Ms. Shirisha Katkojwala

Page No. 1 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NALGONDA

On this Wednesday, the 08th day of April, 2026

Present: Shirisha Katkojwala,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

NALGONDA.

O.S. No.3 15 of 2022

Between:

Marla Ram Reddy S/o. Late Narsi Reddy Age: 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Nerada Village of Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

... Plaintiff

A N D

1.Marla Laxmamma W/o. Late Narsi Reddy Age: 75 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Nerada Village of Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

2.Marla Srinivas Reddy S/o. Late Narayana Reddy Occ: Agriculture and Teacher, working at Primary School at Azmapur village of Devarakonda Mandal of Nalgonda District. Permanent residence at H.No. 5-11-70, Shanthinagar, Nalgonda District.

3.Marla Varjramma W/o. Late Narayana Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 5-11-70, Shanthinagar, Nalgonda District. .

4.Marla Dharma Reddy S/o. Late Narsi Reddy, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Plot No.6, H.No.3-9-126, Shailajapuri Colony, Mansoorabad, Hyderabad.

5.Marla Atchi Reddy S/o. Late Narsi Reddy, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Nerada Village of Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

6.Dubbaka Rajamma W/o. Sudhakar Reddy, Age: 55 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Nerada Village of Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

7.Siligireddy Vimala W/o. Shaker Reddy Age: 49 years, Occ: Hosuehold, H.No. 6-6-4, Yatakanna Reddy Colony, (Vivekananda Nagar Colony), Nalgonda.

Page No. 2 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022

8.Pulagam Srinivas Reddy S/o. Sathi Reddy Age: 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Chityal Vcillage and Mandal of Nalgonda District.

9.Pulagam manjula W/o. Srinivas Reddy, Age: 30 years, Occ: Household, H.No. 9-79, Santhosh Nagar, R/o. Chityal village and Mandal of Nalgonda District.

10.Gurram Amarender Reddy S/o. Madhava Reddy, Age: 30 years, R/o. Dothigudem village of Pochampally Mandal of Nalgonda District

11.Bijja Sathish Kumar @ Saibabba C/o. Gurram Amarender Reddy, S/o. Madhava Reddy, Age: 30 years, R/o. Dothigudem village of Pochampally Mandal of Nalgonda District

12.Ambula Sandeep S/o. Surender Raju Age: 25 years, Occ: Student and Agriculture, R/o. C/o. Dr. Girija Rani, H.No. 5-4- 120 and 5-4-121, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. … Defendant Nos. 1 to 12

13.Ambula Ravindra Raj S/o. Raji Reddy, Age: 45 years, Occ: Employee and Agriculture, R/o. C/o. Dr. Girija Rani, H.No. 5-4- 120 and 5-4-121, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.

(The Suit is not pressed against defendant No.13 on

22.08.2016) … Defendant No. 13 @@@

This Suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Shobhan Babu, Advocate for the Plaintiff, Sri G. Shankar Prasad, Advocate for the defendant No.12 and defendant Nos. 1 to 11 are set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court passed the following:- :: JUDGMENT ::

1.This is a suit for partition and separate possession.

2.Plaint averments in brief :

a) It is submitted that one Late Marla Narsi Reddy died intestate

Page No. 3 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022 in they year 1994 leaving the land to an extent of Ac. 15.08 gts in

Sy.No. 294 and Ac. 17.27 gts in Sy.No. 416, situated at Nereda village,

Chityal mandal and Nalgonda District (Suit property). The Class I legal heirs of Marla Narsi Reddy are plaintiff, D1, Late Narayana Reddy-

Father of D2 and husband of D3, D4 to D7. Late Narayana Reddy is the elder son of Late Marla Narsi Reddy, as such the entire suit property was transferred on his name after the demise of Marla Narsi

Reddy. The plaintiff, D1 to D7 have jointly cultivated and enjoyed the fruits of it in equal shares by investing capital to the extent of their respective shares. The Narayana Reddy died intestate on 09.05.1995 leaving D2 and D3 as his successors.

b) On 10.09.2006 the plaintiff approached D1 to D7 requesting for partition of suit property by metes and bounds, however they postponed for one or the other reason. On 01.10.2006 plaintiff again approached D1 to D7, however they refused stating that the suit property was sold to D8 to D13. D1 to D7 further informed her that no possession is delivered in their favour. on 02.10.2006 the plaintiff approached D9 to D13 and explained about his joint interest in the property and requested to partition to his extent, however they also refused. Hence the suit.

Page No. 4 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022

3. Written statement averments in brief:

a) The defendant Nos. 12 and 13 filed written statement submitting that the suit property was transferred to Dharma Reddy and Narayana

Reddy, sons of Late Narsi Reddy in the year 1987 and 1988, therefore the same is not in joint possession as contended in plaint. It is submitted that the suit property is not in joint possession of plaintiff and D1 to D7 since 2004, as by that time the same was sold to D8 to

D13 by registered sale deeds, as such the plaintiff has to pay ad valorem fee. It is submitted that D2 and D3 executed registered sale deeds in favour of D12 and D13. On 28.06.2004 and also delivered possession and the same is in the knowledge of plaintiff.

b) It is submitted that the suit property was transferred in favour of D4 and Narayana Reddy/father of D2 in the family settlement during the lifetime of Late Narsi Reddy and the same is reflecting in pahanies. Subsequently, in the year 1990-91 these properties were partitioned by Narayana Reddy and Dharma Reddy with equal shares and their names were also mutated as absolute owners in revenue records.

c) It is submitted that the land to an extent of Ac. 17.27 gts in

Sy.No. 416 was transferred to D2 and D3 in 2002-03. Thus, the suit

Page No. 5 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022 property was not in joint possession of plaintiff and D1 to D7 from last 20 years. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.In order to prove his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as

PW.1 and one Dubbaka Sudhakar Reddy and Cheemala Mallaiah as

PW.2 and PW.3 respectively and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A6. However, the evidence of PW.3 is eschewed on 27.01.2015.

5.On behalf of defendants one Ambula Surender Raj got examined himself as DW.1 and G. Krishna(Tahsildar) as DW.2 and got exhibited

Exs. B1 to B45.

6.Upon perusal of pleadings of both parties, my learned predecessor framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is having right over the suit

scheduled property for seeking relief of partition ?

2. Whether the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 7 are

in joint possession of the suit schedule property ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/7th share along

with defendant No.1 to 7 in the suit scheduled

property?

4. Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is proper ?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief prayed for ?

6. To what relief?

Page No. 6 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022

Evidence on behalf of plaintiff:

7.PW.1 filed chief affidavit reiterating the contents of plaint.

7.1During cross examination by learned counsel for D12 and

D13, he deposed that he filed the suit for partition of schedule property. He denied that he has not mentioned the extent of property in the paint schedule for partition and his share in it. He denied that family partition took place in the year 1987-88 and that partition already took place pertaining to the property in Sy.No.294 Ac.15.27 gts and Sy.No.416, Ac.17.27 gts. He denied that the said partition is coming as per pahani for the year 1987-88 and the property purchased by D-12 and D-13 in Sy.No. 416 Ac. 17.27 gts was in joint possession of Marla Narayana Reddy, who is father of D-2 and husband of D-3, and Marla Dharmareddy who is D-4. He denied that subsequently the partition took place between Marla Narayana Reddy and D-4 equally in survey No.416, Ac. 8.33 guntas each and the same is shown in the pahani for the year 1987-88. He denied that as per pahani for the year 1997-98, after the death of Naravana Reddy, D-2 and D-3 got patta over an extent of Ac. 4.16 ½ gts and Ac. 4.17 gts respectively. In that regard the land of D-4 is shown as Ac. 8.33½ gts in the same pahani and the said entry as been reflected in the subsequent pahani till 2001-2002. He does not know whether D-4

Page No. 7 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022 sold Ac. 8.33 ½ gts in Sy.No. 416 in favour of D-3 or not under registered sale deed. He denied that in that regard patta was got by D- 3 from D-4 over the said land and the same is shown in the pahani for the year 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. he denied that basing on the said entries, D-12 purchase the said property from D-2 and D-3 on 28-06- 2004 under registered sale dead document no. 3424/2004 for Ac. 8.33 ½ gts and D-13 purchased from D-3 of the same extent under registered sale deed document no., 3420/2004 dated 28-06-2004 and they got patta in their favour under amendment proceedings no.4136/04 for the year 2003-2004. He denied that prior to effecting amendment notice was sent to him and was also fixed at the

Grampanchayat Nereda village notice board and since then their names are shown as pattadars and possessors over the schedule property. He denied that he advised D-12 and D-13 for purchased the schedule property and fixed the rate for the said land as mediator. He denied that since last 12 years he is staying at Hyderabad and that therefore he know D-12 and D-13 and got purchased the said land as mediator. He denied that he stated to D-12 and D-13 that in the year 1987-88 partition took place and advised them to purchased the schedule property. He denied that there is lemon garden in the suit property which is grown by D-12 and D-13 and they did so by taking loan from SBH, Chityal branch and developed it and that they

Page No. 8 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022 converted 1 acre of land into wet and raised paddy in it and that the age of lemon garden is 9 years. He denied that D-12 and D-13 dug a well in the suit property and that they are cultivating the remaining land by raising dry crops. He denied that he know purchase of land by

D-2 from D-3 and that the family of D-2 and D-3 got total Ac. 17.27 gts of land and therefore he advised D-12 and D-13 he purchased the same. He denied that his brother Achi Reddy D-5 and himself and his family members got remaining land apart from the land of D-2 and D-

3. He denied that he is not in joint possession of the suit property as on the date of filing the suit and that in order to avoid payment of court fee he took the said plea in his plaint, that the suit filed by him is barred by limitation, that there is no cause of action for him and he never approached D-9 to D-13 in this regard for partition. He denied that his evidence that after death of his father entire lands transferred in the name of Narayana Reddy is false. His father Narsi Reddy died in the year 1994. He denied that during the life time of Narsi Reddy the partition took place. He denied that after thorough verification of the record D-12 and D-13 purchased the land by paying consideration of

Rs.1,86,000/- each. He did not file any appeal against the revenue record showing the names of D-12 and D-13 in it. He also did not file any appeal in regard to the sale transaction between D-2 and D-3 and the revenue entries pursuant to it as pattedar and that knowing all the

Page No. 9 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022 facts he did not take any steps in this regard for cancellation of sale deeds between D-2, D-3 and D-12 and D-13. He denied that due to increase in the price of the land he filed the suit falsely by collusion with other defendant. He denied that D-12 and D-13 are owners of the schedule property and that therefore he has no right to seek partition of the said property.

8.PW.2 filed chief affidavit deposing in similar lines of PW.1.

8.1During cross examination by the learned counsel for D12 and D13, he deposed that plaintiff is his sister's husband. He is resident of Nereda. He is not resident of Suryapet. He owned land at

Suryapet. Plaintiff has two sisters and one brother. He deposed that he can tell the survey numbers and total extent of land of plaintiff's family. They are having land in Sy.No. 416 to an extent of 17 acres odd guntas and in Sy.No. 294 to an extent of 15 acres odd guntas.

Narsi Reddy is father of plaintiff, however no partition took place during his life time. He denied the suggestion that partition took place among plaintiff's family members in 1987-88. He denied the suggestion that the land to an extent of Ac. 15-08 gts in Sy.No. 416 fell to the share of father of D2 and D4 husband of D3. He denied the suggestion that the above land was again partitioned among father of

D2, husband and D3 and D4 in the year 1988-89. He denied the

Page No. 10 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022 suggestion that in hte year 1997-98 after demise of father of plaintiff

D2 became pattedar in an extent of Ac. 4.16 1/2 gts and D3 became pattedar in an extent of Ac. 04.17 1/2 gts. D4 became pattedar from

Ac. 08.34 gts. He doesnot know whether D4 sold his extent of Ac. 08- 34 gts in favour of D3 in the year 2002-03 pahani. He does not on 28.06.2004 D12 purchased Ac. 04-16 1/2 gts and Ac. 014-17 1/2 gts from D2 and D3 respectively vide doc.No. 3424/2004. He does not know on 28.06.2004 D13 purchased Ac. 08-33 gts from D4 vide doc.No. 3420/2004. He does not know since the date of purchase D12 and D13 became pattedars and obtained passbook title deeds. He does not know whether D13 is the junior paternal uncle of D12. He does not know whether D12 and D13 are jointly cultivating sweet lands in Ac. 08.00 gts and Ac. 01-00 paddy in the remaining land dry crop they invested huge amounts on sweet lemon and paddy and for conversion of dry land into wet. He does not whether since the date of purchase D12 and d13 of the pattedars of the above lands. He denied the suggestion that plaitniff acted as mediator for the sale of above land to D12 and D13. He denied the suggestin that plaintiff is reisding in Hyderabad from last 12 years. He does not whether D12 and D13 are in possession of above land since the date of purchase.

He denied the suggestion that legal heirs of deceased Narsi Reddy are not in joint possession of above land. He denied the suggestion that

Page No. 11 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022 the boundaries shown in his chief affidavit to Sy.No. 416 are false on the sourthern and northern side.

9. Ex.A1 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1983-84 showing Marla

Narsi Reddy as pattedar and possessor of suit property,

Ex.A2 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1987-88 showing Marla Narsi

Reddy as pattedar, D4 is shown as possessor of land to an extent of

Ac. 15.28 gts in Sy.No. 294 and Narayana Reddy and D4 are shown as possessors of Ac. 17.27 gts in Sy.No. 416,

Ex.A3 is C.C. of pahani for the year 1990-91 showing Marla Narsi

Reddy as pattedar, D4 and Narayana Reddy as possessors of suit property,

Ex.A4 is C.C. of pahani for the year 2002-03 showing the names of

D2, D3, one Marla Venugopal Reddy and Marla Anji Reddy as pattedars and possessors of land to an extent of Ac. 03-37 gts in

Sy.No. 294/A1, Ac. 03-37 gts in Sy.No. 294/A2, Ac. 04-00 gts in Sy.No.

294/AA, Ac. 03-34 gts in Sy.No. 294/AA1 and D2 is shown as pattedar and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.04-16 1/2 gts in

Sy.No. 416/A1 and D3 is shown as pattedar and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.04-17 gts in Sy.No. 416/A2 and Ac. 08.33 1/2 gts in

Sy.No. 416/AA,

Ex.A5 is C.C. of pahani for the year 2004-05 showing the names of

Page No. 12 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022

D2, D3, D8 and D9 as pattedars and possessors of land to an extent of Ac. 03-37 gts in Sy.No. 294/A1, Ac. 03-37 gts in Sy.No. 294/A2, Ac.

04-00 gts in Sy.No. 294/AA, Ac. 03-34 gts in Sy.No. 294/AA1 and D12 is shown as pattedar and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.04-16 1/2 gts in Sy.No. 416/A1 and Ac.04-17 gts in Sy.No. 416/A2, D13 is shown as pattedar and possessor of land to an extent of and Ac.08.33 1/2 gts in Sy.No. 416/AA and

Ex.A6 is Valuation certificate.

Evidence on behalf of Defendant No.12

10. Dw. 1 has filed chief affidavit deposing in similar lines of written statement.

10.1During cross examination, he deposed that himself and his brother D-13 purchased 17 acres and odd guntas out of the suit schedule property from defendant Nos. 2 and 3 after verifying the pahanies. Defendant no.2 succeeded the land from Late Narayana

Reddy his father. Defendant no.,3 purchased the said land from defendant no.4. On verifying the title of defendant Nos.2,3,4 we purchased the 17 acres and odd guntas. The entire sale transaction pertaining to the purchase of 17 acres and odd guntas of suit schedule property was dealt by plaintiff herein. Plaintiff is the own brother of

Page No. 13 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022 defendant No.4 and junior uncle of defendant No.2. Narsi Reddy is father of Dharma Reddy. He knows late Narsi Reddy and defendant No.

1 are husband and wife. He denied that after the demise of late Narsi

Reddy intestate in the year 1994 being the class I legal heirs the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1,3,4,5,6,7 succeeded the suit schedule lands including the father of defendant No.2 later Narayana Reddy. He denied that since 1994 the suit schedule land is in joint possession of plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 7 till this date. He deposed/volunteers that partition took place in the year 1987-88 among the family members of late Narsi Reddy and defendant No. 1. It was a oral partition among the family members of Narsi Reddy and defendant No.1. He came to know through MRO that oral partition took place among the family members of Narsi Reddy and defendant

No.1 to that extent the family members of Narsi Reddy and defendant

No.1. they also admitted orally in his presence. He has not submitted a copy of same. He denied that no oral partition took place till this date and that the family members of Late Narsi Reddy and defendant No.1 are joint possession of the suit schedule property till this date. He denied that as no partition took place as such defendant Nos.2 to 4 has no right to sell away the part of suit schedule lands which was purchased by him. He denied that plaintiff demanded for partition on 01-10-2006 for which the defendants refused hence he filed this suit.

Page No. 14 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022

He denied that plaintiff is having right to share 1/7th share in suit schedule property. He denied that the documents filed by him are fabricated for purpose of this suit. He deposed that he is an Engineer.

Total extent of suit land is 32 and odd. Himself and his brother D-13 are having 17 acres and odd guntas. One Narayana Reddy is the original owner to the total extent of suit land. Narayana Reddy is the owner brother of the plaintiff. Narsi Reddy is father of Narayana Reddy through whom Narayana Reddy succeeded the suit lands. Narayana

Reddy is having four brothers. He purchased the suit land from

Narayana Reddy and Dharma Reddy and not from the plaintiff. He denied that as the plaintiff has not sold away his share in his favour as such plaintiff share included in the total extent of suit land and that he is possession is intact to this date also. He denied that he is deposing falsely though knowing about the above fact. He denied that till the partition takes place the suit lands are intact. He deposed that he know the contents of chief affidavit. The suit property is inherited from Late Sri. Marla Narsi Reddy. He denied the suggestion that the suit property is joint possession of sons and daughters of late Marla

Narsi Reddy even till date. He denied the suggestion that Ex.B 33 to

B42 are no way concerned with present suit. The executants of

Ex.B45 was identified by notary and he is still alive. He denied the suggestion that Ex.B45 is not properly executed and the same is

Page No. 15 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022 invalid.

11.Dw.2 is the Tahsildar and he deposed that he brought true copies of extracts of 1-A and 1 B registers. He has not brought successions proceedings as the same are not traced out.

12. Ex.B1 is true copy of sale deed No.3424/2004 dt. 28.06.2004 executed by D2 and D3 in favour of Defendant No.12 in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 04-17 gts in Sy.No. 416/A2 and Ac. 04-16 1/2 gts in Sy.No. 416/A1,

Ex B2 is true copy of sale deed No. 3420/2004 dt. 28.06.2004 executed by D3 in favour of Defendant No.13 in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 08-33 1/2 gts in Sy.No.416/AA,

Ex B3 to B13, B26, B27 are C.C. of pahanies for the year 1424, 1423, 1422,1421, 1420, 2009-10, 2008-09, 2007-08, 2006-07, 2005- 06, 2004-05, 1425 and 1425 are showing D12 and D13 as pattedars and possessors of subject lands under Ex.B1 and B2,

Ex.B14 and B15 are C.C. of pahanies for the years 2003-04, 2002- 03, 2001-02 are showing D2 as pattedar and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.04-16 1/2 gts in Sy.No. 416/A1 and D3 is shown as pattedar and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.04-17 gts in Sy.No.

416/A2 and Ac. 08.33 1/2 gts in Sy.No. 416/AA,

Ex-B16 to B20 are the C.C. of pahani for the years 2001-2002, 2000-

Page No. 16 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022 01, 1999-2000, 1998-99, 1997-98, are showing D2, D3 and D4 as pattedars and possessors of land to an extent of Ac.04-16 1/2 gts in

Sy.No. 416/A1, Ac.04-17 gts in Sy.No. 416/A2 and Ac. 08.33 1/2 gts in Sy.No. 416/AA respectively,

Ex B21 to B 23 are C.C. of pahanies for the years 1996-1997, 1995- 96, 1994-95, showing Marla Narayana Reddy and D4 as pattedars and possessors of lkand to an extent of Ac. 08-33 1/2 gts in Sy.No. 416/A and Ac. 08-33 1/2 gts in Sy.No. 416/AA respectively,

Ex-B24 is true copy of Sale deed No. 4412/2002 dt.04.07.2002 executed by D4 in favour of D3 in respect of land to an extent of Ac.

08-33 1/2 gts in Sy.No. 416,

Ex-B25 is C.C. of Amendment Nakhal for the year 2003-04 showing the mutation of names of D12 and D13 in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 04-17 gts, Ac. 04-16 1/2 gts in Sy.No. 416 and Ac. 08-33 1/2 in SY.No. 416 respectively,

Ex.B28 to B32 are CC of pahanies for the year 1987-88, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 are showing Marla Narsi Reddy as pattedar,

Narayana Reddy and D4 as possessors of Ac. 17.27 gts in Sy.No. 416,

Ex.B33 is Declaration-cum-charge on land in Sy.No.38 and 432 of

Nereda Village, dt 26.10.1998,

Ex.B34 is Regd. Sale Deed No.9284/1999, dt. 29.10.1999 executed by

D4 in favour of one Marla Anji Reddy in respect of land to an extent of

Page No. 17 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022

Ac. 03-34 gts in Sy.No.294,

Ex.B35 is Regd. Sale Deed No.9285/1999, dt. 29.10.1999 executed by

D4 in favour of one Marla Venugopal Reddy in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 04-00 gts in Sy.No.294,

Ex.B36 is Regd. Sale Deed No.237/2006 dt. 12.01.2006 executed by

D2, D3, D5 and one Marla Praveeen Reddy in favour of D11 in respect of land to an extent of AC. 16.08 gts in Sy.Nos. 294 and 475,

Ex.B37 is Regd. Sale Deed b No.1491/2007 dt. 22.01.2007 executed by D11 in favour of Mari Venkat Reddy, Mari Buchi Reddy, Dosada

Yadi Reddy and Mari Raji Reddy in resepct of land to an extent of Ac.

15.28 gts in Sy.No. 294,

Ex.B38 is Regd. Sale Deed No.4067/2015, dt. 15.04.2015 executed by

Mari Venkat Reddy, Mari Buchi Reddy, Dosada Yadi Reddy, Mari Raji

Reddy, Marla Ram Reddy and D5 in favour of one Kodela Kanaka

Ratnam in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 15.28 gts in Sy.No. 294,

Ex.B39 is C.C of registered sale deed No. 4148/2003, dt. 26-07-2003 executed by Marla Ram Reddy in favooru of one Kalluri Andalu in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 04.11 gts in SY.No. 432,

Ex.B40 isC.C of registered sale deed No. 4149/2003, dt.26-07-2003 executed by Marla Ram Reddy in favooru of one Kalluri Muthyalu in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 04.11 gts in SY.No. 432,

Ex.B41 is C.C of registered sale deed No. 10875/2016, Dated: 14-09-

Page No. 18 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022 2016 executed by D13 in favour of one Dubaka Amarender Reddy (not impleaded) in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 03.34 1/2 gts in

SY.No. 416/AA,

Ex.B42 is C.C of registered sale deed No. 10876/2016, dt.14-09-2016 executed by D13 in favour of one Marla Vanaja (not impleaded)in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 03.34 gts in SY.No. 416/AA,

Ex.B43 and Ex.B44 are the true copies of 1-A and 1-B which are pertaining to the land in other than suit survey number and

Ex.B45 is GPA executed by D12 in favour of his father Ambula

Surender Raju . ISSUE NOS. 1 13 to 5 :

As both issue Nos. 1 to 5 are interconnected with each other, they are taken up together simultaneously in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and analysis of evidence.

14.It is the case of plaintiff that suit property was belong to his father namely Marla Narsi Reddy, who died intestate leaving behind plaintiff, D1, late Narayan Reddy, D4 to D7. Ex.A1 to A3 are showing

Marla Narsi Reddy as pattedar of suit property. It is pertinent to note that the pleadings shows the suit property as Ac. 15.08 gts in Sy.No.

294 and Ac. 17.27 gts in Sy.No. 416. The learned counsel for plaintiff

Page No. 19 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022 not pressed the suit against D13 and the relief against land in Sy. No.

294 vide orders in IA No. 266 of 2016 and 697 of 2014. Ex.B1 and B2 shows the D2 and D3 executed land in Sy. No. 416 to an extent of Ac.

8-33 ½ gts each. Thus the record shows D12 and D13 are having ownership rights over the suit property in Sy.No. 416. Not pressing the suit against D13 would result in the plaintiff not proceeding against

Ac. 8-33 ½ gts in Sy. No. 416, but only proceeding against the other

Ac. 8-33 ½ gts standing on the name of D12, however no subsequent amendment was carried out in the plaint averments and schedule mentioning such extent i.e. Ac. 8-33 ½ gts and the boundaries with regard to the land alienated in favour of D13, therefore it is difficult to identify the suit property without proper mentioning of extent and the boundaries.

15.At this stage it is pertinent to go through the relevant provision

O.7 R.3 of CPC which is contemplated as under – “Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers.”

16.As contemplated in the above provision the plaint shall contain the description of property with proper boundaries to identify the

Page No. 20 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022 same, otherwise it would not be possible to identify the suit land and pass an executable decree. Without proper description of property and its boundaries, it is difficult in identification of property and the court also cannot pass an executable decree. Therefore, in the light of foregoing discussion and analysis of evidence, I am of opinion that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

17.ISSUE No. 6: In view of above findings, the suit is dismissed.

In the result, the suit is dismissed.

Directly computerized my dictation by steno Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 08th day of April, 2026.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Nalgonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:-

PW1: M. Ram Reddy PW2: D. Sudhakar Reddy

For Defendants:-

DW1: A. Surender Raj DW2: G. Krishna

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1: C.C. of pahani of plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 7, for the year 1983-84

Ex.A2: C.C. of pahani of plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 7, for the

Page No. 21 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022 year 1987-88

Ex.A3: C.C. of pahani of plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 7, for the year 1990-91

Ex.A4: C.C. of pahani of plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 7, for the year 2002-03

Ex.A5: C.C. of pahani of plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 7, for the year 2004-05

Ex.A6: Valuation certificate

For Defendants:-

Ex.B1: True copy of sale deed of Defendant No.12.

Ex.B2: True copy of sale deed of Defendant No.13

Ex.B3: C.C. of pahani of Defendant No.12 and 13, 1424 Fasli.

Ex.B4: C.C. of pahani of Defendant No. 12 and 13, 1423 Fasli.

Ex B5: C.C. of pahani of Defendant No.12 and 13, 1422 Fasli.

Ex.B6: C.C. of pahani of Defendant No.12 and 13, 1421 Fasli.

Ex.B7: C.C. of pahani of Defendant No.12 and 13, 1420 Fasli.

Ex.B8: C.C. of pahani of Defendant Nos.12 and 13; for the year, 2009- 2010

Ex.B9: C.C. of pahani of Defendant Nos.12 and 13, for the year, 2008- 2009

Ex.B10: C.C of pahani of Defendant No.12 and 13, for the year, 2007- 2008:

Ex.B11: C.C: of pahani of Defendant No.12 and 13; for the year, 2006- 2007.

Ex.B12: C.C. of pahani of Defendant No.12 and 13, for the year, 2005- 2006

Page No. 22 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022

Ex.B13: C.C. of pahani of Defendant No.12 and 13, for the year, 2004- 2005.

Ex.B14: C.C. of pahani of vendor's of D-12 and D-13, for the year, 2003-2004.

Ex.B15: C.C. of pahani of vendors of D-12 and D-13, for the year, 2002-2003.

Ex.B16: C.C. of pahani of vendors of D-12 and D-13, for the year, 2001-2002.

Ex.B17: C.C. of pahani of vendors of D-12 and D-13, for the year, 2000-2001.

Ex.B18: C.C. of pahani of vendors.of.D-12 and D-13, for the year, 1999-2000.

Ex.B19: C.C. of pahani of vendors of D-12 and D-13, for the year, 1998-1999.

Ex.B20: CC. of pahani of vendors of D-12 and D-13, for the year, 1997-1998.

Ex.B21: C.C. of pahani of vendors of D-12 and.D-13, for the year, 1996-1997.

Ex.B22: C.C. of pahani of vendors of D-12 and D-13, for the year, 1995-1996.

Ex.B23: C.C. of pahani of vendrers of D-12 and D-13, for the year, 1994-1995.

Ex.24: True copy of Sale deed of the vendor of D-3

Ex.B25: C.C. of Amendment Nakhal of D-12 and D-13.

Ex.B26: C.C. of pahani of Defendant No.12, for the Fasli year, 1425.

Ex.B27: C.C. of pahani of Defendant No.13, for the Fasli year, 1425.

Ex.B28: CC of pahani for the year 1987-88

Page No. 23 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022

Ex.B29: CC of pahani for the year 1988-89

Ex.B30: CC of pahani for the year 1989-90

Ex.B31: CC of pahani for the year 1990-91

Ex.B32: CC of pahani for the year 1991-92

Ex.B33: Declaration-cum-charge on land in Sy.No.38 and 432 of Nereda Village, dt 26.10.1998

Ex.B34: Regd. Sale Deed bearing Document No.9284/1999 on land in Sy.No.294 of Nereda Village, dt. 29.10.1999

Ex.B35: Regd. Sale Deed bearing Document No.9285/1999 on land in Sy.No.294 of Nereda Village, dt. 29.10.1999

Ex.B36: Regd. Sale Deed bearing Document No.237/2006 on land in Sy.No.294 & 475 of Nereda Village, dt. 12.01.2006

Ex.B37: Regd. Sale Deed bearing Document No.1491/2007 on land in Sy.No.294 of Nereda Village, dt. 22.01.2007

Ex.B38: Regd. Sale Deed bearing Document No.4067/2015 on land in Sy.No.294 of Nereda Village, dt. 15.04.2015

Ex.B39: C.C of registered sale deed document No. 4148/2003,

Dated:26-07-2003.

Ex.B40: C.C of registered sale deed document No. 4149/2003,

Dated:26-07-2003.

Ex.B41: C.C of registered sale deed document No. 10875/2016, Dated: 14-09-2016.

Ex.B42: C.C of registered sale deed document No. 10876/2016,

Dated:14-09-2016

Ex.B43:True copy of extract of 1 – A register

Ex.B44:True copy of extract of 1 – B register

Page No. 24 of 24 OS. 315 of 2022

Ex.B45:Original G.P.A dt. 26-11-2013

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Nalgonda.

Page No.1 of 10 CC.No.1232 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS (FOR PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES) –CUM-

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NALGONDA

On this Thursday, this the 31st day of July, 2025.

Present: Smt. Shirisha Katkojwala,

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda FAC: Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (For Proh. & Excise Offences)-Cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nalgonda.

CC No.1232 of 2016

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Narketpally P.S.

…Complainant.

AND

Rompakuntla Shiva Kumar S/o.Soma Chary, Age: 25 years, Occ: Driver of Toofan Tempo Vehicle No.AP 24 TA 1087, R/o.Cheekatigudem (V), Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

...Accused

@@@

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned APP and Learned Counsel, Sri M.M. Vasiq, Learned Counsel for accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Narketpally P.S, laid Charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC.

2.Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 08.02.2016 at 09.00 hours, LW.1 lodged report stating that on 07.02.2016 at about 06.00 p.m. while she along with her

Page No.2 of 10 CC.No.1232 of 2016 husband/LW.2 and deceased daughter namely Shalini boarded

Toofan Cruiser tempo Van bearing No.AP 24 TA 1087 at LB Nagar and on reaching outskirts of Narketpally near KIMS 'Y' junction, the driver drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and hit to the divider, due to which her daughter and husband sustained injuries.

They were shifted to KIMS Hospital, Narketpally and where her daughter succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The other passengers traveled along with them in the Vehicle also sustained injuries. Hence, LW.1 requested to take necessary legal action against accused.

3. Basing on the above report, LW.17 registered a case in

Cr.No.27 of 2016 for the offence U/Secs.304-A, 337 of IPC. After completion of investigation, LW.18 laid Charge sheet against the accused.

4.This court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable

U/Secs.304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused is examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. and charges framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page No.3 of 10 CC.No.1232 of 2016

6.To prove its case, prosecution has examined Pws-1 to 12 and got exhibited Exs-P1 to P-18.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C enabling him to explain the incriminating material appeared against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied the truthfulness of evidence and reported no defense evidence on his side.

8.Heard the learned APP and learned counsel for accused.

9. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused

for the offenses punishable U/Secs.304-A, 338 and 337 of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.PW.1 and PW.2 are parents of deceased child namely Shalini.

Both of them deposed in one voice stating that they along with their deceased daughter boarded Toofan vehicle and there were other passengers in the same. They deposed that the driver of said vehicle was driving the vehicle in rash manner and they also requested him to go slowly. They further deposed that the driver dashed to divider near Kamineni Hospital at Narketpally 'Y' junction and due to which the vehicle tilted towards right side and all the doors have opened, then all of them including other passengers fell down and sustained injuries. They deposed that their daughter sustained injuries on head. Then they were shifted to Hospital. They have identified

Page No.4 of 10 CC.No.1232 of 2016 accused in the Court hall as the driver of vehicle. PW.2 deposed the vehicle as AP 24 TA 1087. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is corroborated with Ex.P.1. The learned counsel for accused could not elicit any material to discredit the version of PW.1 and PW.2.

11.The evidence of PW.1 and 2 is further corroborated with testimony of other injured witnesses PW.3 and PW.4. PW.3 deposed that on 07.02.2016 he along with PW.1, PW.2, LW.4 to LW.10 boarded toofan vehicle at LB Nagar to go to Suryapet and on reaching

Narketpally, the driver hit the divider by driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, due to which all the passengers sustained injuries. He deposed that he sustained injury on forehead and nose.

He further deposed that one small girl died in the accident. In the cross examination, the learned counsel for accused could elicit that

PW.3 fell unconscious soon after the accident and he does not know what happened after the accident. The PW.3 has categorically deposed the driver of said vehicle drove in rash and negligent manner and he also identified him in the court hall, as such he was becoming unconscious after the accident and not knowing about what happened later does not go into the merits of prosecution case and render his evidence as invalid, since the act of accused prior to accident is all matters to bring him under the purview of Sec.304-A of IPC, which clearly states the rash or negligent act of a person.

Page No.5 of 10 CC.No.1232 of 2016

12.PW.4 deposed in similar lines of PW.3. He further deposed that the accident took place as the accused played tape recorder in the vehicle and hit the divider. He also identified the accused. He deposed that he sustained injuries on head, backbone and right elbow. The evidence of PW.4 shows that the accused played tape recorder and he did not deposed anything about the nature of driving of accused, therefore his evidence is not establishing rash or negligent driving of accused. PW.5 deposed in the same lines of

PW.3. He further deposed that he cannot identify the driver of vehicle as he was the last person to take the vehicle. He deposed that the accident took place due to the driver driving the vehicle in high speed.

13.The evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 coupled with Ex.P.1 is clearly establishing the occurrence of accident and death of deceased.

Further the evidence of PW.6 to PW.8 and Ex.P2 to Ex.P13 shows the injuries sustained by deceased, PW.1 to PW.5, LW.4, LW.6, LW.7, LW.9 and LW.10 and conduct of inquest panchanama and PME over the dead body of deceased. PW.7 admitted in her cross examination that she did not mention that the age of injury in Ex.P4, Ex.P8, Ex.P9,

Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 and she further deposed that she did not mention the same since the injuries were not external in nature.

14. The evidence of PW.10 shows that he inspected the crime

Page No.6 of 10 CC.No.1232 of 2016 vehicle and issued MVI report/Ex.P17 which shows the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle, which indicates that there are no defects in the vehicle leading to occurrence of accident.

15.PW.11 is one of the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and he deposed that police conducted scene of offence panchanama. The scene of offence panchanama is marked through investigation officer/PW.9 as Ex.P15/Panchanama and Ex.P16/Rough sketch. Ex.P16 shows the vehicle was hit to divider at Narketpally, which is supporting the version of PW.1 to PW.5.

16.The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 is corroborating with each other and consistent with Ex.P1 and other occular and documentary evidence on record and the same is inspiring the confidence of court. The evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 is also supporting to the extent of occurrence of accident. Therefore in the light of above discussion of facts and analysis of evidence on record, the prosecution has successfully establish the guilt of the accused for the offences U/secs.304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

17.For the foregoing reasons, I determine the point as follows:

“Accused is found guilty for the offense Punishable

U/Secs.304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC and he is convicted

Page No.7 of 10 CC.No.1232 of 2016

U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C.” (Directly computerized my dictation by Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 31 st day of July, 2025)

sd/-

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nalgonda. FAC: Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

For Proh. & Excise Offences) –cum-

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda

S E N T E N C E :-

18. The offense U/Sec.304-A of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, further U/sec.338 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both and also Sec.337 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

19.Hearing on quantum of sentence :-

Heard the accused on quantum of sentence, he submitted that his wife suffers from epilepsy, he has old age parents and he has small son. He further submits that he is the sole bread winner of his

Page No.8 of 10 CC.No.1232 of 2016 family. Therefore, he sought the court to take lenient view.

20.Considering the submissions of Accused, as he is not having any previous criminal antecedents, this court took lenient view and instead of imposing sentence of imprisonment, this court opines that imposition of mere fine would meet the ends of justice.

“The accused is sentenced to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of 6

months and pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees

one thousand only), in default of payment of

fine amount he shall undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one month for

the offence U/Sec.304-A of IPC, further

accused is sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one month and

pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred

only), in default of payment of fine amount

he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of (07) days for the offence U/sec.338

of IPC and also accused is sentenced to pay

fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only),

in default of payment of fine amount he shall

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

(07) days for the offence U/sec.337 of IPC.

The sentences awarded shall run

concurrently. As the accused was not

remanded to judicial custody even for a

single day before trial or at the time of trial,

Page No.9 of 10 CC.No.1232 of 2016

therefore, Sec 428 Cr.P.C is not invoked.

There is no property, hence no order in that

regard.

Accused is informed about his right to

prefer an appeal against the judgment and

sentence passed by this court. On inquiry,

they submitted that he has sufficient means

to prefer an appeal. A free copy of the

judgment shall be furnished to him

U/Sec.363 Cr.P.C. r/w Rule 72 of Criminal

Rules of Practice.” (Directly computerized my dictation by Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 31 st day of July, 2025)

Sd/-

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nalgonda. FAC: Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

For Proh. & Excise Offences) –cum-

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nalgonda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW-1: Neerudu Jyotsna PW-2: Neerudu Madhusudhan PW-3: Kundanapalli Ramulu PW-4: Banothu Kotiya PW-5: Banothu Ali PW-6: Pappula Vijay Kumar PW-7: Dr. Sandhya PW-8: Dr. G. Srikanth PW-9: MD. Ghouse PW-10: Ch. Mothiram PW-11: Bandla Bhushanam PW-12: Maroju Shobharani

Page No.10 of 10 CC.No.1232 of 2016

For Defence: Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Inquest panchanama Ex.P3: Medical certificate of PW.1 Ex.P4: Medical certificate of PW.2 Ex.P5: Medical certificate of PW.3 Ex.P6: Medical certificate of LW.4/K. Dayakar Ex.P7: Medical certificate of PW.4 Ex.P8: Medical certificate of LW.6/V. Sunil Ex.P9: Medical certificate of LW7/S. Rajitha Ex.P10: Medical certificate of LW.10/S. Shiva Sai Ex.P11: Medical certificate of PW.5 Ex.P12: Medical certificate of LW.9/M. Saraswathi Ex.P13: PME report Ex.P14: FIR Ex.P15: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P16: Rough sketch map Ex.P18: Signature of PW.12 on inquest panchanama

For Defence: --Nil--

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Sd/-

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nalgonda. FAC: Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

For Proh. & Excise Offences) –cum-

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda

//TRUE COPY//

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nalgonda.

FAC: Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

For Proh. & Excise Offences) –cum-

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nalgonda

Page No.11 of 10 CC.No.1232 of 2016

Page No.1 of 10 CC.No.1512 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

NALGONDA

On this Thursday, this the 09th day of April, 2026.

Present: Shirisha Katkojwala,

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda.

C.C. No. 1512 of 20 19

(Old C.C. No.358 of 2014)

Between:

State: Sub- Inspector of Police, Nalgonda I Town. …Complainant. AND Mohammed Gayasuddin S/o. Muneeroddin, Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 5-11-374/C, Hyderkhanguda, Nalgonda Town. ....Accused *****

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned APP and Learned Counsel Sri K. N. Kumar, for accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Nalgonda I Town P.S, laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Secs. 447, 427 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief:

On 20.07.2023 at 13.00 hours LW.1 lodged report stating that

APSRTC purchased land admeasuring Ac. 2262 Sq. Yds in Sy.No. 32, situated at Prakasham Bazar, Nalgonda vide G.O.Ms. No. 1268 dt.

11.08.1964. Accused encroached the said land and started construction. When APSRTC informed him to vacate the land, he

Page No.2 of 10 CC.No.1512 of 2019 refused and continued construction. Hence LW.1 requested to take necessary legal action against accused persons.

3.Basing on the above report LW-09 registered a case in Cr.

No.225/2013 for the offence punishable U/secs. 447, 427 of IPC. After completion of investigation, LW-10 filed charge sheet against the sole accused.

4.This court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable

U/secs. 447, 427 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as per Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C., substance of accusation is read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 7 and got marked Exs-P1 to P-15.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C enabling him to explain the incriminating material appeared against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied the truthfulness of evidence and reported defense evidence on his side.

Page No.3 of 10 CC.No.1512 of 2019

8.The accused got himself examined as DW-1 and got exhibited

Exs.D1 to D3.

9.Heard the learned APP and learned counsel for accused.

10. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of

accused for the offence punishable U/secs. 447, 427

of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.POINT: It is the case of prosecution that the APSRTC has land to an extent of 2262 Sq.Yds in Sy. No. 32, situated at Prakasham bazar,

Nalgonda and the same is encroached by accused and raised construction in it. Thereby, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec. 447, 427 IPC.

12.PW. 1 was the Depot Manager of APSRTC, Nalgonda. She deposed that APSRTC has land to an extent of 2262 Sq.yards in Sy.No.32 at

Prakasham Bazar and the same was purchased in the year 1964. She deposed that she received call from unknown person in the year 2013 stating that accused was digging pits in the above land. Then she along with staff went to the above land and found accused was digging the pits. They informed accused that the said land belong to APSRTC and asked him to stop the work, however he denied.

12.1During cross examination, she denied the suggestion that the

Page No.4 of 10 CC.No.1512 of 2019 scene of offence land does not belong to RTC. She admitted that they did not furnish any ownership document to police. She denied the suggestion that the said place belong to Waqf Board and other local

Muslims. She denied the suggestion that the Congress party tried to grab the said land through RTC. She deposed that the RTC leased the said land to Congress party. She denied the suggestion that RTC is not in possession of said land. She denied the suggestion that the lease agreement is not existing neither on the date of alleged incident nor at present.

13. PW.2 is cited as eye witness and he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

14. PW.3 is cited as eye witness. He deposed that in the year 2013 he used to sell vegetables in Prakasham Bazar and there is an RTC plot.

Accused dug pits to raise basement in the said plot and PW1 came over the plot and informed the same belong to RTC.

14.1 During cross examination , he admitted that he does not know personally to whom the place belong to. He admitted that he does not have own shop. He denied the suggestion that he tried to encroach the plot under guise of RTC plot. He admitted that there is Congress party office building.

Page No.5 of 10 CC.No.1512 of 2019

15. PW. 4 is cited as circumstantial witness and he was the Depot

Manager of APSRTC, Nalgonda. He deposed that PW1 lodged report against accused for encroaching RTC plot. He received letter from SHO

Nalgonda I Town police station to submit the said RTC plot documents and he furnished the same accordingly.

15.1 During cross examination,he denied the suggestionthat he has given Photostat copy of above document to police. He denied the suggestionthat he gave the above document to SHO at the instance of

DCCI President Devendar Reddy. He denied the suggestionthat accused is no way concerned with the offence. He denied the suggestion that the said plot does not belong to RTC. He admitted that there is

Congress party building adjacent to scene of offence plot. He deposed that the same was leased to it. He denied the suggestionthat there is no document in that regard.

16.PW.5 is panch witness for scene of offence panchanama. He deposed that he does not know LW8. On 20-07-2013 in the evening hours police called him to Vegetable market at Prakasham bazaar with regard to encroachment of RTC plot and conducted panchanama in his presence and obtained his signature on the same.

16.1During cross examination,he deposed that hebelong to CPM.

He is working as District Joint Secretary of CITU. CITU is not part of

Page No.6 of 10 CC.No.1512 of 2019

CPM. He admitted that their office is in CPM office. He deposed that they took one room. He denied the suggestion that that they never went for elections in alliance with Congress.

17. PW.6 and PW. 7 are the investgation officers and they deposed in similar lines of chargesheet.

17.1 During cross examination of PW.6, he denied all the formal adverse suggestions put by the learned counsel for accused.

17.2 During cross examination of PW.7, he deposed that he did not conduct scene of offence panchanama. He denied the suggestion that there is no land allotted to RTC in the said survey number. He deposed that it is not private land and it is allotted to RTC by the Government as per G.O.Ms.No.1268, dt. 11-08-1964 and the same was leased to

Congress party by RTC. The lease was given for 12 years and the same was completed in the month of Oct, 1996. He deposed that RTC also issued notice to Congress party office. He does not know whether the

Congress party building is RCC building. He denied the suggestion that he did not re-visit the scene of offence.

18.In order to prove the above charges, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses and got marked the documents of Ex.P1 to P15. The evidence of Pw.1 goes to show that APSRTC

Page No.7 of 10 CC.No.1512 of 2019 purchased land to an extent of 2262 Sq.yards in Sy.No.32 at

Prakasham Bazar in 1964. The evidence of Pw-4 shows that he furnished to police Ex.P4 by enclosing the same with Ex.P3. Ex.P4 is showing the ownership of APSRTC over the 2262 Sq. Yds, Sy. No. 32.

Thus it is clearly established the ownership of APSRTC with respect to 2262 Sq.Yds, Sy.No. 32 situated at Prakasham Bazar, Nalgonda. Ex.P8 to P10 shows RTC leased part of its plot to Congress party.

19.Pw-3 deposed that accused dug pits in RTC plot. However in the cross examination he admitted that he does not know to whom the land belong to. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to establish the encroachment of RTC plot by accused. Pw-1 deposed that she was informed by one unknown person about encroachment and then she along with staff went to the said plot and found the accused digging pits in the plot of RTC. The learned counsel for accused relied upon Ex.D1 to D3 and submitted that the grandfather of accused’s wife namely Shaifuddin was originally the owner of 340 sq.yds in Sy.No.32 and the suit for perpetual injunction was filed by Md. Shaheeruddin

S/o Basheeruddin who is the grandson of Shaifuddin against RTC and others in respect of above plot of 340 sq.yds. The learned counsel for accused further submitted that the above suit is dismissed for default on account of death of Shaheeruddin. As per Ex.D1 to D3, the accused has no land in subject survey number. To support the evidence of Pw-1,

Page No.8 of 10 CC.No.1512 of 2019 there is no occular or documentary evidence to prove the encroachment by the accused into the plot of RTC. Ex.P5 is scene of offence panchanama and Pw-5 deposed that police conducted panchanama in his presence. The Ld. APP submitted that the basement shown in rough sketch is the area encroached by accused, whereas the learned counsel

for accused submitted that accused family has land at the point where

bore well is shown in rough sketch and the accused did not encroach and construct the basement at all. In the absence of supporting documentary or direct evidence, mere rough sketch cannot be taken as conclusive evidence in respect of encroachment of RTC Plot by the accused as such this court is of considered opinion that the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt since the prosecution could not establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/secs. 447, 427 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted

U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. and the bail bonds shall remain in force for 6 months from the date of judgment U/sec 437 A Cr.P.C. There is no property, hence no order in this regard.

(Typed to my dictation by Steno Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 09 th day of April, 2026).

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nalgonda.

Page No.9 of 10 CC.No.1512 of 2019

For Prosecution:

PW-1: N. Saraswathi PW-2: V. Ravi PW-3: Md. Yousuf PW-4: B. Krupakar Reddy PW-5: Sathaiah PW-6: D. Lakshman PW-7: Purendar Bhatt

For Defence:

DW-1: Md. Gayasuddin

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Report

Ex.P2: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex.P3: Letter dt.19.06.2014.

Ex.P4: True copy of GO Ms.No.1068, dt. 11-08-1964.

Ex.P5: Scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P6: FIR

Ex.P7: Report

Ex.P8: Attested copy of DM/Nalgonda District Lr.No. 01/03/147(13)/80 - Nalgonda District, dt. 26.06.1992

Ex.P9: Attested copy of Month-wise particulars of interest due for the period from Sept. 1989 to June, 1992.

Ex.P10:Attested copy of DM/Nalgonda District Lr.No.

01/03/147(13)/80 - Nalgonda District, dt. 16.06.1992

Ex.P11:AttestedcopyofDy.CTM/NalgondaDistrict/Lr.No.

02/147(46)/84-RM, Nalgonda District, dt. 26.06.2000

Ex.P12: Attested copy of Lay out the old bus station, Nalgonda.

Ex.P13: Attested copy of Lay out the old bus station

Ex.P14: Attested copy of consumption, building collection and arrears

Page No.10 of 10 CC.No.1512 of 2019 particulars service No.0901401110 at Prakasham Bazar, Nalgonda.

Ex.P15:Attested copy of DM/Nalgonda District Lr.No. 01/147(1/2013)-

Nalgonda District, dt. 19.07.2013.

For Defence:

Ex.D1: C.C. of neat copy in O.S.No.219/2013

Ex.D2: C.C. of plaint copy in O.S.No.219/2013

Ex.D3: C.C. of document.No. 970/1964, dt. 11-11-1964.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nalgonda.

Page No.1 of 8 CC.No.07 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NALGONDA

On this Wednesday, this the 08th day of April, 2026

Present: Shirisha Katkojwala,

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda.

C.C. No. 07 of 2021

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Nalgonda I Town. …Complainant. AND

Sunkari Venkanna S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Driver of lorry No. AP 16 TY 4651 R/o. Gunjaluru village, Chivvemla Mandal, Suryapet District.

...Accused

***** This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned APP and Learned Counsel Sri E. Kameshwar, for accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Nalgonda I Town P.S, laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.269 of 2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief:

On 04.12.2020 at 1900 hours LW.1 lodged report stating that on the same day at about 5.45 pm he along with his mother namely

Ch. Latha were returning home on Scooty bearing No. TS 05 FA 6763 from Nalgonda and on reaching Durga Wines DVK Road, one

Page No.2 of 8 CC.No.07 of 2021 auto going in front of them applied sudden brake, due to which eh had to apply sudden brake, due to which his mother fell down from scooty, meanwhile one lorry bearing No. AP 16 TY 4651 came from behind in rash and negligent manner and ran over his mother, resulted in her death at spot. Hence LW. 1 requested to take necessary legal action against the driver of above lorry.

3.Basing on the above report LW-11 registered a case in Cr.

No.269 of 2020 for the offence U/Secs.304-A of IPC. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused.

4.This court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable

U/Secs.304-A of IPC against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. and substance of accusation is read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW.8 and got marked Exs-P1 to P7. Ex.P2 is not marked due to oversight and scene of offence panchanama is marked as Ex.P3 instead of Ex.P2.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C enabling him to explain the

Page No.3 of 8 CC.No.07 of 2021 incriminating material appeared against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied the truthfulness of evidence and reported no defense evidence on his side.

8.Heard the learned APP and learned counsel for accused.

9. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused

for the offence punishable U/Secs.304-A of IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. To bring home the guilt of accused under Sec.304-A of IPC, the prosecution must establish the following ingredients:

i) there must be death of a person ii) that the accused must have caused such death iii) that such death must be the direct result of rash or negligent act of accused.

11.The Hon’ble Apex court between Alister Anthony Pareira vs

State Of Maharashtra held that-

Insofar as Section 304A IPC is concerned, it deals with death caused by doing any rash or negligent act where such death is caused neither intentionally nor with the knowledge that the act of the offender is likely to cause death. The applicability of Section 304A IPC is limited to rash or negligent acts which cause death but fall short of culpable homicide amounting to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. An essential element

Page No.4 of 8 CC.No.07 of 2021 to attract Section 304A IPC is death caused due to rash or negligent act. The three things which are required to be proved for an offence under Section 304A are : (1) death of human being; (2) the accused caused the death and (3) the death was caused by the doing of a rash or negligent act, though it did not amount to culpable homicide of either description.

12. It is the case of prosecution that on 04.12.2020 at about 5.45 pm Pw-1 and his mother were going on scooty, then one auto going in front of them applied sudden brake, in turn Pw-1 also had to apply brake suddenly, due to which Pw-1’s mother fell down from scooty , meanwhile accused drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner and ran over the deceased resulting in her death. Thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under sec. 304-A IPC.

13. In order to establish the alleged offences, the prosecution has examined PW. 1 to PW.8. PW.1 is complainant cum eye witness, PW.2 and PW.3 are circumstantial witnesses, PW. 4 is eye witness, PW.5 is panch witness for inquest panchanama, PW. 6 is MVI, PW. 7 is

Doctor, PW.8 is investigation officer.

14.The ocular of evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.5, PW.7 and PW.8 coupled with Ex.P4 and P6 are establishing death of deceased. PW.1 is direct witness and he deposed that on 04.12.2020 he along with his mother were returning home on scooty bearing No. TS o5 FA

Page No.5 of 8 CC.No.07 of 2021 6763, then one auto suddenly applied brake and due to which he slow down his bike and his mother fell down from scooty, meanwhile one lorry came in high speed and hit his mother, in result she died on the spot. The version of Pw-1 is in consistence with Ex.P1. Pw-2 is circumstantial witness and he deposed the manner of accident in same tone of Pw-1 as informed to him. Pw-1 admitted in his cross examination that he applied sudden brake as the auto in front of them applied sudden brake and due to which his mother fell down.

The evidence of Pw-1 and Ex.P1 shows that the auto in front of Pw- 1’s bike applied sudden brake and due to which Pw-1 also had applied sudden brake of his scooty, resulting his mother fell down from scooty and the lorry came from behind and ran over deceased.

15.Pw-3 is also circumstantial witness and his evidence is showing that he is the owner of said lorry and the accused was the driver of same. His evidence further shows he was informed about the accident by police at about 5 years ago. Thus his evidence establishes that accused drove the lorry on the said date of accident.

16.Pw-4 is cited as eye witness and he deposed in similar lines of

Pw-1. He also identified the accused as the driver of said lorry. Pw-1 and Pw-4 deposed in their cross examination that the scene of offence road is busy road.

Page No.6 of 8 CC.No.07 of 2021

17.The occular evidence is clearly establishing the occurrence of accident. However it is the duty of prosecution to prove that the said accident is caused due to rash or negligent driving of lorry by accused. Ex.P5 shows the vehicle is Heavy Goods vehicle and the prosecution evidence shows the scene of offence road is busy and narrow road. The facts and evidence on record shows that Pw-1 and his mother were going on scooty and at that time suddenly one auto in front of them applied brake and in turn Pw-1 also applied brake and his mother fell down from scooty, and the lorry allegedly came in high speed and went over the deceased. It depicts the entire episode was occurred due to apply of sudden brake by an auto, which was absolutely unforeseen event and in such scenario for the obvious reasons the speed of vehicles coming behind would not be expected to be controlled in fraction of seconds regardless of diligence of drivers, especially the heavy vehicles are highly difficult to control the moving speed all at once, so in rational terms, it cannot be fair to say as negligence of vehicle’s driver for the unanticipated slip-up of ahead vehicle. Therefore, in the said circumstances this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution could not establish the death of deceased is occurred due to rash or negligent driving of accused. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences

Page No.7 of 8 CC.No.07 of 2021

U/Secs.304-A of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C. and the bail bonds shall remain in force for 6 months from the date of judgment U/sec 437-A Cr.P.C. There is no property, hence no order in this regard.

Directly typed by me on official laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 08 th day of April, 2026.

Prl. Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,

Nalgonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW-1: Ch. Vinay

PW-2: Ch. Srinivas

PW-3: Satyanarayana

PW-4: Shankaraiah

PW-5: Manikanta

PW-6: P. Venkat Reddy

PW-7: Ch. Ravi Kumar

PW-8: G. Venkat Reddy

For Defence: Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Report

Ex.P2: Nil

Ex.P3: Scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P4: Inquest panchanama.

Ex.P5: MVI Report

Ex.P6: PME Report

Page No.8 of 8 CC.No.07 of 2021

Ex.P7: FIR

For Defence: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda.

Page No.1 of 7O.S.No.370 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT NALGONDA

On this Monday, this the 06th day of April, 2026.

Present: Shirisha Katkojwala

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

O.S.No. 370 of 2023

Between:

Duppalapally Srinivas S/o. Lachaiah, Aged: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture and Painter, R/o. 6-3-1019/1/4, Gandhi Nagar, Nalgonda Town and District, Telangana State.

... Plaintiff

A N D

Orsu Bhaskar S/o. Veeraiah, Aged: 48 years, Occ: Contractor Business, R/o. H.No. 7-7-136, Vaddera Bazar, Panagal Village of Nalgonda Town and District. …Defendant

@@@

This Suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Surya Sampath, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, Sri P. Shyam Sunder, Learned counsel for the Defendants and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court passed the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is the suit for recovery of money.

2. Plaint averments in brief:

The plaintiff and defendant are well known to each other. Out of such acquaintance, on 18.08.2021 the defendant approached and requested the plaintiff for loan of Rs.7,50,000/-(Rupees Seven lakhs fifty thousand only) to meet his family, personal and Business necessities and obtained the said loan from plaintiff. In turn, the

Page No.2 of 7O.S.No.370 of 2023 defendant has executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same @ 12% interest when demanded by plaintiff. The transaction took place at the house of plaintiff and in the presence of one K. B. Swamy and V. Vimala Vamshidar and the promissory note was scribed by one T. Kiran Kumar. The plaintiff orally demanded defendant for repayment of loan amount, however he postponed the same on one or the other pretext. On 09.01.2023 the plaintiff got issed legal notice to the defendant and the same is received by defendant on dt.17.01.2023, however he neither chose to reply nor repaid the loan amount. The defendant is liable to pay

Rs.7,50,000/- along with interst Rs.1,74,500/-, total Rs. 9,24,500/- (Rupees Nine lakhs twenty four thousand and five hundred only).

Hence, the suit.

3. Written statement averments in brief:

The defendant has filed written statement denying the suit loan transaction and execution of promissory note. It is submitted that the signature on alleged promissory note does not belong to him and the same is forged by plaintiff and created fabricated promissory note.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.In order to prove the case of plaintiff got examined himself as

PW-1 and one Vimala Vamshidar as PW-2 and Ex.A1 to A4 are marked. Defendant No.1 got examined himself as DW.1.

Page No.3 of 7O.S.No.370 of 2023

5.Upon perusal of pleadings of both parties, the following issues are framed:

1. Whether the alleged promissory note is genuine, valid and binding on defendant ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover for suit amount from defendants as prayed ?

3. To what relief?

6. Issue No. 1 and 2:

As the issues Nos. 1 and 2 are interconnected with each other, they are taken up together simultaneously in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and analysis of evidence.

7.It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed Rs. 7,50,000/- from him and executed Ex.A1 in his favour.

Thereafter, the defendant has committed default in repayment of said loan amount. On the other hand, the defendant have denied suit loan transaction and execution of promissory note and contended that signature on promissory note is forged one. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

8.As the plaintiff is contending that the defendant obtained loan amount of Rs.7,50,000/- on 18.08.2021 and in turn executed Ex.A1 to

A4 in his favour, the initial burden lies upon him to prove the loan transaction. To prove the suit claim, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and also examined one of the attester Vimala

Page No.4 of 7O.S.No.370 of 2023

Vamshidhar as PW.2. He further relied upon documentary evidence

Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the original Promissory note dt: 18.08.2021,

Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice, Ex.A3 is the Postal receipt and Ex. A4 is the postal track consignment.

9.The plaintiff has primarily relied upon Ex.A1 to A4 to show the defendant executed the same in his favour at the time of suit loan transaction. The evidene of PW.1 shows that he obtained signature of defendant on stamp afffixed on blank paper. DW.1 admitted his signature and thumb impression on Ex.A1 during cross examination.

He further deposed that he maintains blank signed papers in his bike in the course of his contract business and Ex.A1 is taken by plaintiff from his bike. However, the defendant did not take the plea in written statement with regard to plaintiff taking blank signed paper from his bike and moreover, he denied the signature on Ex.A1 in his written statement and further alleged that the same is forged by plaintiff. DW.1 in his cheif affidavit deposed that one Krishna and himself were doing contract work in the year 2015-17 and they used to keep some blank signed papers during the business, thereafter disputes arose between them in the year 2017 and the said Krishna got filed this false case through plaintiff. The defendant did not take this plea in his written statement.

Page No.5 of 7O.S.No.370 of 2023

10.At this stage, it is pertinent to peruse Sec. 20 of Negotiable

Instruments Act reads as follows:

Sec. 20. Inchoate stamped instruments— Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount; provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.

11.As per the above provision of law, it is clear that it gives authority to holder of incomplete stamped and signed paper to fill up the same. Therefore, as the defendant admitted the signature on

Ex.A1, it gives authority to holder of said promissory note i.e.

plaintiff to fill up the same by himself or any other.

Page No.6 of 7O.S.No.370 of 2023

12.The oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A4 proves the suit loan transaction with regard to defendant obtaining suit loan from plaintiff. The learned counsel for defendant relied upon G.Vasu vs Syed Yaseem Saifuddin Quadri, Muddegowda vs

Bheeme Gowda, however the relevant portions of legal position are not highlighted and also did not submit how the same are relevant/applicable to the present case facts. In the said circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff could successfully establish the suit loan transaction and accordingly the plaintiff is entitled for the relief. The issue No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

13.Issue No.3: The suit is allowed.

In the result, the suit is allowed and decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff directing the defendants are liable to pay

Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs fifty thousand only) @10% p.a from the date of loan to till date of realisation.

Directly computerized to my dictation by Steno Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 06 th day of April, 2026.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:-

PW-1: D. Srinivas

Page No.7 of 7O.S.No.370 of 2023

PW-2: V. Vamshidhar

For Defendant:-

DW-1: O. Bhaskar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1: Original Promissory note Dt. 18.08.2021. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dt. 09.01.2023 Ex.A3: Postal receipt dt. 09.01.2023 Ex.A4: Postal track consignment dt. 17.01.2023

For Defendant:-

NilPrl. Junior Civil Judge

Nalgonda.