ii)The lower court should have held all the points in favour of the appellant/petitioner and to have believed the evidence of DW.1 ought not to believe the evidence of PW.1, PW.2.

4 iii)Appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary and of circumstances and probabilities of the case by the Hon’ble lower court is erroneous.

iv)The lower court gave wrong finding that, the defendant completely denied the execution of two promissory notes dated 23.8.2009 and borrowed the promissory note amounts from the plaintiff. The plaintiff forged the signature of the defendant to get wrongful gain. So initial burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove his case. To prove his case the plaintiff must examine either attester or scribe. Here the plaintiff examined plaintiff only as PW.1, but not examined either attester or scribe. If the attester and scribe not available on promissory note the plaintiff must send the same to hand writing expert to prove his case. So when the plaintiff did not examine the attester or scribe and did not send the promissory note to hand writing expert, the plaintiff did not discharge the burden. So the plaintiff miserably failed to prove his case or failed to disprove the defendant case.

v)The lower court contention is the defendant did not denied the Exs.A1 and A5 it amounts to admission. So decreed the suit. The defendant clearly stated in written statement that “In fact the defendant did not borrow an amounts of Rs.2,00,000/-in neither two times nor executed two promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff, it means DW.1 clearly denied the execution of promissory notes and borrowed the amount”. This was not observed the lower court.

Remaining exhibits which are notices (Ex.A2, A3, A4, A6, A7 and A8) not served to the defendant as the defendant not residing at

Cherlopalli village, he is residing at Nandyal town. The plaintiff is very 5 well known this issue. But intentionally sends notice to Cherlopalli village.

vi)The lower court contention is u/sec.73 of Indian Evidence

Act the court is empowered to verify the signatures of the party and hand writing and give its opinion in the absence of the opinion of the expert. No doubt it is correct contention of the court. But the plaintiff did not filed any petition u/sec.73 of Indian Evidence Act. So without filing the petition u/sec.73 of Indian Evidence Act for comparison of signatures of defendant. The lower court judgment is not correct it is bias judgment.

vii)For these among other grounds the Hon’ble court be pleased to set-aside the decree and judgment dated 10.03.2015 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandyal in

OS.No.259/2012 and allow the appeal with costs.

09)Heard both sides.

10)Now the points for consideration are:-

1) Whether the judgment of the lower court is sustainable or warrants any interference?

2) To what relief?

11) Point No.1 :

The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW1. He reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief examination affidavit. In his cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that the defendant is his brother-in-law. The defendant is doing Hamali work and earning Rs.200/-per day and his earning is sufficient to his household expenditure. The defendant denied that he has not having financial capacity to lend the money for sum of Rs.4,00,000/-to the 6 defendant. The defendant prepared two promissory notes after borrowing money and gave to the plaintiff. Exs.A1 and A5 scribe at their house. He cannot remember his house door number as he was illiterate. Himself, his wife and the defendant and attesters were present at the time of execution of Exs.A1 and A5. The defendant brought the blank promissory notes to scribe Exs.A1 and A5. The defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff on the same day in morning hours and executed Exs.A1 and A5 after lunch on the same day. The defendant himself told that he was doing on urgent

work, he will execute the suit promissory notes on the same

day. The defendant borrowed the entire amount under two promissory notes at the same time. The plaintiff kept the amount in the house as the defendant was requested him 10 days earlier to the execution of

Exs.A1 and A5. The plaintiff borrowed the amount from others and lend money to the defendant at his request. This transaction is not mentioned in Exs.A1 or in Ex.A5. The attester is belongs to Gonavaram village of Panyam mandal. The plaintiff denied that he deposing false that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and not executed the suit promissory notes. The plaintiff denied that he forged the signatures of the defendant and created Exs.A1 and A5 for wrongful gain. In their village there are educated persons. The defendant brought the attester along with him at the time of execution of Exs.A1 and A5 and PW.1 denied the formal suggestions.

12)The defendant is examined as DW1 and he reiterated the contents of the written statement. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he studied upto 10th class. The plaintiff is his brother-in- law. He has not filed any records before the court to say that himself and PW.1 together performed a stone and lorry business jointly. The 7 defendant worked as Ex-Sarpanch on reservation category for the

Cherlopalli village. The defendant has not received any legal notice through the counsel of the plaintiff. It is mentioned in Ex.A8 and Ex.A4 that party refused to take the cove and return to the sender. He do not know whether he refused to take the cover from the Post Master.

Exs.A4 and A8 contains his name and address. He do not know whether it is mentioned in his petition affidavit in IA.76/2013 as the plaintiff forged his signature in the suit promissory note and created

Ex.A1. The defendant denied that he scribed Ex.A1 with his own hand writing and borrowed money from the plaintiff. The defendant admitted that the signatures in his vakalath and in his written statement are belongs to him, but it is not his signature in Ex.A1. It is his signature in the court summons shown to him. The defendant denied that the plaintiff never forged his signatures in Ex.A1 and not created Ex.A1 for wrongful gain. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff is illiterate, he used to affix thumb impression. The plaintiff is his maternal aunt’s son. He has not filed any case against the plaintiff in respect of the forgery of his signatures in Ex.A1. The defendant denied the formal suggestions.

13)PW1 categorically deposed that the defendant borrowed

Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- from him on 23-08-2009 and executed

Exs.A1 and A5 separately, but failed to repay the same inspite of repeated oral demands. The claim and contention of the PW.1 is clearly proved and established by him and the same is supported by

Exs.A1 to A8. On the other hand, the defendant contended that he never borrowed any amount Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- on 23.8.2009. As the defendant has taken the plea of forgery, but he miserably failed to prove his contention as pleaded in the written 8 statement, the burden is on the defendant to prove the same. DW1 deposed that due to some misunderstandings between PW.1 and DW.1, the PW.1 forged the signatures of the defendant in the suit promissory notes and created Exs.A1 and A5 to get wrongful gain.

14)To prove the contention of the defendant/DW.1 no material documents are exhibited before the court except the evidence of DW.1.

DW.1 deposed supporting the pleadings of the written statement. As per the pleadings of the plaint and recitals of Exs.A1 and A5 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-under each promissory note on 23.8.2009. As per the chief affidavit of DW.1 and the pleadings of the written statement it is mentioned that the defendant did not borrow an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-and Rs.2,00,000/-on 23.8.2009. It can be presumed that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under Exs.A1 and A5 on 23.8.2009 because the defendant has not denied Exs.A1 and A5 executed on 23.8.2009. When there is no specific denial of the amount particularly with date and document it amounts to admission of execution of Exs.A1 and A5. DW.1 has not explained where and when the plaintiff/PW.1 forged the signature of the defendant/DW.1 and how and in what circumstances and under which occasion PW.1 happened to forged the signatures of the defendant/DW.1. It is not clarified and explained in respect of the misunderstandings and disputes between PW.1 and DW.1. It is an admitted fact that PW.1 and DW.1 are brother-in-laws. On this aspect the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that PW.1 being brother-in- law of DW.1 he lend money from PW.1 without any interest so that

PW.1 is not claiming interest on the amount borrowed by DW.1 under

Exs.A1 and A5. After execution of Exs.A1 and A5 PW.1 several times demanded the DW.1 to return the amount and also issued legal notices 9 under Exs.A2 and A6, but DW.1 did not pay the amount to PW.1. DW.1 returned the postal covers under Exs.A4 and A8 to prove the contention of PW.1, he also filed the office copy of legal notice and postal receipts and returned postal covers under Exs.A2 to A4 and under Exs.A6 to 8. Except denial defendant had not proved his contention that suit promissory notes are forged one, the burden is lies upon the defendant. Why the defendant has not taken any steps (to send the suit pronotes to the hand writing expert) to prove his contention, the reasons known to the defendant. Whereas the defendant failed to prove his contention as pleaded in the written statement.

In the cross examination of DW.1 clearly admitted that he studied upto 10th class and the plaintiff is his own brother-in-law, he has not filed any records before the court to say that himself and PW.1 together performed a stone and quarry business jointly.

15)U/sec.73 of Indian Evidence Act the court is empowered to verify the signatures of the party and hand writing and give its opinion in the absence of the opinion of the expert. On verification the admitted signatures in the vakalath and written statement of DW.1 and compared with the questioning signatures of DW.1 in Exs.A1 and A5 it is observed that both the questioning signatures and admitted signatures are very similar and one and the same. There is no any variation among the admitted signatures and questioning signatures of

DW.1 in Exs.A1 and A5.

More over this court observed that there is a ample evidence is available on record what is the need in invoking the sec.73 of Indian

Evidence Act.

10

16)The claim and contention of the PW.1 is clearly established and supported by Exs.A1 to A8 without any ambiguity. According to the citation reported in

“2001 (6) ALT Page.95 (Division Bench) u/sec.118 of

Negotiable Instrument Act when the presumption is arise in

favour of the plaintif that the instrument was made and drawn

for consideration”.

The burden is therefore lies on the defendant in rebut the presumption if the defendant pleads forgery.

17)According to the above said citation the burden is on the defendant to prove his contention about the forgery plea taken by him simply raising of the allegations of forgery is not proper without placing any material before the court to prove the contention of the defendant.

In the above said circumstances and in the light of the above said citation the plaintiff clearly proved and established his contention in respect of the execution of Exs.A1 and A5 and the same is proved and supported by Exs.A1 to A8.

18)The counsel for the defendant relied upon a citation reported in

“2013 (3)ALD page.49 (Supreme Court) in respect of the

burden of proof under section 101 to 104 of Indian Evidence

Act”.

Stating that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the contention of the plaintiff.

19)The facts and circumstances of the above said citations are different with the facts and circumstances in the present case on hand.

More over the defendant has not denied the Exs.A1 and A5 because 11

Exs.A1 and A5 are executed on 23.08.2009 but not denied the execution of promissory notes dated 23.8.2009.

20)In the above said circumstances and in view of the above said citations and in the light of the evidence, that the defendant failed to prove his contention as pleaded in the written statement in respect of forgery plea taken by him whereas the PW.1 clearly proved and established his contention as pleaded in the plaint.

21)The plaintiff clearly proved and established his claim and contention and the same is supported by Exs.A1 to A8. Even according to the citation reported in “1999 (3) ALD Page.446 and 1999 (2) (SC) Page.189 relied upon the counsel for the defendant “the burden is on the

defendant to prove the forgery plea taken by him when the

plaintif clearly proved and established his claim with

supporting of the promissory notes and its additional

corroborative evidence”.

When the burden is discharged by the plaintiff showing that the document was executed by the defendant, then the burden is shifted to the defendant to prove that the document is forged. In the above said circumstances the plaintiff clearly proved and established his claim and contention in respect of the execution of Exs.A1 and A5.

Hence, the plea of forgery taken by the defendant is not proved.

22)On conglomeration of the entire material on record this court feels that the preponderance of probabilities are in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for. The lower court rightly discussed all the aspects and came to a just conclusion. The findings of the lower court are based on sound principles of law and there are no grounds to interfere 12 with the judgment of the lower court. Hence, the lower court judgment is liable to be confirmed.

23)In view of my finding on Point No.1, there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed by confirming the judgment of the lower court.

24) POINT No.2: In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 10-3-2015 in Original Suit

No.259/2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court,

Nandyal.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 9th day of April, 2019.

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KURNOOL AT NANDYAL

Appendix of Evidence

No Additional Evidence on both sides.

III ADJ, Knl at Ndl.

Copy to The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

III ADJ, NDL. AS.9/2015 1

In the Court of the III Additional District Judge,

Kurnool at Nandyal

Present:­ Sri.Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed, III Additional District Judge

Monday, the 8th day of April, 2019

APPEAL SUIT No.9 OF 2015

Pala Peddanna, aged about 41 years, s/o.Pullanna, Hindu, Junior Assistant/Auditor, Co­op Department, 30­165­66, Gopal Nagar, 

Nandyal, Kurnool district... Appellant/Defendant

Versus

Bhoomireddygari Venkata Ramana Reddy, aged about 52 years, s/o.Ramireddy, Hindu, business,r/o.Gopal Nagar, Nandyal, Kurnool district … Respondent/plaintiff

On appeal against the Decree and Judgment dated 13.2.2015 in

Original Suit No.74/2011 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil

Judge’s Court, Nandyal.

Between

Bhoomireddygari Venkata Ramana Reddy, aged about 52 years, s/o.Ramireddy, Hindu, business,r/o.Gopal Nagar, Nandyal, 

Kurnool district ... Plaintiff

Versus

Pala Peddanna, aged about 41 years, s/o.Pullanna, Hindu, Junior Assistant/Auditor, Co­op Department, 30­165­66, Gopal Nagar, Nandyal, Kurnool district.… Defendant

This appeal coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.P.Rama Krishna and Sri.V.Rama Chandra Rao,

Advocates for the Appellant/Defendant, Sri.A.Venkateswarlu and

III ADJ, NDL. AS.9/2015 2

Sri.S.Ganga Sada Sivudu, Advocates for the Respondent/plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01)The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.74/2011 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandyal, preferred the present appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC against the impugned

Judgment and decree dated 13.2.2015.

02)For the sake of convenience, the parties will be addressed as arrayed in the judgment of the lower court. The appellant is the defendant in the lower court and the respondent is plaintiff. The appellant hereinafter will be referred as defendant and the respondent as plaintiff.

03)The brief averments of the Plaint in O.S.No.74/2011 are that on 09.12.2010 the defendant/appellant had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,20,000/­from the plaintiff/respondent for the purpose of his necessities and on the same day the defendant/appellant executed the promissory note in favour of plaintiff/respondent, agreeing to repay the same at 24% p.a,. The defendant/appellant did not pay any amount in spite of oral demands made by the plaintiff/respondent and in spite of legal notice dated.05.03.2011. As the defendant/appellant is not agriculturist, the plaintiff/respondent is claiming interest at contract

III ADJ, NDL. AS.9/2015 3 rate i.e., 24% p.a. Therefore, the plaintiff/respondent prayed for decreeing the suit as prayed for.

04)On other hand, the defendant/appellant filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and stated that the defendant/appellant never executed any pronote in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and the signature on the pronote does not belong to the defendant/appellant. He further contended that due to misunderstandings about hand loan in between the plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/appellant, the plaintiff/respondent created the said pronote for wrongful gain and the suit pronote is forged one. There is no cause of action as alleged in the plaint by the plaintiff/respondent.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

05) Based on the rival pleadings both in the plaint and written statement, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. To what relief?

06)After hearing both sides and on considering the evidence on record, the lower court decreed the suit with costs.

III ADJ, NDL. AS.9/2015 4 07)Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the lower court, the appellant/defendant preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

1. That the decree and judgment of lower court is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2. That the lower court ought to have dismissed the suit with the costs of the appellant.

3. That the respondent filed suit for recovery of Rs.2,34,080/­on the foot of promissory note dated 09.12.2010 for Rs.2,20,000/­. The appellant filed written statement that he did not borrow money and executed suit promissory note and he denied the signature said to be of appellant on suit promissory note and pleaded as forged and further pleaded to dismiss the suit.

4. That the respondent examined himself as PW.1. He admitted in the cross examination that the signature on the vakalath of defendant and the signature said to be of appellant on suit promissory note (Ex.A1) have variations.

5. That the appellant did not admit the signature said to be of him on suit promissory note, belonged to him. He only admitted that the contents of Ex.A1 are in his hand writing.

III ADJ, NDL. AS.9/2015 5

6.That the appellant and respondent both admitted the signatures of appellant on summons, vakalath, written statement. The said documents and the admitted signatures of appellant were sent to hand writing expert and he examined the same with disputed signatures on suit promissory note and opined that the disputed signatures are not written by appellant.

7.That the admitted signatures of appellant are quite dissimilar with the disputed signatures of him on suit promissory note even by examination of them with naked eye. So, if Hon’ble court compares the same with the aid of experts opinion, the Hon’ble court to have found that the suit promissory note is forged one and ought to have dismissed the suit.

8.That the lower court wrongly held that there are admissions of appellant in his evidence.

9.That the lower court wrongly appreciated the authorities submitted by plaintiff, which have no apt application to the facts of the suit. Thus the lower court came to wrong conclusion and erred in decreeing the suit.

10.That the lower court ought to have dismissed the suit with exemplary costs of appellant.

For the grounds urged and to be urged at the time of hearing of appeal, the Hon’ble court may be pleased to allow the appeal by setting

III ADJ, NDL. AS.9/2015 6 aside the decree and judgment of lower court and dismiss the suit against the appellant/defendant with costs throughout and awarding exemplary costs.

08)  To prove his contention, the plaintiff/respondent himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of the defendant/appellant, the defendant/appellant himself was examined as

DW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B4.

09) Heard on both sides.

10)The points that arise for consideration are (1) Whether the judgment of the lower court is sustainable or warrants any interference?

(2) To what relief?

11)To prove the case, the plaintiff/respondent himself examined as P.W.1. The contention of the plaintiff (PW.1) is that he filed the suit for recovery of the suit claim of Rs.2,34,080/­ from the defendant/appellant that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,20,000/­on 09.12.2010 and on the same day he executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff/respondent, agreeing to repay the same at 24% p.a., In spite of the oral demands made by the plaintiff/respondent and in spite of legal notice the defendant/appellant did not choose to repay the said amount. Hence, the plaintiff/respondent prays to decree the suit.

III ADJ, NDL. AS.9/2015 7

12)The defendant/appellant filed his written statement stating that the defendant/appellant never executed any pronote in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and the signature on the pronote does not belong to him. He further contended that due to misunderstandings about hand loan in between the plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/appellant, the plaintiff/respondent created the said pronote for wrongful gain and the suit pronote is forged one. There is no cause of action as alleged in the plaint by the plaintiff/respondent. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

13)Onbehalfoftheplaintiff/respondent,the plaintiff/respondent himself was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A3 are marked to prove the contention of the plaintiff/PW.1 that the defendant/DW.1 had executed suit promissory note Ex.A1, and Ex.A2 is the legal notice issued by PW.1 to DW.1 which was served under Ex.A3 postal acknowledgement which goes to show that the plaintiff/respondent had adduced both oral and documentary evidence in support of his contention.

14)The defendant/appellant as DW.1 admitted in his chief – examination that due to misunderstandings about hand loan in between him and plaintiff/respondent, the plaintiff/respondent created Ex.A1 promissory note for wrongful gain and the same is forged one. In his cross examination he admitted that there are transactions in between

III ADJ, NDL. AS.9/2015 8 him (DW.1) and PW.1 in taking and giving money. He further admitted that he went to PW.1 and borrowing amount of Rs.2,00,000/­and scribed Ex.A1. He further admitted in his cross examination that Ex.A1 was scribed by him by his own hand writing. DW.1 further admitted his signature in summons served on him as well as his chief examination affidavit. He further admitted that PW.1 issued Ex.A2 notice to him prior to the filing of the suit.

15)After closure of defendant's side evidence and at the stage of arguments, DW.1 filed petitions for recall and reopen the suit and as per the orders in IA.No.667/2012 & 668/2012 DW.1 recalled. DW.1 stated in his further chief examination that he wrote promissory note contents but he did not put his signature on Ex.A1 and the plaintiff/respondent obtained his signature by wrongful way and filed this suit for wrongful gain. He further stated that he gave some cheques in favour of plaintiff/respondent from Andhra Bank. In his cross examination he stated that though he wrote the contents of Ex.A1 but the signature on it as borrower is not his signature. He admitted in his cross examination that he has not taken any steps to send Ex.A1 to expert to compare his admitted signatures with the signature on Ex.A1.

On showing the acquittance register Ex.B1, DW.1 admitted his signatures in Exs.B2 to B4 in it.

III ADJ, NDL. AS.9/2015 9

16) On perusal it is learnt that the admitted signatures of the petitioner/defendant in pay bill register and also admitted signatures in written statement along with suit promissory note Ex.A1 containing disputed signatures sent to the hand writting expert for comparison.

After comparison of the admitted signatures (Q1 & Q2) and disputed signatures (A1 to A22) of defendant P.Peddanna, the expert gave his opinion that “the person who wrote the blue enclosure signatures stamped and marked A1 to A22 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 and Q2”. As per the orders in IA.550/2013 filed by the petitioner/defendant this court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of handwritting expert. The learned Advocate Commissioner gave notice to other side, but the Advocate for plaintiff/respondent received notice and requested to fix up another convenient date to examine the handwritting expert. But, the Advocate Commissioner examined the handwritting expert on the same day even though he has not given an opportunity to the counsel for plaintiff/respondent to cross examine him.

17)The counsel for plaintiff/respondent argued that the hand writting expert examined the signature of DW.1 on the revenue stamp and beneath in Ex.A1, but failed to examine the signature of DW.1 at the column of scribe. The counsel for plaintiff/respondent also argued that absolutely no necessity for court to consider opinion of an expert

III ADJ, NDL. AS.9/2015 10 and the evidence of an expert is only an opinion evidence and the court need not act on opinion give by an expert when other reliable evidence in proof of a document available no substantial question of law relating to said aspect would arise for consideration. He relied on a decision report in 2009 (5) ALT 812 page 814 in a case between Lagadapati

Dhanalakshmi and others Vs.Lagadapati Anjaneyulu, wherein it was held that­ “the expert’s evidence is only an opinion evidence is well established when there is enough evidence let in by a party in proof of a certain document and the court is satisfied with the said evidence, absolutely there is no necessity for the court to consider the opinion of an expert. The evidence of an expert is only an opinion evidence and the court need not act on the opinion given by the expert when other reliable evidence in proof of a document is available”.

18)On perusal it is learnt that the evidence of an expert is only an opinion evidence and the court need not act on the opinion given by the expert when other reliable evidence in proof of a document is available.

19)The counsel for the plaintiff/respondent also relied on a decision report in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1728 in a case between

Ishwari Prasad Misra Vs. Mohammad Isa, wherein it was held that­

III ADJ, NDL. AS.9/2015 11

“Evidence given by experts of hand writting can never be

conclusive, because it is, after all, opinion evidence”.

20)On perusal of the entire material it is learnt that the evidence of expert need not to be corroborated. In this case the expert also not cross examined by the counsel for plaintiff/respondent. Hence, the opinion of expert is not a conclusive proof. Hence, the appellant contention is not proved.

21)The appellant argued that why lower court is not applied

Sec.73 of Indian Evidence Act (Court can compare the signatures of appellant on summons, vakalath and written statement and suit promissory note). When the ample evidence is available on record, there is no need of adducing the secondary evidence when primary evidence is available on record.

22)Sec.60 of Indian Evidence Act enunciated the rule of best evidence. Any evidence cross examined by the defence counsel is considered as best evidence. Here in this case the expert was not examined by the plaintiff/respondent the reasons are best known to him. Hence, the expert opinion is not considered as a best evidence.

23)In view of the admissions made by DW.1 in his evidence and in view of the above discussion, it can be said that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant/appellant

III ADJ, NDL. AS.9/2015 12 and the plaintiff/respondent is entitled for suit claim as prayed for.

Hence this issue is answered accordingly.

24)On considering the entire material on record this court feels that the preponderance of probabilities are in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.

25)There is no need of interfering the judgment of the lower court. The lower court judgment is on sound principles of law. Hence, the appeal is allowed, confirming the judgment of the lower court.

26) In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs,

confirming the judgment and decree dated 13­02­2015 in Original

Suit No.74/2011 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge's

Court, Nandyal.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 8th day of April, 2019.

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

 KURNOOL AT NANDYAL.

Appendix of Evidence

No Additional Evidence on both sides.

III ADJ, Knl at Ndl. Copy to The II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

III ADJ, NDL. AS.9/2015 13

Correct