Smt. Shanker Sridevi

1 C.C No.35 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT VEMULAWADA.

Present: Smt.S.Sridevi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sircilla. FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada.

Friday, the 22nd day of November, 2019

C.C No.35 of 2015

Between:

The State through the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Vemulawada Town (Cr.No.380/2014). ..…Complainant.

AND

A1:Manuka Ramaswamy S/o Rajamallu, aged 49 years, Yadava, R/o Thippapur village A2:Mahender S/o Ramaswamy, aged 27 years, Yadava, R/o Thippapur village A3:Manuka Ellaiah S/o Rajamallu, aged 51 years, R/o Thippapur village A4:Manuka Rajavva W/o Ramaswamy, aged 45 years, Yadava, R/o Thippapur village ..…Accused.

This case is coming on 15.11.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and Sri N. Thirumal Goud, Advocate

for Accused, having been heard both sides and having stood over for

consideration to this day, the Court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Vemulawada Town filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC in Cr.No.380/2014.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 20.12.2014 at 08.00 hours, the defacto-complainant Manuka Laxmi 2 C.C No.35 of 2015 came to Police Station and lodged complaint stating that she is the resident of Thippapur village and eking her livelihood by doing agricultural work and the house of her brother-in-law Manuka

Ramaswamy/A1 is situated beside her house. Their tenants dried up their cloths by putting the same on the doors of the house of the complainant and in the afternoon at 1.00 pm on 17.12.2014 and when she questioned such act of the tenants, they informed the same to their house owner. On 18.12.2014 at about 09.00 hrs, in the absence of her husband, A1 along with his son Mahender/A2, her elder brother- in-law Manuka Ellaiah/A3 and co-daughter-in-law Manuka Rajavva/A4 came to her house and abused her in filthy language and dragged her outside the house and beat her with slippers indiscriminately. When her daughter Manuka Manisha intervened to rescue her, they pushed her daughter by beating. They also caught hold of hair of complainant and beat her on the left cheek and right hand and further the above said persons threatened them of killing, if they over talk and there is a life threat to them from the accused. The complainant informed the above act of the accused to the Sarpanch and the

Sarpanch promised her for discussing the matter with the accused as such there occurred delay in lodging the complaint.

3.Basing on the above complaint, the Head Constable of PS

Vemulawada registered a case in Cr.No.380/2014 for the offence punishable U/Sec.324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and issued First

Information Report and then on completion of part of investigation, he handed over the CD filed to Inspector of Police who on completion of 3 C.C No.35 of 2015 entire investigation filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences U/Sec. 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec.324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC against the Accused No.1 to 4.

5.On appearance of the Accused No.1 to 4, the copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and when they were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., they denied to have committed the offences. Therefore, charges are framed U/Sec.324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC has been read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which the Accused No.1 to 4 denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the Prosecution examined Pw's.1 to 5 and got marked Ex's.P1 to P4. The police failed to serve the summons inspite of giving several opportunities to other cited witnesses namely

Manuka Rajalingam, Lanka Rambabu, Bodesingi Srini and T.Ramesh

Babu and hence their evidence is closed by this Court as inspite of giving several opportunities the police failed to serve summons on the said witnesses.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused No.1 to 4 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence found against them for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

4 C.C No.35 of 2015

8.Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination:-

“Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the

Accused No.1 to 4 for the offence U/Sec.324, 504, 506 IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10.The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 324, 504, 506

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and in this regard the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4.

11.PW1/Manuka Laxmi is the defacto-complainant,

PW2/Manuka Manisha is the daughter of Pw1, PW3/Dhanala Jampaiah and PW4/Dhanala Yadavva are the eye witnesses and PW5/Dr. Mahesh

Rao is the medical officer who gave treatment to Pw-1.

12.The case of the prosecution is that on 18.12.2014 at 09.00 hrs, the A1 to A4 abused Pw-1 and beat her with slippers indiscriminately and when Pw-2 tried to rescue, they also pushed her and further A1 to A4 dragged Pw-1 by holding her hair and beat her on her cheek and right hand and further threatened her with dire consequences to kill if Pw-1 over talked and thus A1 to A4 committed the offence liable for punishment U/Sec. 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

13.Now, looking into the evidence of defacto complainant/Pw- 1, she deposed in her chief examination that at about five years ago, at about 1.00 pm all the accused trespassed into her house and 5 C.C No.35 of 2015 dragged her and then beat her. When Pw-2 intervened all the accused beat her also and at that time Pws 3 and 4 rescued them from the clutches of the accused and at that time of the incident she along with Pw-2 were present and on the same day she went to the police station and lodged complaint against the accused under Ex.P1 and the police examined her. During the course of her cross examination by the counsel for the accused, Pw-1 stated that the house of A1 is situated at a distance of 100 yards from her house and

A1 and A3 are her brother-in-laws and there were no land disputes in between her and accused and she was examined by the police on the same day at her house. Pw-1 denied the suggestion that she has not mention the names of Pw’s 3 and 4 in her complaint.

14.Pw-2, who is daughter of Pw-1 deposed in her chief examination that on 18.12.2014 at about 09.00 am A1, A2 and A4 came to her house and started beating Pw-1 and when she intervened they also beat her and Pws-3 and 4 rescued them from the clutches of the accused and on the same day Pw-1 lodged complaint and the police examined her. During the course of cross examination Pw2 stated that the Pw’s 3 and 4 are the tenants of her paternal grand mother. Pw-2 stated that on the same day of incident the police examined her and she denied the formal suggestion put-forth by the counsel for the accused.

6 C.C No.35 of 2015

15.For the purpose of corroboration, the prosecution examined eye witnesses as Pw’s 3 and 4. Pw3 deposed in his chief examination that at about five years ago while he was returning from work he saw a quarrel going on in between Pws1 and 2 and accused and both of them abused each other and he went away from there as he had work and the police never examined him.

Pw-4 deposed on the similar lines as that of Pw-3 about Pws 1 and 2 and accused abused each other. Pw-4 stated that she intervened and set aside the matter by sending both the parties away and the police never examined her. The learned APP treated Pw’s 3 and 4 as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the court, but he could not elicited anything in favour of the case of the prosecution.

16.The medical officer who gave treatment to Pw-1 is examined as Pw-5 and he deposed in his chief examination that on 20.12.2014 he gave treatment to Pw-1 as out patient at 11.40 am and on examining her, he found the following injuries i.e., 1. Abrasion on shoulder which is simple in nature caused by blunt object and 2.

Abrasion on cervical region which is simple in nature caused by blunt object. He issued medical certificate under Ex.P4 and as per his opinion the said injuries were caused by blunt object. During the course of cross examination by the counsel for the accused, Pw-5 stated the age of the injury was approximately three houses prior to his examination and he admitted that the said injuries are possible as mentioned in Ex.P4 if a person himself falls on the ground.

7 C.C No.35 of 2015

17.On perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses placed before this Court, the accused A1 to A4 are none other than the relatives of Pw-1. Pw-1 while lodging the complaint stated in her complaint that the matter was brought to the notice of the Sarpanch of the village for which there occurred a delay in lodging the complaint. Whereas, during the course of chief examination Pw-1 deposed that on the date of incident itself she lodged complaint

before the police and there is inconsistency in her version, as the

alleged incident took place on 18.12.2014 and the date of lodging the complaint is 20.12.2014 at about 8.00 hours. Pw-1 did not state the names of Pws 3 and 4 as eye witnesses and she did not state about they rescuing her and Pw-2 from the clutches of the accused herein but she deposed as such in the evidence given by her before this

Court. Pw-1 during the course of cross examination stated that there are no land disputes between her and accused, whereas her daughter

Pw-2 admitted in the cross examination that there exists land disputes between them and accused. Pws 1 and 2 deposed that the police examined and recorded their statements on the date of lodging of complaint itself i.e., as per their version on the date of incident itself but there is a delay in lodging complaint by Pw-1. The eye witnesses examined as Pws 3 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution as they turned hostile and hence, their evidence is of no way useful to prosecution.

8 C.C No.35 of 2015

18.Now looking into the evidence of medical officer/Pw-5, according to him there were abrasion on the shoulder of Pw-1 and abrasion on cervical region of Pw-1 when she came for taking treatment on 20.12.2014 at 11.40 am. There is no mention about Pw- 1 taking treatment for the injuries sustained by her in her chief examination and she also did not mention specific over tacts of the accused herein. The medical officer/Pw-5 deposed that Pw-1 is given treatment as out patient, but there is no evidence placed before this

Court whether Pw-1 herself came to the hospital for taking treatment or any requisition is sent by the police in this regard. Inspite of giving several opportunities the police failed to serve the summons on the cited witnesses i.e., head constable and the investigation officer who filed the charge sheet in this case and in such circumstances this

Court is compelled to close their evidence and non-examining of the said witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Except the interested testimony of Pws 1 and 2 there is no other evidence placed

before this Court to believe the case of the prosecution. Further as

discussed above in view of the in consistency in the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 and lack of corroboration in their evidence, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 for the charges levelled against them for the offences punishable under section 324, 506, 504 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence the accused no.1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

9 C.C No.35 of 2015

19.In the result, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and hence they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal time. No case property seized by the police in this case.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 22 nd day of November, 2019.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sircilla. FAC:Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1 : Manuka Laxmi --Nil-- PW2 : Manuka Manisha PW3 : Dhanala Jampaiah PW4 : Dhanala Yadavva PW5 : Dr. Mahesh Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: is the signature of Pw-1 on complaint. Ex.P2: is the 161 crpc statement of Pw-1. Ex.P3: is the 161 crpc statement of Pw-2 Ex.P4: is the 161 crpc statement of Pw-3.

FOR THE DEFENCE: --Nil--

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sircilla. FAC:Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.

1 C.C No.35 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT VEMULAWADA.

Present: Smt.S.Sridevi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sircilla. FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada.

Friday, the 22nd day of November, 2019

C.C No.35 of 2015

Between:

The State through the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Vemulawada Town (Cr.No.380/2014). ..…Complainant.

AND

A1:Manuka Ramaswamy S/o Rajamallu, aged 49 years, Yadava, R/o Thippapur village A2:Mahender S/o Ramaswamy, aged 27 years, Yadava, R/o Thippapur village A3:Manuka Ellaiah S/o Rajamallu, aged 51 years, R/o Thippapur village A4:Manuka Rajavva W/o Ramaswamy, aged 45 years, Yadava, R/o Thippapur village ..…Accused.

This case is coming on 15.11.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and Sri N. Thirumal Goud, Advocate

for Accused, having been heard both sides and having stood over for

consideration to this day, the Court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Vemulawada Town filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC in Cr.No.380/2014.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 20.12.2014 at 08.00 hours, the defacto-complainant Manuka Laxmi 2 C.C No.35 of 2015 came to Police Station and lodged complaint stating that she is the resident of Thippapur village and eking her livelihood by doing agricultural work and the house of her brother-in-law Manuka

Ramaswamy/A1 is situated beside her house. Their tenants dried up their cloths by putting the same on the doors of the house of the complainant and in the afternoon at 1.00 pm on 17.12.2014 and when she questioned such act of the tenants, they informed the same to their house owner. On 18.12.2014 at about 09.00 hrs, in the absence of her husband, A1 along with his son Mahender/A2, her elder brother- in-law Manuka Ellaiah/A3 and co-daughter-in-law Manuka Rajavva/A4 came to her house and abused her in filthy language and dragged her outside the house and beat her with slippers indiscriminately. When her daughter Manuka Manisha intervened to rescue her, they pushed her daughter by beating. They also caught hold of hair of complainant and beat her on the left cheek and right hand and further the above said persons threatened them of killing, if they over talk and there is a life threat to them from the accused. The complainant informed the above act of the accused to the Sarpanch and the

Sarpanch promised her for discussing the matter with the accused as such there occurred delay in lodging the complaint.

3.Basing on the above complaint, the Head Constable of PS

Vemulawada registered a case in Cr.No.380/2014 for the offence punishable U/Sec.324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and issued First

Information Report and then on completion of part of investigation, he handed over the CD filed to Inspector of Police who on completion of 3 C.C No.35 of 2015 entire investigation filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences U/Sec. 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec.324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC against the Accused No.1 to 4.

5.On appearance of the Accused No.1 to 4, the copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and when they were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., they denied to have committed the offences. Therefore, charges are framed U/Sec.324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC has been read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which the Accused No.1 to 4 denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the Prosecution examined Pw's.1 to 5 and got marked Ex's.P1 to P4. The police failed to serve the summons inspite of giving several opportunities to other cited witnesses namely

Manuka Rajalingam, Lanka Rambabu, Bodesingi Srini and T.Ramesh

Babu and hence their evidence is closed by this Court as inspite of giving several opportunities the police failed to serve summons on the said witnesses.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused No.1 to 4 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence found against them for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

4 C.C No.35 of 2015

8.Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination:-

“Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the

Accused No.1 to 4 for the offence U/Sec.324, 504, 506 IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10.The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 324, 504, 506

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and in this regard the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4.

11.PW1/Manuka Laxmi is the defacto-complainant,

PW2/Manuka Manisha is the daughter of Pw1, PW3/Dhanala Jampaiah and PW4/Dhanala Yadavva are the eye witnesses and PW5/Dr. Mahesh

Rao is the medical officer who gave treatment to Pw-1.

12.The case of the prosecution is that on 18.12.2014 at 09.00 hrs, the A1 to A4 abused Pw-1 and beat her with slippers indiscriminately and when Pw-2 tried to rescue, they also pushed her and further A1 to A4 dragged Pw-1 by holding her hair and beat her on her cheek and right hand and further threatened her with dire consequences to kill if Pw-1 over talked and thus A1 to A4 committed the offence liable for punishment U/Sec. 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

13.Now, looking into the evidence of defacto complainant/Pw- 1, she deposed in her chief examination that at about five years ago, at about 1.00 pm all the accused trespassed into her house and 5 C.C No.35 of 2015 dragged her and then beat her. When Pw-2 intervened all the accused beat her also and at that time Pws 3 and 4 rescued them from the clutches of the accused and at that time of the incident she along with Pw-2 were present and on the same day she went to the police station and lodged complaint against the accused under Ex.P1 and the police examined her. During the course of her cross examination by the counsel for the accused, Pw-1 stated that the house of A1 is situated at a distance of 100 yards from her house and

A1 and A3 are her brother-in-laws and there were no land disputes in between her and accused and she was examined by the police on the same day at her house. Pw-1 denied the suggestion that she has not mention the names of Pw’s 3 and 4 in her complaint.

14.Pw-2, who is daughter of Pw-1 deposed in her chief examination that on 18.12.2014 at about 09.00 am A1, A2 and A4 came to her house and started beating Pw-1 and when she intervened they also beat her and Pws-3 and 4 rescued them from the clutches of the accused and on the same day Pw-1 lodged complaint and the police examined her. During the course of cross examination Pw2 stated that the Pw’s 3 and 4 are the tenants of her paternal grand mother. Pw-2 stated that on the same day of incident the police examined her and she denied the formal suggestion put-forth by the counsel for the accused.

6 C.C No.35 of 2015

15.For the purpose of corroboration, the prosecution examined eye witnesses as Pw’s 3 and 4. Pw3 deposed in his chief examination that at about five years ago while he was returning from work he saw a quarrel going on in between Pws1 and 2 and accused and both of them abused each other and he went away from there as he had work and the police never examined him.

Pw-4 deposed on the similar lines as that of Pw-3 about Pws 1 and 2 and accused abused each other. Pw-4 stated that she intervened and set aside the matter by sending both the parties away and the police never examined her. The learned APP treated Pw’s 3 and 4 as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the court, but he could not elicited anything in favour of the case of the prosecution.

16.The medical officer who gave treatment to Pw-1 is examined as Pw-5 and he deposed in his chief examination that on 20.12.2014 he gave treatment to Pw-1 as out patient at 11.40 am and on examining her, he found the following injuries i.e., 1. Abrasion on shoulder which is simple in nature caused by blunt object and 2.

Abrasion on cervical region which is simple in nature caused by blunt object. He issued medical certificate under Ex.P4 and as per his opinion the said injuries were caused by blunt object. During the course of cross examination by the counsel for the accused, Pw-5 stated the age of the injury was approximately three houses prior to his examination and he admitted that the said injuries are possible as mentioned in Ex.P4 if a person himself falls on the ground.

7 C.C No.35 of 2015

17.On perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses placed before this Court, the accused A1 to A4 are none other than the relatives of Pw-1. Pw-1 while lodging the complaint stated in her complaint that the matter was brought to the notice of the Sarpanch of the village for which there occurred a delay in lodging the complaint. Whereas, during the course of chief examination Pw-1 deposed that on the date of incident itself she lodged complaint

before the police and there is inconsistency in her version, as the

alleged incident took place on 18.12.2014 and the date of lodging the complaint is 20.12.2014 at about 8.00 hours. Pw-1 did not state the names of Pws 3 and 4 as eye witnesses and she did not state about they rescuing her and Pw-2 from the clutches of the accused herein but she deposed as such in the evidence given by her before this

Court. Pw-1 during the course of cross examination stated that there are no land disputes between her and accused, whereas her daughter

Pw-2 admitted in the cross examination that there exists land disputes between them and accused. Pws 1 and 2 deposed that the police examined and recorded their statements on the date of lodging of complaint itself i.e., as per their version on the date of incident itself but there is a delay in lodging complaint by Pw-1. The eye witnesses examined as Pws 3 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution as they turned hostile and hence, their evidence is of no way useful to prosecution.

8 C.C No.35 of 2015

18.Now looking into the evidence of medical officer/Pw-5, according to him there were abrasion on the shoulder of Pw-1 and abrasion on cervical region of Pw-1 when she came for taking treatment on 20.12.2014 at 11.40 am. There is no mention about Pw- 1 taking treatment for the injuries sustained by her in her chief examination and she also did not mention specific over tacts of the accused herein. The medical officer/Pw-5 deposed that Pw-1 is given treatment as out patient, but there is no evidence placed before this

Court whether Pw-1 herself came to the hospital for taking treatment or any requisition is sent by the police in this regard. Inspite of giving several opportunities the police failed to serve the summons on the cited witnesses i.e., head constable and the investigation officer who filed the charge sheet in this case and in such circumstances this

Court is compelled to close their evidence and non-examining of the said witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Except the interested testimony of Pws 1 and 2 there is no other evidence placed

before this Court to believe the case of the prosecution. Further as

discussed above in view of the in consistency in the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 and lack of corroboration in their evidence, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 for the charges levelled against them for the offences punishable under section 324, 506, 504 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence the accused no.1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

9 C.C No.35 of 2015

19.In the result, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and hence they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal time. No case property seized by the police in this case.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 22 nd day of November, 2019.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sircilla. FAC:Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1 : Manuka Laxmi --Nil-- PW2 : Manuka Manisha PW3 : Dhanala Jampaiah PW4 : Dhanala Yadavva PW5 : Dr. Mahesh Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: is the signature of Pw-1 on complaint. Ex.P2: is the 161 crpc statement of Pw-1. Ex.P3: is the 161 crpc statement of Pw-2 Ex.P4: is the 161 crpc statement of Pw-3.

FOR THE DEFENCE: --Nil--

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sircilla. FAC:Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.

IN THE COURT OF Prl.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT SIRICILLA

PRESENT: Smt.S.SRIDEVI Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Siricilla.

Monday, the 22nd day of January, 2018.

OS.NO.46 of 2010

Between:

Veerogoni Chandu, S/o Ramulu, aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.1-95, Chandrampet(V). Sircilla mandal, Karimnagar (D). …Plaintiff.

A n d

Kura Sridhar, S/o Mallaiah, aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.4-4-124, Boyawada Pochamma street, Sircilla mandal, Karimnagar (D). … Defendant.

This suit is coming on 18-1-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Prakasham, Advocate for the Plaintiff and that of Sri Ch.Mahesh Goud, Advocate for the defendant, having been heard and having stood for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:

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

(1).This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of amount of

Rs.54,230/- (i.e., Principal amount of Rs.32,000/- and Interest amount of Rs.22,230/-) against the defendant with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the suit amount from the date of filing of the suit till realization and for the costs of the suit.

2 (2).The factual background of the case of the plaintiff is that he and the defendant having acquaintance with each other and out of said acquaintance, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff to lend an amount of Rs.32,000/- (Rupees Thirty two thousand only) for his business necessities as he does the business of Cell point at

Sircilla and that the Plaintiff advanced the said amount of

Rs.32,000/- to the Defendant on 11-6-2007 at Chandrampet village, Sircilla mandal and that the defendant after receiving the said amount as loan executed promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the said loan amount on demand along with agreed interest and thereafter he demanded the defendant for repayment of the said amount but the defendant failed to pay neither interest nor principal amount and postponed the same on one pretext or other and that as the defendant failed to pay the said amount he issued a legal notice to the defendant on 7-2-2009 through registered post demanding the defendant to pay the borrowed amount with interest at the agreed rate and that the defendant having received the said notice neither gave reply nor paid the said amount, hence he filed the suit.

(3).On the other hand, the defendant filed written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint and contended that previously the Plaintiff supplied recharge cards of Cell phones to the Defendant on credit basis and during the course of said business, the Defendant fell due an amount of Rs.32,000/- to the 3

Plaintiff and for the said amount, upon the demand of the Plaintiff as the Defendant was facing financial problem, he executed the

Promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff for an amount of

Rs.32,000/- at Vaishnavi Cell point, Old Bus stand, Sircilla and thereafter the Defendant paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- on 22-5- 2008, Rs.15,000/- on 6-12-2007 and Rs.23,000/- on 1-2-2008 to the Plaintiff and on receipt of said amounts, the Plaintiff acknowledged the payment of said amounts on the small book of the defendant and when the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to return the Promissory note executed by him, the Plaintiff postponed the matter and later developed the second thought and by taking advantage of said Promissory note in his possession he filed the present Suit by suppressing the true facts and that the

Defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the Plaintiff and hence prayed the Court to dismiss the Suit.

(4).Basing on the above said pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed:

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.54,230/- (Rupees Fifty four thousand and Two hundred and thirty only) from the Defendant ?.

2. Whether there was part payment of Rs.5000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.23,000/- on 22-5-2008, 6-12-2007 and 1-2-2008 respectively made by Defendant to the Plaintiff ?.

3. To what relief ?.

4 (5).To prove their respective case the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the Original promissory note dated 11-06-2017, Ex.A2 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 7-2-2009, Ex.A3 is the postal receipt and EX.A4 is the Original acknowledgement card. He also got examined one

Pathuri Madhu as PW2. The defendant got examined himself as

DW.1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B2 are marked on behalf of the defendant.

Pw.1 filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination the contents of which are in line with the averments made in the plaint. Likewise the defendant also filed his Chief affidavit as DW.1 with the same contents as in his written statement.

(6). Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties.

(7). ISSUE No.1 and 2:

As issues No.1 and 2 are inter linked all of them are taken up for determination.

(A). It is the specific case of the Plaintiff that he has advanced an amount of Rs.32,000/- to the Defendant and that on receipt of the same, the Defendant executed the Promissory Note/Ex.A1 dated 11-06-2007. Since it is suit for recovery of amount based upon the foot of suit promissory note it is the initial burden of the plaintiff to prove that he has lent the suit amount to the defendant and that the defendant executed the suit promissory note in his favour after receiving the said amount. To discharge the same, the Plaintiff 5 filed Ex.A1 and legal notice issued by him to the Defendant.

Ex.A1 which is the Suit Promissory Note signed by the Defendant in presence of two witnesses. Defendant admitted his signature on

Ex.A1 and further one of the witness to Ex.A1 is also examined as

PW2. So, the Plaintiff proved that defendant has infact executed

Ex.A1 and that consideration also passed on under the said

Promissory Note.

(B). Now, what has to be seen is whether the Defendant paid the amount borrowed by him and that Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 which are confronted to Plaintiff during the course of his cross examination are the amounts paid in relation to the amount borrowed under

Ex.A1. The date of Ex.A1 is 11-06-2007 under Ex.A1 and the date on Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are 22-05-2008 and 6-12-2007 and the 3rd date in the said book is 1-2-2008. Though the Plaintiff did not plead in his plaint with regard to business he is carrying and how he is acquainted with the Defendant but on perusal of his cross examination, he clearly admitted that the endorsement made on

Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 pertains to transactions of dues of recharge of cell cards. This admission of him clearly vindicates the contention of the Defendant that during the course of buying of the recharge of cards from the Plaintiff he fell due an amount of Rs.32,000/- for which he executed Ex.A1. Moreover, the Plaintiff admitted his signature on the same and even the date on Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are anterior to the date of Ex.A1 and when the evidence of PW2 is 6 connected to the same where he deposed that the defendant promised to pay the borrowed amount to the plaintiff within three months, an inference can be drawn that the amount on Ex.A1 and the amounts paid under Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are the same transactions and that the Defendant has paid the amounts borrowed under Ex.A1 to the plaintiff. In view of the above finding, this Court holds that the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the amount under Ex.A1 from the defendant. Hence the issues No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

(8). ISSUE No.3 :

IN THE RESULT, the Suit of the Plaintiff is dismissed and in the circumstances of the case, there is no Order as to costs.

Typed by me directly on the personal laptop and after corrections, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of January, 2018.

PRl. JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

Appendix of evidence ::::

Witnesses examined

For the Plaintiff: For the Defendant:

PW-1 Veerogoni Chandu DW-1 Kura Sridhar PW-2 Pathuri Madhu

Exhibits Marked

For the Plaintiff: Ex.A1 is the Promissory note executed by the defendant 7 in favour of the Plaintiff dated 11-6-2007. Ex.A2 is the Office copy of the legal notice dated 7-2-2009. Ex.A3 is the postal receipt. Ex.A4 is the Original acknowledgement card.

For the Defendant: Ex.B1 is the admitted signature and handwriting of Pw1 on the slip book pad. Ex.B2 is the paper slip on the Slip book (i.e., pertains to transactions of recharge cards).

Prl. JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT SIRICILLA

PRESENT: Smt.S.SRIDEVI Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Siricilla.

Monday, the 22nd day of January, 2018

O.S.NO.54 of 2012

Between:

Shaik Bashu, S/o. Durga Saheb, age: 50 yrs., Occ: agriculture & Home guard, R/o. Padmanagar, Sircilla town and Mandal.

… Plaintif

A n d

1) Koyyada @ Chakali Gouraiah, S/o.Bhoomaiah, age:60 yrs., R/o.Baddenapalli v/o.Siricilla Mandal.

2) Koyyada @ Chakali Narsavva, W/o.Gouraiah, age:55 yrs., R/o.Baddenapalli v/o.Siricilla Mandal.

3) Koyyada @ Chakali Srinivas, S/o.Gouraiah, age:35 yrs., R/o.Baddenapalli v/o.Siricilla Mandal.

4) Koyyada @ Chakali Bhoomavva, W/o.Bhoomaiah, age:36 yrs., R/o.Baddenapalli v/o.Siricilla Mandal.

5) Koyyada @ Chakali Aruna, W/o.Sailu, age:32 yrs., R/o.Baddenapalli v/o.Siricilla Mandal.

6) Koyyada @ Chakali Tharavva, W/o.Srinivas, age:28 yrs., R/o.Baddenapalli v/o.Siricilla Mandal.

… Defendants.

This suit is coming on 18-01-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Vasantham, Advocate for the plaintiff and that of Sri K. Laxman, Advocate for the defendants, having been heard and having stood over for consideration the Court delivered the following :

: J U D G M E N T:

2

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their family members, agents, servants, workmen, supporters etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property i.e., the agricultural land admeasuring

Ac 0-18 gts., in Sy.No.248/E situated at Baddenapalli v/o. Siricilla mandal which hereinafter in short referred as “suit schedule property”.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring

Ac 0-18 gts. in Sy.No.548/E situated at Baddenapalli v/o. Siricilla mandal and previously the vendor of the plaintiff namely Chakali @ Koyyada Bakkaiah sold the suit schedule property to him through the registered document bearing No.1561/1997, dated 12-7-1997 and since the date of purchase the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without interruption from anyone and he got mutated his name in the revenue records also vide mutation proceedings No.B/R55/2009,

dated 16-11-2009 and the revenue authorities also issued

pattedar passbook and title deed to the plaintiff and that the defendants who are strangers to the suit schedule property having no manner of any right over the same are interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and on 22-04-2012 the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and with great

3

difficulty he could resist the acts of the defendants but while leaving the suit schedule property the defendants threatened that they will dispossess him at any point of time, hence having no other alternative the plaintiff filed the present suit.

3. The defendants 1 to 6 filed the written statement denying the averments of the plaintiff and contended that previously one Koyyada @ Chakali Pedda Bhoomaiah who is the father of the defendant No.1 was the pattedar and owner of the

Ac 0-18 gts. of land in Sy.No.548/E is situated at Baddenapalli village, Siricilla mandal and his father died leaving his five sons namely Rajaiah, Pochaiah, Gouraiah/defendant No.1, Nampalli and Venkaiah as his legal heirs and after the death of his father, the defendant No.1 and his four brothers above mentioned have orally partitioned the above said Ac 0-18 gts. of land and the defendant No.1 was allotted Ac 0-04 gts., Pochaiah was allotted Ac 0-03 gts. of land, Rajaiah was allotted Ac 0-03 gts. of land, Venkaiah was allotted Ac 0-04 gts. of land and that his brothers Rajaiah and Venkaiah sold their extent of land to others and at present the defendant No.1, 4, 5, 6 and Pochaiah are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective lands which fell to their share and their names were also recorded in the revenue records and the revenue authorities also issued pattedar passbooks and title deeds to them for their respective lands and that the total extent of the land is Ac 1-15 gts. in

Sy.No.548/E and that the plaintiff by mentioning the wrong

4

boundaries in the registered sale deed bearing No.1661/1999,

dated 22-7-1997 obtained the sale deed from his vendor wherein

his vendor do not have any land as per the boundaries stated in the said sale deed as such the plaintiff cannot be got any rights over the land mentioned in the sale deed and that there is no land at all on the spot as per the boundaries shown in the plaint and on the strength of above said sale deed the plaintiff filed the present suit by showing the wrong boundaries and the suit of the plaintiff itself is not maintainable and hence prayed Court to dismiss the suit.

4.Based on the pleadings, the following issues are framed for consideration by this court which are as follows:-

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

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

5. To substantiate the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as Pw1 and on his behalf and got marked

Exs.A1 to A4. Though the defendants 1 to 6 filed written statement but they failed to adduce their evidence before this court.

5

6. ISSUE NOs.1 and 2:

Issue Nos.1 and 2 were inter-linked, hence they were taken up together. In a suit for injunction the initial is burden is on the plaintiff to prove that he has primafacie case and that if injunction is granted the loss sustained by him and has to show that the balance of convenience is in his favour for granting injunction. In the suit for permanent injunction the person approaching the Court has to come with clean hands without there being any suppression with regard to real facts incontroversy. The grant of refusal of injunction is guided by three well established principles: i.e.,

(a) He should make out the primafacie case that he is in possession of the “suit schedule property” as on the date of filing of the suit.

(b) The balance of convenience is in his favour and if injunction is not granted irreparable loss suffered by him.

(7) In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff has to prove his case and establish by placing cogent evidence, his primafacie case and also whether he is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. To substantiate his case, he filed Exs.A1 to A6. The plaintiff filed the chief affidavit reiterating the pleadings as set out in his plaint. The defendants though filed written statement but did not enter into the witness box nor let in any evidence to disprove the case of the plaintiff except raising various contentions in the written statement and further they do not to choose to cross examine the plaintiff/Pw1,

6

hence the cross examination of Pw1 stated as nil. In the light of the same particularly when the evidence of the plaintiff is consistent and there are no contrary evidence to disprove the same, this Court holds that the plaintiff has established his primafacie case and in view of the same if injunction is not granted the plaintiff will suffer the irreparable loss and since he is in possession of the suit schedule property and balance of convenience is also in his favour. The issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

8. ISSUE NO.3:-

In the result, suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the defendants and their agents, servants etc., are perpetually restrained from interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land i.e., the agricultural land admeasuring Ac 0-10 gts., in Sy.No.548/E, situated at Baddenapalli (v), Siricilla mandal and there shall be no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by him, and

after corrections, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of January, 2018.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,

SIRICILLA.

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

7

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

PW.1: Shaik Bashu -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1 is the Original pattedar passbook. Ex.A2 is the Copy of pahani for the year 2007-2008. Ex.A3 is the Original registered sale deed Doc.No.1561/1997, dated: 22-7-1997. Ex.A4 is the copy of pahani for the fasli year 1424, dated: 7-8- 2014.

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

-Nil-

PRL. JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRICILLA.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT SIRICILLA

PRESENT: Smt.S.SRIDEVI Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Siricilla.

Monday the 22nd day of January, 2018

OS.NO.47 of 2015

Between:

Kommula Vijaya Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, aged about 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Muskanpet Village Via Kodurpaka, Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District. … Plaintif

A n d

1. Kommula Bhoolaxmi, W/o. Late Swamy Reddy, aged about 48 years, Occ: Govt. Employee, H.No.9-79, Street No.2, Udaynagar colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad-500039.

2. Kommula Laxma Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Muskanpet (V), Via: Kodurpaka, Ellanthakunta Mandal of Karimnagar (D).

3. Kommula Ram Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Muskanpet (V), Via: Kodurpaka, Ellanthakunta Mandal of Karimnagar (D),n now residing at Vadloor V/o Bejjanki Mandal of Karimnagar (D). …Defendants.

This Suit is coming on today before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Kodam Suresh, Advocate for the Plaintiff and that the Defendants No.1 to 3 remained absent and set exparte, having been heard and having stood over for consideration the

Court delivered the following :

2

: J U D G M E N T:

1.This is a Suit filed by the Plaintiff against Defendants No.1 to 3 for Partition and separate possession of Suit Schedule properties into four equal shares and to allot one such share i.e., 1/4th share to the Plaintiff.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the Suit are that the Plaintiff and the Defendants No.2 and 3 are the brothers and the Defendant

No.1 is the sister-in-law (wife of the brother of the Plaintiff namely late Swami Reddy) and that the husband of the Defendant No.1 died and that the Suit schedule properties are in the name of the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants No.2 and 3 namely Raji Reddy and that the said properties are ancestral properties and the Suit schedule properties being inherited from paternal grand father of the Plaintiff, the same got mutated through Virasat in the name of the father of the Plaintiff after the death of his grandfather Late

Kommula Narsimha Reddy and that the parents of the Plaintiff died about 10 years back and that the Suit schedule properties are situ- ated in the Mukanpet village of Ellanthakunta Mandal of Karimnagar

District and that the Plaintiff and Defendants are governed by the

Hindu Mitakshara family and that the Plaintiffs and Defendants No.1 to 3 are the joint owners of the Suit schedule properties i.e., the land admeasuring Ac.1-20 guntas in Survey No.418/........, Ac.0-23 guntas in Survey No.425/............, Ac.2-06 guntas in Survey

No.438/..........., Ac.4-05 guntas in survey No.104/....... and Ac.2-12

3

guntas in survey No.102/.......... which here-in-after in short re- ferred as "Suit Schedule properties" and that the Defendants No.1 to 3 got colluded and trying to alienate the said properties so as to deprive the rights of the Plaintiff, hence the present Suit.

3. On receipt of the summons Defendant No.1 and 3 appeared through their Counsel Sri G.Bhaskar Reddy and Sri.A.Nagaraju but the Defendants No.1 and 3 did not choose to file written statement even after expiry of statutory period, hence they were set exparte by Order dated 30-10-2015 and on application of the Plaintiff, Sub- stitute service is ordered against the Defendant No.2 and the proof of paper publication is filed and the Defendant No.2 called absent, hence he was set exparte by Order dated 27-12-2016 and the mat- ter was posted for Plaintiff evidence.

4. To prove his case, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for Plaintiff. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff in support of his contentions of the evidentiary value of entries in Pahanies maintained under the Regulations re- lied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court held between Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited and others reported in 2002 (5) ALD 532 (DB). Perused the record.

4

6. Now the point for determination as :

1. Whether the schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of Plaintiff and Defendants ?.

2. Whether the Suit schedule properties are liable for partition between the Plaintiff and Defendants ?.

3. To what share each party is ?.

7. Point No.1 and 2:

(A). As item No.1 to 2 are interlinked, they are discussed together.

The case of the Plaintiff is that he and Defendant No.2 and 3 and the husband of the Defendant No.1 namely Late Swamy Reddy are the children of Late Raji Reddy and that originally his grandfather

Late Kommula Narsimha Reddy was the owner and possessor of

Suit schedule properties and that after his death, the father of the

Plaintiff inherited the Suit schedule properties and his name also mutated in the Revenue records as inherited through Virasat and that the mother and the father of the Plaintiff died about 10 years back and that after the death of his parents, the Plaintiff and Defen- dant No. 1 to 3 have succeeded to the Suit schedule properties and are having equal shares in the said properties and that the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 to 3 are in joint possession and occupation and enjoyment of the Suit schedule properties and that the Defen- dant No.1 to 3 got colluded and trying to alienate the Suit schedule properties so as to deprive the rights of the Plaintiff, hence the present Suit.

5

(B). The Plaintiff filed his Chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examina- tion and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. The Defendants remained ab- sent and set exparte. There is no adverse evidence on record ei- ther to disbelieve the oral evidence of PW.1 or the documentary evi- dence marked as Exs.A.1 to A6 as the Defendants remained ex- parte. Hence the Plaintiff No.1 by filing his chief-examination affi- davit as PW.1 and by exhibiting Exs.A1 to A6 has proved that Suit schedule properties are jointly owned by Plaintiff and Defendants

No.1 to 3. Hence the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in Suit schedule proper- ties. Accordingly the issue No.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the

Plaintiff.

8. POINT No.3 :

In view of the findings on Issue No.1 and 2, I hold that the Suit claim by the Plaintiff in respect of Suit schedule properties is proved and hence the Plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in Suit schedule properties.

IN THE RESULT, this Court holds that the Plaintiff and Defen- dants No.1 to 3 are entitled to 1/4th share each in Suit Schedule properties and pass a preliminary decree for partition declaring that the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to 1/4th share each in the Suit Schedule properties and accordingly the Suit of the

Plaintiff is decreed without costs.

6

Typed by me directly on the personal laptop, and after correc- tions pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of January, 2018.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANTS: PW1: Kommula Vijaya Reddy Exparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: is the copy of pahani for the year 2005-2006 Ex.A2: is the copy of Pahani for the year 2011-2012 Ex.A3: is the copy of Pahani foraq the Fasli 1424, dt: 16.07.2014 Ex.A4: is the copy of Pahani for the Fasli 1424, dt: 16.07.2014 Ex.A5: is the copy of Pahani for the Fasli 1424, dt: 16.07.2014 Ex.A6: is the copy of Pahani for the Fasli 1424, dt: 16.07.2014

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: - Nil-

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRICILLA.