Shoukath Jahan Siddique

1 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT-CUM-III

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,

AT NIZAMABAD

PRESENT: Smt. SHOUKATH JAHAN SIDDIQUE,

Judge, Family Court-cum-III ADJ Court,

Nizamabad.

Dated this the 8th day of August, 2023

Crl. Appeal No.77 of 2019

Between:

Bala Krishna Bitla Ambaji s/o Late Ambaji Bitla aged about 48 years, Occu:- Govt. Service r/o B.D.D.Chall No. 104/20, Warli, Mumbai-400018 (M.S), Department of commerce (supply division), Government of India, Ministry of commerce and industry DGSXD, O/o the directorate of quality assurance, first floor, Aayakar Bhavan anexe new marine lines, Mumbai- 400020 (MS) Door No. 207/2615/2nd floor, Sector-VI, Kana Nagar, CGS Colony, Antop Hills, Mumbai-400037 (M.S)

..... Appellant

AND

1.Smt. Padma @ Bitla Gayatri w/o Bitla Balakrishna, aged 43 years, Occu:- House wife, r/o B.D.D.Chall No. 104/20, Warli, Mumbai-400018 (M.S), Door No. 207/2615/2nd floor, Sector-VI, Kane Nagar, CGS Colony, Antop Hills, Mumbai-400037 (M.S) and at present Door No. 6-6-177, Hamalwadi, First Floor, Beside New Sanjana Ladies Tailor, Nizamabad, 503002 (T.S).

2. Master Pranay s/o Bitla Balakrishna, aged about (9) years, Occu:- Nil, Minor r/o B.D.D.Chall No. 104/20, Warli, Mumbai-400018 (M.S), Door No. 207/2615/2. floor, Sector-VI, Kane Nagar, CGS Colony, Antop Hills, Mumbai-400037 (M.S) and at present Door No. 6-6-177, Hamalwadi, First Floor, Beside New Sanjana Ladies Tailor, Nizamabad, 503002 (T.S), Represented by his mother and guardian Smt. Padma Rani @ Bitla Gayatri (First Petitioner).

.... Respondents

Appeal against the orders in DVC.No.3 of 2014, dt: 23-07-2019 passed by the learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Nizamabad.

This petition coming before me on 06-07-2023 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M. Rajender Reddy Advocate for Petitioners/Appellants and of Sri G. Tulasidas, Advocate for the Respondent after having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

:: JUDGMENT ::

1. This is an appeal filed U/sec.29 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the Order. Dt: 23-07-2019 in DVC.No.3/2014 passed by the learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Nizamabad partly allowing the petition.

2. For the sake of convenience and for the better understanding of facts, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the case before the Trial Court.

3 The 1st Petitioner/wife filed the DVC.No.3 of 2014 on the file of II

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Nizamabad U/sec.12 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

It is submitted that the marriage of the first petitioner was performed with the first respondent on 11-11-2007 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. It is submitted that at the time of marriage, on the demand of the respondent and their family members, parents of the first petitioner gave Rs. 1,00,000/-as dowry, 15 tolas of gold ornaments, house hold articles worth Rs. 50,000/- etc., and entrusted the same to respondents and their family members for it is submitted that before the marriage of the first petitioner, the respondents informed that the first respondent married another woman by name Shalini and obtained divorce form the family court Mumbai at Bandra on 24-09-2004. That the first petitioner and her family members came to know that the first respondent and his 3 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 family members ill treated and harassed her for the demand of additional dowry, etc., and as such he field a criminal case against them for the dowry harassment etc., in Crime No. 105/2003 under sections 498-A, 406 of IPC r/w section 34 of IPC and later on there was a compromise and obtained mutual divorce with each other. The respondent 2 and 3 are sister of the first respondent and the 4th respondent is brother-in-law of the first respondent.

It is submitted that the respondents looked her well six months and thereafter they all started ill-treating, demand of additional dowry of

Rs.2,00,000/-unlawful demands for the purchase of properties, gold ornaments, etc., and used to insult her in the public by different modes, and also used to beat and assault against her. It is submitted that the respondents and their family members used to send her out of the matrimonial home putting her in fear of danger to her life for their unlawful demands, etc., and when she used to express her inability to fulfill their such demands, they used to beat and abuse and insult her and her family members in the public by words and various types of the acts.

Thereafter the as first petitioner was sent out of the matrimonial home by them for their such illegal demands, her family members tried their level best to settle the issue amicably, but they did not agree for the amicable settlement and instead, they demanded to fulfill their demands and as such her family members were compelled to fulfill their demands in part by paying Rs.2,00,000/- within one year from the date of their marriage, to the first respondent and his family members. it is submitted that after paying the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- the family members of the first 4 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 petitioner requested the respondents, their family members to look her well, they looked her well for some time and thereafter they started ill- treating, harassing, neglecting , refusing to maintain her and started casuing mental and physical agony to her by various modes like uttering filthy language words, physical assault, etc., and thereby she suffered very lot.

It is submitted that the respondents used to say that they married the first petitioner with an expectation that she and her family members will fulfill their demands and also to purchased the Immovable properties for them and as such used to cause her to suffer very lot and used to cause domestic violence against her, beat her and used to confine her in a room and used to neglect her and not used to provide food for her saying that they will not spend a single pie on her. It is submitted that the as ill- treatment and harassment was severe in nature, she used to place the matter before her family members and the elders they are convince the respondents not to cause any sort of domestic violence against her.

Thereafter her family members used to pay money to the respondents with a hope that they will look her well and that their marital life will be good, her family members have paid an amount of Rs. 4, 00,000/- in the entire towards the additional dowry after her marriage to the respondents, but they are not changing their mentality, caused domestic violence against her and as the result she became very sick.

It is submitted that when the first petitioner became pregnant, the respondents acted cruelly against her and their by her health condition 5 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 became worse, but the respondents failed and refused to take care of her health and to maintain her, her family members have taken care of her and saved her life by maintaining her. They deliberately caused domestic violence her and necked her out of them and as such she was compelled to inform the same to her family members and to bring her to her

Nizamabad. It is submitted that the second petitioner was born at

Nizamabad Town on 21-12-2010. It is submitted that though information was given to the respondents about the birth of the second petitioner, they failed to visit Nizamabad and to see the child and they refused to take back the petitioners to the matrimonial home with a Condition and demand for the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- and purchase of landed properties in their names. It is submitted that though information was given for cradle ceremony of the second petition, the respondents famed and refused to attend the said ceremony and instead they all together demanded to pay the said amounts, to purchase the properties in their names. The first petitioner have spent lot of money for the delivery of the second petitioner and for the cradle ceremony of the second petitioner. It is submitted that there was a joint account of the first petitioner and the first respondent at The Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Limited, Antop Hill,

Mumbai and wherein the amounts are being deposited from time to time after amounts are paid by the family members of the first respondent.

After cradle ceremony, there was a Panchayath at Nizamabad at the instance of the family members of the first petitioner with a request to save the marital life of the first petitioner with the first respondent., in that panchayath the elders found that the respondents are at fault and 6 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 advised and also admonished the respondents not to cause any sort of the domestic violence against the petitioners, not to demand anything from the petitioners and their family members. In order to save the martial life of the first petitioner with the first respondent, her family members started paying the amounts to them and also presented gold weighing three and half tolas in form of chain (one and half tola), two rings (one tola) and sent the petitioners to the society of the first respondent at

Mumbai with a hope that their conjugal life will be good.

It is submitted that after presenting the gold, etc., the respondents looked them well for one month and thereafter they started causing the same. As such started causing them to suffer mentally and physically and used to threatened them with the dire consequences of their death and used to force the first petitioner to accept for divorce and to leave them along with the child. It is submitted that while the things stood so, on 30- 07-2013, the respondents 1 to 4 were at the house of the first respondent and beat her and putting the petitioners in fear of danger to their lives necked them out of their house and threatened them that they will perform another marriage for the first respondent or that they will bring the divorced his first wife so that they will get lot of money and immovable properties. It is submitted that despite her requests they did not allow the petitioners to their home and refused to allow them to their society for ever. It is submitted that in the above to situation the petitioners were compelled to go to the residence of sister of first petitioner at Mumbai. Thereafter the information given by first petitioner 7 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 to her sister and her family members, they made their efforts to save marital, but the respondents refused for the same.

It is submitted that first petitioner also submitted a representation

before the officers of the first respondent with a request to do justice to

the petitioners herein on 05-08-2013 when they were residing in the house of the sister of the first petitioner. It is submitted that even though the first petitioner has submitted the above said representation before the said officers, the first respondent at the instance of other respondents failed and refused to lead conjugal life and refused to maintain them and instead threatened the petitioners, her family members, family members of her sister etc., threatened to file divorce case etc. ,on false and created grounds and thereby he will achieve his goals, but her family members have made their best efforts to save the conjugal life of the petitioners with the first respondent at Mumbai etc., by staying with the sister of the first petitioner for about one month, but the respondents failed and refused to provide any shelter, maintenance, etc., and even failed and refused to allow the petitioners to the society of first respondent to lead conjugal life. Due to the above said acts of the respondents, the petitioners are suffering very lot and not keeping good health and as such the petitioners are compelled to come to Nizamabad to her parent's home on 03-09-2013. Thereafter is submitted that in order to save the matrimonial life of the first petitioner she did not lodged any police complaint against the respondents, but she has made her efforts through other sources i..e, Through elders mediation, by making representation to the officers of the first respondent, etc., but the respondents did not 8 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 change their attitude and did not allow the petitioners to the society of the first respondent to lead conjugal life and instead refused to do so and refused to maintain them forever and have been threatening with the dire consequences and to accept for divorce without claiming anything from the petitioners. It is submitted that though the family members and the elders on behalf of the petitioner tried their level best to save the marital life of the first petitioner with the first respondent. It is submitted that both of the petitioner are suffering very lot and not keeping good health and they have no source of income of their own and not able to maintain themselves, etc., and they are depend upon the mercy of brother of the first petitioner herein. It is submitted that the first respondent has own house properties at Mumbai and that he has been drawing sufficient salary of Rs.40,000/- and more per month from his employment and also receiving an income of Rs.40,000/- and more per month from his properties and thus the first respondent has the capacity of paying an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to each of the petitioners herein. It is submitted that the petitioners herein came to know that to defeat claim of the petitioners, the respondents in collusion with each other trying to transfer the landed properties to the third parties and if they succeed in doing so, the petitioners will be put to much loss and injury which cannot be compensated in future. It is submitted that thus the acts of the respondents and their men are illegal and would amount to domestic violence against the petitioners and as such the petitioners are entitled to seek the reliefs from this Hon'ble court against the respondents.Hence, the petition.

9 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

3.The respondents filed counter denying all the allegations made by the petitioner and submitted that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 above named state and submit that all the allegations made by the Petitioner in the above application are totally false, baseless, mischievous and far away from the truth.

That the marriage of the first petitioner was performed with the first respondent on 11.11.2007, as per Hindu rites & customs. The respondents deny that at the time of marriage, on the demand of the respondent and his family members, the parents of petitioners gave Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry, 15 Tulas of gold ornaments, house hold articles worth Rs.50,000/- etc., and entrusted the same to the respondents and their family members for the welfare of the couple, as the same is totally false. The respondents denied that the first respondent and his family members ill- treated and harassed the said Shalini, for the demand of additional dowry.

The respondents further state that the said Shalini had filed a false criminal case U/Sec.498-A of IPC, against be first respondent.

The respondents deny the contents of this entire para, as the same is totally false. The respondents state that after the marriage, the first

Petitioner and first respondent were separately residing at 207/2615,

C.G.S. Colony, 2nd floor, Sector-6, Kane Nagar, Antop Hill, Mumbai-400 037, and the respondent Nos.2 to 4 never resided along with the first petitioner and the respondent not in the said premises at Antop Hill,

Mumbai-400 037. The respondents state that the first petitioner and the respondent No.1 were living together peacefully and happily in the said 10 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 premises at Antop Hill, Mumbai-400 037, and therefore, the question of ill- treating, harassing the first petitioner by the respondents does not arise.

The respondents therefore, deny that the respondents looked her well for six months and thereafter they all started ill-treating, harassing her for the demand of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, unlawful demands for the purchase of properties, gold ornaments etc., the respondents deny that they also used to beat and assault against her the respondents deny that the respondents and their family members used to send her out of the matrimonial home putting her in fear of danger to her life for their unlawful demands, etc and when she used to express her inability to fulfill their such demands, they used to beat and abuse and insult her and her family members in the public by words and various types of the acts. They never demanded anything from her and therefore, the question of sending the first petitioner out of the matrimonial home by them for the illegal demands and also settling the issue amicably by her family members does not arise. The respondents denied that her family members were compelled to fulfil their demands in part by paying Rs.2,00,000/- within one year from the date of their marriage, to the first respondent and his family members, as the same is totally false. The respondents state that they have not demanded any amount from the first petitioner or her family members, and therefore, the question of paying the amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- by her family members does not arise.

The respondents deny that alter paying the said amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- as additional dowry, they looked her well for some time and thereafter they started ill-treating, harassing, neglecting, refusing to 11 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 maintain her and started causing mental and physical agony to her by various modes like uttering filthy language words, physical assault, etc.

and thereby she suffered soy lot. The respondents state that they never harassed, insulted and ill-treated the first petitioner, and the respondents never demanded any dowry from the first petitioner, and also the family members of the first petitioner have not paid to the respondents any amount as the dowry.

That the respondents deny that the respondents used to say that they married the first petitioner with an expectation that she and her family members will fulfil their demands and also to purchase the immovable properties for them and as such used to cause her to suffer vary lot and used to cause domestic violence against her, as the same is totally false.

That the respondents deny that her family members have paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in the entire towards the additional dowry after her marriage to the respondents. The respondents state that her family members have not paid the said amount to the respondent, and therefore, the respondents deny that though her family members have paid the said amount to the respondents, they did not satisfy with the said amounts and instead they have been causing her to suffer mentally and physically by various modes and caused domestic violence against her and as the result she becaine sick. The respondents state that the first respondent has always taken care of the first Petitioner.

12 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

The respondents deny that when the first petitioner became pregnant, the respondents acted cruelly against her and thereby her health condition became worse, as the same is totally false. The respondents state that the respondent No.1 has always taken her care during her pregnancy period and she was given medical treatment at specialist Doctors from CGHS Gynecologists, and also her necessary tests such as Pregnancy Blood, HSG, Contrast GR Angiografin, 2D Echo etc.

were done as prescribed by the specialist Doctors from CGHS,

Gynaecologists. The respondents state that the respondent No.1 gave her medical treatment upto seven months of her pregnancy and thereafter, as per the custom and tradition, she was taken to her parents' house at

Nizamabad, for the first delivery.

The respondents state that as per customs and tradition, her parents had come to the house of the respondent No.1 at 207/2615, C.G.S

Colony, 2nd floor, Sector-6, Kane Nagar, Antop Mumbai-400 037 and they stayed there for about 15 days with their daughter i.e. first petitioner and the respondent No.1, and thereafter, they took the first petitioner with them at Nizamabad, for her first delivery as per the custom and tradition.

The respondents state that it is true that the second petitioner was born at Nizamabad Town, on 21.12.2010. The respondents deny that though information was given to the respondents about the birth of the second petitioner, they failed to visit Nizamabad and to see the child, as the same is totally false.

13 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

The respondent state that the respondent No.1 visited Nizamabad and he had gone to her parents' house at Nizamabad, on 23.12.2010, but her brother, Raghunathrao Chinta insulted the first respondent and also pushed him out from her parents house. The respondent further state that due to insult from first petitioner's brother above named, he had no alternate but to take shelter of nearby Lodge. The respondents further state that the first respondent brought the first petitioner and his son to his house at Antop Hill, Mumbai, after five months of her delivery. The respondents deny that the respondents also refused to take back the petitioners to the matrimonial home with a condition and demand for the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- and purchase of landed properties in their names, as the same is totally false. The respondents state that the petitioners' relatives had not given any information to the respondents about the cradle ceremony of the second petitioner, and therefore, the question of attending the cradle ceremony of the second petitioner by the respondents does not arise. The respondents deny that the family members of the first petitioner have spent lot of money for the delivery of second petitioner and for the cradle ceremony of the second petitioner.

The respondents state that the respondent No.1, first petitioner along with the relatives and neighbours were grandly celebrated the second petitioner's first and second birthday at 207/2615, C.G.S. Colony, 2nd floor, Sector-6, Kane Nagar, Antop Mumbai-400 037. The respondents craves leave to rely upon the photographs of birthday of second petitioner, as and when produced. The respondents state that it is true that there was a joint account of the first petitioner and the first 14 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 respondent at the Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited, Antop Hill,

Mumbai. The respondents state that the amounts are being deposited in the said joint account with the above said Bank from time to time by the respondent No .1 only from his savings.

The Respondents deny that after cradle ceremony, there was a

Panchayath at Nizamabad at the instance of the family members of the first petitioner with a request to save the marital life of the first petitioner with the first respondent. The respondents state that when no any matter was referred to Panchayath at Nizamabad regarding the marital life of the first petitioner with the first respondent, the question of taking any decision does not arise. The respondents therefore, deny that in the said

Panchayath, the elders found that the respondents are at fault and advised and also admonished the respondents not to cause any sort of the domestic violence against the petitioners, not to demand anything from the petitioners and their family members. They furthere denied that in order to save the marital life of the first petitioner with the first respondent, her family members started paying the amounts to them and also presented gold weighing three and half tolas in form of chain (one and half tola), two rings (one tola) and sent the petitioners to the society of the first respondent at Mumbai with a hope that their conjugal life will be good.

They further denied that after presenting the gold etc., the respondents looked them well for one month and thereafter they started causing the same. They further denied that while the things stood so, on 15 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 30.07.2013, the respondents 1 to 4 were at the house of the first respondent and beat her and putting the petitioners in fear of danger to their lives necked them out of their house and threatened them that they will perform another marriage for the first respondent or that they will bring the divorced his first wife so that they will get lot of money and immovable properties. They further denied that despite her requests, they did not allow the petitioners to their home and refused to allow them to their society for ever. They further denied that in the above said situation, the petitioners were compelled to go to the residence of sister of first petitioner at Mumbai, and after the information given by first petitioner to her sister and her family members, they made the, efforts to save marital life, but the they refused for the same. They further state that the respondent No.1 filed a petition bearing No.2526 of 2013 in the

Hon’ble Family Court, at Bandra, Mumbai on 20th September, 2013, under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the restitution of conjugal rights, and the said matter is pending in the Court. The first petitioner is well aware of the above said petition which is pending in the said Court.

The respondents further state that prior to filing the above said petition, the first respondent had sent a legal notice dtd. 03.09.2013, by R.P.A.D., through his advocate to the first petitioner on 04.09.2013, but the said notice returned unclaimed. The respondents crave leave to rely upon the said legal Notice dtd. 03.09.2013 sent to the first petitioner through his advocate, as and when produced. The Respondents state that inspite of the knowledge of the above said notice dtd. 03.09.2013 the first petitioner 16 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 has filed the above petition in this Hon'ble Court just to harass the respondents without any reason.

The respondents state that the first petitioner submitted a false representation before the officers of the first respondent on 05.08.2013 with the intention to terminate the first respondent from his job or to stop his promotion. They further denied that even though the first petitioner has submitted the representation before the said officers, but they failed and refused to allow the petitioners to his society and refused to lead conjugal life and refused to maintain them and instead threatened the petitioners, her family members, family members of her sister etc., threatened to file divorce case etc., on false and created grounds and thereby he will achieve his goals. They further denied that the first petitioner, her family members have made their best efforts to save the conjugal life of the petitioners with the first respondent at Mumbai etc., by staying with the sister of the first petitioner for about one month, but the respondents failed and refused to provide any shelter, maintenance etc.

and even failed and refused to allow the petitioners to the society of first respondent to lead conjugal life. They further state that the respondent

No.1 tried at his level best through some of his friends and relatives to contact the first petitioner and her relatives, but first Petitioner and her relatives had not co-operated for the same. They further denied due to the above said acts of the respondents, the petitioners are suffering very lot and not keeping good health and as such the petitioners are compelled to come to Nizamabad to her parents' home on 03-09-2013.

17 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

They further stated that during the period of the first petitioner's stay at her sister's house at Mumbai, she had taken medical treatment from Central Government Health Scheme Dispensary (CGHS), and also without the permission and knowledge of the first respondent, the first petitioner also withdrawn the sum of Rs.6,000/- from the joint account of first petitioner and first respondent with Saraswat Co-operation Bank

Limited, Antop Hill, Mumbai-400 037, where the first respondent's hard earned savings were deposited. The respondents crave leave to rely upon the copies of withdrawal slip signed by the first petitioner and Bank

Passbook, as and when produced. They further state that the first petitioner had not informed to the first respondent or his family members

before shifting to Nizamabad from Mumbai. They further stated that there

was no any incident took place between the first petitioner and the respondents till the death of the mother of the respondent No.1, but after the death of the mother of first respondent, the first petitioner and her relatives are grown their power of intention to usurp the ancestral property of the mother of the first respondent i.e., Room No.20, situated at B D.D. Chawl No.104, Worli, Mumbai- 400 018. They further stated that the first petitioner never communicated to the respondents through the elders mediations.

They further denied that the first respondent has own house properties at Mumbai, and he has been drawing sufficient salary of

Rs.40,000/- and more per month from his employment and also receiving an income of Rs.40,000/- and more per month from his properties and thus the first respondent has the capacity of paying an amount of Rs.

18 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 10,000/- per month to each of the petitioners. They further denied that the petitioners herein came to that to defeat claim of the petitioners, the respondents in collusion with each other trying to transfer the landed properties to the third parties and if they succeed in doing so. They further stated that the first respondent does not have any landed properties and therefore, the question of transfer of the landed properties does not arise.

The Respondents state that the respondents have not committed any domestic violence against the petitioners till today, and therefore, there is no cause of action for filing the above case has arisen. They further stated that it is totally false that they have been continuously causing the above acts till this day, and therefore, the same is denied by the respondents. They further stated that they have not committed any domestic violence against the petitioners and as there is no cause of action for filing the above case has arisen, the above application of the petitioners is liable to be dismissed.

The respondents state that the marriage of the first respondent with his first wife, Shalini was dissolved on 24.9.2004, by a decree of divorce by mutual consent U/S.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 passed by the

Hon'ble Sixth Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, under petition No.A-

1426/2001. They further state that prior to the marriage with the first respondent, the first respondent had informed to the first petitioner and her family members about his divorce from his first wife, Shalini.

19 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

They further state that first respondent's mother, Smt. Narsubai

Ambaji Bitla, was residing in the premises i.e. 104/20, B.D.D. Chawl, Worli,

Mumbai-400 018, along with his sister, Smt. Sulochana Vithal Guda, widow, and her son, Rajesh Vithal Guda, and therefore, prior to marriage, the first respondent had put the condition for the said marriage with the petitioner that after marriage, the respondent will have to stay along with the first respondent in he Govt. Quarter at the above said address at

Antop Hill, Mambai, and the first respondent married to the first petitioner, when she agreed and accepted his said condition.

They further stated that after the marriage, the first petitioner, started to reside with the first respondent in the above said premises i.e.

207/2615, Type II, C.G.S.Colony, Sector 6, Kane Nagar, Antop Hill,

Mumbai- 400 037, and out of the said wedlock, there is one male child by name, PRANAY, who was born on 21.12.2010, at Nizamabad, A.P. State.

The respondents state that after the marriage, in the month of

November, 2007, the first Petitioner and first respondent both visited to

Shree Rajarajeshwar Temple, Vemulawada, and Laxminarsimha Temple at

Yadagiri Gutta, A.P.State. The Respondents further state that in the month of December, 2007, the first petitioner and first the respondent both visited Goa for honeymoon, and enjoyed the said visit and stayed there peacefully for about 4 days. Thereafter, in the month of January, 2008, the first petitioner and the first respondent both visited and enjoyed

Ashtavinayak yatra. Thereafter, during the period from March-2008 to

May-2008, the first 6 days tour visit of the first petitioner and the first 20 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 respondent was to Shima, Kullu, Manali and Ncw Delhi, and thereafter, the

Petitioner and the Respondent visited to Hyderabad Darshan, Ramoji

Filmcity, Tirupati Balaji Darshan, and thereafter, the first Petitioner and the first Respondent both visited to Vaishnodevi Darshan, Punjab Amritsar

Darshan, and Shirdi Saibaba Darshan, and thereafter, Pune Ganesh

Darshan. The first Petitioner and the first Respondent also visited the

Resorts viz. Shangrilla Resort, Waterkingdom, and Anand Resort etc. The first Petitioner and the first Respondent both have enjoyed all the said visits. The Respondents crave leave to rely upon the photographs of the first Petitioner and first Respondent in respect of the visits to above said places, as and when produced. Thereafter the first respondent had taken admission of his son, Pranay, second petitioner, in the school viz. Gruha

Kalyan Kendra, at Antop Hill, Mumbai, for Jr. K.G., in the month of

March/April, 2013, and the first respondent has paid his school fees.

They further stated that the mother of the first respondent, Smt.

Narsubai Bitla was seriously ill at the premises at Worli, Mumbai, and she expired on 20.04.2013, at Mumbai. They further state that from the date of his marriage with the first respondent, i.e. 11.11.2007 to till the last breath of the first respondent's mother i.e. till 20.04.2013, after 15 days from the date of death of the first respondent's (mother, when the first respondent asked the first petitioner for going back to his residence at

Anton Hill, Mumbai, the first petitioner refused to return back to the residence of the first respondent its Antop Hill, Mumbai, and the first petitioner expressed her willingness to stay in the premises at Worli,

Mumbai. thereafter, the first petitioner started forcing the second 21 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 respondent to vacate the said room, at Worli, Mumbai. The first petitioner also started forcing and threatening the first respondent that if the said room premises at Worli, Mumbai, is not transferred to the name of the first petitioner, then, the first petitioner will put the first respondent, his sister and other relatives behind the bar under Section 498-A of Indian Penal

Code.

They further stated that since the date of the marriage of the first respondent with the first petitioner, her relatives viz. (1) Smt. Chinta

Pushpa, her mother, (2) Smt. Chinta Raghunath Rao, her brother, (3) Smt.

Samala Vijayalaxmi, her sister, (4) Shri.Ravindra, her brother-in-law, all are threatening him to transfer his ancestral property i.e., room premises at Worli, Mumbai, to the name of the first petitioner and they all used to threaten the first respondent that if he does not fulfill their demand of transferring the said room premises at Worli, Mumbai, to the name of the first petitioner, then they will involve the first respondent and his, relatives in the false case and they will send the first respondent and his relatives behind the bar. Due to the threatenings and tortures to him by the first petitioner and her above said relatives, the first respondent is suffering from hypertension and CRAT problem.

They further stated that from the year 2011, whenever the first respondent was going near the first petitioner, she used to push him away and ask him to go to the prostitution area, and she to insult the first respondent saying that he is very black, he is not having handsome personality, and also calling hm as a second hand person, she used to 22 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 compare the first respondent's personality with other persons whom the first petitioner likes. The Respondents state that the first Petitioner also told the first Respondent in the presence of his neighbours that the first

Petitioner has married him by looking of his ancestral property i.e. the room in B.D.D. Chawl, at Worli, Mumbai, only.

They further state that on 30th July, 2013, in the morning at about 08:30 a.m., the first petitioner started asking the first respondent that his sister and her son should not stay in the room premises at Worli, Mumbai, and then, the first petitioner started quarrelling with the first respondent and abusing him in most filthy language at the room premises at Worli,

Mumbai. He tired to convince her, but she was not in a position to listen him, and then, the first respondent left for his job at about 09:30 a.m., but on the same day, at about 11.00 a.m., the first petitioner left the room premises at Worli, Mumbai, along with his son, Pranay, second petitioner, and her all Streedhan, Gold Ornaments, and went to the house of her sister, Mrs. Samala Vijayalaxmi Ravindra, at Sion, Mumbai. The respondents state that the first respondent had lodged complaint about the same against the first petitioner with the Worli Police Station, Mumbai.

The respondents state that the first petitioner has also taken with her his

Central Govt. Health Scheme Book.

They further stated that that the first respondent's sister has been residing in the said room premises at Wadi, Mumbai, along with his mother since the year 1998, and his sister was taking care of his mother 23 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 till her death. They further stated that as the first respondent has refused to fulfill the said demand of the first petitioner.

They further stated that the first respondent is well educated person, and his qualification is B.Com., DCS, DFM. The first rdespondent never tortured the first petitioner physically or mentally. The respondents state thadt the first petitioner is also well educated. Her educational qualification is B.Sc., B.Ed. and prior to the marriage, she was running the tuition classes at her parents' home at Nizamabad, and after marriage, she used to tell him that she was earning from the tuition classes for about Rs.20,000/- per month. The first petitioner is now doing a job in private tuition classes and now she is earning about Rs. 15,000/- per month.

They further stated that after the death of the first respondent's mother, many times the first petitioner, his mother-in-law, Smt. Chinta

Pushpa and brother-in-law, Shri. Chinta Raghunath Rao, and sister-in-law,

Mrs. Samala Vijayalaxmi, and her husband, Samala Ravindra have threatened the first respondent to vacate the room premises at Worli,

Mumbai, by removing therefrom his widow sister, Smt. Sulochana Guda, and her son, Rajesh Guda. The Respondents state that as the first respondent ignored their threats, they became angry, and in anger, the first petitioner has lodged false complaint against the first respondent with his office, with the intention to pressurize him to fulfill their illegal demand. They further stated that due to their continuous harassment, in the month of May and June, 2013, the first respondent had approached his 24 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 relatives and the persons from his Samaj, to convince them and to stop harassing him for the room premises at Worli, Mumbai. She further states that he also approached the committee members of his Samaj, and also his relatives, to convince them and to stop harassing the first respondent for the room premises at Worli, Mumbai. They all tried their level best to convince and give understanding to the first Petitioner and her above said relatives, but their efforts went in vain. The respondents state that the first respondent has taken full care of his son, wife, mother, the second respondent, and second respondent's son. The first respondent has maintained peace and harmony with the first petitioner and other family members at his best in his meagre salary of Lower Division Clerk.

They further stated that in fact, she used to quarrel with him on petty reason, and the she and her relatives used to give tension to him.

The respondents state that the first respondent has given the first petitioner regular medical treatment. They further stated that the first respondent has also given to the first Petitioner private medical treatment at Dr. Niraj A. Jain, M.D. and the first respondent has taken care of her medical treatment from time to time The respondents state that the first respondent has not neglected the first petitioner and his son.

The Respondents further state that on 30.07.2013, and also on 31.07.2013, the first respondent telephoned to the first petitioner, but the she did not give any response to his telephone call. On 01.08.2013, he requested her on telephone to come back to his house along with son,

Pranay, but she refused. The respondents further state that instead of 25 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 returning back to his house, the first petitioner lodged false complaint dtd.

05.08.2013 with his house, i.e. The Director (QA) Mumbai, Directorate

General of Supplies & Disposal, 1st floor, Aaykar Bhavan, New Marinelines,

Mumbai- 400 020.

They further stated that the she has left the company of the first respondent since 30th July, 2013, without any reasonable ground. She has deserted the first respondent for no any reason and she has subjected him to suffer unhappiness and misery in his life for his no fault, which is illegal on the part of the first petitioner.

They further stated that since he made all possible and sincere efforts to bring her back to cohabit with him, but all his sincere efforts went in vain, as the she has not come back to cohabit with him.

They further stated that she has left the company of the first respondent since 30th July, 2013, without sufficient, justifiable or reasonable ground, and deprived him from his conjugal rights against her.

She has deserted the first respondent for no any reason and she has subjected the first respondent to suffer unhappiness and misery in his life for his no fault. The first respondent is now residing in the above said premises having area admeasuring 600 sq.fts, at 207/2615, C.G.S. Colony, 2nd floor, Sector-6, Kane Nagar, Antop Hill, Mumbai-400 037.

They further stated that the respondent No.3, Smt. Dudam

Nagamani is the elder sister of the first respondent and the respondent

No.4 is the husband of the respondent No.3. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are permanently residing at House No.1-6-66, Gandhi Nagar, 26 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

Vemulawada, District : Karimnagar, A.P.State – 505302. The respondents state that the first respondent is serving as Lower Division Clerk at Office of the Director (Quality Assurance), Mumbai, and he is getting net salary

Rs.6,049/- ( Rupees Six thousand forty nine only)per month. The respondents crave leave to rely upon the copy of Pay Slip of the first respondent for the month of March, 2014, as and when produced. The respondents further state that due to the false complaint lodged by the first petitioner with the Office of the first respondent, the Director has suspended him from the service by passing order dtd. 21.03.2014. The respondents crave leave to rely upon the copy of the said Order dtd.

21.03.2014. suspending the first respondent from the service. The respondents further state that now it is very difficult for the first respondent to maintain himself, his sister the respondent No.2 and her son, Rajesh, as now he has been suspended from the service as per the above said Order dtd. 21.03.2014 .

The respondents state that she has already taken with her all her

Streedhan, Gold Ornaments. They further stated that the Gold articles which are mentioned in the list are totally false, and she has already taken with her all Streedhan, Gold Ornaments. They further stated that it is totally false that Rs.1,00,000/- was given in cash to the respondent No.1 as the dowry and household articles for Rs.50,000/- was given as the dowry at the time of marriage, and therefore, the same is denied by the respondents. The respondents state that the expenses which are mentioned in the list i.e. Surgery (Lapro scopes) charges Rs.2,40,000/- and the charges of Rs.50,000/- for the delivery, surgery, medical expenses 27 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 at the time of delivery of child are totally false, and therefore, the respondents deny the same.

They further stated the first petitioner had informed the first respondent that her elder brother, Shri. Chinta Mohan Rao is mentally ill, and he is under treatment. The Respondents further state that he also came to know from her that she was also suffered from mental illness and she was well treated from the said illness. They further stated that she had also disclosed to the first respondent that due to her mental illness, no body was ready to marry her at Nizamabad, A.P. State, and therefore, she came to Mumbai, and therefore, she agreed to marry with the first respondent, who has taken divorce from his first wife.

They further stated that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 above named are not adult male members, and therefore, the proceeding initiated against them, is illegal and bad in law, as per section 2(q) of the

Protection of Women form Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and hence they deserve to be discharged.

The respondents state that the first respondent has not neglected the first petitioner and his son, Pranay, the second petitioner, and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs as prayed in the above application. The respondents further state that all the allegations made by the petitioners in the above said application are totally false and baseless. The respondents further state that the petitioner are not entitled to any relief, and the application of the petitioners are liable to be dismissed.

28 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

4. GROUNDS OF APPFAL in Crl. Apl. No. 77 of 2019:-

That, the Orders passed by the learned lower court in D.V.C. Case

No.3/2014, dated: 23-07-2019, granting rent of Rs. 8000/- to the respondents herein towards alternate accommodation, is illegal, arbitrary, biased and is against the principles of law and natural Justice, and as such the same is liable to be set aside.

That, the Orders passed by the learned lower Court is based on assumptions and presumptions and there is no substantive evidence or substance on record to grant rent of Rs. 8,000/- towards alternate accommodation.

That, the learned lower court rightly dismissed all the reliefs including the relief not to cause any domestic violence holding that the petitioners could not prove domestic violence, but gravely erred in granting Rs. 8,000/- per month.

That, the learned lower court ought to have seen that, while domestic violence was not proved by the petitioners, all the entire reliefs under D.V.C. Case have to be dismissed, and ought to have seen that the petitioners are entitled for residence in share household or alternate accommodation only when the petitioners establish domestic violence, which they could not prove as held by the learned lower court.

That, the learned lower court failed to appreciate the material on record and wrongly interpreted the material and passed orders of granting an amount of rent of Rs. 8,000/- towards alternate accommodation in 29 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 routine manner without any proper finding and thereby caused miscarriage of justice.

That, their Lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageshwar Rao and Hon’ble Justice Mr. M.R. Shah in the case Sangita Saha Vs

Abhijit Saha, held that the entitlement to claim residence in shared household only when the petitioner established domestic violence.

That, in light of the above facts and material on record, the Orders passed by the learned lower court granting rent of Rs. 8,000/- towards alternate accommodation is liable to be set aside. That, the others grounds interaia would be urged at the time of hearing.

At the time of hearing counsel for appellants and respondent counsel submitted arguments in both the appeal.

Since both the appeals are filed by the same parties i.e., preferred by respondent in DVC Bitla Balakrishna and petitioner in the same DVC by name Bitla Gayatri. Crl.A.No.77 of 2019 is preferred by Bitla Balakrishna (respondent in DVC No.03/2014) with a prayer to set aside lower court order granting Rs.8,000/-towards rents as alternate accommodation.

Crl.A.No.102 of 2019 is filed by Bitla Gayatri (petitioner in DVC

No.03/2014) with a prayer to modify the order passed by the lower court and grant Rs.10,000/- per month to each of the petitioners, to grant compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, to grant injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the immovable property and also to return the dowry, gold etc., given in the marriage which all prayers were dismissed by the lower court in DVC.

30 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

5.To avoid confusion the parties in this appeal will be discussed as the petitioner and respondent as they were arrayed before the trial court.

6.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the petitioner entitled for the relief sought for ?”

The petitioner in the lower court has prayed different reliefs of

1) Directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to the society of 1st respondent at Mumbai or in alternate to provide separate accommodation for the petitioners.

2) Direct the respondent not to ill treat or harass the petitioners or cause domestic violence.

3) To grant Rs.10,000/- per month to each petitioner from the date of petition.

4) To restrain the respondents from performing any other marriage to 1st respondent.

5) To direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for mental and physical agony to the petitioners.

6) To direct the respondents to return the entire dowry and articles etc., to the petitioners.

7) To restrain the respondents from alienating petition schedule property.

8) To direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioners towards legal expenses.

31 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

7.It is observed from the record that in order to prove the case before the trial court the petitioner examined herself as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the pleadings in her chief-examination in brief. PW1 deposed that the marriage was performed with the first respondent on 11-11-2007 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. She deposed at the time of marriage, on the demand of the respondent and their family members, parents of the first petitioner gave Rs.1,00,000/-as dowry, 15 tolas of gold ornaments, house hold articles worth Rs. 50,000/- etc., and entrusted the same to respondents and their family members. She further deposed that

before the marriage of the first petitioner, the respondents informed that

the first respondent married another woman by name Shalini and obtained divorce form the family court Mumbai at Bandra on 24-09-2004.

That the first petitioner and her family members came to know that the first respondent and his family members ill treated and harassed her for the demand of additional dowry, etc., and as such he field a criminal case against them for the dowry harassment etc., in Crime No. 105/2003 under sections 498-A, 406 of IPC r/w section 34 of IPC and later on there was a compromise and obtained mutual divorce with each other.

8. She deposed that the respondents looked her well six months and thereafter they all started ill-treating, demand of additional dowry of

Rs.2,00,000/-unlawful demands for the purchase of properties, gold ornaments, etc., and used to insult her in the public by different modes, and also used to beat and assault against her. She further deposed that the respondents and their family members used to send her out of the matrimonial home putting her in fear of danger to her life for their 32 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 unlawful demands, etc., and when she used to express her inability to fulfill their such demands, they used to beat and abuse and insult her and her family members in the public by words and various types of the acts.

She further deposed that she was sent out of the matrimonial home by them for their such illegal demands, her family members tried their level best to settle the issue amicably, but they did not agree for the amicable settlement and instead, they demanded to fulfill their demands and as such her family members were compelled to fulfill their demands in part by paying Rs.2,00,000/- within one year from the date of their marriage, to the first respondent and his family members. it is submitted that after paying the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- the family members of the first petitioner requested the respondents, their family members to look her well, they looked her well for some time and thereafter they started ill- treating, harassing, neglecting , refusing to maintain her and started casuing mental and physical agony to her by various modes like uttering filthy language words, physical assault, etc., and thereby she suffered very lot.

9.She further deposed that the respondents used to say that they married her with an expectation that she and her family members will fulfill their demands and also to purchased the Immovable properties for them and as such used to cause her to suffer very lot and used to cause domestic violence against her, beat her and used to confine her in a room and used to neglect her and not used to provide food for her saying that they will not spend a single pie on her. She further deposed that the as ill- treatment and harassment was severe in nature, she used to place the 33 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 matter before her family members and the elders they are convince the respondents not to cause any sort of domestic violence against her.

Thereafter her family members used to pay money to the respondents with a hope that they will look her well and that their marital life will be good, her family members have paid an amount of Rs. 4, 00,000/- in the entire towards the additional dowry after her marriage to the respondents, but they are not changing their mentality, caused domestic violence against her and as the result she became very sick.

10.She further deposed that when she became pregnant, the respondents acted cruelly against her and their by her health condition became worse, but the respondents failed and refused to take care of her health and to maintain her, her family members have taken care of her and saved her life by maintaining her. She further deposed they deliberately caused domestic violence her and necked her out of them and as such she was compelled to inform the same to her family members and to bring her to her Nizamabad. She further deposed that the second petitioner was born at Nizamabad Town on 21-12-2010. It is submitted that though information was given to the respondents about the birth of the second petitioner, they failed to visit Nizamabad and to see the child and they refused to take back the petitioners to the matrimonial home with a Condition and demand for the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- and purchase of landed properties in their names. She further deposed that though information was given for cradle ceremony of the second petition, the respondents failed and refused to attend the said ceremony and instead they all together demanded to pay the said amounts, to purchase 34 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 the properties in their names and said that unless they fulfill their above said demands, they will not attend the function and see them. She deposed that the she spent lot of money for the delivery of the second petitioner and for the cradle ceremony of the second petitioner. She further deposed that there was a joint account of the first petitioner and the first respondent at The Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Limited, Antop

Hill, Mumbai and wherein the amounts are being deposited from time to time after amounts are paid by her family members.

11. She further deposed that after cradle ceremony, there was a

Panchayath at Nizamabad at the instance of her family members a request to save the marital life of the first petitioner with the first respondent., in that panchayath the elders found that the respondents are at fault and advised and also admonished the respondents not to cause any sort of the domestic violence against the petitioners, not to demand anything from the petitioners and their family members. She further deposed that in order to save the martial life of the first petitioner with the first respondent, her family members started paying the amounts to them and also presented gold weighing three and half tolas in form of chain (one and half tola), two gold rings (one tola) and sent the petitioners to the society of the first respondent at Mumbai with a hope that their conjugal life will be good. Thereafter they looked them well for some time and there after they continued the said illegal acts towards them and used to cause domestic violence by not providing food, by not maintaining them. She further deposed that the respondents 3 and 4 frequently used 35 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 to visit then at Mumbai and used to cause domestic violence against then and were supporting illegal demands of the respondents 1 and 2.

12.She further deposed that while the things stood so, on 30-07-2013, the respondents were at the house of the first respondent and beat her and putting them in fear of danger to their lives necked them out of their house and threatened them that they will perform another marriage for the first respondent or that they will bring the divorced his first wife so that they will get lot of money and immovable properties. She further deposed that despite her requests they did not allow the petitioners to their home and refused to allow them to their society for ever. She further deposed that in the above to situation the petitioners were compelled to go to the residence of sister of first petitioner at Mumbai.

Thereafter the information given by first petitioner to her sister and her family members, they made their efforts to save marital, but the respondents refused for the same. He further deposed that in order to save her marital life she tolerated the same and did not give any police complaint the respondents. She further deposed that she the said application before the officers of the first respondent on 05-08-2013 when they were residing in the house of her sister at Mumbai. She further deposed that she submitted the above application before his officers, the first respondent at the instance of the others respondents failed and refused to allow them to his society and also refused to lead conjugal ife and refused to maintain them and instead, they all threatened her and her family members and threatened to file a divorce case etc., agaisnt her on 36 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 false grounds and thereby he will achieve his go goals and he will perform another marriage.

13.She further deposed that even though they have made out best efforts to save her conjugal life with the first respondent ant Mumbai etc., by staying with my sister for about one month, the respondents failed and refused to provide any shelter, maintenance, etc., and even they failed and refused to allow then to the society of the first respondent. Due the acts of the respondent she suffered a lot and they were compelled to come to Nizamabad to his parent’s home on 03-09-2013.

14.She further deposed that the first respondent has own house properties at Mumbai and that he has been drawing sufficient salary of

Rs.40,000/- and more per month from his employment and also receiving an income of Rs.40,000/- and more per month from his properties and thus the first respondent has the capacity of paying an amount of

Rs.10,000/- per month to them herein. She further deposed that the petitioners herein came to know that to defeat claim of the petitioners, the respondents in collusion with each other trying to transfer the immovable properties to the third parties and if they succeed in doing so, they will be put to much loss and injury which cannot be compensated in future. She further deposed that thus the acts of the respondents and their men are illegal and would amount to domestic violence against the petitioners and as such the petitioners are entitled to seek the reliefs from this Hon'ble court against the respondents. She further deposed that her family members are spending the money for their medical checkups, treatment, etc., and she is not doing any work and not giving tuition and 37 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 she is having no income of her own to maintain herself and her child. She further deposed she had been suffering with diabetics, high blood pressure, etc, and her son is also suffered with the various ailments, but the respondent No. 1 refusing to take care of them. She further deposed that the respondent No. 1 filed false case at Mumbai Family Court for the restitution of conjugal rights. She further deposed that in fact he has no intention to lead marital life with her and he has interest to maintain her and her child that his family members have no love and affection towards them. She further deposed that she did not take anything form the matrimonial home at any point of time as alleged by the respondents in their counter, but in fact her entire belongings, gold, clothes, dowry etc., given by their family members at the time of marriage and after the marriage are still in the custody of the respondents and they failed and refused to return the same to them and instead, they have been mis-using the same for themselves. She further deposed that as the house where she was residing along with her husband and the other houses are the houses of the first respondent and in which we have a right to reside therein for our shelter, but they are not allowing then to reside therein.

She further deposed that she did not demand the respondents to transfer the said housed on to her name and she did not demand him to pay the amount. She further deposed that she is trying her level best to safeguard her marital life and to continue her marital life with her husband, but not to break down her marital life. She further deposed that even in the case filed by him for the restitution of conjugal rights, she is filed her counter 38 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 and expressed his willingness to join him but he failed and refused to consider her request.

15.She further deposed that even in the court at Mumbai Family Court, he said that he filed the above case against her only with an ill-intention to escape from his liabilities and to prepare grounds to obtain divorce, and also to cause sufferance to them by making them to appear before family court at Mumbai from Nizamabad and to make them to spend lot of money, but not to lead marital life and as such she filed an application

before the Hon'ble Supreme court of India and obtained an interim stay

order against the proceedings of the said case filed by him at Mumbai.

She further deposed that even in the first date of hearing she expressed her willingness to join him and lead marital life, but he failed and refused to allow her and the second petitioner to him, thus she was forced to file an application for granting of interim maintenance in the said case, but he failed to pay single pie to them since then till this day. She further deposed that their claim against the respondents is legal and is based on true facts. She further deposed that the claim of the respondents against them is not true and correct, but they are created by them for the purpose of this case and for their wrongful gains.

16.She further deposed that as the acts of the respondents are not legal and as they are not allowing them to join the society of the first respondent to lead conjugal life, they are suffering a lot and as they are making false allegations against them and as such they are entitled to claim compensation from them apart from claiming other reliefs such as maintenance, rents, shelter, return of dowry, articles, gold, etc.,. she 39 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 further deposed that if the reliefs as claimed by them in this case are not granted we will be put to much loss and injury which cannot be compensated in future.

17.Before the trial court she got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.

18.The petitioner also got marked her brother as PW2. PW2 deposed that the marriage was performed with the first respondent on 11-11-2007 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. He further deposed that at the time of marriage, on the demand of the respondent and their family members, parents of the first petitioner gave Rs. 1,00,000/-as dowry, 15 tolas of gold ornaments, house hold articles worth Rs.50,000/-etc., and entrusted the same to respondents and their family members. He further deposed that

before the marriage of the first petitioner, the respondents informed that

the first respondent married another woman by name Shalini and obtained divorce form the family court Mumbai at Bandra on 24-09-2004.

He further deposed that after the marriage they came to know that the first respondent and his family members ill treated and harassed her for the demand of additional dowry, etc., and as such he field a criminal case against them for the dowry harassment etc., in Crime No. 105/2003 under sections 498-A, 406 of IPC r/w section 34 of IPC and later on there was a compromise and obtained mutual divorce. He further deposed that the respondent and his family members suppressed the fact of the above said criminal case before them..

19. He further deposed the respondents looked her well six months and thereafter they all started ill-treating, demand of additional dowry of

Rs.2,00,000/-unlawful demands for the purchase of properties, gold 40 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 ornaments, etc., and used to insult her in the public by different modes, and also used to beat and assault against her. He further deposed that the respondents and their family members used to send her out of the matrimonial home putting her in fear of danger to her life for their unlawful demands, etc., and when she used to express her inability to fulfill their such demands, they used to beat and abuse and insult her and her family members in the public by words and various types of the acts.

He further deposed that as she was sent out of the matrimonial home by them for their such illegal demands, her family members tried their level best to settle the issue amicably, but they did not agree for the amicable settlement and instead, they demanded to fulfill their demands and as such her family members were compelled to fulfill their demands in part by paying Rs.2,00,000/- within one year from the date of their marriage, to the first respondent and his family members. He further deposed that after paying the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- the family members of the first petitioner requested the respondents, their family members to look her well, they looked her well for some time and thereafter they started ill-treating, harassing, neglecting , refusing to maintain her and started causing mental and physical agony to her by various modes like uttering filthy language words, physical assault, etc., and thereby she suffered very lot.

20.He further deposed that the respondents used to say that they married her with an expectation that she and her family members will fulfill their demands and also to purchased the immovable properties for them and as such used to cause her to suffer very lot and used to cause 41 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 domestic violence against her, beat her and used to confine her in a room and used to neglect her and not used to provide food for her saying that they will not spend a single pie for the welfare of her sister. He further deposed that the as ill-treatment and harassment was severe in nature, she used to place the matter before her family members and the elders they are convince the respondents not to cause any sort of domestic violence against her. Thereafter her family members used to pay money to the respondents with a hope that they will look her well and that their marital life will be good, her family members have paid an amount of Rs.

4,00,000/- in the entire towards the additional dowry after her marriage to the respondents, but they are not changing their mentality, caused domestic violence against her and as the result she became very sick.

21.He further deposed that when she became pregnant, the respondents acted cruelly against her and their by her health condition became worse, but the respondents failed and refused to take care of her health and to maintain her, her family members have taken care of her and saved her life by maintaining her. He further deposed they deliberately caused domestic violence her and necked her out of them and as such she was compelled to inform the same to her family members and to bring her to her Nizamabad.

22.He further deposed that the second petitioner was born at

Nizamabad Town on 21-12-2010. He further deposed that though information was given to the respondents about the birth of the second petitioner, they failed to visit Nizamabad and to see the child and they refused to take back the petitioners to the matrimonial home with a 42 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

Condition and demand for the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- and purchase of landed properties in their names. He further deposed that though information was given for cradle ceremony of the second petition, the respondents failed and refused to attend the said ceremony and instead they all together demanded to pay the said amounts, to purchase the properties in their names and said that unless they fulfill their above said demands and the respondents will not attend the function and see them.

He deposed that the she spent lot of money for the delivery of the second petitioner and for the cradle ceremony of the second petitioner and also spent amount for the cradle ceremony of the second petitioner.

23.He further deposed that after cradle ceremony, there was a

Panchayath at Nizamabad at the instance of his family members a request to save the marital life of the first petitioner with the first respondent., in that panchayath the elders found that the respondents are at fault and advised and also admonished the respondents not to cause any sort of the domestic violence against the petitioners, not to demand anything from the petitioners and their family members. He further deposed that in order to save the martial life of the first petitioner with the first respondent, his family members started paying the amounts to them and also presented gold weighing three and half tolas in form of chain (one and half tola), two gold rings (one tola) and sent the petitioners to the society of the first respondent at Mumbai with a hope that their conjugal life will be good.

Thereafter they looked them well for some time and there after they continued the said illegal acts towards them and used to cause domestic violence by not providing food, by not maintaining them.

43 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

24. He further deposed that through PW1 that while the things stood so on 30-07-2013, the respondent and his family members, who were also at the house of the respondent and beat her and putting the petitioners in fear of danger to their lives and necked them out of their home at Mumbai and they also threatened the petitioners that they will perform another marriage to the respondent. He further deposed that in the above said situation, they were compelled to to to the residence of another sister at

Mumbai. He further deposed that after the above information given her to her another sister and to her family members, they made their best efforts to save her marital with the respondent and to join his society, but they failed and refused for the same and even they did not allow then to their society.

25.He further deposed that she submitted a representation before his officer with a request to do justice to the petitioners, as he failed, refused and neglected to maintain them. He further deposed that she has submitted the said application before the officers of the first respondent on 05-08-2013 when they were residing in the house of her sister at

Mumbai. He further deposed that she submitted the above application

before his officers, the first respondent at the instance of the others

respondents failed and refused to allow them to his society and also refused to lead conjugal life and refused to maintain them and instead, they all threatened her and her family members and threatened to file a divorce case etc., against her on false grounds and thereby he will achieve his go goals and he will perform another marriage and thereby he will achieve his goals. Due the acts of the respondent she suffered a lot 44 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 and they were compelled to come to Nizamabad to his parent’s home on 03-09-2013.

26.He further deposed that he and his sister went to Hon’ble Family

Court Mumbai in connection with the above case and wherein she has expressed her willingness to join her society on the same day of her appearing before the Hon’ble Family Court Mumbai and she was ready to lead conjugal life with him. He further deposed that as he was trying to make then to suffer a lot and to go around then to the said court at

Mumbai, they go transferred the said case to the Hon’ble Family Court at

Nizamabad and for that they have spent lot of money. He further deposed that the first respondent has own house properties at Mumbai and that he has been drawing sufficient salary of Rs.40,000/- and more per month from his employment and also receiving an income of Rs.40,000/- and more per month from his properties. He further deposed that there are no dependents upon his earnings. He further deposed that claim of petitioners against respondents is true and genuine and as such the petitioners are entitled to claim the entire reliefs as claimed by them.

27.After conclusion of petitioners evidence the respondent examined himself as RW1. RW1 deposed the engagement was took on 22-05-2007 at the residence of petitioner's elder sister Mrs.Samala Vijayalaxmi

Ravindhar, at Door No 87/30. B.D.D. Chawl, Worli, Mumbai resided on rental basis. But, prior to this engagement he had informed about his first marriage with Ms. Shalini and Divorce (Divorce Petition was filed by him on 11-09-2001 and Divorce granted on 24-09-2004 by the Hon'ble Family

Court. Mumbai). He further deposed that on 19-05-2007, he had handed 45 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 over the copy of Decree of Divorce papers to the brother of the petitioner

Mr.Chinta Raghunath Rao wherein it is clearly stated about the filing of false Criminal case under section 498-A. 406 of IPC r/w section 34 of IPC by his first wife Ms. Shalini during the month of April 2002 and later on there was a compromise in between them and obtained mutual Divorce.

He further deposed that that the marriage of the first petitioner was performed with him on 11-11-2007 at Nizamabad, as per Hindu rites & customs, but he never demanded any dowry and never accepted any such dowry as she falsely stated in her Petition that the Rs.1,00,000/- by way of Cash, 15 tulas of gold and household articles worth of Rs.50,000/- towards dowry. After the marriage the petitioner were accompanied by him to his residence at Antophill, Mumbai. But, very soon from the date of marriage the attitude of the petitioner was not positive towards him and his mother late Smt. Narsubai Ambaji Bitla, 75 years, his dependent widow sister late Smt. Sulochana Vithal guda, 52 years, and his son Shri

Rajesh Vithal Guda, 21 years, (who were residing at tenancy room premises at worli, Mumbai). He further deposed that the intention of the petitioner and her relatives was to usurp the ancestral tenancy room premises at worli, Mumbai buy vacating his ailing old mother and dependent widow-sister.

28.He further deposed that he maintained peaceful relation with the petitioner, by the way of visiting so many places, but her attitude never improved. He further deposed that he never demanded and never accepted the additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- unlawful demands for the purchase of properties, gold, ornaments, etc. is totally false. He further 46 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 deposed that the petitioners statement is totally false about the

Rs.4,00,000/- were paid till the year 2010. He further deposed that since after the marriage she was completely taken medical treatment through

Govt. Doctors and specialists form Central Government Health Scheme,

Antophill, Mumbai. He further deposed that she was confirmed for pregnancy during the month of March 2010 then Dr. S.G. Mishra, CGGS-

Gynecologist had been given complete treatment upto September 2010.

He further deposed that this priod all necessary tests Pregnancy Blood test, HSG, Contrast GR Angiografin, 2D Echo etc. were done as prescribed by the specialist Doctors from CGHS, Gynaecologists. He further deposed that he gave her medical treatment up to seven months of her pregnancy and thereafter, as per the custom and tradition, she was taken to her parents' house at Nizamabad, for the first delivery. He further deposed that he delivered a male child on dated 21-12-2010 then immediately he rushed to Nizamabad, gone to her parents house on 23-12-2010, but her brother Raghunath Rao Chinta insulted him and also pushed him out from her parents house, then he took shelter at nearby lodge. Thereafter he visited her son and wife, and he also met Dr K.S. Swamy and enquired with him about the health condition of her son and wife. He further deposed that on 27-12-2010 he along with his mother, came to her parents house. After seeing her son and wife, they return back to Mumbai along with his mother.

29.He further deposed that he never demanded and never accepted the additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and 3 ½ tula of Gold, the petitioners statement is totally false. He further deposed that from the year 2011, 47 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 whenever he was going near the her, she used to push him away and ask him to go to the prostitution area, and she used to insult him saying that he is very black, he is not having handsome personality, and also calling him as a second hand person and she compare and abuses her personality with other persons whom she likes. He further deposed that he never caused any type of domestic violence and he always maintained her well.

30.He further deposed that on the basis of mobile call audio records he was called her on 30-07-2013, but she had not taken the call essentially the first petitioner visits her elder sister’s house at pratiksha nagar, Sion,

Mumbai. He further deposed that he called her on 31-07-2013 she not received the call, but on dated 01-08-2013 she took my call and we talked patiently about her health and medicines she took or not from CGHS

Dispensary land she expressed to take rest at her elder sisters house. He further deposed that she played very dramatically with him, on 05-08- 2013 instead of returning to the home, she entered to my office premises along with her mother Mrs. Chinta Pushpa, elder sister Mrs. Samala

Ravinder and her two relatives who were never seen from the date of the marriage they are Mr. Nandagiri Mohan and Mr. Damsham Ramchandram and submitted a criminal complaint against him. He further deposed that he called her on mobile and requested not to do any such mischievous that affects her better future carrier, but they were not listened to him and submitted a false complaint letter to his office viz., office of the

Director (QA), DGS&D., Ministry of Commerce and Industry, at 1st floor, 48 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Whereas he completed 18 years of sincerely service.

31.He further deposed that during the period he was serving on higher post as an Accountant on deputation with the Regional Pay & Accounts

Office, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and National Highways.

Mumbai on the oasis the Recruitment Rule of Controller General of

Accounts of India on completion of two years of deputation period he was under process for absorption the basis of Recruitment Rules to the higher post as an Accountant from Lower Divisional Clerk. He further deposed that after absorption as an Accountant within 5-6 years there is a provision that he may become an Assistant Accounts Officer(Group B

Gazetted post) in the above stated deputation office as per rule. He further deposed that due to submission of false and baseless complaint to his officer, his better future prospects to become an Accountant thereafter

Assistant Accounts Officer (a Group B Gazetted post) is disrupted by her false complaint to his officers thereafter he was repatriated back to his parent office and demoted to Lower Divisional Clerk thereafter his officers tortured him in many different ways by applying CCS Condut Rules -- issued memos, Charge Sheet and his officer also submitted her false complaint letter to Antophill Police Station for filing a FIR against him and requested the police for his arrest (he rely on the copy of the complaint letter to police station) It is totally injustice on him by his officers only on the basis of her false complaint letter and her continuous requests for taking sever actions against. He further deposed that his officer suspended him from my 18 years sincerely and honestly completed 49 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 service on dated 21-03-2014. He further deposed that he is only sole bread earning member in his family and he do not have any of income. On the other hand the first petitioner and her relatives created drama and used filthy language in his office premises by visiting more than 10 times this affected severely his goodwill and reputation among his staff members and officers. He further deposed that these all well qualified people deliberately entered his office premises and submitted false and baseless complaint against him and used most filthy language and demanded for his termination from service without any fault from him. He further deposed that rely on the mobile conversation call records with the first petitioner and her brother-in-law Mr. Samala Ravindar clearly indicates about their deliberate and cruel intention to attack on his service carrier.

32.He further deposed that he contacted Mr. Sherla Prahalad and Mr.

Chapa Parameshwar of padmashali Samaj Sudharak Mandal, Mumbai they were spoken on mobile phone with Mr. Samala Ravinder for amicable talk, but she ignored him for amicable talk. He further deposed that after above efforts were neglected by her and her relatives, then he approached local legal adviser Mr. Rajendrakumar Shirkar and issued a legal Notice to her on 03-09-2013 by Regd.Post A/D. through his advocate to her on 04-09-2013, but the said Notice returned unclaimed. He further deposed that after serving of legal notice to her, he had filed petition u/sec. 9 of Hindu Marriage of Act, 1955 for Restitution of conjugal rights

before the Hon’ble Family Court of Mumbai vide O.A.No.2526 of 2-13

dated 20-09-2013 .The first Petitioner attended for only one date, but not

50 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 filed any reply thereafter in the month of May 2014 dramatically she applied for transfer petition to her jurisdiction before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India, due to his suspension from service, he expressed not to proceed the petition and accordingly he paid Rs.15,000/-, as legal expenses to her.

33.He further deposed that his dependent widow-sister was not tolerated due to his suspension from service and she filed multiple petitions in various courts, and false allegation filed against her in this

DVC case, her dependent widow-sister was afraid and was very anxious that led her to take last breath on 12-10-2015 by leaving her son Mr.

Rajesh Vithal Guda in his hand. He further deposed that it is clear the act of the petitioner and her nature of is un-humanitarian and very cruel in nature. He further deposed that he had suffered lots in job-wise carrier which is irreparable in his entire life. He further deposed that now the

Hon'ble Prime Minister is declaring his entire department is winding up

and advising many people to take VRS. Hence, his future is in dark in this department.

34.He further deposed that from the date of his marriage with her till 30-07-2013 he had visited only 4 to 5 times her parents house at

Nizamabad. He further deposed that her elder brother had visited only two times his house at Antophill, Mumbai, her brother-in-law visited only 5 to 6 times his house at Antophill, Mumbai. He further deposed that while she was taking away her belongings on dated 03-09-2013 his neighbours had seen her and interrupted. Thereafter she withdrawn Rs. 6,000/- from 51 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 his savings money from the joint account with the Saraswat Co-operative

Bank Limited, Antop Hill, Mumbai without his knowledge.

35.He further deposed that he had taken admission of his son, Pranay second petitioner, in the school viz GruhaKalyan Kendra, at Antop Hill

Mumbai, for Junior K.G in the month of March/April, 2013, and he has paid his school fees too. He further deposed that he never neglected to maintain the petitioners and even to dependents he state that he is serving as a clerk and earning Gross salary Rs.35,353/- after deductions he get in hand Rs.13,959/-. He was suffering High B.P. Hypertension and

CRAT. The cost of legal expenditure is very for attending from Mumbai to

Nizamabad for petitioners false multiple petitions his deceased sister's son

Mr Rajesh Vithal Guda is totally dependent on him.

36.He further deposed that the act of her and her relatives were deliberate and illegal with cruel intention against him and his dependent which was affected his better future prospects severely and made his life miserable and unhappy, it is totally injustice to him. He further deposed that he crave leave to rely upon the copies of relevant Office/

Departmental letters, office Orders and copies of RTI replies as and when produced.

37.He further deposed that she is also well educated educational qualification is B.Sc., B.Ed and prior to the marriage she was running the

Tuition Classes at her parents' home at Nizamabad after marriage, she used to tell him that she was earning from the Tuition Classes and teaching at school total about Rs.30,000/- per month, she now doing a private tuition Classes and now she is earning about Rs.20,000/- and 52 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 maintaining her won two wheeler vehicle and living very happy life with her parents. And he got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R35 EX.R1: CD wherein the conversation between 1st respondent the petitioner PW1 brother and the neighbor Madhuri Vijay Mane (subject to objection), Ex.R2: Returned envelope unclaimed by the Petitioner containing legal notice dated 3.9.2013, Ex.R3: Notice copy of the legal notice dated 3.9.2013, Ex.R4:

The attested true copy or memorandum of the department or Directed

General Supplies and disposals dated 31.7.2007, Ex.R5: The attested true copy of letter addressed to the Director, Quality Assurance, Mumbai dated 27.5.2011., Ex.R6: The attested true copy Circular issued by Chief

Controller of accouts, Ministry of slipping, Road Transport and Highways

dated: 25.3.2011, Ex.R7: The attested true Copy Gazette of India dated

16.1.2008, Ex.R8: The attested true copy of Office Order dated 28.7.2011,

Ex.R9: The attested true copy of approval of RI appointment on deputation basis dated 21.7.2011, Ex.R10: The attested copy of Extension of R1 deputation period dated 30.7.2013, Ex.R11: The attested true copy of R1 application for extension of deputation dated 30.7.2013, Ex.R12: The attested true copy of complaint lodged by the petitioner against R1 to his administration office dated 5.8.2013, Ex.R13: The attested true copy of office order repatriating R1 to his parent office dated 12.8.2013, Ex.R14:

The attested true copy of office order relieving R1 dated 12.8.2013,

Ex.R15: The attested true copy of R1 duty joining report dated 14.8.2013,

Ex.R16: The attested true copy of office order dated 20.8.2013 posting R1 as LDC for account section, Ex.R17: The attested true copy of order suspending R1 from services dated 21.3.2014, Ex.R18: The attested true 53 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 copy of letter addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Antop Hill Police

Station, Mumbai dated 24.9.2013 by Administrative Officer of R1 office,

Ex.R19: The attested true copy of letter addressed to Sri Tulasi Das,

Advocate from the office of Director of Quality Assurance dated 8.5.2014,

Ex.R20: The attested true copy of office order dated 17.11.2014 ordering departmental inquiry, Ex.R21: The attested true copy of letter addressed to R1 by Directorate of Quality Assurance dated 25.2.2015 informing the date of hearing in departmental enquiry, Ex.R22: The attested true copy of R1 RTI appeal dated 2.8.2015 regarding information sought by the petitioner and Sri G. Tulasi Das, Advocate, Ex.R23: The attested true copy of letter addressed to R1 by the Directorate the Quality Assurance dated 21.9.2015 furnishing information sought under RTI Act, Ex.R24: The attested true ropy of letter addressed to Sri G.Tulasi Das, Advocate by

Directorate of Quality Assurance dated 27-05-2015, Ex.A25: The attested true copy of is the copy of information furnished to Sri G. Tulasi Das,

Advocate by Administrative Officer Director of Quality Assurance of

Mumbai dated 26-05-2015, Ex.R26: The attested true copy of Office memorandum absorption of deputations dated 21-10-2014, Ex.R27: The attested true copy of pay slip for the month of August and September, 2017, Ex.R28: The attested true copy of pay matrix (Civilian Employees) 7thpay commission, Ex.R29: The attested true copy of office memorandum dated 3-11-2014 with regard promotion of accountants,

Ex.R30: The true copy of FIR No. 2148 dated 05-08-2013 of PS Worli,

Mumbai dated 9-05-2014, Ex.R31: The true copy of report of Marriage counselor, Family Court, Mumbai dated 9.5.2014, Ex.R32: The five notices 54 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in transfer petition (Civil)No. 535/2014, Ex.R33:

Eight prescriptions with one medical report of petitioner, Ex.R34: Two receipts of admission fee of petitioner No.2 dated 22-04-2013, Ex.R35:

Seven prescriptions and medical bill of the respondent at Nayar Hospital,

Mumbai starting from 17.6.2015.

38.After the respondents evidence, the respondent also got examined his sister-in-law as RW2. RW2 deposed she the sister-in-law of RW1, her deceased father was the brother of RW1's mother. She further deposed that she used to visit frequently to her brother-in-law's i.e. RW-1's mother's tenanted Government premises at 104/20, B.D.D. Chawl, Worli,

Mumbai - 400018 and she also used to visit RW1’s Central Govt.

residential premises at Antop Hill, Mumbai. She further deposed that she met many times with the wife of RW1. She further deposed that her brother-in-law (RW1) celebrated first birthday of his son at his Govt.

residential premises at Antop Hill at that time she along with her family attended the said function. She further deposed that the tenanted premises at 104/20, B.D.D. Chawl, Worli, Mumbai where late Smt.

Narsubai Ambaji Bitla, the mother of RW1 and RW1’s sister Smt Sulochana

Vithal Guda also died during the pendency of this case and regarding her son, i.e. nephew Shri Rajesh Vithal Guda are residing in the said tenanted premises at Worli, Mumbai, as he does not have any shelter in Mumbai.

She further deposed that the said nephew is totally dependent on RW1, being alone and lost his parents. She further deposed that the wife of

Balakrishna and Balakrishna were happily resided at Antop Hill since their marriage in the year 2007.

55 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

39.She further deposed that Smt. Padma, the wife of Balakrishna used to visit the mother of Balakrishna at Worli very often and she used to ask to transfer the premises at Worli in her name and also used to harass the mother of Balakrishna and thereby was picking up quarrels with the mother of Balakrishna. Due to the harassment caused by the wife of

Balakrishna who was 75 years old, could not tolerate the harassment meted out to her and also was unable to tolerate the behaviour of her daughter-in-law, she expired on 20-04-2013. But, whenever she was met her aunty that is the mother of Balakrishna expressed her wish that the tenanted Government Worli Room premises to be transferred to her widow-daughter's name late Smt. Sulochana Vithal Guda as she had taken complete care of her and she did not have any shelter. She further deposed that the wife of RW1 forcibly entered into the Worli premises and picked up quarrels with the sister of RW1, who was a widow, who was wholly dependent on Balakrishna being the biological sister of Balakrishna to vacate the said premises at Worli. Further she came to know that the wife of RW1 left the Work premises on 30-07-2013 at 11.00am giving a threat to his widow-sister late Smt. Sulochana Vithal Guda who was staying at tenanted work room premises that she would file false legal allegation against RW1 and others. She further deposed that while leaving the Work premises the wife of RW1 had taken away all her belongings and

CGHS Diary for Medicines. She further deposed that on 30-07-2013 RW1 left for his office in the morning and regarding Smt. Dudam Nagamani

Narayana (RW-3) and her husband Shri. Dudam Narayana Mallaiah (RW-

4) were not in Mumbai, Maharashtra. She further deposed that the sister 56 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 of RW1 was fed up with the harassment caused to her and her brother's demotion and suspension and false allegations, she could not tolerate and died on 12-10-2015 by leaving her son, who is wholly depending on RW1.

40.She further depose that all out efforts were made by RW1 to co- habit and lead a peaceful life, but she was very adamant and was insisting to vacate the said premises at Worli by widowed sister of RW1 and to get the same transferred in her name. She further deposed that thereafter she came to know that wife of RW1 approached the workplace of RW1 on 05-08-2013 and created a scene and influenced the Officer to demote & suspend RW1 from service. She further deposed that she came to know that the concerned Officer suo motu taken decision to take action against

RW1 and suspended him without having any Authority to do so. She further deposed that she also came to know that RW1 was reinstated and demoted to lower post. She was deposed as far as she know there was no violence caused by RW1 since their marriage and that somebody might have instigated her to file false complaint to harass RW1 and to spoil his life as well as his career. She further deposed that on 05-09-2013 she along with his deceased widow-sister had visited their Antop Hill Room premises and learnt from their neighbours that had informed them that the wife of RW1 had visited their Antop Hill room premises on 03-09-2013 and taken away all her belongings, but by leaving there old and unused clothes etc.

41.she further deposed that she often used to meet the wife of RW1 however she has never told me about violence and cruelty caused by RW1 as well as dowry, gold or money demanded by him. She further deposed 57 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 that due to suspension from job, RW1 faced many difficulties and he was undergoing mental agony and used to borrow moneys from different people to meet the unnecessary expenses towards litigation at

Nizamabad, Family Court at Mumbai & Nizamabad, High Court at

Hyderabad, Supreme Court at New Delhi, Central Administrative Tribunal,

Mumbai and Departmental Inquiry as well as hefty professional fee towards engagement of Advocates at different places.

42.She further deposed that after suspension of RW1, several relatives and well wishers met with the Officer Shri Rakesh Kumar, Director(Quality

Assurance) for setting aside suspension and reinstitution of RW1, who has agreed to help them, because he was the sole bread earning member and to support his nephew who is solely dependent on him and it was his hard earned job since his father expired when he was 8 years old thereby his illiterate mother gave him so higher educational qualification with the intention to see her son on high post of service, but his wife PW1 spoiled his career irreparably. She further deposed RW1 made every effort to co- habit with his wife, however she was adamant to co-habit and she filed this petition against 3 more innocent members of the family, who were never involved in any cruel acts against her and never demanded any dowry. She further deposed that the wife of RW1 in order to harass and spoil his life has intentionally filed false cases against him and to extract money from him. She further deposed that the wife of RW1 is highly qualified woman and she came to know that she is working as teacher and earning sufficiently to maintain herself and her son however with a view to harass RW1 she has filed this false case against him.

58 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

43.The petitioner in her evidence claimed that prior to her marriage with the respondent No.1, he was already married to one Shalini and that she filed a criminal case against respondent No.1 which resulted in compromise and both obtained mutual divorce and that the said fact was suppressed by the respondent No.1 prior to marriage. In the cross- examination of PW1 she admitted that the fact of divorce of respondent to his first wife prior to her marriage with him was within the knowledge of petitioner. She further went on to admit that after knowing the fact of divorce, her family members went for alliance with the respondent. In fact

PW1 in her cross-examination also admitted that the 1st petitioner is having 10 years old child through his first wife at the time of her marriage.

The above admitted facts clearly reflects that the petitioner made a false statement that she was unaware of the first marriage of respondent No.1 and that it was suppressed by him prior to his marriage with the petitioner. Therefore this allegation of petitioner is absolutely false that the fact of first marriage of respondent No.1 was suppressed by them prior to the marriage of respondent No.1 with the petitioner. In the cross- examination of PW2/brother he also categorically admitted that prior to the marriage of petitioner with respondent No.1 they have the knowledge that respondent No.1 divorced his first wife. He went on to admit that his uncle by name Narayana performed Kanyadanam ceremony and he was elder of Padmashali caste community in entire Mumbai. He further went on to admit that they are also having knowledge that R1 is having a child through his first wife prior to the marriage of the petitioner. The above admissions of PW1 and PW2 clearly reflects that a false statement is made 59 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 by PW1 that they were not intimated about the first marriage of respondent No.1 and also the divorce taken by him through his first wife.

44.As per the contention of PW1 and PW2, the family members of PW1 gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry and 15 tulas of gold as well as household articles worth Rs.50,000/- in marriage of the petitioner with the respondent. Both the witnesses further stated that after about 6 months the respondent started ill treating and harassing to PW1 for demand of

additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. To this chief-examination of PW1, it is

only supported by the evidence of her own brother as PW2. Neither any document is marked nor any third party is examined by the petitioners to prove the alleged harassment. In fact PW1 and PW2 stated that when there was continuous harassment they paid additional Rs.4,00,000/- as

additional dowry to respondent No.1. Again this evidence of PW1 and PW2

is the self proclaimed story of petitioners and there is no third party examined to prove the said fact. Admittedly in para No.6 of her chief- examination, PW1 stated that when she was necked out she was forced to go to the residence of her sister at Mumbai. The statement of PW1 in her chief-examination reflects that her sister is resident of Mumbai, but it is surprising to note that she is not examined as witness in the present case to prove that she was allegedly necked out by the respondent on 30.07.2013 and that the petitioner took shelter in the house of her sister at Mumbai. Even other wise in the entire evidence of PW1 and PW2 it is never whispered by them that there has been any effort by the panchayath elders for reconciliation for the alleged harassment of the 60 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 respondent No.1. Simply because PW1 stated that she was physically and mentally harassed, that will not prove her case. She even did not speak about the fact that for the alleged harassment she went and complained to her own sister in Mumbai. She never whispered in her evidence that she complained about alleged harassment by respondent No.1 to any of the Padmashali caste community present in Mumbai. In fact PW2/brother admitted that his uncle Narayana is community elder in entire Mumbai town of Padmashali caste. However, he added that he passed away. But as per the evidence of PW1 and PW2 the marriage of the 1st petitioner and 1st respondent took place on 11.11.2007 and within 6 months of marriage the respondents allegedly started ill-treating the petitioner. If that was the case the petitioner would have easily rushed to her uncle who is known to tackle the problems in Padmashali community in Mumbai. It is surprising to know that the petitioner never complained about the alleged harassment and torture of RW1 to her uncle or to any of the caste elders.

45.It is very interesting to note that PW1 in her chief-examination stated that to save her marital life she tolerated her all the alleged harassment, but did not give police complaint. She further went on to add in her chief-examination that she gave representation before the officers of the 1st respondent by giving complaint against the respondent that he refused and neglected to maintain the petitioners. By her own admission she is B.Sc., B.Ed., graduate. By giving complaint under Ex.R12, she has used her knowledge in making complaint against the respondent No.1 to his higher authorities, but failed to make any complaint to the police for 61 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 the alleged torture and harassment caused by the respondent No.1 to her.

This only reflects the attitude of petitioner to cause harm to respondent

No.1 by giving complaint in his office. The respondent filed Ex.R15 which shows that on the complaint given by petitioner in his office, the respondent was suspended from his job. If she was having enough knowledge to give complaint under Ex.R12 to the higher authorities of respondent No.1 she is also having knowledge that when she was allegedly tortured and harassed by respondent No.1 she should go and complaint to the police. She simply escaped from proving the harassment and torture by making a simple statement in her chief-examination that to save her marriage she did not go to police. If she was so much interested to save her marriage why did she even go to higher authorities of respondent No.1 to complaint. She is blowing hot and cold.

46.If he peruse the evidence of PW1 she simply used to adjectives of harassment and torture, but did not give the details of the alleged harassment and torture by the respondents. Admittedly there are 4 respondents as per the DVC petition. When she failed to depose about the alleged torture and alleged harassment by each of the respondents she cannot through a blanket allegation against all the respondents. Even

PW2 brother of the respondent did not depose about the steps taken by him after the alleged harassment and torture caused by respondents to the petitioners.

47.PW1 and PW2 in their chief-examination stated that there was panchayath held at Nizamabad to save the marriage of petitioner and respondent No.1 and that the respondent No.1 was found guilty by the 62 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 panchayath elders. Both the witnesses never stated in their chief- examination about the date on which the alleged panchayath took place, which of the elders were present and in whose presence the respondent

No.1 was allegedly found guilty by the elders. If respondent No.1 was allegedly found guilty by panchayath elders, the petitioners should have examined atleast one panchayath elder before the court, but it is seen from record that the evidence of PW1 is only supported by her own brother PW2 and there is no third party or independent witness examined by PW1.

48.If we see the cross-examination of PW1 she admitted that there was medical facility provided to her and respondent by the department of respondent No.1. She went on to admit few other facts which is supports the respondents case regarding the fact that there was no harassment by them towards the petitioner. Following are the facts admitted by PW1 which proves the above said contention.

1)PW1 added in her cross-examination “at the time of 6th month of pregnancy I came to my parents house”. “I was at my in-laws house and from there my parents took me to delivery”.

This addition of PW1 in her cross-examination negates the allegation of

PW1 that she was necked out by the respondents in her 7th month of pregnancy. Because she herself admitted that in 6th month of pregnancy she came to her parents house.

2)“When I was with respondent I used to go to medical check up at Health center provided by the employer of the respondent”.

63 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

This admission of PW1 also negates the story of PW1 that she was not looked after properly by the respondents when she was carrying pregnancy.

3)“The respondent took me after 3 months of delivery”.

“After the birth of 2nd petitioner at the age of 3 months of 2nd petitioner I joined the respondent at Mumbai as the respondent took me from

Nizamabad”. “It is true as per our caste custom women will reside at her parents house from 3 to 5 months after delivery”.

The above admissions made by the petitioner reflects the fact that as per the custom prevailing in the caste of the parties PW1 was taken by her mother at the 7th month of pregnancy and that after 3 months of delivery the petitioner was again brought back by the respondent from

Nizamabad to Mumbai. When the caste custom is followed by the respondent, then also there is a problem for petitioner and she has hurled the allegations on the respondent that she was not taken back by the respondent No.1 after delivery.

4)The PW1 admitted that after one year the first birthday of the child was celebrated in a grand manner in Mumbai. PW1 further admitted that the second birthday of the child was also celebrated by respondent at Mumbai by inviting only the children.

49.These admissions of PW1 goes to show that when the petitioners were with the respondents they were enjoying the normal family life and celebrating the functions like an average family celebrates. In fact the above admissions also makes clear that there was no refusal on the part 64 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 of respondent to maintain the petitioners. When there is proper look after of the petitioners by the respondents obviously there cannot be any complaints of harassment or torture and therefore probably that is the reason why PW1 did not venture to go to police station to give complaint about the alleged harassment and alleged torture.

50.There is admission of PW1 and PW2 in the cross-examination that the petitioners and RW1 used to reside in the government quarters allotted to the respondent and the mother and sister of the respondent used to reside in Chawl at Worli at Mumbai. These admissions made by

PW1 and PW2 also makes it clear that the petitioners were living separately with respondent No.1 in the official quarters at Antop Hill,

Mumbai and mother and sister of respondent No.1 were residing in separate residence at Worli, Mumbai. Admittedly respondent No.3 and 4 are residents of Gandhi Nagar, Vemulawada, Karimnagar district. Under such circumstances, the allegation of continuous harassment, torture and demand of dowry and also the allegation of putting the petitioner in fear of his life appears to be false. Moreover both PW1 and PW2 admitted in their cross-examination that respondent No.1 filed O.P for restitution of conjugal rights before Mumbai court. This admission of PW1 goes to show that it was the respondent No.1 who made the first effort to save the marriage. The respondent No.1 also filed Ex.R31. When the court perused the Ex.R31 which is report of the marriage counselor at Family court,

Mumbai, he clearly stated in the report that the 1st petitioner only attended 1st counseling and thereafter she did not appear before the 65 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 marriage counselor till 09.05.2014. If the petitioner was so much interested to save her marriage from not giving complaint to the police for the alleged harassment of the 1st respondent then what made her to avoid the counseling sessions in the case of restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent No.1. The above discussion regarding the absence of petitioner in the counseling sessions coupled with the complaint given by her before the official authorities of respondent No.1 under Ex.P12 and the suspension of the respondent No.1 under Ex.P17 only reflects the attitude of the petitioner in avenging her anger and causing harm to the respondent No.1 in his future prospects.

51.The respondent filed Ex.R30 which is the complaint given by respondent No.1 against the petitioner before Worli police station,

Mumbai. This FIR is also the same date on which Ex.R12 was given by petitioner against respondent No.1 to his officers. Ex.R12 is complaint given by petitioner alleging harassment and torture and the complaint is given to officers of the respondent No.1. Ex.R30 is FIR lodged by respondent No.1 against the petitioner on 05.08.2013 on the same date of

Ex.R12 and this shows that the petitioner has created a gallata by picking a quarrel with the respondents. This document under Ex.R30 proves the contention of respondents that the petitioner is in the habit of picking up quarrels and creating gallata. Whereas Ex.R12 do not prove any harassment or torture as alleged by petitioner because if at all there was any harassment or torture, being educated lady PW1 would have first rushed to the police station to give complaint about the alleged harassment. But in all her wisdom she went to office of respondent No.1 66 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 and gave complaint about the alleged torture and harassment only to see that the respondent No.1 is suspended as per Ex.R17. Though the suggestion is denied by PW1 that the complaint is made to see that respondent No.1 was suspended from his job, but act of the petitioner rushing to the office of R1 instead of police station to give complaint about the alleged harassment proves the real intention behind the said complaint.

52.As per the admission of PW1 and RW1 both lived in quarters in

Antop Hill, Mumbai for about 6 years. This reflects that both the petitioners and respondent No.1 lived in a shared household. But as per the facts elicited by petitioner council in the cross-examination of RW1 O.P for restitution of conjugal rights is filed by petitioner also in Family court,

Nizamabad and it is pending. The same is admitted by PW1 also. Basing on the said ground the lower court in the order in DVC held that order cannot be passed for providing accommodation of the petitioners in the society of 1st respondent in Mumbai because there is restitution of conjugal rights case pending before Family court, Nizamabad filed by the petitioner. As such the lower court has ordered Rs.8000/- as rent as alternative accommodation to the petitioners. When the court perused the records of the said O.P of restitution of conjugal rights it is observed that the said FCOP No.12 of 2017 filed by petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed by this court on 10.07.2023. In view of the said decision of FCOP No.12 of 2017 the petitioners cannot be granted

Rs.8000/- as rents for alternate accommodation. It is also observed from a case law in Sangeetha Saha Vs. Abhijeet Saha dt. 28.01.2019 the 67 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

Hon’ble Supreme Court was held that “the High Court was held that the

petitioners were entitled to claim residence in the shared household. But that entitlement is only in case she establishes domestic violence which she did not”. In the present case also the petitioners failed to prove that there is any domestic violence caused to them by the respondents.

Therefore, under the present circumstances of the case the petitioners are not entitled for Rs.8000/- rents ordered by the lower court in the DVC for alternate accommodation.

53.The petitioners also prayed to grant the relief of Rs.10,000/- as maintenance, but the lower has dismissed the prayer of the petitioners.

The reason given by the lower court in the DVC for dismissing the maintenance is that respondent No.1 is already paying maintenance as per the order of Hon’ble High court and hence they are not entitled for maintenance. Maintenance granted in M.C is not an hurdle to grant maintenance in DVC. PW1 failed to mention in her evidence about the maintenance granted in M.C. But in the cross-examination of RW1 it was elicited by petitioner council that it is maintenance case that the petitioners were granted Rs.8000 per month to each of the petitioner No.1 & 2 but the respondent No.1 was preferred appeal, but the High court has passed interim order reducing the maintenance to Rs.4,250/- per month.

There is no dispute about the relationship of the petitioners with respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 being husband of 1st petitioner and father of 2nd petitioner is responsible for the maintenance of the petitioners. In fact as per the provisions of maintenance under Cr.P.C.

even a divorced wife is also entitled for maintenance. RW1 in cross- 68 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 examination also admitted that he is drawing gross salary of Rs.40,000/- as Clerk. However, this cross-examination of RW1 was done in the year 2019. This is 2023 and by this year the salary of respondent No.1 might have increased. Therefore, keeping in view the maintenance granted by the High court in M.C case and also keeping in view the salary of respondent No.1 the petitioners are granted Rs.5000/- to each of the 1st and 2nd petitioner.

54.The petitioner prayed the relief to grant compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- in the DVC. But the trial court dismissed the said prayer of petitioner holding that the petitioners failed to prove domestic violence.

There is no doubt that even as per the above discussions the petitioners failed to prove the domestic violence and as such they are not entitled for the grant of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

55.There is a prayer in DVC by the petitioner to restrain the respondents not to ill-treat the petitioners. Clearly from the above discussion, the petitioners are living separately from the respondents from the year 2013. From the above discussion it is also proved that there is no domestic violence or harassment caused by respondents. Under such circumstances there cannot be any order to restrain the respondents from causing ill-treatment or harassment to the petitioners.

56.The petitioners also prayed in the DVC that the respondents may be restrained from performing another marriage of 1st respondent. Every person is bound to know the law. Ignorance of law is no excuse. As per section 494 of IPC any person who marries second time keeping the first 69 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014 marriage intact is liable for punishment. Therefore for following the law there need not be any directions to the respondents.

57.The petitioners further prayed to direct the respondents to return the entire dowry, articles etc., given at the time of marriage to the respondents. The above discussion clearly proves that the petitioners failed to prove the fact that any dowry was given or any articles were given in marriage to the respondents. Hence, the said relief is rightly dismissed by the trial court.

58.The petitioners further prayed in the DVC to restrain the respondents and their family members from making any sought of alienation of petition schedule property. First of all there is no schedule of property attached to the DVC petition. Secondly it is the petitioner council himself who elicited in the cross-examination of RW1 that the petitioners and respondent No.1 used to reside in government quarters at Antop Hill,

Mumbai. It is but obvious that a government quarter cannot be alienated by any individual because no individual will have exclusive personal rights over the government quarters. The petitioner council himself elicited in the cross-examination of RW1 that the mother of the respondent used to stay in BD Chawl in Worli, Mumbai and the said Chawl stands in the name of mother of the respondent. The mother of the respondent is not made a party in the DVC. Moreover if the petitioners assumed that they are having any right in the said house at Worli they are at liberty to proceed legally by filing civil case and therefore, injunction orders regarding the civil right of not to alienate the alleged property cannot be passed in DVC.

Hence, this prayer is rightly dismissed by the trial court.

70 Crl. Apl. 77 of 2019 in DVC 3 of 2014

59.The last prayer of the petitioners in the DVC is to grant an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal proceeding. The above discussion shows that the petitioners failed to prove the domestic violence and as such monitory relief towards the legal proceedings cannot be granted. Accordingly, the point for determination is answered.

60.In the result, Crl.A.No.77 of 2019 is allowed and the order of rents granted by lower court in DVC to the tune of Rs.8000/- per month is set aside.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant,corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 8th day of August, 2023.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-III ADJ, Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR APPELLANT: FOR RESPONDENTS:

- None -- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR APPELLANT: FOR RESPONDENTS:

- Nil -- Nil -

Judge,

FamilyCourt-cum-IIIADJ, Nizamabad.

1 OS .No. 36 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-ADJ

COURT, NIZAMABAD.

PRESENT: SMT. Shoukath Jahan Siddique,

JUDGE,FAMILYCOURT-CUM-III ADJ

NIZAMABAD.

Dated this the 11th day of August, 2023

O.S. No.36 of 2016

Between:-

Vemula Rakesh Reddy S/o Sri Vemula Ashok Reddy, aged about 37 years, Occu:- Private Service, R/o Plot-12, H. No.5-55-128, Sarwadam Nagar, Near Saint Andrews High School, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

... Petitioner/Plaintiff

And

1. Sri Vemula Ashok reddy S/o Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy, aged about 65 years, Occu:- Agriculture (and Ex-Sarpanch), R/o H. No. 5-77/1, Harijanawada, Perkit Village Mandal Armoor, Dist. Nizamabad.

2. Sri Vemula Devendar Reddy S/o Late Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy, aged about 52 years, Occu:- Business, R/o H. No. 4-6-30/2, Sri Sai Sadhan, K.L.M. Complex and Om Sai Kirana, General and Stationary stores, Opp: Bashyam School, Vasudeva Reddy Nagar, Athapur, Hyderabad.

3. Smt. Pannala Supriya W/o Sri Pannala Guruva Reddy, aged about 35 years, Occu:- Household, R/o Flat No. 303, sai Gopal Heavens, Sarwadam Nagar, Near saint Andrews High School, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

4. Smt. Vemula Aruna W/o Sri Vemula Ashok Reddy, aged 56 years, Occu:- Household, R/o Flat No. 303, sai Gopal Heavens, Sarwadam Nagar, Near saint Andrews High School, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

…Respondent/Defendant 2 OS .No. 36 of 2016

This suit coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri A. Kumar Das, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri Devidas Chandak and J. Venkateshwar, Advocates for the defendant Nos. 1,3 and 4, Sri Rajashekar Reddy, Advocate for the defendant No.2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for partition of suit schedule properties and also seeking perpetual injunction against defendants from alienating, selling, mortgaging, creating charge or otherwise dealing with suit schedule properties.

The suit schedule properties are:

Suit schedule-A properties

Item No.(i): The Existing old Tin sheets roof sheds and RCC roofed houses with open land in all measuring (3930) square yards, bearing G.P.Nos.(6-56) & (6-56/1), in part of survey

No.681/2, situated at Velpur (village & mandal), District

Nizamabad, within the Grampanchayath limits of Velpur,

Registration Sub-District Bheemgal and Registration District

Nizamabad.

Total Area: (3930) square yards or (32½) guntas (approx) 3 OS .No. 36 of 2016 tins sheds area : (10000) square feet

RCC roof (GF) area : (3110) square feet

RCC roof (FF) area : (1350) square feet bounded by:

North: Road (canal)

South: Road

East: Road (to Govindpet)

West : open land of Mohammad Ali & others

Market Value Rs.80,77,860/- (Note:- One Sri Y. Ramesh R/o Armoor is in occupation of the sheds, as tenant, on monthly rent of Rs. 18,000/-)

Item-(ii): Agril. Dry land measuring Ac.(2-19½ )gts, in part of survey No.681/2, situated at Velpur (village & mandal), District

Nizamabad, within the Grampanchayath limits of Velpur,

Registration Sub-District Bheemgal and Registration District

Nizamabad.

bounded by: North: canal Road

South: Road

East : Road (to Govindpet)

West : Neighbours Houses

Market Value is Rs.2,48,750/- (@ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre)

Item (iii): Agril. Dry land measuring Ac.(0-29) gts., comprised in part of survey No.681/3, situated at Velpur (village & mandal),

District Nizamabad, within the Grampanchayath limits of Velpur, 4 OS .No. 36 of 2016

Registration Sub-District Bheemgal and Registration District

Nizamabad.

bounded by: North: Road

South: Govt. plots

East : land in sy.No.681/2

West: Govt. plots

Market Value is Rs.72,500/- (@ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre)

Item-(iv):Existing open plot measuring (631) square yards, situated in Ward No.(5), Block No.(11) at Yellammagutta,

Nizamabad within the Municipal Corporation limits of Nizamabad,

Registration Sub-District and Registration District Nizamabad.

Note: No structure or house is existing or constructed bounded by:

North: Neighbours plot

South: Neighbours plot

East : Road

West: Open land of Smt. Raja Gangamma (w/o.M.Prathap Reddy) Market Value Is Rs.31,55,000/-.

Item-(V): two kilograms of gold ornaments (worth Rs.60,00,000/-) in the custody and possession of the defendant No.2.

5 OS .No. 36 of 2016

Suit schedule-B properties

Item No.(i): Agricultural land measuring Ac.(1-30) gts in survey

No.436 situated at Velpur (village & mandal), District Nizamabad, within the Grampanchayath limits of Velpur, Registration Sub-

District Bheemgal and Registration District Nizamabad, bounded by:

North: Agril. land of Erra Gangaram

South: Agril. land of Pakala DashaGoud

East : Agril. land of Neighbours

West : Agril. land of Neighbours

Market Value is Rs.2,29,250/- (@ Rs.1,31,000/- per acre)

Item-(ii): Agricultural land measuring Acres (5-28) guntas in survey Nos.751/1, 751/2, 751/3, 751/4 situated at Velpur (village & mandal), District Nizamabad, within the Grampanchayath limits of Velpur, Registration Sub-District Bheemgal and Registration

District Nizamabad.

Land in Sy.No.751/1 - Ac.1-34 gts

Land in Sy.No.751/2 – Ac.1-14½ gts.

Land in Sy.No.751/3 – Ac.1-14½ gts

Land in Sy.No.751/4 - Ac.1-05 gts.

Bounded by:

North: Agril. land of Bharathi 6 OS .No. 36 of 2016

South: Agril. land of Bhooma Reddy

East :Agril. land of Rajashekar & others

West :Agril. land of Niradi Mohan & Nalluri Sayanna

Market Value is Rs.5,70,000/- (@ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre) item-(iii): Agril., land measuring Ac.(10-03) gts (out of Ac. 14-06 gts) in survey No.615 situated at Velpur (village & mandal),

District Nizamabad, within the Grampanchayath limits of Velpur,

Registration Sub-District Bheemgal and Registration District

Nizamabad, bounded by:

North: Agril. land of B.Mahipal

South: Agril. land of K.Mahesh

East Agril. land of Narotham Reddy

West : Road

Market Value is Rs.10,07,500/- (@ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre) item-(iv): Agricultural land measuring Ac.(2-28) gts in survey

Nos.197 & 198, situated at Velpur (village & mandal), District

Nizamabad, within the Grampanchayath limits of Velpur,

Registration Sub-District Bheemgal and Registration District

Nizamabad.

Land in Sy.No.197 - Ac.2-14 gts.

Land in Sy.No.198 - Ac.0-14 gts.

7 OS .No. 36 of 2016

Bounded by:

North: Agril. land of Chinnaiah

South: Agril. land of Nomula Yamuna

East Agril. land of Abdul Kareem west : Agril. land of Ch.Prakash

Market Value is Rs.3,53,700/- (@ Rs.1,31,000/- per acre)

Item-(v): Agricultural land measuring Ac.(3-05) gts in survey

No.759/1 situated at Velpur (village & mandal), District

Nizamabad, within the Grampanchayath limits of Velpur,

Registration Sub-District Bheemgal and Registration District

Nizamabad, bounded by: North: Agril. land of Eleti Prameela

South: Agril. land of Rajashekar

East : Agril. land of Gaddam Gangadhar

West : Agril. land of Lambadi Gangaram & others

Market Value is Rs.3,12,500/- (@ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre) item-(vi): Agricultural land measuring Ac.(7-26) gts in survey

No.715/2, 715/3, 715/4, situated at Velpur (village & mandal),

District Nizamabad, within the Grampanchayath limits of Velpur,

Registration Sub-District Bheemgal and Registration District

Nizamabad.

Land in Sy.No.715/2 - Ac.2-22 gts.

8 OS .No. 36 of 2016

Land in Sy.No.715/3 - Ac.3-03 gts.

Land in Sy.No.715/4 -Ac.2-01 gts.

Bounded by:

North: Agril. land of Thalari Premanandam

South: Agril. land of Theegala Balaraju

East : Agril. land of Baddam Sayanna

West : Agril. land of Narsu

Market Value is Rs.7,65,000/- (@ Rs.1,00,000/ per acre)

2. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows;

That the Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy (son of Sri Rukma

Reddy) was the absolute, exclusive and rightful owner, pattadar and possessor of the absolute, and immovable properties (detailed in the schedules-A & B hereunder and herein after called the suit schedule properties). Some of the properties are inherited and some the properties purchased/acquired and developed by him. Apart from (along with) the said properties, he owned and possessed other assets, properties (movable & immovable), jewelry, valuables, etc, which are known to and in the custody and possession of defendant No.2 and the particulars of which are not known to the plaintiff. The plaintiff reserves his right to add the necessary particulars as and when he receives (gets) any 9 OS .No. 36 of 2016 information. It is stated that Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy died intestate on 24-02-1992, leaving behind his wife (Smt. Shashikala

Devi), sons (defendants No.1 & 2 herein and one Vemula

Mahender Reddy) and one daughter (Smt. Kumudini Bai alias

Kumudini Reddy) as his legal heirs and successors. During the life time of Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy there was an oral partial division of family properties. In the said oral partial division about seven acres of land and plots etc., given to his daughter

Smt.Kumudini Bai, in addition to the properties presented in her marriage, towards her share. Her marriage was performed about sixty years back (prior to the birth of the plaintiff). The said oral partial division of family properties is towards final settlement of rights of Smt. Kumudini Bai (alias Smt.Kumudini Reddy) and the said division was acted upon, mutation was made in her name and out of them she sold some properties to the third parties.

Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy presented cash, jewelry & other valuables to his daughter Smt. Kumudini Reddy in her marriage and also subsequently. As such she is not entitled for any share and not made as party to/in the suit.

It is stated that Vemula Mahender Reddy died intestate and issueless on 08-11-2004 and during his life time there ws a 10 OS .No. 36 of 2016 divorce between him and his spouse/wife (her name was not known, but she got remarried), and thereafter smt. Shashikala

Devi died on 24-08-2008. Thus, the defendants no. 1 and 2 are the only legal heirs and successors to them, became the joint owners, possessors and enjoyers of the suit schedule properties and other properties (movable & immobile) and these properties are their joint family properties and that they are entitled to share the said joint family properties (including suit schedule properties), equally. It is stated that the defendant No.1 has to one-half (½) share and the defendant No.2 has got one-half (½) share, I the said family properties (including suit schedule properties) that are succeeded and inherited by the parties from/through Late Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy, Late Smt.

Shashlkala Devi, and Late Sri Vemula Mahender Reddy. The defendant No.4 is the wife of the defendant No.1. The plaintiff & defendant No.3 are the children (son & daughter) of defendants

No.1 & 4 couple (i.e., grand children of Late Sri Vemula Rama

Linga Reddy & Late Smt. Shashikala Devi). Thus, the plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 3 jointly (collectively) have got one-half (½) undivided share (one-sixth share each i.e., 16.667%, share each), in the suit schedule (ancestral) joint family properties.

11 OS .No. 36 of 2016

It is stated that due to some temperaments, petty quarrels and misunderstandings, etc., about eight years back, the defendant No.1 left the company of his wife, the defendant No.4, and residing presently at Perkit village, as such for the purpose of maintenance etc., the defendant No.4 is also having rights on/in the share of defendant No.1 in suit schedule-A (ancestral) joint family properties, as such she being Interested person made as necessary party. The defendant No.2, who is the real younger brother of the defendant No.1, managing and maintaining the suit schedule-A (ancestral) joint family properties, and in addition to said income, he is also collecting monthly rents of item-(1) of suit schedule-A property, in all amounting to Rs.21,000/- per month (from the go-downs/sheds @ Rs.18,000/- and houses/lands @

Rs.3,000/-). Though the parties hereto are residing separately, but the suit schedule-A properties are continued to be in joint and in common Hotchpotch of the parties, as their joint family ancestral properties and that no partition was effected among them. The parties to the suit have no independent or exclusive right, title, interest or possession of any nature in, on & over the suit schedule-A properties and as long as partition is not effected they have no right to alienate the suit properties or any part/portion 12 OS .No. 36 of 2016 thereof. It is pertinent to mention that if any party alienates any property, it has to be allotted to the share of the said party. It is stated that the plaintiff came to know that defendant No.2 in collusion of/with defendant No.1, with a fraudulent intention to dupe, deprive, defraud the plaintiff & defendants No.3 & 4 illegally created some documents (particulars not known) showing alienations of some of the family property (detailed in suit schedule-B properties) in favour of third parties. The plaintiff is not claiming any share in suit schedule-B properties alienated by defendant No.2, but adjustment can be made in suit schedule-A properties, by allotting the suit schedule-B properties to the share of the defendant No.2. The so-called documents and/or alienations are not supported by any consideration, possession or transfer and the same are without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, defendants No.1, 3 & 4, as such the same are void ab- initio, ineffective, not binding and the transfers will not get any right or title or possession in respect of the said so-called properties, to the extent of the shares/rights of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 & 4 and do not effect their legitimate rights, title and share. It is pertinent to note that the partition of the properties with separate possession, in metes and bounds, will 13 OS .No. 36 of 2016 only break the joint possession (or by way of adjustment of share) and does not affect the legitimate rights and joint possession of the parties to the suit, in and over the suit schedule properties or any part/portion thereof.

It is stated that as such to avoid any further litigation among the family members on 11-01-2014, at Velpur, the Plaintiff and defendants No.3 & 4 orally requested the defendants No.1 & 2 to effect the partition of all the family properties (including suit schedule-A properties), in metes and bounds and to give them separate possession of their share (one-sixth or 16.667% share each) by deciding the rights and interest of the defendant No.4, to which the defendant No. 2 turned deaf ear. An valuables documents & records etc are in the custody of the defendant

No.2. The defendant No.1 though wishes for making partition failed to express and indicate his intention because of fear of his brother, the defendant No.2. In these circumstances the plaintiff and defendants No.3 & 4 presumed that on 11-01-2014 the defendants No. 1 and 2 refused for making partition of the suit schedule-A properties and that they have no other way except to seek partition and separate possession of suit schedule-A properties. The defendants No.3 & 4 are not responding positively 14 OS .No. 36 of 2016 to co-operate with the plaintiff to file the suit and as such they are arrayed as defendants. The plainff learnt that the defendant No.2 is trying to sell and alienate the suit schedule-A properties to defeat the suit claim by involving third party rights. As there are possibilities of such alienation and/or making charge on suit schedule-A properties, the plaintiff is filing the suit for perpetual injunction. The share of the plaintiff and others may be adjusted in suit schedule-A properties, by allotting suit schedule-B properties towards the share of defendant No.2 (who alienated).

It is stated that the parties belong to Reddy community (caste) of Hindu Religion. The relief of partition and possession etc., is thus, among the same family members, and governed by

Hindu Succession Act. The suit schedule-A properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the parties hereto in common hotchpotch with their respective undivided shares, title, interest and rights etc., as stated above. The parties have no independent or exclusive right, title, interest or possession of any nature in and over the suit schedule-A properties. The said properties are in joint possession and common hotchpotch of the parties and partition is not yet effected. The plaintiffs pray for division of suit properties and injunction against defendants.

15 OS .No. 36 of 2016

3.D1 filed written statement interalia contending that the plaintiff is the son and defendant No.3 is the daughter of defendants No.1 and 4. Defendant No.2 is the younger brother of the defendant No.1. Plaintiff filed correct suit for partition of the family properties and the defendant No.1 has no-objection for division of all family properties. He further contended that his brother, the defendant No.2 collecting rents every month at more than Rs.20,000/- and using for himself and not paying to any one.

It is submitted that his brother defendant No.2 sell several family properties and plots and those properties may be allotted to the share of the defendant No.2 only. All family valuables and gold jewelry are with defendant No.2. parties or any family members should not sell or transfer any property during the pending suit, without getting permission of the court. He further stated that his brother defendant No.2 illegally sold to Sri Naluri Bajanna and to

Sri Gourai Ravi and they are need to add. The said sales are illegal, if his brother defendant No.2 not stopped, he will sell away all family properties. It is submitted that the suit may be allowed making decree for partition and separate possession, by allotting the sold properties to the share of the defendant No.2.

16 OS .No. 36 of 2016

4.D2 filed written statement interalia contending that therein only to the extent that Late Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy S/o

Rukma Reddy was the absolute, exclusive and rightful owner, pattadar and possessor of the immovable and movable properties detailed in the schedule A and B hereunder and herein after called the suit schedule properties and some of the properties are inherited and some of the properties purchased/acquired and developed by him, but he vehemently denies the rest of the allegations made in the said paragraph that apart from (along with) the said properties, he owned and possessed other assets, properties (movable & immovable), jewellery, valuables etc., which are known to and in the custody and possession of defendant No.2 and the particulars of which are allegedly not known to the plaintiff. The said allegation of the plaintiff is absolutely false and incorrect and he never had the custody of any movable, immovable properties, assets, jewelry and other valuables, as such when this defendant doesn't hoId the custody of anything as alleged by the plaintiff, the question of the plaintiff reserving his right to add the necessary particular as and when he received (gets) any Information. He admits the contents therein only to the extent that Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy died 17 OS .No. 36 of 2016 intestate on 24-02-1992 , leaving behind his wife (Smt. Shashikala

Devi), sons (defendants 1 & 2 herein and one Vemula Mahender

Reddy) and one daugheter Smt. Kumudini Bai @ Kumudini Reddy as his legal heris and successors, he though further admits that during the lifetime of Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy there was an oral partial division of family properties, but denied that in the said oral partition division about seven acre of land and plots etc., given to his daughter Smt. Kumudini Bai in addition to the properties presented in her marriage towards her share. That in fact only 4 Acres of land was given to his sister Smt. Kumudini Bai along with open plot and other properties, but not 7 Acres of land as alleged by the plaintiff. This defendant admits the rest of the contents mentioned therein, but she has been not made to a party to the present suit. As the suit schedule properties in the preesent suit schedule properties in the present suit are the exclusive properties of him. He further admits the contents therein that Sri Vemula Mahender Reddy died intestate and issueless on 08-11-2004 and during his lifetime there was a divorce between him and his spouse/wife and thereafter Smt.

Shashikala Devi died on 24-08-2008, but denies the rest of the allegations that the defendant No. 1 and 2 are the only legal heirs 18 OS .No. 36 of 2016 and successors to them, became the joint owners, possessors and enjoyers of the suit schedule properties and other properties (movable & immovable) and these properties are their joint family properties and that they are entitled to share the said joint family properties (including suit schedule properties) equally. He denied that the said allegation of the plaintiff is absolutely false and incorrect, because the defendant No. 1 Sri Vemula Ashok Reddy i.e., the father of the plaintiff has got separated from the joint family of the defendant No.2 during the lifetime of their father Sri

Vemula Rama Linga Reddy during the year 1978 itself that too immediately after a period of 2 years of the marriage of defendant

No.1 with the defendant No.2. But he and his brother Vemula

Mahender Reddy have continued to live in the joint family along with their parents Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy and Smt. Vemula

Shashikala. He further stated that the plaintiff has deliberately suppressed all these facts for his illegal gain and filed the present false suit by colluding with the defendants No.1, 3 and 4, who are none other than his own father, sister and mother respectively. He vehemently denies that the allegations made therein that the defendant No.1 has got one-half (½) share and he has allegedly got one-half (½) share in the said family properties (including suit 19 OS .No. 36 of 2016 schedule properties) that are succeeded and inherited by the parties from/through Late Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy, Late

Smt. Shashikala Devi and Late Vemula Mahender Reddy. He admits that the relationship mentioned in the said paragraph, but denied the further contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 3 jointly (collectively) have got one half( ½ ) undivided share (one-sixth share each i.e., 16.667% share each) in the suit schedule (ancestral) joint family Properties.

The above said allegation of the plaintiff is falsehood and made without any basis, as already the respective share of the defendant No.1 in all the joint family properties were given to him during the year 1978 when he left left the joint family on the instigation of his wife Smt. Vemula Aruna i.e., the defendant No.4 herein,. As such now after these years and after the demise of

Late Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy and Vemula Mahender Reddy, now by colluding with the defendant No.1 and his sister and mother, the plaintiff has with a dishonest intention to extract huge amounts from the defendant No.2, has got the filed the present false suit under reply, in view of steep hike in the prices of land.

Hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed, as he has no locum-standi to claim any properties much less the suit 20 OS .No. 36 of 2016 schedule properties, which are fell to the share of him and succeeded by him from his father Late Sri Vemula Rama Linga

Reddy. He further denied that the above said allegations of the plaintiff are utter falsehood and there is no iota of truth in the same, as the plaintiff without having any right or authority in whatsoever in nature has been falsely claiming share over the suit schedule properties, falsely contending that they are the shares of defendants No.1 and 2, but the true fact is that the suit mentioned properties are all the exclusive properties of defendant

No.2 and the plaintiff has not included the properties of defendant No.1, as such the said fact clearly goes to prove the collusion between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and his family members.

He vehemently denies the allegations stated therein that the plaintiff allegedly came to know that the defendant No.2 in collusion with defendant No.1, with a fraudulent intention to dupe, deprive, defraud the plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4 illegally created some documents (allegedly particulars not known) showing alienations of some of the family properties (detailed in suit schedule-B properties) in favour of third parties and the plaintiff to allegedly not claiming any share in suit schedule-B 21 OS .No. 36 of 2016 properties allegedly alienated by the defendant No.2, but adjustment can be made in suit schedule-A properties by allotting the suit schedule-B properties to the share of the defendant No.2 and the so called documents & alienations are not supported by any consideration, possession or transfer and the same are without the knowledge and the consent of the plaintiff, defendants No.1, 3 & 4, as such the same are void ab-initio ineffective, not binding and the transfers will not get any right or title or possession in respect of the said so called properties to the extent of the shares/rights of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4 and do not effect their legitimate rights, tittle and share and the partition of the properties with separate possession, in metes and bounds, will only break the joint possession (or by way of adjustment of share) and does not affect the legitimate rights and joint possession of the parties to the suit in and over the suit schedule properties or any part/portion thereof. All the above said allegations are utter falsehood and concocted by the plaintiff for his-illegal gainand the defendant No. 1 is kingpin behind the institutiion of the present fase suit against him, as the defendant

No. 1 has desveloped eye sore against him, who is well settled in 22 OS .No. 36 of 2016 his life and continuing his stationary business at Athapur,

Hyderabad.

He denies the allegations mentioned therein by the plaintiff that to avoid any further litigation among the family members on 11-01-2014 at Velpur allegedly the plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4 orally requested the defendants No.1 and 2 to effect the partition of all the family properties (including suit schedule-A properties in metes and bounds and to give them separate possession of their share ( one-sixth or 16.667% share each) by deciding the rights and interest of the defendant No.4, to which the defendant No.2 allegedly turned deaf ear. All valuables, documents and records etc., are in his custody is true, because being the absolute, exclusive owner of the the suit schedule properties, the defendant No.2 has the custody of his properties and its records. That on 11-01-2014 the defendants No.1 and 2 refused for malting partition of suit schedule- A properties and the defendants No.3 and 4 are allegedly not responding positively to cooperate with the plaintiff to file the suit and as such they are arrayed as defendants. That all the above said allegations of the plaintiff are absolutely false and incorrect and the plaintiff himself is slating that on presumption of refuse of partition, he filed the 23 OS .No. 36 of 2016 present false suit against the defendants, that the presumptions and assumption are not tenable under law. He further denied the allegation of the plaintiff that he has been trying to sell and alienate the suit schedule-A properties to defeat the suit claim by involving third party rights. All the above said allegations are absolutely false and incorrect and there is no iota of truth in it and the true facts of the case. That when during the year 1978 itself the defendant No. 1 has received his respective share in all joint family properties during the lifetime of his father, the question of his son i.e., the plaintiff claiming share that too the exclusive properties of him does not arise at all.

He further denied that the allegations made therein and the plaintiff have never approached him at any point of time more particularly on 11-01-2014, as such when the plaintiff did not approach him, the questioning of his claiming partition and the defendant No.1 and 2 refusing for the same does not arise at all.

But to file the present false suit with the collusion of defendant

No.1, 3 and 4, the plaintiff has concocted the facts and created the false cause of action' to suit his illegal claim.

24 OS .No. 36 of 2016

He further submits that his father Late Sri Vemula Rama

Linga Reddy was owned and possessed several agricultural landed and house properties at Velpoor village and Mandal,

Nizamabad district and the defendant No.1 is the elder son of Late

Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy i.e., the elder brother of his Late Sri

Vemula Mahender Reddy is the second son of Late Sri Vemula

Rama Linga Reddy and Smt. Kumudini Bai is the elder sister of defendant No.1 and 2 and about 60 years back during the lifetime of Late Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy and at the time of her marriage she has been given with 4 Acres of land and open plots and gold and other articles towards her respective share in the joint family properties and thereafter during the year 1976 the father of the defendant No.2 Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy has performed the marriage of the defendant No.1 with the defendant

No.4 and after their marriage, on the instigation of defendant

No.4, the defendant No.1 expressed his intention to get separated from joint family and with the said request he has approached the father of the defendant No.1 and 2 Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy, as such during the year 1978 Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy has given/allotted the respective share of the defendant No.1 in all the joint family properties and by taking the same, the defendant 25 OS .No. 36 of 2016

No.1 left the joint family and started staying separately with his wife at Armoor and since then the defendant No.1 has came to house of defendant No.2 or his sister Kumdidni Bai or ever cared the welfare of the parents of defendant No.2 during their lifetime.

He humbly submits that being the elder son in the family, without taking any responsibility of his younger brothers including the defendant No.2, he left the house and started staying separately with his wife and children away from the joint family of the defendant No.2 and being the responsible son, he has taken the total responsibility of his parents alone at Velpoor till 2008 i.e., till the death of his parents and after the demise of his parents, he has shifted to Hyderabad and established a stationery shop at

Athapur and started living at Hyderabad and now and then he used to visit the suit schedule properties, which are his exclusive properties and used to collect the leaseamounts from his tenants and leading a good life, as such the defendant No.1 and his family members have developed an eye sore against him and with the said dishonest intention, the plaintiff, who is none other than the own son of the defendant No.1 has file the present suit against him by making the defendant No.1 and his daughter and wife as also defendant parties with a dishonest intention to usurp the 26 OS .No. 36 of 2016 exclusive properties of him and to pressurize him and thereby extract huge amounts from him.

The defendant No.2 submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of suppression of many material facts and for approaching this Hon'ble court with unclean hands, as the plaintiff and all the defendants No.1, 3 and 4 have colluded with one another. Hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

5.Common written statement filed by D3, D4 pleading that the above suit is filed for partition of family properties. They further stated that the defendant No. 2 managing and maintaining all the family properties and collecting rents from the tenants in the house portions and also from sheds every month.

They further stated that defendant No.2 already sold out many family properties, worth more than his share and taken amounts, the sold properties may be allotted to the share of the defendant

No.2 only. They further stated that the parties to the suit shall not sell or alienate any property in any manner during the pending suit, without leave of the Hon'ble Court. If any alienated the purchasers must be put on notice, by adding in the suit as 27 OS .No. 36 of 2016 necessary party. They further stated that the defendant No.2 may sell and alienate the open place, house property and sheds or any part of family properties involving third party rights to make hurdles in the division. This acts are to be restrained. The suit be allowed making decree for partition and separate possession.

6.After having gone through the rival contentions of both the parties following issues were framed :

(i) Whether suit schedule properties are liable for

partition, if so whether plaintiff is entitled to his

alleged share in suit properties ?

(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

(iii) To what relief ?

7.At the time of trial the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined PW2 to PW7 who are all third parties. He got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A39.

8.After the conclusion of plaintiff evidence defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and he also got examined DW2 third party. Defendant No.3 examined herself as DW3. Defendant No.2 examined himself as DW4 and he also examined DW5 & DW6 28 OS .No. 36 of 2016 third parties. DW4 got marked Ex.B1, Ex.B2 in the cross- examination of DW1 and got marked Ex.B3, Ex.B4 in the chief- examination of DW4.

9.On conclusion of trial elaborate arguments of both sides heard.

10.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for ?

11.ISSUE NO.1 :

“Whether suit schedule properties are liable for

partition, if so whether plaintiff is entitled to his alleged

share in suit properties ?”

To prove this issue the plaintiff himself examined as PW1.

PW1 deposed that he filed the suit for partition, separate possession, injunction, costs etc., againt the defendants

Defendant No. 1 is his father , defendant No. 4 is his mother, and defendant No. 3 is his (own) sister, the defendants 1and 2 are real brothers and sons of Vemula Rama Linga Reddy. He further deposed that his grandfather (father's father) Sri Vemula Rama

Linga Reddy was the owner, pattadar, possessor of the movable 29 OS .No. 36 of 2016 and immovable properties detailed below. He further deposed that immovable and some of the movable properties are inherited (succeeded) by him through his father Rukma Reddy and some of the movable properties are purchased and acquired by him and he developed the properties:

(a): Old Tin sheets roof sheds and RCC roofed houses with open land measuring (3930) square yards, bearing G.P.Nos.(6-56) & (6- 56/1), in part of survey No.681/2, situated at Velpur (item-i, of sch-A). Y.Ramesh is tenant in the sheds (on monthly rent of

Rs.18,000/-) and others are tenants in houses (on monthly rent of

Rs.3,000/-).

a): Agril. Dry land measuring Ac.(2-19½)gts, in part of survey

No.681/2, situated at Velpur (item-ii, of sch-A) (c.): Agril. Dry land measuring Ac.(0-29) gts., comprised in part of survey No.681/3, situated at Velpur (item-iii, of sch-A)

(d): Open plot measuring (631) square yards, situated in Ward No.

(5), Block No.(11) at Yellammagutta, Nizamabad (item-iv, of sch-

A), he do not know actual location and documents & records are in the custody of def-2.

30 OS .No. 36 of 2016

(e): Two kilograms of gold ornaments (item-v, of sch-A) & other jewelry, valuables, etc., are in the custody of def-2

(f): Agril., land measuring Ac.(1-30) gts in survey No.436 situated at Velpur (item-i, of sch-B), sold-out by def-2 (his uncle).

(g): Agril., land measuring Ac.(5-28)gts in survey Nos.751/1, 751/2, 751/3, 751/4 situated at Velpur (item-ii, of sch-B) , sold-out by def-2

(h): Agril., land measuring Ac.(10-03) gts in survey No.615 situated at Velpur (item-iii, of sch-B), sold-out by def-2 (his uncle) (Ac.4-03 gts given to Kumudini Reddy).

(i): Agril., land measuring Ac.(2-28) gts in survey Nos.197 & 198, situated at Velpur (item-iv, of sch-B), sold-out by def-2 (his uncle).

(j): Agril., land measuring Ac.(3-05) gts in survey No.759/1 situated at Velpur (item-v, of sch-B), sold-out by def-2 (his uncle).

(k): Agril., land Ac.(7-26) gts in survey No.715/2, 715/3, 715/4, situated at Velpur (item-vi, of sch-B), sold-out by def-2 (his uncle).

He further deposed that apart from (along with) the said properties, he owned and possessed other assets, other movable 31 OS .No. 36 of 2016 & immovable properties, jewelry, valuables, etc., and the particulars of which are known to him and are in the custody and possession of his paternal uncle, the defendant No.2, and (a) to

(e) properties are only now available and (f) to (k) properties already sold-out and alienated by his paternal uncle, the defendant No.2. He further deposed that his garnd father Sri

Vemula Rama Linga Reddy died intestate on 24-02-1992, leaving behind his wife (Smt.Shashikala Devi), three sons (defendants

No.1 & 2 herein and one Vemula Mahender Reddy) and one daughter (Smt.Kumudini Bai @ Smt.Kumudini Reddy) as his only legal heirs and successors. He further deposed that during his life time there was an oral partial division of family properties. In the said oral partial division about seven acres of land and plots etc., given to his daughter Smt.Kumudini Bai, in addition to the properties presented in her marriage, towards her share. Her marriage was performed about sixty two years back (i.e., prior to my birth). He further deposed that the said oral partial division of family properties is towards final settlement of rights of

Smt.Kumudini Bai ( @ Smt.Kumudini Reddy) only and the said division was acted upon, mutation was made in her name and out of them she sold some properties to the third parties. Sri Vemula 32 OS .No. 36 of 2016

Rama Linga Reddy presented cash, jewelry & other valuables to his daughter Smt.Kumudini Reddy in her marriage and also subsequently. He further deposed that as such she is not entitled for any share and not made as party to/in the suit. He further deposed that his paternal uncle Sri Vemula Mahender Reddy died intestate and issueless on 08-11-2004 and during his life time there was a divorce between him and his spouse/wife (her name was not known, but she got remarried); and thereafter his grandmother Smt.Shashikala Devi died on 24-08-2008. Thus, my father (defendant No.1) and his brother (his paternal uncle, defendant No.2) are the only legal heirs and successors to them, and became the joint owners, pattadars, possessors and enjoyers of the suit schedule properties and other properties (movable & immovable) which are our joint family properties and that they are having equal share and entitled to share equally. He further deposed that his father (defendant No.1) has got one-half (50%) share and his uncle (defendant No.2) has got one-half (50%) share, in all the family properties, including in the suit schedule properties that are succeeded and inherited by them from/through Late Vemula Rama Linga Reddy, Late

Smt.Shashikala Devi, and Late Vemula Mahender Reddy. He 33 OS .No. 36 of 2016 further deposed that himself and his sister (def-3) are the grand children of Late Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy & Late

Smt.Shashikala Devi. his father (def-1), himself (plaintiff) & his sister (def-3) jointly (collectively) have got fifty percent (one-half) undivided share (i.e., one-sixth (16.667%) share each), in the suit schedule & all other properties.

12.He further deposed that due to temperaments, petty quarrels and misunderstandings, etc., about twelve years back, his father left them and the company of his mother (def-4) and residing separately at Perkit. It is because of his uncle, defendant

No.2. his mother (def-4) is also having rights on/in the share of his father (def-1) in suit properties, for the purpose of her maintenance etc., as such she being interested person made as necessary party. He further deposed that his uncle (def-2) managing and maintaining all the schedule-A properties, and in addition to said agril., income, he is also collecting monthly rents of item-(i) of sch-A, in all amounting to Rs.21,000/- per month (from the godowns/sheds @Rs.18,000/- and houses @Rs.3,000/-).

Though they are residing separately, but schedule-A properties are continued to be in their joint possession and in common

Hotchpotch, being their joint family properties and that no 34 OS .No. 36 of 2016 partition was effected among them. Any of their family members (parties to/in the suit) have no right, title, interest or possession etc., of any nature, exclusively or independently in exclusion of others in, on & over the sch-A & other properties and as long as partition is not effected they (all of them) have no right to alienate any properties or any part/portion thereof. He further deposed that the pertinent to mention that if any party alienates any property, it has to be allotted to the share of the said party. After filing and during the pendency of the suit, his uncle defendant

No.2 sold out and alienated part of item-(i) of suit schedule property, by taking (obtaining) further subdivision numbers, as open place to the defendant No.5 through registered sale deed

No.1908/2021 (measuring 125 square yards, as G.P.No.6-56/4), and to the defendant No.6 through registered sale deed

No.1939/2021 (measuring 218.46 square yards, as G.P.Nos.6-56/8 & 6-56/9). He further deposed that he came to know that his uncle (def-2) with a fraudulent intention to dupe, deprive, defraud his, his sister (def-3) & his mother (def-4) illegally created some deeds/documents and in respect of suit sch-B properties and are alienated by the defendant No.2 (his uncle), as such he is not claiming any share. He further deposed that they are not the 35 OS .No. 36 of 2016 parties to/in the documents. The said alienations are without our knowledge and consent and as such not binding on them. Howver, adjustment of their share/s can be made in the suit schedule-A properties, by allotting the suit schedule-B properties to the share of his uncle, the defendant No.2. He further deposed that to avoid any further litigation among the family members on 11-01-2014, at Velpur, 1 and defs-3 & 4 orally requested his father (def-1) & uncle (def-2) to effect the partition of all the family properties (including suit schedule-A properties), in metes and bounds and to give them separate possession of their share (one-sixth or 16.667% share each) by deciding the rights, interest and entitlement of his mother (def-4), as his mother (def-4) is unable to maintain herself. He further deposed that all valuables, documents & records etc., are in the custody and possession of his uncle (def-2). his father (def-1) though wishes for making partition failed to express and indicate his intention, because of fear of his brother (def-2). He further deposed that his paternal uncle (def-2) turned deaf ear. In these circumstances he presumed that on 11-01-2014 they refused for making partition of the suit schedule-A and other properties and as there is no other way except to seek partition and separate possession of suit 36 OS .No. 36 of 2016 schedule-A properties. He further deposed that as he learnt that his uncle (def-2) is trying to sell and alienate the suit schedule-A properties to defeat his suit claim by involving third party rights.

Defendants No.1 & 2 have to be restrained. As such he have filed the suit for perpetual injunction, also. He further deposed that their shares may be allotted in suit schedule-A properties, by allotting the suit schedule-B properties to the share of his uncle (defendant No.2), who alienated the same. their relief of partition and possession etc., is among their family members, and governed by Hindu Succession Act. The suit schedule-A properties are in theier joint possession and enjoyment, in common hotchpotch with their respective shares, title, interest, rights. He got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A39 which are Ex.A.1 CC of death certificate of Vemula Ramalinga reddy, Ex.A.2 CC of death certificate of Vemula Sasikala, Ex.A.3 CC of death certificate of

Vemula Mahinder Reddy, Ex.A.4 CC of Family member certificate

dated 8-8-2014, Ex.A.5 Pahani for the year 1991-92, Ex.A.6 Pahani

for the year 1994-95, Ex.A.7 Pahani with Fasli No. 1422 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.681/2, Ex.A8 Pahani with Fasli No. 1425 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.681/2, Ex.A9 Pahani for the year 1999-2000,

Ex.A10 Pahani for the year 1992-1993, Ex.A11 Pahani for the year 37 OS .No. 36 of 2016 1995-1996, Ex.A12 Pahani for the year 2007-08, Ex.A13 Pahani with Fasli No.1422 dated 4-7-2016, for Sy.No.436, Ex.A14 Pahani with Fasli No.1425 dated 4-07-2016 for Sy.No.436 dated 4-7-2016,

Ex.A15 Pahani for the year 2000-01, Ex.A16 Pahani with Fasli

No.1425 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.751/1, Ex.A17 Pahani with Fasli

No.1425 dated 4-7-2016 Sy.No.751/2 dated 4-7-2016, Ex.A18

Pahani with Fasli No.1425 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.751/3, Ex.A19

Pahani with Fasli No.1425 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.751/4, Ex.A20

Pahani with Fasli No.1422 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.615, Ex.A21

Pahani with Fasli No.1425 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.615, Ex.A22

Pahani with Fasli No.1425 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.197, Ex.A23

Pahani with Fasli No.1425 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.198, Ex.A24

Pahani with Fasli No.1422 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.759/1, Ex.A25

Pahani with Fasli No.1422 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.715/2, Ex.A26

Pahani with Fasli No.1422 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.715/3, Ex.A27

Pahani with Fasli No.1422 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.715/4, Ex.A28

Pahani for the year 1993-94, Ex.A29 Market value certificates (11 in Nos) of different survey Numbers, Ex.A30 Attested copy of Tax receipt, dated 20-2-1990, Ex.A31 Attested copy of Tax receipt,

dated 31-1-1992, Ex.A32 Attested copy of pahani 1993-1994,

Ex.A33 CC of registered sale deed document No. 1908/21 dated 38 OS .No. 36 of 2016 1-5-2021, Ex.A34 CC of sale deed document No.1931/2021, dated 6-5-2021, Ex.A35 Ex.A35 PW1 letter given to Gram Panchayath,

dated 14-6-2021, Ex.A36 Paper Publication receipt dt. 12-6-2021,

Ex.A37 Paper Publication dated 13-6-2021, Ex.A38: Register sale deed vide Doc No. 1974/2012, Ex.A39: Certified copy of register sale deed Doc No. 740 of 2002.

13.To support his case the plaintiff also examined PW2/third party. PW2 deposed that he know the parties. He belongs to same family. They are his remote (distant) agnates. He deposed that his own and possessed agril., land measuring Ac.(1-08)gts, in survey No.437/A, situated at Velpur. He deposed that he had sold-out his house & some lands and shifted to Nizamabad and staying here at Nizamabad. He further deposed that Sri Vemula

Rama linga Reddy, grand father (father's father) of Vemula

Rakesh Reddy (plaintiff) inherited immovable & movable properties through his father Rukma Reddy and he developed. He further deposed that at present their family possessed old sheds and houses with open land measuring (3930) square yards, bearing G.P.No.6-56 & 6-56/1, at Velpur (Item-i, of sch-A), in which there is tenant and Devender Reddy (def-2) collecting rents; agril.

lands in survey No.681/2 & 681/3 at Velpur; pen plot at 39 OS .No. 36 of 2016

Yellammagutta Nizamabad (item-iv, of sch-A); and old ornaments, jewellery, valuables, etc. He further deposed that Sri Devender

Reddy (def-2) is managing and active in their family and maintaining the properties and all affairs. He further deposed that

Devender Reddy (def-2) already sold out agril., land in survey

No.436 (item-i, of sch-B); in survey Nos. 751/1, 751/2, 751/3, 751/4 (item-ii, of sch-B); in survey Nos.197 & 198 item-iv, of sch-B); in survey No.759/1 (item-v, of sch-B): in survey No.715/2, 715/3, 715/4 (item-vi, of sch-B) at Velpur, which belong to their family. He further deposed that during the life time of Vemula

Rama Linga Reddy and his wife Shashikala Devi, they performed the marriage of their daughter Smt.Kumudini Bai also @ Kumudini

Reddy) and presented cash, jewelry & valuables. Subsequently, given about seven acres of land (including 4 acres 3 guntas in survey No.615 of Velpur) and plots etc., to her towards final settlement of her share and all rights, in the family properties to her satisfaction. She got mutated name and sold out to others. He further deposed that Mahender reddy (another son of Vemula

Rama Linga Reddy) died on 08-11-2004. There was divorce between him and his wife and she go remarried. He further deposed that Vemula Ashok Reddy (def-1) and Devender Reddy 40 OS .No. 36 of 2016 (def-2) are continued in joint. Since about ten/twelve years,

Vemula Ashok Reddy (def-1) started living separately, away from his wife and children. He further deposed that his wife Aruna (def-4) is entitle for maintenance and having rights over the share of Vemula Ashok Reddy (def-1). Vemula Rakesh Reddy and his sister (def-3) are entitle for share. He further deposed that

Devender Reddy (def-2) and Ashok Reddy (def-1) due to fear of

Devender Reddy refused to divide their family properties.

14.To support his case the plaintiff also examined PW3/third party. PW3 deposed that Sri Vemula Rama linga Reddy, grandfather (father's father) of Vemula Rakesh Reddy (plaintiff) inherited immovable & movable properties through his father

Rukma Reddy and he developed. He further deposed that remembrance at present their family possessed old sheds and houses with open land measuring (3930) square yards and open plot at Yellammagutta, Nizamabad and that their family possessed vast gold ornaments, jewelry, valuables, etc. He further deposed that Sri Devender Reddy (def-2) is managing and maintaining all their family properties and affairs and he is prime person and having command over the family. He further deposed that most of their family lands were sold by Sri Devender Reddy 41 OS .No. 36 of 2016 (def-2). Sri Ashok Reddy (def-1) had no active position, role or responsibility in their family and he worked only under the commands of his younger brother Sri Devender Reddy (def-2), may be with fear of him. He further deposed that during the life time of Vemula Rama Linga Reddy and his wife Shashikala Devi, they performed the marriage of their daughter Smt.Kumudini Bai (also known as Kumudini Reddy) and presented cash, jewelry & valuables. He further deposed that subsequently, given about seven acres of land and plots etc., to her towards final settlement of her share and all rights, in the family properties to her satisfaction. He further deposed that he and said Smt.Kumudini were classmates. He further deposed that Mahender Reddy (another son of Vemula Rama Linga Reddy) died issueless. His wife divorced him and got remarried. At present Sri Vemula Ashok

Reddy (def-1) and Sri Devender Reddy (def-2) are continued in joint. He further deposed that since about 10/12 years, Sri Ashok

Reddy (def-1) is not living with his wife & children, his wife Aruna (def-4) is entitle for maintenance and having rights over the share of Vemula Ashok Reddy (def-1). He further deposed that Vemula

Rakesh Reddy and his sister (def-3) are entitle for share. He came 42 OS .No. 36 of 2016 to know that Vemula Rakesh Reddy filed this suit for partition and separate possession of all their family properties, and for justice.

15.To support his case the plaintiff also examined PW4/third party. PW4 deposed that Sri Vemula Rama linga Reddy inherited immovable & movable properties through his father Rukma Reddy and he developed. He deposed that Shashikala Devi is wife and

Ashok Reddy (D1) & Devender Reddy (D2) are their sons. He deposed that at present their family possessed old sheds, houses and open land measuring (3930) square yards and open plot at

Yellammagutta, Nizamabad and that their family possessed vast gold ornaments, jewelry, etc. He further deposed that Devender

Reddy (D2) is managing and maintaining all their family properties and affairs and he is primes person and having command over the family. Most of their family lands were sold by

Devender Reddy (D2). He further deposed that Ashok Reddy (D1) had no active position, role or responsibility in their family and he worked only under the commands of his younger brother

Devender Reddy (D2), may be with fear of him. He further deposed that Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy performed the marriage of their daughter Smt.Kumudini Bai (Kumudini Reddy) and presented cash, jewelry & valuables. Subsequently, given 43 OS .No. 36 of 2016 about seven acres of land and plots etc., to her towards final settlement of her share and all rights, in the family properties to her satisfaction. He further deposed that even after death of

Vemula Rama Linga Reddy, Shashikala Devi & Mahender Reddy,

Vemula Ashok Reddy (D1) and Devender Reddy (D2) are continued in joint, no partition taken place in their family and between them at any point of time. He further deposed that

Vemula Rakesh Reddy and his sister (D3) are entitle for share. He came to know that Vemula Rakesh Reddy filed this suit for partition and separate possession of all their family properties, and for justice.

16.To support his case the plaintiff also examined PW5/third party. PW5 deposed that Sri Vemula Rama linga Reddy inherited immovable & movable properties through his father Rukma Reddy and he developed. He deposed that Shashikala Devi is wife and

Ashok Reddy (D1) & Devender Reddy (D2) are their sons. He deposed that at present their family possessed old sheds, houses and open land measuring (3930) square yards and open plot at

Yellammagutta, Nizamabad and that their family possessed vast gold ornaments, jewelry, valuables, etc. He further deposed that

Devender Reddy (D2) is managing and maintaining all their family 44 OS .No. 36 of 2016 properties and affairs and he is prime person and having commond over the family. He deposed that most of their family lands were sold by Sri Devender Reddy (D2). Ashok Reddy (D1) had no active position, role or responsibility in their family and he worked only under the commands of his younger brother

Devender Reddy (D2). He further deposed that Sri Vemula Rama

Linga Reddy performed the marriage of their daughter

Smt. Kumudini Bai (Kumudini Reddy) and presented cash, jewelry & valuables. Subsequently, given about seven acres of land and plots etc., to her towards final settlement of her share and all rights, in the family properties to her satisfaction. He further deposed that even after death of Vemula Rama Linga Reddy,

Shashikala Devi & Mahender Reddy, Vemula Ashok Reddy (D1) and Devender Reddy (D2) are continued in joint. There was no partition taken place in their family and between them at any point of time. He further deposed that Vemula Rakesh Reddy and his sister (D3) are entitle for share. He came to know that Vemula

Rakesh Reddy filed this suit for partition and separate possession of all their family properties.

17.To support his case the plaintiff also examined PW6/third party. PW6 deposed that Sri Vemula Rama linga Reddy inherited 45 OS .No. 36 of 2016 immovable & movable properties through his father Rukma Reddy and he developed. He deposed that shashikala Devi is wife and

Ashok Reddy (D1) & Devender Reddy (D2) are their sons. He deposed that at present their family possessed old sheds, houses and open land measuring (3930) square yards and open plot at

Yellammagutta, Nizamabad and that their family possessed vast gold ornaments, jewelry, valuables, etc. He further deposed

Devender Reddy (D2) is managing and maintaining all their family properties and affairs and he is prime person and having command over the family. He further deposed that most of their family lands were sold by Sri Devender Reddy (D2). He further deposed that Ashok Reddy (D1) had no active position, role or responsibility in their family and he worked only under the commands of his younger brother Devender Reddy (D2). He further deposed that Sri Vemula Rama Linga Reddy performed the marriage of their daughter Smt.Kumudini Bai (Kumudini Reddy) and presented cash, jewelry & valuables. Subsequently, given about seven acres of land and plots etc., to her towards final settlement of her share and all rights, in the family properties to her satisfaction. He further deposed that even after death of

Vemula Rama Linga Reddy, Shashikala Devi & Mahender Reddy, 46 OS .No. 36 of 2016

Vemula Ashok Reddy (D1) and Devender Reddy (D2) are continued in joint. There was no partition taken place in their family and between them at any point of time. He further deposed that Vemula Rakesh Reddy and his sister (D3) are entitle for share. He came to know that Vemula Rakesh Reddy filed this suit for partition and separate possession of all their family properties.

18.To support his case the plaintiff also examined PW7/third party. PW7 deposed that Sri Vemula Rama linga Reddy inherited immovable & movable properties through his father Rukma Reddy and he developed. Shashikala Devi is wife and Ashok Reddy (D1) & Devender Reddy (D2) are their sons. He deposed that at present their family possessed old sheds, houses and open land measuring (3930) square yards at velpur and one open plot at

Yellammagutta, Nizamabad and that their family possessed vast gold ornaments, jewelry, valuables, etc. He further deposed that

Devender Reddy (D2) is managing and maintaining all their family properties and affairs and he is the prime person and having commond over the family. Most of their family lands were sold by

Sri Devender Reddy (D2). He deposed that Ashok Reddy (D1) had no active position, role or responsibility in their family and he worked only under the commands of his younger brother 47 OS .No. 36 of 2016

Devender Reddy (D2). He further deposed that Sri Vemula Rama

Linga Reddy performed the marriage of their daughter

Smt.Kumudini Bai (Kumudini Reddy) and presented cash, jewelry & valuables. Subsequently, given about seven acres of land and plots etc., to her towards final settlement of her share and all rights, in the family properties to her satisfaction. He further deposed that even after death of Vemula Rama Linga Reddy,

Shashikala Devi & Mahender Reddy, Vemula Ashok Reddy (D1) and Devender Reddy (D2) are continued in joint. There was no partition taken place in their family and between them at any point of time. He deposed that Vemula Rakesh Reddy and his sister (D3) are entitle for share. He came to know that Vemula

Rakesh Reddy filed this suit for partition and separate, possession of all their family properties.

19.After the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, in support of defendants case defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1. DW1 deposed that plaintiff Rakesh Reddy is his son and he filed this suit for partition and separate possession of family properties and for injunction. He deposed that the defendant No. 3 is his daughter and defendant No. 4 is his wife, defendant No. 2 is his younger brother. He further deposed that he is not having any 48 OS .No. 36 of 2016 objection for division of all family properties that are available by the date of suit i.e., rice mill and house property (about 4000 yards) and Nizamabad Yellammagutta plot (630 yards) and all our family gold ornaments and valuables which are in their joint possession and enjoyment, in common hotchpotch. He further deposed that their family gold ornaments, valuables, papers are with Devender Reddy(D2). The Defendant no. 2 is collecting the rents of Rs.20,000/- every month and using for himself and not paid to him or any one in the family. He further deposed that he demanded several times, but Devender Reddy (D2) failed to pay any amounts and he used to threaten him. He further deposed that his brother (D2) sold out several family properties lands in plots and even during the life time of their father and not paid or contributed those amounts to anyone in the family and appropriated for himself. Even he used to sign on several documents and deeds as instructed by Devendar Reddy (D2), without knowing the contents and purposes. He further deposed that his father given about 7 acres land, plots and amounts to his sister Kumudini Bai as her share in their family properties as per earlier oral division, in addition to properties, gold, jewellery, silver, valuables presented to her in her marriage.

49 OS .No. 36 of 2016

He further deposed that all properties that are sold by

Devender Reddy (D2) may be allotted to the share of the defendant No. 2 only. Parties or any family members should not sell or transfer any property during the pending suit, without getting permission of the court. Devender Reddy (d2) sold to

Naluri Bajanna, Gourai Ravi and others. He further deposed that

Devender Reddy (D2) is the only person responsible for deterioration of family position and falling down of their prestige in the village and relatives., after allotment of sold properties to the share of the Devender Reddy (D2), the remaining properties may be partitioned and his lawful share may be allotted to him with delivery of possession. Hence the suit.

20.To support his contention he got examined DW2/third party.

DW2 deposed that about 23 years back (in 2000) he purchased on open plot No. 27 admeasuring 88 Sq.yds, in Sy. No. 681/3, at

Velpur village from Devender Reddy (D2). He further deposed that he requested to register the said plot in the name of his wife Smt.

Naazma Begum. He deposed that Devender Reddy (D2) taken back the receipts issued by him and arranged the registration of said plot by his brother Ashok Reddy (D1). The Ashok Reddy (D1) registered the sale deed in the name of his wife vide document 50 OS .No. 36 of 2016

No. 579/2000 in the Bheemgal registration office. He further deposed that he had not paid consideration amount to Ashok

Reddy (D1) . subsequently to his purchase constructed own house. To his knowledge partition of properties not effected among Ashok Reddy (D1) and Devender Reddy (d2). He further deposed that it appears in the village that Devender Reddy (D2) had active role in their family and Ashok Reddy (D1) worked under him.

21.Defendant No.3 examined herself as DW3. DW3 deposed that Rakesh Reddy is her brother and he filed this suit for partition and separate possession of family properties and for injunction, which is correct. She further deposed that Ashok Reddy (D1) is her father and Smt. Aruna (D4) is her mother. She further deposed that Devender Reddy (D2) is her paternal uncle. She further deposed that she is not having any objection for division of all family properties that are available by the date of suit i.e., rice mill & house property (about 4000 yards) and Nizamabad

Yellammagutta plot (630 square yards) and all their family gold ornaments and valuables which are in their joint possession & enjoyment in common hotchpotch. She further deposed that their family gold ornaments, valuables, papers are with Devender 51 OS .No. 36 of 2016

Reddy (D2). She further deposed that Devender Reddy (D2) managing and maintaining all the family properties and also collecting the rents about Rs 20.000/- per month from the tenants in the house portions and from sheds (of rice mill) and using for himself and not paying to anyone. She further deposed that

Devender reddy (D2) sold out all family lands, even during the life time of grandfather Rama Linga Reddy, worth more than his share and taken amounts and not paid or contributed those amounts to any one and appropriated for himself. She further deposed that

Devender Reddy (D2) had active role in the family and her father (D1) worked under him, with fear of him. She further deposed that he used to sign the documents as instructed by Devender Reddy (D2). without knowing the contents and purposes. She further deposed that her grandfather Rama Linga Reddy given about 7 acres land, plots and amounts to her aunty Kumudini Bai as her share, in addition to properties, gold, jewelry, silver, valuables presented to her in the marriage.

She further deposed that all properties that are sold by

Devender Reddy (D2) may be allotted to his share only. She further deposed that any one of the family members should not sell or transfer any property involving third party rights, which 52 OS .No. 36 of 2016 may cause hurdles in the division. She further deposed that

Devender Reddy (D2) sold to Naluri Bajanna, Gourai Ravi and others. She further deposed that Devender Reddy (D2) is the person responsible for deterioration of family position and falling down of our Prestige in the village and in the relations. She further deposed that after allotment of sold properties to the share of the Devender Reddy (D2), the remaining properties may be partitioned among her (D3), her father (D1) and brother (plaintiff) and her lawful share may be alloted to her with all rights and delivery of possession. She further deposed that her mother (D4) is having right on the share of her father (D1) for the purpose of maintenance etc. Hence the suit.

22.The actual contesting defendant i.e., defendant No.2 examined himself as DW4. DW4 deposed that the defendant No.1 is his elder brother and the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 are his children and the defendants 4 is his wife. He further deposed that his father Vemula Rama linga Reddy was owning about 30 to 35 acres of agricultural lands, a residential house and a rice mill in

Velpur village. He further deposed that his brother the 1st defendant is older by more than 15 years. He further deposed that during the life time of her father both her brother i.e., 53 OS .No. 36 of 2016 1st defendant and her father were looking after all the properties as he was very young. He further deposed that defendant No. 1 is educated was very active in politics and was Sarpanch of his village fo long time and was spending lot of money in the politics.

He further deposed that his father and 1st defendant sold many of their lands when both were managing the properties. The 1st defendant known to be very intelligent. She further deposed that after the marriage of his brother with 4th defendant in the year 1976, their father Partitioned their remaining properties in the year 1978 between among his three sons equally. He further deposed that in the partition they three brothers were allotted 8 acres of land each and their father kept the rice mill property shown in item (I) of schedule-A Property and agricultural lands shown in item (II) of Schedule-B property towards his share. He further deposed that after the partition separate ROR pass books are issued by the Revenue authorities in the names of their three brothers and their father showing the lands allotted to each of them. Thereafter they three brothers sold the properties fell to their respective shares from time to time to their village.

He further deposed that on the death of their father only the above mentioned properties the rice mill property and agricultural 54 OS .No. 36 of 2016 land shown in item (1) of A schedule & item(ii) of B Schedule properties were remaining and they were in possession of their mother Smt. Shashikala Devi and she was managing those properties. He further deposed that just before the death of their mother she asked him and the defendant No.1 to partition those properties between them and accordingly they both the brothers with the consent of their mother partitioned those properties on 16-8-2007 under registered partition deed. He further deposed that in the partition the rice mill property fell to his share and agricultural lands property fell to the share of the 1st defendant.

He further deposed that apart from the above properties their family was not having any other properties on the date of their partition effected between him and 1st defendant. He further deposed that since the date of partition he was in possession of the rice mill property and 1st defendant was in possession of the lands fell to his share. He further deposed that the plot at

Yellammagutta, Nizamabad shown as item (iv) of schedule A

Property is the exclusive property of their mother Smt. Shashikala

Devi. He further deposed that she purchased the above plot with her own funds under a registered sale deed dated 13-2-1963. He deposed that their mother before her death executed a will deed 55 OS .No. 36 of 2016 in the year 2007 bequeathing her above open plot to their sister

Smt. Kumidini Reddy and after the death of their mother their sister is the in possession of the above plot as its exclusive owner.

Therefore above open plot do not belongs to their family and belongs to their sister Smt. Kumidini Reddy and it is not liable for partition. He further deposed that no other properties such gold or valuables were available with the family at any time. He further deposed that as the properties left by their father were already partitioned between him and the defendant no.1 under a registered partition deed and no properties belongs to joint family properties maintainable for are left to be partitioned and the suit is not maintainable for further partition once the partition is already effected between him and his brother 1st defendant. He further deposed that the plaintiff being the son of the 1st defendant is not entitled to claim any share in the properties fell to his share and the suit field by the plaintiff against him is misconceived and not maintainable under the law. He further deposed that the 1st defendant realizing that in view of the above partition between them his is barred to claim share in schedule A properties got filed this false suit through the plaintiff and the suit is collusive between the plaintiff and the defendants 1,3 and 4. He 56 OS .No. 36 of 2016 got marked Ex.B1 registered partition deed in the cross-examination of PW1 and Ex.B2 passbook of his deceased brother Mahender Reddy in the cross-examination of DW1. He further got marked Ex.B3 registered sale deed Doc.No.311/63, dt.

13.02.1963 and Ex.B4 patta passbook in the name of DW2.

23.Defendant No.2 also examined third party as DW5. DW5 deposed that he know Vemula Rama linga Reddy and his three sons i.e., defendants 1 & 2 and late Mahender Reddy. He further deposed that his younger brother K.R.Satyam Reddy married Smt.

Kumidini daughter of Vemula Rama linga Reddy and their marriage was performed in the year 1972 or so. He further deposed that Vemula Rama linga Reddy was having three sons and one daughter, due to their close relationship he was fully acquainted with the family affairs of Vemula Rama linga Reddy.

He further deposed that Vemula Rama linga Reddy was owning about 30 acres of agricultural lands, a residential house and a rice mill in Velpur village and all their properties were being looked after by Vemula Rama linga Reddy and his elder son Ashok

Reddy. In the year 1978 Vemula Ramlinga Reddy invited his father late K.R.Krishna Reddy to Velpur village to present at the time of effecting partition of his properties among his three sons.

57 OS .No. 36 of 2016

He further deposed that he along with his brother K.R.Satyam

Reddy accompanied their father to Velpur village and in thier presence Vemula Rama linga Reddy effected the partition of his properties among his three sons equally. In the partition three brothers were allotted about 8 acres of land each and Vemula

Ramlinga Reddy kept the rice mill property and agricultural land measuring about 5 ½ acres for himself. He further deposed that at the time of effecting partition apart from three of them, brother of Vemula Rama linga Reddy namely late Vemula Hanmanth

Reddy, his co-brother namely late Kyatham Kishta Reddy and other close relatives namely late Muthyala Pratap Reddy of Hasa

Kothur, late Kyatham Venugopal Reddy and his wife Smt.

Kyatham Susheela of Velpur and some others were present and in their presence Vemula Rama linga Reddy effected the partition of his properties.

24.Defendant No.2 also examined DW6/third party. DW6 deposed that she know Vemula Rama linga Reddy and his three sons i.e., defendants 1 & 2 and late Mahender Reddy and Smt.

Kumidini. She further deposed that her father in law Late Kyatham

Kista Reddy is Co-brother of Late Vemula Rama Linga Reddy. Due to their close relationship she was fully acquainted with the family 58 OS .No. 36 of 2016 affairs of Vemula Ramlinga Reddy. She further deposed that

Vemula Rama linga Reddy was owning about 30 acres of agricultural lands, a residential house and a rice mill in Velpur village and all their properties were being looked after by Vemula

Ramlinga Reddy and his elder son Ashok Reddy. She further deposed that in the year 1978 Vemula Rama linga Reddy invited her, her husband late K.Venugopal Reddy and her father in law

Late Kyatham Kista Reddy to his house to present at the time of effecting partition of his properties among his three sons. She further deposed tht she along with her husband late K. Venugopal

Reddy and her father in law Late Kyatham Kista Reddy went to the house of V.Ramalinga Reddy and in their presence Vemula

Ramlinga Reddy effected the partition of his properties among his three sons equally. She is further deposed that in the partition three brothers were allotted about 8 acres of land each and

Vemula Ramlinga Reddy kept the rice mill property and agricultural land measuring about 5 ½ acres for himself. She further deposed that at the time of effecting partition apart from them, brother of Vemula Rama linga Reddy namely late Vemula

Hanmanth Reddy, and other close relatives namely late Muthyala

Pratap Reddy of Hasa Kothur, late K.R.Krishna Reddy and his sons 59 OS .No. 36 of 2016

K.R.Narender Reddy and Late K.R. Sathyam Reddy son-in-law of

Vemula Ramalinga Reddy and some others were present and in their presence Vemula Ramlinga Reddy effected the partition of his properties.

25.If we see the schedule of property there are Item No.1 to

Item No.5 in A-schedule properties and Item No.1 to Item No.6 in B-schedule properties. It is not pleaded by the plaintiff on what basis the above said properties have been divided and placed as

A-schedule and B-schedule properties. Be that as it may the claim of the plaintiff is also very criptic. In the pleadings and in the chief-examination of PW1 he stated that some of the suit schedule properties are inherited by his grandfather Vemula Ramalinga

Reddy and some of the properties are purchased and developed by him. If he specifically plead and deposed that some of the properties are inherited by his grandfather Ramalinga Reddy and some of the properties are purchased by his grandfather, the case of the plaintiff is cryptic because he failed to depose clearly about the specific properties which are inherited and specific properties which are purchased by his grandfather. But this specific pleadings and evidence are absent in the plaint and in the chief- examination of PW1. Therefore, it is not proved by plaintiff from 60 OS .No. 36 of 2016 among the suit schedule properties which are the properties inherited by his grandfather and which of the properties are allegedly purchased by his grandfather. But it is surprising to note that even in the cross-examination by D2, PW1 answered that he do not have any idea how many acres of land his grandfather was holding. Plaintiff went on to admit in the cross-examination that he has checked revenue record and encumbrance certificates in respect of suit schedule properties before filing the case. This admission goes to show that he deliberately suppressed the said fact about the ownership of suit schedule properties by his grandfather that whether it was allegedly inherited by him or allegedly purchased by him. It is very much surprising to see that defendant No.1/DW1 who is elder son of Ramalinga Reddy also failed to depose in his chief-examination and also in his pleadings about the said inheritance and ownership of suit schedule properties. He simply stated that suit schedule properties are family properties without specifying which of the properties were inherited by his father and which of the properties were purchased by his father. The other witnesses i.e., PW2/third party admitted that Ramalinga reddy was owning 25 to 30 acres of land. PW3/third party admitted that Ramalinga reddy was owning 61 OS .No. 36 of 2016 50 acres of land. PW5/third party admitted that Ramalinga reddy was owning 100 acres of land. PW6/third party admitted that

Ramalinga reddy was owning 100 acres of land. PW4 and PW7 admitted that they actually do not know how many acres of land

Ramalinga Reddy was owning. The above discussion shows that whether it is 100 acres or less land, it was grandfather of plaintiff/

Ramalinga Reddy who was the owner of the above said lands. It is clear from the above discussion that none of the suit properties were inherited by Ramalinga reddy. Even the documents filed by the plaintiff i.e., pahani copies of earlier date finds the name of

Ramalinga Reddy as pattedar. Therefore, from the above discussion it is clear that suit schedule properties were was originally purchased by Ramalinga Reddy in his life time.

26.As per Hindu Law an ancestral property means undivided property decended from four generations. In other words the property which has been passed down from generation to generation within a family is called as ancestral property, whereas inherited property is the property i.e., received by an individual through a will or succession laws upon the death of the owner. To put it in simple way the property inherited by a Hindu from father’s father, father’s father’s father is ancestral property.

62 OS .No. 36 of 2016

Whereas property inherited by other relations is his separate property. The Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act 1956 states that grand children has no birth right in the self acquired property of grandfather. As per the said act the self acquired property of a

Hindu male dying intestate devolves by succession, among the legal heirs as follows :

Class-I legal heirs,

Class-II legal heirs (if no one in class-I)

Agnates (if no one in class-II)

Cognates (if no one in agnates)

27.The grandfather has absolute right to deal with the self acquired property as he desires. If the grandfather has made a

Will, then the property bequeathes to the person named in the

Will. If the grandfather dies intestate the property devolves as per

Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act. Grand children will not get any share in the self acquired property of grandfather as grand children are not Class-I heirs. The father i.e., son of grandfather who is class-I heir gets the share in his father’s property. However, if the father already died before the death of grandfather, then the grand children become entitled to the share 63 OS .No. 36 of 2016 in the self acquired property as children of his pre deceased son as they are now included in class-I heirs and they inherit equally as other class-I heirs.

28.Keeping in mind the above law prescribed in Hindu

Succession Act, applied to the present case the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the self acquired property of his grandfather as father of the plaintiff is alive and he is defendant

No.1. Similarly, another son of his grandfather i.e., defendant No.2 is also alive. As such, plaintiff is not legal heir of his grandfather muchless class-I legal heir as described in Sec. 8 of Hindu

Succession Act. As such the suit is liable to be dismissed on this count.

29.As per the admission of PW1 in his pleadings and chief- examination and also as per the admission of defendant

No.1/father of plaintiff, defendant No.2/uncle of plaintiff,

Ramalinga Reddy i.e., father of D1 and D2 is having daughter by name Kumudini Bai besides D1 and D2. So now the legal heirs of

Ramalinga Reddy are D1, D2 and Kumudini Bai. As per Sec.6 of

Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005, a daughter is also a copacener of a Hindu joint family and she is having equal right 64 OS .No. 36 of 2016 along with sons. As per Sec.4 of Hindu Succession Act it is having overriding effect on any other law in force. Even otherwise the

Hindu Succession Amendment Act was amended in 2005 giving the daughter the status of copacener along with the sons and this suit is filed in the year 2016. Without making the sister of D1, D2 as party in the present case, the suit is filed the plaintiff, his father/D1, his sister/D3, his mother/D4 by themselves decided and stated that Kumudini bai who is sister of D1 and D2 was given 7

Acres of land and good volume of jewellery in her marriage towards her share and that therefore she is not made party in this partition suit. The statement made by them reflects that they by themselves have decided that whatever is given to Kumudini Bai in her marriage is given as a share in family properties. There is no basis to the said imagination and evidence of plaintiff. Though the witnesses examined by them stated that Kumudini Bai was given 7 acres of land and jewellery in her marriage. But whether it is given as her share or as her gift in her marriage can only be deposed by the persons present in the marriage who might have heard that Ramalinga Reddy has given the above property to her daughter as a gift or as her share. Assuming that the above said property was given by Ramalinga Reddy to her daughter as her 65 OS .No. 36 of 2016 share, even then as per Sec.6 of Hindu Succession Act the daughter is entitled to equal share as a son in partition of family properties. The fact remains that in the present case the other legal heir of Ramalinga Reddy i.e., Kumudini Bai is not made as a party and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed on the fact that it is filed by non joinder of necessary parties.

30.Very interesting fact noted herein that defendant No.3 who is married sister of plaintiff and defendant No.4 who is mother of plaintiff is made as a party in this suit where the plaintiff is claiming share after partition of alleged ancestral properties. The prayer of the plaintiff is totally against the fact that he has made his married sister as one of the party and his mother as one of the party in the present suit for partition who are not at all class-I or class-II heirs. For that matter even plaintiff does not fall under class-I heir as per Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act. As such the present suit is grossly misconstrued and liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties.

31.As per the pleadings and evidence of PW1 he stated that the defendant No.2 has allegedly disposed off B-schedule properties in favour of third parties and that therefore plaintiff is 66 OS .No. 36 of 2016

not claiming any share in B-schedule properties alienated

by D2, but adjustments can be made in A-schedule properties by allotting the B-schedule properties in the share of D2. Further interesting statement is made by plaintiff is that if any party alienates any property it has to be allotted to the share of said party. This appears to be new Law passed by the plaintiff. But unfortunately the courts are guided by the Laws enacted by legislation. However, from the above statement of PW1 it is clear that he is not claiming any right or share in B-schedule properties which are allegedly alienated by D2. This evidence of PW1 shows that as per plaintiff B-schedule properties are already alienated.

DW1/defendant No.1 elder son of Ramalinga Reddy, defendant

No.3/sister of plaintiff also deposed in their evidence that defendant No.2 has allegedly sold several joint family properties without specifically mentioning which of the properties were allegedly alienated by defendant No.2. In the absence of the same, if the evidence of PW1 is taken to be true that B-schedule properties were already alienated by D2, then why did the plaintiff include B-schedule properties in the present suit, because as per his version they are already alienated. Then how can he seek partition of the said disposal off properties. Even assuming that 67 OS .No. 36 of 2016 the so called ancestral properties of plaintiff were alienated by D2 to some third parties, why the plaintiff did not make the purchasers as parties in the present suit. On this count also the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

32.As per the admission of PW1 to PW7 some of the properties were alienated during the life time of Ramalinga Reddy and some of the properties were allegedly alienated by D2 after his death.

Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.1/father of plaintiff gave details of specific properties which were allegedly alienated by defendant No.2 alone. As per his own admission DW1/defendant

No.1 in cross-examination stated that in Ex.A5 i.e., pahani of the year 1991-1992 the names of three brothers i.e., defendant No.1, defendant No.2 and one deceased brother Mahender and their sister is mentioned for Sy.No.681/2, 681/3, 751/1, 751/2, 751/3, 751/4 and 759/1. The above said properties are Item No.2, Item

No.5, Item No.6 of B-schedule property. Further DW1 admitted that he do not remember when they sold away the said land. In further admission of DW1 he admitted that as on today Item

No.3 B-schedule property does not exist. Sy.No.715/2, 715/4 (Item No.6 of B-schedule) was sold by his father and brother to father of one Mahipal in the year 1990. He further admitted that 68 OS .No. 36 of 2016 part of Item No.3 of B-schedule property about 5 acres of land was gifted to his sister Kumudini Bai. Item No.4, Item No.5,

Item No.6 of B-schedule was sold by D2 in the year 1989-1990.

As per the above discussed admission of PW1 and also the above reflected admission of DW1 in the cross-examination all the items in B-schedule property were already allegedly sold by D2. That means B-schedule property should not have been claimed by the plaintiff by showing them as schedule of property in the plaint, because as per their own version the said properties were allegedly sold by D2. Like already stated above if they do not have any right left over on B-schedule properties because they are allegedly sold away, then they should not have shown

B-schedule properties in the schedule. In fact as per the cross-examination of DW1 Item No.4 of B-schedule and Item

No.5 of B-schedule were sold by his father during his life time.

Regarding Item No.6 of B-schedule DW1 himself admitted that

Ex.A5 reflects the name of all his siblings and they sold away the said lands which means the said Item No.6 is also sold away by them and not by D2. DW1 further admitted that Item No.3 as per

Ex.A9 patta is standing in his name. When the said property is standing in his name he has to explain how the name of DW1 69 OS .No. 36 of 2016 appears in revenue records in Ex.A9 if the property of their father was not partitioned. PW1 in the cross-examination categorically admitted that entire B-schedule property was sold by D1 and D2.

This answer given by PW1 renders the chief-examination of DW1 as false when he stated that some of the items of B-schedule property were sold by D2 alone. PW1 further went on to admit that he do not know to whom D1 and D2 sold B-schedule properties. He further admitted that Item No.3 of B-schedule property was given to his aunt Kumudini Bai. He categorically admitted that on the date of filing of the present suit B-schedule properties were not family properties. Therefore, now there is no question of partition regarding B-schedule property as the PW1 in his pleadings as well as in his chief-examination admitted that the plaintiff is not claiming any share in B-schedule property.

33.Now the discussion will be only regarding A-schedule property. Item No.5 of A-schedule property is 2 Kgs. of gold ornaments allegedly in custody of D2. This statement needs concrete proof. But from the pleadings and chief-examination of

PW1 it is observed that he himself did not give the specific details of Item No.5 of A-schedule property. Even DW1/father of plaintiff also did not give any details about Item No.5 of A-schedule 70 OS .No. 36 of 2016 property. In the cross-examination of PW2 to PW7, they also admitted that none of them have attended the marriage of

Kumudini Bai and therefore none of the witnesses of the plaintiff gave the details of alleged gold given to Kumudini Bai and details of Item No.5 allegedly with the custody of D2. Therefore, there is no proof either from the evidence of PW1 or PW2 to PW7 about the alleged Item No.5 in custody of D2. Even his own father examined as DW1 never stated in his chief-examination that Item

No.5 is allegedly in the custody of D2. Since there is no proof of

Item No.5 in custody of D2, it is ruled out from the schedule of property seeking partition.

34.As per the admission of plaintiff in the cross-examination all the suit schedule properties are standing in the name of D2 and in further cross-examination he admitted that he did not try to find out how the name of defendant No.2 came into Gram panchayath records from his grandfather’s name. These admissions simply goes to show that there was already oral partition as per the chief-examination of DW1 where he stated that there was earlier oral division of family properties in addition to properties, gold, silver and valuables and 7 acres land, plots and amounts were given to his sister Kumudini Bai as her share. This admission of 71 OS .No. 36 of 2016

DW1 in the chief-examination itself goes to show that there was oral partition during the life time of his father and all his properties have been partitioned during his life time and the remaining properties has been partitioned by D1 and D2 under

Ex.B1 (registered partitioned deed) in the year 2007. In fact if we see the cross-examination of DW1/brother of D2 he himself admitted that the signature on Ex.B1 belongs to him. Ex.B1 is a registered document and the signature on the Ex.B1 is admitted by DW1. As per the evidence of defendant No.2/DW4 all the properties of their father was already partitioned during the life time of their father and whatever properties were remain, they partitioned under registered document i.e., Ex.B1 in the year 2007. Since DW1/brother of D2 admitted his signature on Ex.B1, the evidence of D2/DW4 appears to be true that all the properties of their father i.e., father of D1 and D2 have already partitioned during the life time of their father and the remaining properties they partitioned in the year 2007 under Ex.B1. As per the admission of PW1 and also Ex.A2 mother of D1 and D2 died in the year 2008. This also renders support to the evidence of DW4 that during the life time of their mother the remaining properties were divided between D1 and D2 under Ex.B1 in the year 2007.

72 OS .No. 36 of 2016

35.As per the admission of DW1 in the cross-examination 8 acres of land was acquired by the government in the year 1982- 1983 for providing houses to weaker sections. Very fairly he admitted that he received the compensation amount for the acquired land. He further admitted that the matter has reached the court for enhancement of compensation and the court has enhanced the amount. He also admitted that the award for acquisition of land was in his name and OP for enhancement of amount was also made in his name and enhanced award was also passed in his name. As per the admission DW1 government acquired 1.02 acres of land in Sy.No.681/2 and the compensation was in the name of their father. These admissions of DW1 clearly goes to show that the properties were disposed off during the life time of his father or acquired by the government and few properties were orally partitioned during the life time of his father.

Almost all the witnesses of the plaintiff admitted that DW1 was active politics and about 20 to 25 years elder to defendant No.2.

This clearly shows that DW1 was in fiduciary relationship and therefore was in a position to sell the lands got to him in oral partition and also filed the suits with respect to the lands acquired by the government and also claim the awarded amount. Since we 73 OS .No. 36 of 2016 are talking about A-schedule properties, as per the admission of

DW1 Ex.A9 which is pahani for the year 1999-2000 shows that patta is standing in the name of DW1 for Item No.3 of A-schedule property. This admission of DW1 along with Ex.A9 goes to show that Item No.3 of A-schedule property is not partitionable property. PW1 himself admitted that before filing the suit he checked the revenue records, but never challenged the said record.

36.PW1 admitted in the cross-examination that Item No.4 of

A-schedule is standing on the name of his grandmother

Shashikala Devi (mother of D1 and D2). He further admitted that

Item No.4 of A-schedule was purchased by his grandfather

Ramalinga Reddy in the name of his grandmother Shashikala

Devi. This admission of PW1 makes clear that Item No.4 of

A-schedule is not the ancestral property since it is standing in the name of his grandmother Shashikala Devi. As per schedule of properties Item No.4 A-schedule property is plot admeasuring 631 Sq. Yards at Yellammagutta. PW3, PW6 and PW7 in the cross-examination also admitted that the said Yellammagutta plot was standing in the name of wife of Ramalinga Reddy. Under such circumstances Item No.4 of A-schedule property should not have 74 OS .No. 36 of 2016 been added as schedule of property showing ancestral property, because it is not the property standing in the name of Ramalinga

Reddy, but in fact standing in the name of Shashikala Devi. Even otherwise DW1, DW4 and plaintiff deposed that in the marriage of

Kumudini Bai she was given 5 acres of land and one plot. This evidence shows that already Item No.4 was given to Kumudini

Bai by her mother. Then there is no point in seeking partition of said property.

37.As per Ex.B1 :

Sy.No.751/1 admeasuring Ac.1-34 gts.

Sy.No.751/2 admeasuring Ac.1-14 ½ gts.

Sy.No.751/3 admeasuring Ac.1-14 ½ gts.

Sy.No.751/4 admeasuring Ac.1-05 gts.

Total admeasuring Ac.5-28 gts., (Item No.2 of B-schedule) fell to the share of DW1 and H.No.6-56 and 6-56/1 (Item No.1 of

A-schedule) fell to the share of DW4. Since DW1/brother of

Defendant No.2/DW4 admitted that the partition deed under

Ex.B1 contains his signature it is deemed that he has partitioned the said properties by agreeing to the terms in Ex.B1 and under registered partition deed the said properties were partitioned between two brothers D1 and D2. In fact one of the witness 75 OS .No. 36 of 2016 examined as PW7, in the cross-examination admitted that D1 and

D2 executed partition deed for the purpose of loan. However, whether it is for the purpose of loan or otherwise the execution of

Ex.B1 is admitted by PW7 also. He went on to also admit that he himself put his signature on Ex.B1 itself and so also D1 and D2 also signed on Ex.B1. PW7 clearly admitted in the cross- examination that there is no mention of the purpose of execution of Ex.B1 that it was executed for the purpose of loan in Ex.B1. As such the story of the execution of Ex.B1 for the purpose of loan is false, but the admission of PW1 and PW7 confirms the execution of Ex.B1 registered partition deed by D1 and D2.

38.In fact the suit is liable to be dismissed also on the count that few witnesses of plaintiff i.e., PW6, PW4 also deposed that there are few other properties which are liable to be partition. But surprisingly the said properties are not included in the suit.

Therefore on this count also the suit is liable to be dismissed for not including all the properties. PW4 in the cross-examination admitted that the only property remained for partition is rice mill.

The same is also admitted by PW7 who stated that except the rice mill entire land was sold away. PW2 admitted that Item No.1 of

A-schedule is the said rice mill which is already divided between 76 OS .No. 36 of 2016

D1 and D2 as per the above discussion of Ex.B1 registered partition deed.

39.The plaintiff filed some case Laws in 2003(4) SCC 161 where it is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that “the evidence taken in the lower court is not in line with the pleadings and it is in variance within. As in this case in virtual self contradictory, adverse inference cannot be looked into or relied upon”. The plaintiff also filed an another case law in 2003(8) SCC 740 the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case law held that “in the

absence of plea no amount of evidence laid in relation there to can be looked into”. He also supplied case law in AIR 1987 SC 1242.

40.The said case law is filed by the plaintiff with respect to

Ex.B1 partition deed stating that it has not been pleaded by the defendant No.2 in pleadings. It is true that he may not have pleaded about Ex.B1 in the pleadings. But what if it is admitted by

DW1 in the cross-examination that it is his signature on Ex.B1 registered partition deed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the same case law laid the opinion that adoption is essentially one of fact merely depending upon pure appreciation of evidence on record.

77 OS .No. 36 of 2016

According to this ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court if not pleaded the adoption of the same depends on appreciation of evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in said case law that the sale deed in question can be looked into for initial possession.

Even otherwise if Ex.B1 is also brushed aside the suit is liable to be dismissed on several counts as discussed above.

41.The defendant No.2 has filed several case laws among which there are few applicable case laws to the present case. In 2008(3) ALT 657 (DB) the Hon’ble High Court held that “burden of proving joint family properties always lies on the person who asserts it”. In the present case also the plaintiff failed to prove that suit properties are joint family properties. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit properties are his grandfather’s property and D1 and D2 are legal heirs of his grandfather. Then from where did this jointness come to ascribe the schedule of properties as joint family properties. In fact if we see the evidence of PW1 he himself deposed that his father/DW1 has been residing separately since long time i.e., about 8 years back. Then the claim of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties is not proved by him.

78 OS .No. 36 of 2016

42.The defendant No.2 also filed an another case law in 2010(5) ALT 339. In the said case law also the same ratio was reiterated by High Court that “in the absence of proof of existence of nucleus it is difficult to hold that properties are joint family properties”.

43.In view of the above discussion, we hold that the plaintiff failed to prove the issue. Accordingly, issue answered.

44.ISSUE NO.2 :

“Whether plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction

as prayed for ?”

45.Since the first Issue is answered holding that plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of partition, as such the second relief for perpetual injunction also cannot be granted to the plaintiff in view of the first Issue answered negatively in favour of plaintiff.

Accordingly, issue answered.

79 OS .No. 36 of 2016

46.ISSUE NO.3 :

To what relief ?

In the result, the suit is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in this open Court on this 11th day of August, 2023.

Judge,

Family Court, Nizamabad. Corrections carried out:-

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1: Vemula Rakesh Reddy DW1: Vemula Ashok Reddy PW2: Vemula Naresh ReddyDW2: Syed Ajeem PW3: Bagula Surya NarayanaDW3: Smt. Pannala Supriya PW4: Mondi Chinna BalaiahDW4: Vemula Devender Reddy

PW5: Pachhimattala Prasad Goud DW5: K. R. Narender Reddy PW6: Marupaka BalaiahDW6: Kyatham Susheela PW7: Kyatham Srinivas Reddy 80 OS .No. 36 of 2016

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Certified Copy of death certificate of Vemula Ramalinga Reddy

Ex.A.2: Certified Copy of death certificate of Vemula Sasikala, Ex.A.3: Certified Copy of death certificate of Vemula Mahinder Reddy

Ex.A.4:Certified Copy of Family member certificate dated 8-8- 2014 Ex.A.5:Pahani for the year 1991-92,

Ex.A.6 Pahani for the year 1994-95,

Ex.A7: Pahani with Fasli No. 1422 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.681/2,

Ex.A8: Pahani with Fasli No. 1425 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.681/2,

Ex.A9: Pahani for the year 1999-2000,

Ex.A10: Pahani for the year 1992-1993,

Ex.A11: Pahani for the year 1995-1996,

Ex.A12: Pahani for the year 2007-08,

Ex.A13: Pahani with Fasli No.1422 dated 4-7-2016, for Sy.No.436

Ex.A14:Pahani with Fasli No.1425 dated 4-07-2016 for Sy.No.436

dated 4-7-2016

Ex.A15 Pahani for the year 2000-01

Ex.A16:Pahani with Fasli No.1425 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.751/1

Ex.A17:Pahani with Fasli No.1425 dated 4-7-2016 Sy.No.751/2

dated 4-7-2016

Ex.A18:Pahani with Fasli No.1425 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.751/3 81 OS .No. 36 of 2016

Ex.A19:Pahani with Fasli No.1425 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.751/4

Ex.A20:Pahani with Fasli No.1422 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.615

Ex.A21:Pahani with Fasli No.1425 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.615

Ex.A22:Pahani with Fasli No.1425 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.197

Ex.A23:Pahani with Fasli No.1425 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.198

Ex.A24:Pahani with Fasli No.1422 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.759/1

Ex.A25:Pahani with Fasli No.1422 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.715/2

Ex.A26:Pahani with Fasli No.1422 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.715/3

Ex.A27: Pahani with Fasli No.1422 dated 4-7-2016 for Sy.No.715/4

Ex.A28: Pahani for the year 1993-94

Ex.A29: Market value certificates (11 in Nos) of different survey Numbers

Ex.A30: Attested copy of Tax receipt, dated 20-2-1990

Ex.A31: Attested copy of Tax receipt, dated 31-1-1992

Ex.A32: Attested copy of pahani 1993-1994

Ex.A33: Certified Copy of registered sale deed document No. 1908/21 dated 1-5-2021

Ex.A34: Certified Copy of sale deed document No.1931/2021,

dated 6-5-2021

Ex.A35: PW1 letter given to Gram Panchayath, dated 14-6-2021

Ex.A36: Paper Publication receipt dt. 12-6-2021

Ex.A37: Paper Publication dated 13-6-2021

Ex.A38: Register sale deed vide Doc No. 1974/2012

Ex.A39: Certified copy of register sale deed Doc No. 740 of 2002.

82 OS .No. 36 of 2016

For defendant:-

Ex.B1: Certified Copy of the registered Partition deed by PW7

Ex.B2: Original Pass Book by DW1

Ex.B3: Certified Copy of Sale Deed Doc. No. 5463/1963 dated 13-02-1963 along with copy of same typed Sale Deed

Ex.B4: Pattedar Passbook by DW4

Judge,

Family Court, Nizamabad . Corrections carried out:-

1 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

SC/ST (PoA) ACT-CUM-II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, AT NIZAMABAD

PRESENT: Smt.SHOUKATH JAHAN SIDDIQUE,

Judge, Family Court-cum-

III Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 20 th day of March, 2023

SC.No.160 of 2022

(Cr.No.181 of 2021 of PS. Makloor)

1.Name of the ComplainantCircle Inspector of Police, Nizamabad Rural (North).

2.Name of the accused * A1:Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman S/o Late Nagurao, age 22 years, Caste: Waddera, Occupation: Mason Work, R/ o. H.No.1-18/4/A, Mahalaxmi Nagar Colony, Armoor Mandal, at present Rajaram Colony, Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad.

A2: Pallapu Kumar S/o Laxmaiah, age 20 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Moulali, (*This case tried against A1 Hyderabad. only).

3.Offence chargesU/Sec.302, 201 of IPC.

4.Plea of accusedNot guilty

5.Finding of the JudgeFound guilty

6.Prosecution conducted bySmt.K.Kavitha Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad.

7.Accused defended bySri Ganga Prasad, Legal Aid Counsel.

8.Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accused No.1 is found guilty for the offences Under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and accordingly, he is convicted of the 2 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

same U/sec.235 (2) of Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence U/sec.302 of IPC. In default of payment of fine directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Further, the accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence U/sec.201 of IPC. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The above substantive sentences imposed on the accused No.1 shall run concurrently.The remand period undergone by the accused No.1 from 11.10.2021 to till date shall be set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C. The Mos.1 to 6 (vide CPR.No.13 of 2022 of this Court) shall be retained for the case against the accused No.2.

This case coming on 06-03-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.K.Kavitha Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Ganga Prasad, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused No.1 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Hon’ble Court delivered the following:

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

The Circle Inspector of Police, Nizamabad Rural (North) laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable Under Section 302, 201 and 75 of IPC on completion of investigation of the case registered on the report lodged by the PW1.

2.The gist and kernel of the case of the prosecution is follows as hereunder in brief:

3 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

a) On 01.10.2021, at about 5.30 p.m,. the complainant/PW1-

Routhu Peddulu came to PS and lodged a complaint stating that he is working as VRA of Mamidipally village, on 01.10.2021, at 3.30 p.m., while h e was at Gram Panchayath office, Mamidipally, at that time, PW3-

Burka Naresh, who is the proclainer operator informed him over phone that he was running proclainer at Mamidipally village limits in Sy.No.56, he went to attend natural calls, went to a pond and found the dead body of a person in the said pond left side above the water. Upon which, PW1 proceeded along with LW6-Talari Rajeshwar to the spot and found an unknown male person, aged about 22 to 25 years and might have died three days back and the dead body was decomposed and the left eye is bulged out, mouth wide open and the tongue came out and injuries on right eyebrow forehead and beneath chin and the said holes were seen.

There is a tatoo as “Nanna” “Jasel” on the right hand of the dead body of the deceased and he wore copper bracelet and it is a suspicious death.

He claded in cream colour white linings full shirt, blue colour jean pant.

Hence, he requested to take necessary action into the matter.

b)Basing on the said report of PW1, the PW10-K.Gouthami,

WPSI of Police, PS Makloor, registered this case in Cr.No.181 of 2021 for the offences U/s.174 of Cr.P.C. (Suspicious) of IPC and issued F.I.R. During the course of the investigation, PW10 examined and recorded the statement of PW1, later, she visited the scene of offence, situated at

Mamidipally village limits, observed the dead body in decomposition state, she shifted the dead body of the deceased to the mortuary, Govt.

4 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

General Hospital, Nizamabad, sent lookout notices to all Police Stations, flashed a radio message to all concerned and published in print and electronic media to trace out the clues about the unknown deceased.

c)On 02.10.2021, PW10 visited the scene of offence, situated at Mamidipally village limits, observed the scene and found the blood stained gravel stone, Jio cell phone having one Jio sim, IMEI

No.911558256277547, blood stained earth, control earth and seized the same in the presence of PW6-Gurujala Praveen and LW10-Thalari

Punyaraj and preserved the scene by means of rough sketch in crime details form. Thereafter, PW10 collected one cell number 9441114870 belongs to PW4-Boda Prakash from seized Jio phone cell number 9347874575, made a phone to PW4 and informed about the unknown deceased particulars with specific identification marks, where, PW4 identified and stated that the deceased was co-brother to him and furnished the particulars of the deceased as Boda Sai Teja S/o Vasu, R/o.

Jadi Jamalpur village of Bodhan mandal over phone and PW4 also informed the same to PW2-Boda Vasu, who is the father of the deceased.

d)On receiving the information about the deceased, PW2, PW3,

LW3-Smt.Boda Laxmi and LW4-Boda Vasanth went to Mortuary of Govt.

General Hospital, Nizamabad and found the dead body as their son and brother. PW4 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, examined PWs 2 and 3, Lws 3 and 4, gave requisition to PW9-

Dr.B.V.Naga Mohan Rao for autopsy and thereafter, she handed over the 5 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

dead body to the relatives. The PWs 2 and 3, Lws 3 and 4 suspected on

Laxman (who is A1 in this case) and other person, who is a friend and associate of A1 into the death of the deceased.

e)On 03.10.2021, PW10 examined PW4 and LW6-Thalari

Rajeshwar and recorded their statements. On 08.10.2021, PW10 obtained DPME report from PW9, wherein, it was opined that the cause of death is due to ‘blunt injury over head and face’. As per the said opinion, PW10 altered the Section of Law from 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 302 and 201 of IPC.

f)Later, PW11-K.Gurunath, C.I. of Police, took up further investigation into the case and found the investigation done by PW10 is proper, later, PW11 examined PWs 1 to 5, Lws 3, 4 and 6 and recorded their statements, wherein, PWs 2, 3 and 5, Lws 3 and 4 further added that they have suspected the accused No.1 and another person namely one Kumar (who is A2), who is associated with A1.

g)On 11.10.2021, at 4.00 hours, PW10 along with force while conducting vehicle checking at Manik Bandar, Chekka, found one auto bearing No.TS16 UC 1226 proceeding from Armoor to Nizamabad in suspicious manner and on seeing them, three persons are trying to es cape from police, but they chased and apprehended them. On interrogation, A1 confessed that he had committed this offence and also other offences i.e., 1) Cr.No.177/2015, U/s.457, 380 of PS Bodhan (CC.No.237/2015), 2) Cr.No.245/2015, U/s.379 of IPC of PS Bodhan 6 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

(CC.No.271/2015), 3) Cr.No.250/2015, U/s.457, 380 of IPC of PS Bodhan (CC.No.272/2015). In the above three cases, the accused No.1 was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each, and also in 4) Cr.No.104/2018, U/s.302, 201 of IPC, Sec.3 (i) of

SC & ST Act of PS Armoor, 5) Cr.No.103/2019, U/s.457, 380 of IPC of PS

Armoor and 6) Cr.No.196/2021, U/s.379 of IPC of PS Boinpalli of Rajanna

Siricilla District. As such, PW10 filed a requisition to Tahsildar, Makloor with a request to provide two respectable mediators for record the confessional statement of A1, as such, PW8-Kuna Sagar and LW14-

Bhupathi Vijay rushed to the spot on the instructions of Tahsildar,

Makloor, then, PW11 recorded the confessional-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 and thereafter, A1 led them to Mamidipally village shivar, where he had shown the iron tap pipe, which is used in the commission of this offence. Then, PW11 seized the said iron tap pipe under the cover of seizure panchanama in the presence of PW8 and

LW14, later, PW11 brought the A1 to PS, effected his arrest and sent him to judicial custody.

h)Later, PW11 collected the four FSL reports and also the final opinion, in which, the cause of the death of the deceased is shown due to ‘depressed fracture of skull bone with hemorrhages of the brain with other injuries over the head and lower jaw’. Later, LW18-U.Venkanna

Babu, Circle Inspector of Police took up the case and found the investigation done by PW11 is proper. The accused No.2 in this case is absconded, as such, LW18 filed the charge sheet against the accused 7 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

No.1 for the offences U/s.302, 201 and 75 of IPC, as the A1 was convicted in the above said Calendar Cases. Hence, this case.

3. Originally, the charge sheet submitted before the II Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad. Upon considering the material on

record, the II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabd, have taken cognizance for the offences punishable U/sec.302, 201 and 75 of the IPC against the accused No.1 and registered the case as PRC.No.22 of 2022.

4.On appearance of the accused No.1 before the said Court, the case copies were furnished to him in compliance of U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, has committed the case to the Hon’ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad, U/sec.209 (a) of Cr.P.C., since the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, with a direction to the Superintendent to produce the accused before the Hon’ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad, on receipt of summons.

6.Later, the Hon’ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, registered the case as SC.No.160 of 2022 and issued summons to accused No.1. This case is made over to this Court for disposal, as per the Orders of the Hon’ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, vide

Dis.No.3163/2022, dt: 25.06.2022 in accordance with the law.

8 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

7.On production of accused No.1 before this Court, upon considering the material papers on record, heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused No.1 on framing of charges, this Court examined the accused U/sec.228 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C., the charges for the offences punishable U/sec.302, 201 of IPC were framed against the accused No.1.

8.The same was read over and explained to the accused No.1 in his language as required under Sub-Section 2 of Sec.228 of Cr.P.C. To which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.Under section 230 of Cr.P.C., schedule for prosecution evidence is issued.

10.To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined PW1 to

PW11 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and Mos.1 to 6.

11.On closure of the evidence for prosecution, the accused No.1 is examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

The accused No.1 having understood the same, denied and reported no defence evidence and submitted that the police involved him in this case, though he is noway connected to this case.

12.Heard the arguments for the learned Addl.P.P. and the learned

Legal Aid Counsel for the accused. Perused the evidence and documents.

9 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

13.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused No.1 for the offences U/sec.302, 201 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?” If so, to what order?.

14. POINT:- The accused No.1 herein is facing trial for the offences punishable Under Sec.302, 201 of IPC, as the accused No.1 herein along with accused No.2 have committed murder of one Sai Teja.

15.In order to prove the case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 and Mos.1 to 6.

PW1-R.Peddulu, who is the defacto complainant, deposed that he is the V.R.A. of Mamidipally village. About one year ago, on one day, while he was present at Gram Panchayat, he received a phone call from LW5 and informed him stating that he found the dead body of a male person in a pond filled with water when he had been to attend nature calls. The said pond situated in Sy.No.56 of Mamidipally shivar. Then PW1 himself and LW6 rushed to the scene of offence and found the dead body of male person in the pond, he found injuries on chin and the eye ball came out from the eye, found injury on the head of the deceased. The dead body was in a decomposed condition, he found a ring (Kadiyam) to the right hand, blue colour jeans pant and cream colour shift on the dead body. Thereafter, PW1 informed to the SI of Police, Makloor over phone.

The police Makloor recorded his statement under Ex.P1.

PW2-Boda Vasu, who is the father of the deceased, deposed that 10 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

the deceased was working a driver on the Harvester and the deceased

Sai Teja married with LW8-Lavanya and their marriage is love marriage,

Sai Teja took her to his house and they accepted their marriage. Two months thereafter, Sai Teja was sent to jail in connection with an offence of theft registered against Sai Teja, later, they sent LW8 Lavanya to her sister’s house and they went to Hyderabad for livelihood. Later, PW2 came to know that after release from jail, Sai Teja started living with his wife LW8 at Laxmapoor thanda, situated near to Kamareddy by attending to harvester driving work. On one day, LW8-Boda Lavanya informed to PW2 over phone that she along with her husband Sai Teja were going to Armoor for collecting money from Laxman as the said

Laxman asked them to come to Armoor. On the next day, LW8 Lavanya again made a phone call to him and informed that in Laxman’s house, they found Laxman, another male person and wife of Laxman and after having dinner, LW8 and the wife of Laxman slept in the house and

Laxman, Sai Teja and another male person went out of the house and she further informed that Laxman and another male person returned to home in the midnight, but Sai Teja did not return to home. He deposed that LW8 further informed him that on questioning them, Laxman and another male person informed to her stating that when Sai Teja attempted to commit theft and when the villagers followed him, Sai Teja fled away and Sai Teja will return to home, but Sai Teja did not return to home till the evening of next day. PW2 informed to LW8 to collect money from the sister of his wife and asked LW8 Lavanya to come to 11 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

them at Hyderabad, accordingly, LW8 came to them at Hyderabad. On the next day evening, he received a phone call from LW7 and made an enquiry about Sai Teja. He replied to LW7 that Sai Teja did not come to them. LW7 enquired with him whether there are any tattoo marks on the hand of Sai Teja, he informed to LW7 that there is a tattoo mark on the hand of Sai Teja as “Nana” and English letters. LW7 informed him that

Sai Teja dead body was found in a pond at Mamidipally and the same was brought to Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad. Immediately, PW2 along with his wife and LW8 came to the Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad and found the dead body of Sai Teja. He found injury on the chin, right eye, and the dead body was in decomposed condition. He suspected that Laxman and another person are responsible for the death of Sai Teja, as they have taken Sai Teja from the house.

PW3-Burka Naresh deposed that on 01.10.2021, at about 3.00 or 3.30 p.m., he went on to the Hillock for attending nature calls near to a

Pond during his working hours at the Crusher Machine, he found a dead body of a male person in the pond in a decomposed condition. He found one Kadiyam (Ring/bracelet) on the right hand of the said man and tatoo mark as “Nana”, “Jesel”. The left eye ball bulged out of the eye and also found holes on the head. Immediately, he telephoned to PW1 and informed about the same, PW1 came to the said scene i.e., pond along with LW6/Rajeshwer. After seeing the dead body, they informed to the police about the dead body. He found the Jeans paint and Green Colour with lines shirt on the dead body.

12 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

PW4-Boda Prakash deposed that more than one year, PW2 and his wife LW3 came to them at Yacharam for attending to work and they started living there. One month thereafter, he received a phone call from the police Makloor and enquired about Sai Teja, PW2 and his wife, further informed that the son of PW2 i.e., Sai Teja died and also informed that there are some sign’s on the dead body and the right hand of the dead body also have tatoo mark as “ Nana”. On the next day morning, he along with PW2 and LW3 came to Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad, saw the dead body and found that the dead body belongs to Sai Teja son of PW2.

He found injuries on the neck, fore head of the deceased and one of the eye ball bulged out. The police informed to them that Sai Teja died at

Mamidipally village.

PW5-Boda Lavanya, who is the wife of the deceased Sai Teja, deposed that she married with Sai Teja in a Temple at Nandipet village in the year 2019 and it is love marriage. Thereafter, she along with Sai

Teja had been to her in-laws house and started living with in-laws. Two months after their marriage was sent to Jail in a theft case, after that, her in-law sent her to her sister’s house at Dharmaram village of

Bhainsa. After release from Jail, she again met Sai Teja and he took her to Armoor to the house of Laxman, who came into contact with her husband Sai Teja when he was in Jail. She further deposed that she herself and her husband Sai Teja lived about 15 days in the house of

Laxman at Armoor, thereafter, went to Laxmipoor Thanda. Her husband 13 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

Sai Teja made a phone call to Laxman asking him to give money and he was in need of money. Laxman asked Sai Teja to come to Armoor to collect money on 28.09.2021. She and her husband Sai Teja had been to the house of Laxman at Armoor at 6-00 p.m., and she found Laxman, his wife and one another male person at there. Sai Teja, Laxman and another male person went out and return home. Laxman asked her and his wife to sleep inside of house and said that he along with the husband of PW5 and another male person sleep infront of the house. Laxman and another male person return to home at about 1-00 A.M (Midnight), but her husband did not return to home and she do not know when they went out. She further deposed that she enquired with Laxman and another male person as to whereabouts of Sai Teja, then they informed her that Sai Teja fled away when the people followed as he tried to commit theft and also informed her that Sai Teja will return. But, Sai

Teja did not return to home till the evening of next day. As such, she informed the same to her father-in-law/PW2, as per his advise, she went to Hyderabad by collecting an amount of Rs.500/- from the sister of her mother-in-law. PW5 further deposed that on 01.10.2021, PW4 made a phone call to PW2 and enquired about the her husband Sai Teja, PW2 informed that Sai Teja was not with him and also enquired whether there is any tatoo mark on the right hand as “Nana” “Jesel” and she herself and PW2 informed to PW4 that there is a tatoo mark on the hand of Sai

Teja. PW4 further informed that there is a dead body in a pond situated on the Hillock of Mamidipally village shivar. PW4 have sent the 14 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

photograph of the dead body to PW2 mobile phone which was sent by police Makloor and after seeing it, they confirmed that it is the dead body of Sai Teja. On 02.10.2021, he along with PW2, LW3 and PW4 came to Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad and saw the dead body and she found injuries on the chin, forehead and on the face of the deceased and the body was decomposed condition. She suspect that Laxman and another person that they have killed her husband for the reason that her husband threatened Laxman that her husband would informed to the police if Laxman fails to give money to her husband Sai Teja and Laxman called her husband Sai Teja stating that you would give money and taken him along with Laxman and killed. She identified the accused, who is standing before the Court is the same person who called her husband to Armoor to hand over money.

PW6-Gurjala Praveen deposed that on 02.10.2021, police called him and LW10 to scene of offence i.e., pond situated on the hillock situated in the outskirts of Mamidipally village, at there, he found the dead body in the said pond, at the scene of offence at a distance of 3 feet from the pond, he saw a small boulder with blood stains and also found blood stains on the mud. He found a mobile phone at a distance of 20 feet from the said pond. There is a Jio sim in the said mobile phone which was in black in colour. At a distance of 4 feet, he found heap of gravel. There is a fencing near to scene of offence. Police drafted panchanama in their presence. Ex.P2 is the crime details form conducted by the police in their presence, police have seized the MO-1- 15 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

Jio company mobile phone, MO.2 is the boulder, MO.3 is the blood stained earth, MO.4 is the controlled earth. After conducting panchanama, police obtained their signatures and Ex.P2 contains his signature.

PW7-Gogineni Rajender deposed that on 02.10.2021, he along with

LW12 had been to Mortuary of Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad on the request of police at about 10.00 a.m., as police informed that a male person belonging to their village died. He saw the dead body of Sai Teja at mortuary of Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad, he found injuries over the chin, right eye and forehead and also found holes over the forehead and chin.

The dead body was in decomposed condition. He found abrasion makers on the foot. He found the blue colour jeans pant and crime colour checks shirt on the dead body. Police prepared the panchanama in their presence and obtained their signatures. Ex.P3 is inquest conducted by the police over the dead body of the deceased.

PW8-Kuna Sagar deposed that the SI of Police, Makloor called him and LW14-Bhupathi Vijay to Manikbander Chowrastha on 11.10.2021, at about 6.00 a.m., at there, he found one auto and three person in the auto in the presence of police. The Circle Inspector of Police asked them to enquire with the said persons and on their enquiry with Laxman, who confessed to him that “when he came to commit theft in the Makloor the police caught him” and further confessed that “he was an accused in a theft case and also murder case”; came into acquaintance with the 16 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

person by name one Babu, Sai Teja and Thirupati when he was in jail as a remand prisoner; after release from jail, they used to contact with each other over phone; he along with three others have committed theft of water tanker tiles at Chinnapur village and the same were sold at

Armoor; he along with the above said three persons had been to Esaipet village of Machareddy mandal and have committed theft of 9 goats and sold away them for Rs.24,000/- and shared said amount equally but

Laxman retained the share of Sai Teja with him; he along with others have committed theft of an auto in the area of Bheemgal and Sirikonda village and kept the said auto with Laxman; he along with another person Babu have committed theft of motor cycle and the said Pulsar bike was also kept with Laxman; he committed theft of an auto at

Jakranpally and as the same was not sold to any body as such the said auto was left there; Sai Teja went on asking Laxman to pay the amount of Rs.6,000/-, which was kept with Laxman, when Sai Teja further informed to Laxman that Sai Teja would inform to police about the offence committed by Laxman and others to police if the amount is not paid to Sai Teja. What do you say? further deposed that it is further confessed that Laxman called Sai Teja and his wife to his house at

Armoor assuring them to collect money from Laxman and the said

Laxman planned to do away the life of Sai Teja in conspiracy with one

Kumar; in order to commit theft, Laxman, Sai Teja and Kumar started from the house on a motor cycle; they have taken Sai Teja on hillock situated on the shivar of Mamidipally village at there, they have 17 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

consumed liquor, Laxman hit on the head of Sai Teja with an iron pipe collected on the way to hillocks and the Kumar pelted MO.2 on the head of Sai Teja; the Mobile phone of Sai Teja was thrown at some distance and also confessed that the said Iron pipe was concealed in the bushes situated near to the scene of offence, where they have killed Sai Teja; the dead body of Sai Teja was thrown in to Kunta (Pond). The police have seized one Samsung company mobile phone from the possession of Laxman in their presence under cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama. MO.5 is the Samsung company mobile phone seized in his presence from the possession of the accused. Ex.P4 is the admissible portion of the seizure of MO.5. The police obtained their signatures on

Ex.P4. As per the confession made by Laxman, he took them and the police to the place where the iron pipe was concealed, there, Laxman have shown the place where the Iron pipe was concealed. From there, the police seized MO.6 in their presence under cover of seizure panchanama/Ex.P5, which contains their signatures. He identified the accused is the person who confessed the commission of this offence and other offence in their presence.

PW9-B.V.Naga Mohan deposed that on 02.10.2021, at 12.00 noon, he received a requisition from the police Makloor for holding autopsy over the dead body of Boda Sai Teja. Accordingly, he commenced the autopsy on the same day, at 12.00 noon and found the following injuries mentioned in Col.No.9 of his report: i) Laceration 8 cm x 2 cms x Scalp deep over back of head in right parieto occipital area of head with 18 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

underlying contusion scalp 12 cm X 9 cm depressed fracture skull bone with radiation to base of skull in posterior cranial, middle cranial fossa with underlying subdural & Subarachnoid hemorrhage brain; ii)

Laceration 6 cm X 2 cm x Scalp deep over back of head below injury

No.1; iii) Laceration 5 cm X 2 cm X Scalp deep over right frontal area of head with underlying contusion 9 cm x 5 cm.; iv) Laceration 4 cm X 2 cm

X Scalp deep over back of head in left occipito parietal area with underlying contusion of 5 cm x 4 cms.; v) Laceration 3 cms X 2 cms x

Scalp deep over right temple region; vi) Laceration 6 cm X 2 cm x 1 cm over chin on right side with underlying fracture body of lower jaw bone with traumatic dislocation of teeth. The above injuries are antemortem in nature and he collected the viscera and the same were transmitted to

Forensic Science Laboratory Hyderabad for chemical analysis report. He concluded postmortem examination on the same day at 1.00 p.m. The approximate time of death is about 3 to 4 days prior to his examination and the cause of death to the best of his knowledge is due to blunt injury over the head and face. Ex.P6 is the report of TSFSL. Ex.P7 is the postmortem examination report. Ex.P8 is the final opinion given by him stating that the death was caused due to depressed fracture skull bone with hemorrhages of brain with other injuries over the head and lower jaw.

PW10-K.Gouthami, the then S.I. of Police, PS Makloor, deposed that on 01.10.2021, on receiving information about the dead body at scene of offence, immediately, she rushed to the scene at 5.30 p.m., there she 19 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

recorded the statement of PW1 and obtained the signature. Thereafter, she returned to police station, registered this case in Cr.No.181 of 2021,

U/s.174 of Cr.P.C., at 6.00 p.m., and issued Ex.P9/F.I.R. She have conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW7 and LW12-Dasari Anjaiah under Ex.P3, shifted the dead body to mortuary of Govt. General Hospital, Nizamabad. On 02.10.2021, she visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of PW6 and

LW10-T.Punya Raj, conducted the scene of offence panchanama in their presence under Ex.P2/crime details form, seized one Jio mobile phone from the scene in the presence of mediators under seizure panchanama.

From there, she also seized MO.2/one mud gravel from the scene. She made a phone call by using the sim card available in the mobile phone seized from the scene to PW4-Boda Prakash and informed about the death of a male person on 02.10.2021, PW4 came to Govt. General

Hospital Mortuary room and identified the dead body belongs to the deceased by name Boda Sai Teja. She examined and recorded the statements of PWs 2 and 3, Lws 3 and 4 and also examined LW6 and

PW4 and recorded the statement on 03.10.2021. On receipt of postmortem examination report, she altered the Section of Law from

Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Sec.302 and 201 of IPC. Ex.P10 is the section alteration memo issued by her. Thereafter, she handed over the CD file to Circle Inspector of Police for further investigation.

PW11-K.Gurunath, the then C.I. of Police, Nizamabad Rural (North), deposed that he took up the investigation of this case from PW10 on 20 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

08.10.2021, during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, observed the scene and found the Crime detail form and seizure which was prepared by PW10 is in proper lines of investigation. Further, he summoned PWs 1 to 5, Lws 3, 4 and 6, re-examined the PWs 1 to 4,

Lws 3, 4 and 6 and rerecorded their statements. He examined and recorded the statement of PW5, who disclosed the names of one Laxman and Kumar and suspected them that they might have killed her husband

Boda Sai Teja. He further deposed that on 11.10.2021, PW10 and along with staff were conducting vehicle checking at Manikbandar Chekka under his monitoring, they found one auto bearing No.TS 16 UC 1226 proceeding towards Nizamabad from Armoor side under suspicious manner. On seeing them, they tried to flee away from Manikbandar

Chekka. But, they chased and apprehended them. On interrogation of

PW10, the said persons were ready to confess the commission of this offence, then, PW10 informed the same to him over phone. He rushed to

Manikbandar Chekka (Chowrasta) and submitted a requisition to

Tahsildar with a request to send two respectable persons from Revenue

Officials. He further deposed that the Tahsildar, Makloor have sent PW8 and LW14 as per his requisition. The accused No.1 confessed to have committed this offence along with one Kumar. At there itself, he have conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 in the presence of

PW8 and LW14. The A1 confessed that you have committed nine criminal cases including this case along with other accused persons i.e.,

Bukya Thirupathi, Babu, Boda Sai Teja (deceased). From the possession 21 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

of the accused, he seized the auto bearing No.TS 16 UC 1226 (stolen property pertaining to a case in Cr.No.96 of 2021 of P.S Sirikonda).

Further, he seized one Samsung Mobile phone containing BSNL sim card/

MO.5. Ex.P4 is the admissible portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama. The A1 further confessed that he will show the weapon used in the commission of murder of Boda Sai Teja if the police and mediators accompany him to the place where he concealed the weapon i.e., the place near to the scene of offence. Accordingly, A1 along with police and mediators proceeded to the said place, after reaching there,

A1 brought one Iron tap pipe from the bushes and confessed that with that iron pipe, Boda Sai Teja was murdered. MO.6/Iron Tap pipe was seized by him under Ex.P5 seizure panchanama. Thereafter, he brought

A1 and two other persons along with the seized property to police station, handed over the said two other culprits to PW10 for taking of further action and he effected the arrest of A1 in this case and sent him to the Court for judicial custody. In the course of the investigation, he transmitted the viscera collected by PW9 and the material objects to

TSFSL Hyderabad for chemical analysis and report. Ex.P11 is the report of TSFSL, Hyderabad. Thereafter, he handed over the CD file to his successor on his transfer. PW11 further deposed that he can identify the signature and handwriting of LW18-U.Venkanna Babu, who filed the charge sheet in this case on completion of the investigation, on collecting the material documents pertaining to this case for the offence

U/s.302, 201, 75 of IPC.

22 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

16.The charge-sheet is filed against the accused Nos.1 and 2 U/s.302, 201 and 75 of IPC. However, the charges have been framed by this

Court against the accused No.1 for the offence U/s.302 and 201 of IPC.

17.First of all the 1st charge U/s.302 of IPC is taken up for discussion.

The essential ingredients of murder to be proved by the prosecution are:

i) that there should be an intention to the accused to cause death, ii) that the act done by the accused is with knowledge that such act will likely to cause death of another, iii) that there should be an intention on the part of the accused to cause such bodily injury i.e., likely to cause death.

18.Generally, the crime is committed without any direct evidence, because there is always plan and thought in the mind of the accused that the commission of the offence should not be seen or heard by any person. Therefore, every accused who intends to commit offences takes all the precautions of hiding the crime. Therefore, usually the criminal cases are based on circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstance from which the conclusion of the guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusion in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. In a case which rests of circumstantial evidence, motive becomes a very important ingredient to be proved by the prosecution. Therefore, when the case is based on the circumstantial evidence, it requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, 23 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

all the circumstances that means a fact from which some other fact is inferred and deals with a fact on which an inference is to be founded and should be proved beyond reasonable doubt with strong evidence.

19.In the present case, the offences charges against the accused is U/ s.302 and 201 of IPC and as per the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the evidence of PW1, the evidence of PW3 and the evidence of PW4, are in the nature of identifying the dead body of the deceased.

These witnesses specifically PW1 stated that he found the dead body of the deceased in a pond in decomposed condition. PW3 stated that on 01.10.2021, he found the dead body of the deceased in the pond in decomposed condition. He further stated that the deceased was having one bracelet on his right hand and tatoo mark as “Nana”, “Jesel”. PW4 is the cousin of the deceased and he also stated that when he went to the

Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad, on information about the deceased, he saw the dead body and identified it as Sai Teja. From the above evidence, all these witnesses confirmed that the deceased is Sai Teja son of PW2.

Infact, PW5, who is the wife of the deceased also in her evidence stated that on 02.10.2021, she along with PW2, PW4 and LW3 came to the

Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad and saw the dead body, which was in decomposed state and they confirmed that the dead body belongs to Sai

Teja. Similar is the evidence of PW2, who is the father of the deceased.

He also stated that he informed the Investigating Officer when he made a call to him that there is a tatoo mark on the hand of the dead body as “Nana” and English letters. On information by the police about the 24 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

death of the deceased, he along with PW5 and others came to Govt.

Hospital and found the dead body of the deceased Sai Teja and confirmed that the deceased is Sai Teja. There is no dispute in the cross- examination of these witnesses that the deceased is not Sai Teja or that the deceased is some other person. Infact, in the cross-examination of

PW4, it is elicited that PW2, LW3 and LW8 and PW4 himself and some other persons came to Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad on receiving the death intimation of Sai Teja. This cross-examination confirms the fact that the deceased is Sai Teja. Except the above cross-examination of PW4 on the identity of the deceased, there is no cross-examination of PW2, PW4 and

PW5 about the identity of the deceased when they came and identified the deceased at the Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad.

20.The prosecution case is that the deceased and the accused are involved in number of theft cases. That they got association with each other when they were in jail in theft cases and got acquaintance with each other. That both have committed number of offences and facing trial. That in the present case, A1 called the deceased and his wife to

Armoor to give shared amount of theft and asked the wife of the deceased/PW5 and the wife of A1 to sleep in the house, whereas, A1, A2 and the deceased slept outside in the front yard and that after some time, at around 1.00 p.m., only A1 and A2 returned after going out. That when PW5 questioned to A1 regarding the whereabouts of the deceased, he told her that the deceased again tried to commit theft in the village and that he was caught by the villagers and he escaped and that he will 25 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

return after some time. That thereafter, when the deceased did not return, PW5 went to her father-in-law/PW2 on his advise.

21.This case of the prosecution is supported by the evidence of PW5, the wife of the deceased. She stated that after release from the jail, she and the deceased went to Armoor to the house of A1. It is further deposed by PW5 that A1 called the deceased to come to Armoor to collect money from him. Accordingly, they went to the house of A1 on 28.09.2021 at around 6.00 p.m., and PW5 found A1, his wife and another male person in his house. That the deceased, Laxman and another male person went out and A1 asked his wife to sleep inside the house and said that he along with another male person and the deceased would sleep infront of the house. That Laxman and another male person returned to home at about 1.00 a.m., but the deceased did not return to home. This evidence of PW5 gets corroboration from the evidence of PW2, father of the deceased. In his cross-examination, PW2 also stated that PW5 made a call to him that she along with the deceased are going to Armoor to collect money from A1, as A1 asked them to come to Armoor. On the next day, PW5 again made a call and informed him that in the house of

A1, they found A1, another male person and wife of A1. She further informed that after having dinner, PW5 and wife of A1 slept inside the house of A1, whereas, the deceased, A1 and another male person went out of the house. That after some time, A1 and another person returned home in the midnight, but his son did not return to home. When the

Court perused the 313 Cr.P.C. examination of the accused, it is observed 26 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

that he answered that the deceased never visited his house on that day.

That means the defence of the accused is that the deceased never visited his house on the alleged date. If that is the defence of the accused, why there is no cross-examination of PW2 and PW5, not even a suggestion that the deceased and PW5 never visited the house of A1 on the alleged date. On the contrary, it is elicited in the cross-examination of PW5 that during their stay in the house of A1, there were no quarrels between the A1 and the deceased. This cross-examination confirms the fact that A1 deposed false in his 313 Cr.P.C. examination that the deceased never visited his house on the said date.

22.It is the story of the prosecution that the deceased and A1 are acquainted with each other when they were in jail for number of theft cases. This fact is confirmed when the defence counsel elicited in the cross-examination of PW2 that to his knowledge, there is one theft case against the deceased. A question is suggested to PW2 that there are 11 theft cases registered against the deceased in different police stations.

To which, PW2 answered that he do not know. Even otherwise, PW2 in the chief-examination itself stated that the deceased went to jail in connection with theft cases. Similarly, PW5 stated in her chief- examination that the deceased went to jail and after the release from the jail, he took her to Armoor to the house of A1. She also stated that the said A1 came into contact with the deceased when he was in jail. In the cross-examination of PW4 also, it is elicited by the accused counsel that the deceased is involved in theft cases and went to jail. Regarding 27 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

the accused going to jail in number of other cases is deposed by PW11 also. PW11 specifically stated that he has seized one auto and one

Samsung mobile phone pertaining to Cr.No.96/2021 of PS Sirikonda. It is not the defence of the accused that he is not involved in any other theft cases. The evidence discussed above i.e., the evidence of PW2, PW4,

PW5 and PW11 shows the prior acquaintance of the deceased and the accused in jail when they were involved in number of theft cases.

23.Now, the case of the prosecution is that the theft amount after selling theft articles were equally shared by the A1, the deceased and another accused in number of theft cases and that while in one case, A1 had to give Rs.6,000/- to the deceased towards his share and that to give the said amount, A1 has called the deceased to his house. Now, the present case is that the deceased has been demanding his share of money in the theft amount and that A1 has been avoiding to give the same and that when A1 was avoiding to give the share to the deceased, the deceased threatened the A1 that he would go to police and report all the theft cases of A1 and as such, A1 hatched a plan to kill the deceased. The calling of the deceased and PW5 to the house of A1 is deposed by the PW5. The deceased by PW5 going to house of A1 and staying in his house, is brought on record by defence counsel when he elicited in the cross-examination of PW5 that during their stay in the house of A1, there was no quarrel between deceased and A1. PW5 deposed that A1 asked PW5 and his wife to sleep inside the house while he along with another male person and the deceased would sleep infront 28 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

of the house. PW5 further stated that after some time, at around 1.00 a.m., only A1 and another male person returned, but the deceased did not return. From the evidence of PW5, the deceased is last seen with A1 and another male person i.e., A2 in the present case, who is absconding.

It is proved from the evidence of PW5, which is unchallenged by the accused in the cross-examination of PW5 that the deceased was last seen with A1 and A2 in his house. Therefore, the “last seen together” theory is established by the prosecution. Now, the burden shifts to the accused to offer an explanation as to when and under what circumstances, he had parted the company of the deceased. If the accused offers no explanation or furnishes wrong explanation, then clearly motive is established as stated by PW5 that accused called deceased to his house to eliminate the threat of deceased reporting the theft cases of A1 to police. In the present case, the corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of weapon deposed by PW8 and MO.6- iron rod forms chain of circumstances proving the guilt of the accused.

24.As per Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving such fact is upon him. In the present case, the defence of the accused is that the deceased went to commit theft in the village and villagers attacked him and thrown his body in the pond. The same defence is suggested by the accused counsel to PW5/wife of the deceased. The same suggestion is given to PW11/Investigating Officer that A1 is noway concerned with the crime and that the deceased tried to commit theft in intoxicated 29 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

condition and that some other persons killed him and thrown his body in the pond. It is further suggested that in order to clear the case in

Cr.No.181/2021 i.e. the present case, the police has falsely implicated the accused in this case. From the suggestions given by the defence counsel to PW5 and PW11, the defence of the accused appears to be that after the dinner, the A1 and A2 told the wife of the deceased and wife of A1 to sleep inside, they went out and the deceased tried to commit theft in the village and that while so, the villagers caught him and some persons killed the deceased and thrown his body in the pond.

If such is the defence of the accused, then burden is on the accused to prove his defence as per Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, because as per the evidence of PW5, only A1 and another male person returned home at about 1.00 a.m. While the deceased did return and when PW5 questioned the A1 regarding the whereabouts of the deceased, the A1 also told the same story to PW5 that the deceased fled away when some villagers followed him and tried to caught hold of him while the deceased was committing theft and that he will return later. To prove his part of the defence, there is no evidence adduced by the accused. The accused failed to prove his part of the defence as per Section 106 of

Indian Evidence Act and therefore, when there is no explanation from the accused or no proof, the motive seems to be established.

25.The motive in the present case is that A1 called the deceased to his house to kill him for the reason that the deceased demanded his share and when the accused was not paying his share, the deceased 30 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

threatened A1 that he would inform the theft cases of the accused to the police. The same is deposed by PW5 in her chief-examination that she suspecting A1 and A2 killed her deceased husband for the reason that her husband threatened A1 that he would inform the police if A1 fails to give money to her husband. The important fact is that when the deceased is last seen with A1 and A2, the burden is on the accused to prove when and under what circumstances, he had parted the company of the deceased. In the present case, the defence is only in the form of suggestion that when they went out along with the deceased, the deceased tried to commit theft and that the villagers chased him and some persons killed the deceased and thrown his body in the pond.

Except suggestion to PW5 and PW10, there is no evidence and no proof from the part of the accused to prove his defence.

26.As seen from the above discussion, the calling of the deceased and

PW5 to the house of A1 on the alleged date is not disputed by the accused. In fact, the stay of the deceased and PW5 in the house of A1 is brought on record by the accused counsel himself in the cross- examination of PW5. Therefore, the motive of the accused is proved in this case that he has called the deceased to do away with his life. That taking opportunity of the fact that by the time the deceased and PW5 reached the house of A1, it was already 6.00 p.m., and after having dinner, the accused asked his wife and PW5 to sleep inside the house and left with the deceased into the village to kill him.

31 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

27.In the present case, there is also corroboration from the recovery pancha examined as PW8. As per the evidence of PW6, who is scene pancha, he stated that on 02.10.2021, at the scene of offence, he found one small boulder with blood stains, blood stained mud, mobile phone at a distance of 20 feet and that the police seized MO.1-mobile phone,

MO.2-boulder, MO.3-blood stained earth and MO.4-control earth from the scene under the cover of panchanama. It is surprising to note that it is the accused counsel, who elicited and confirmed about the conducting panchanama in his presence, because it is elicited in the cross- examination of PW6 that “at the time of conducting of panchanama, myself, LW10, the police personnel and the employees of Mamidipally

Gram Panchayath were present”. The above elicited fact confirms that panchanama was conducted in the presence of PW6 and other employees of Mamidipally Gram Panchayath and it rules out the suggestion that the signatures of PW6 were obtained at Police Station.

The purpose of cross-examination of a witness is to destroy the credibility of the witness. But the above elicited facts instead of destroying the credibility of PW6, confirms the fact that panchanama was conducted in his presence and therefore, rules out the suggestion that his signatures were obtained at Police Station and that Mos.1 to 4 were never seized in his presence and his signatures were obtained at

Police Station.

28.PW8 is examined by the prosecution as pancha for confession and recovery. As seen from the above extracted evidence of PW8, he stated 32 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

that A1 confessed that he along with other persons committed theft in different cases and in the present case, A1 confessed that he took the deceased to hillock on the shivar of Mamidipally village. That A1 hit on the head of the deceased with iron pipe collected on the way to hillock and that A2 pelted boulder on the head of the deceased and further confessed that the mobile phone of the deceased was thrown at a distance and they concealed the iron pipe in the bushes near the scene of offence. It is further deposed by PW8 that A1 confessed that the dead body of the deceased was thrown in the pond and A1 led the police and

PW8 to the place where iron pipe was concealed and from the said place, police seized MO.6-iron pipe in their presence under the cover of panchanama. As could be seen from the evidence of PW8, he is the VRA of Mamidipally village, a respectable inhabitant of that locality. The defence of the accused is that PW8 is the stock witness of the police and the same is suggested to PW8 that he is the stock witness of the police and subscribes his signatures on the panchanama at Police Station. If the defence of the accused is that PW8 is the stock witness of the police, why did he elicit in the cross-examination of PW8 that the police first contacted them to act as mediators and they requested the police to inform the same to Tahsildar, on that the police contacted the Tahsildar and as per the oral directions of Tahsildar, they had been called to Manik

Bandar Chowrastha to act as mediators. The above elicited facts clearly shows that they never wanted to act voluntarily, but on the instructions of Tahsildar that they went and acted as mediators. It is also elicited by 33 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

the defence counsel in the cross-examination of PW8 that he did not attend any Court for giving evidence in other cases. This fact elicited by the defence counsel also rules out the suggestion that PW8 as a stock witness. It is astonishing to see that the seizure of MO.5 is confirmed in the cross-examination of PW8 when the defence counsel elicited that at the time when MO.5-mobile phone was seized, its display was in damage condition. Likewise, it is elicited by the defence counsel in the cross- examination of PW8 that MO.6-rod was seized by the police from the bushes situated on the hillock. The above elicited facts confirms that

PW8 is not a stock witness and that his signatures were not obtained on mere blank papers or already writtened panchanama. On the other hand, the above facts confirms the seizure of Mos.5 and 6 in the presence of PW8 under the cover of panchanama and thereby, giving authenticity to the panchanama under Exs.P4 and P5. When Exs.P4 and

P5 are proved by the prosecution, it is also proved that the accused confessed the present crime along with the other crimes and led the police to the recovery of MO.6-iron rod, which is the weapon used by the accused in committing the crime.

29.As per the evidence of PW9, the doctor, who conducted the autopsy, he gave the details of injuries found on the dead body of the deceased. He stated that he found blunt injuries on the face and head of the deceased and he gave his final opinion under Ex.P8 that the death of the deceased is caused due to depressed fractures of skull bone with heamorrhages of the brain with other injuries over the head and lower 34 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

jaw. Only suggestions given to PW9 doctor was that injury No.6 in Ex.P7 and injury No.1 in Ex.P7 is possible when a person falls on hard surface and stones. The suggestion is denied by the witness. The suggestion given to PW9 that the injuries are possible when a person falls on hard surface is contradicting the defence of the accused, which he suggested to PW5 and PW11 that the villagers attacked the deceased while he was committing theft and thrown the deceased in the pond. Probably the defence counsel might have forgotten the defence suggested to PW5 and put the suggestion to PW9 that the injuries are possible when the person falls on hard-surface. However, the said suggestions are denied by the witness.

30.One of the defence of the accused is that PW10 is not authorized to conduct investigation, since he was the probationary Sub Inspector of

Police. There is no rule coated by the accused to show that probationary

Sub Inspector of Police cannot do investigation of a murder case.

Another defence of the accused is that MO.6-rod is planted by the police in order to involve the accused in the present case. If it is the defence of the accused that MO.6-iron rod was planted by the police, why it was elicited by the accused counsel in the cross-examination of PW8 that

MO.6 was seized by the police from the bushes and there was no much cross-examination on confession panchanama under Ex.P4. Except giving suggestion that the accused never confessed the offence in his presence, which suggestion is denied by the witness, there are no facts brought on record to support said suggestion. Therefore, from all angles, 35 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

the motive is established by the prosecution that the deceased has been killed by the accused by calling him to his house under the pretext of giving the amount, as the deceased was threatening the accused that he would reveal the other theft cases to the police. Further, as discussed above, the last seen theory is also established by the police and the accused did not tender any explanation U/s.106 of Indian Evidence Act.

This motive of the accused is proved further by the evidence of PW8 confession and recovery panchanama and recovery of the weapon used in the offence i.e., MO.6. Further, there is no cross-examination of seizure of MO.2-boulder, deposed by PW6. Except giving suggestion that

Mos.1 to 4 were never seized in his presence, which suggestions are denied by the witness. Hence, we hold that the prosecution proved the offence charged against the accused U/s.302 of IPC.

31.The accused is also charged with offence U/s.201 of IPC. The prosecution in order to prove the offence U/s.201 of IPC, has to prove that the accused having knowledge or reason to believe that an offence has been committed by him with the iron rod and the boulder along with

A2, has made the weapon disappear with an intention to screen themselves from legal proceedings. Again in the present case, in order to prove Section 201 of IPC, the prosecution relied on the evidence of

PW6 and PW8. As discussed above, PW6 categorically stated that the police called him and LW10 to the scene of offence from where, the police seized MO.1-mobile phone, MO.2-boulder, MO.3-blood stained earth and MO.4-control earth under the panchanama under Ex.P2. It is 36 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

strange to observe that the accused counsel confirmed the panchanama in the cross-examination of PW6 by eliciting the fact that at the time of conducting panchanama, PW6 himself, LW10 police personnel and some employees of Mamidipally Gram Panchayath were present. This elicited fact confirms the panchanama and the contents of it ruling out the possibility that the panchanama was not prepared in the presence of

PW6 and that the police simply taken his signatures. Similarly, PW8, who is the pancha for confession and recovery, categorically stated that the A1 confessed the present crime along with different other crimes of

Esaipet village, Sirikonda village, Jakranpally village, Armoor village and other places. It is also stated by PW8 that the A1 led the police to the place, where MO.6/iron pipe was concealed. That from the said place, the police seized MO.6 under the cover of panchanama. As already discussed above, the possibility of PW8 being stock witness of the police is ruled out, because it was the defence counsel, who elicited from the mouth of PW8 that the police requested the Tahsildar and on the

Tahsildar’s instruction, they acted as mediators and it is also elicited that prior to this case, they have never given evidence in any other cases.

Therefore, the above cross-examination confirms that PW8 is not the stock witness of the police and independent, respectable and inhabitant of that locality. PW8 also stated that he is working as VRA of Mamidipally village. Besides the above discussed evidence, it is the accused counsel, who elicited from the mouth of PW8 that MO.6 rod was seized by the police from the bushes, situated on the hillock. This cross-examination 37 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

confirms the fact that MO.6 rod was seized at the instance of A1 and thereby, it proves the fact that A1 concealed the weapon used by him in the commission of the crime and therefore, we hold that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offence U/s.201 of IPC also beyond reasonable doubt.

32.On considering the material, this Court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has safely brought home the guilty of the accused

No.1 for the offences U/s.302 and 201 of IPC. As such, the accused No.1 is liable for punishment. Accordingly, this Court found that the accused

No.1 is guilty for the said offences Under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C.

33 . In the result, the accused No.1 found guilty for the offences

U/s.302 and 201 of IPC and accordingly, he is convicted of the same

U/sec.235 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer and partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 20 th day of March, 2023.

FAC: Spl. Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs(PoA) Act-cum-II Addl.

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

34.The accused No.1 is produced from the District Jail, Nizamabad.

The accused is examined U/sec.235 (2) of Cr.P.C apprising the quantum of sentence prescribed for the offences proved against the accused.

35.The plea of the accused No.1 is recorded in a separate sheet.

38 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

36.On repeatedly asking the accused No.1 on quantum of sentence, he kept quite and only statement made by him is he did not commit offence. Addl. Public Prosecutor also present in the Court.

37. This Court has gone through the submission of the accused No.1 and also the plea of the accused No.1. In view of the offences committed by the accused No.1, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to take lenient view. Hence, sentencing the accused No.1 to imprisonment would only meet the ends of justice. As such, in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to proceed to convict the accused No.1, as he is not entitled to any lenient view. Further, this

Court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of the Probation of

Offenders Act or Sec.360 of Cr.P.C., in view of the nature of offences committed by the accused No.1.

38. The accused No.1 is apprised of about his right to prefer an appeal

before the Hon'ble High Court against the Judgment passed by this

Court. The accused No.1 is further informed that he will be provided free legal aid to prefer an appeal, if required. Free copy of Judgment is supplied to the accused No.1.

39. In the result, the accused No.1 is found guilty for the offences

Under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and accordingly, he is convicted of the same U/sec.235 (2) of Cr.P.C.

39 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

The accused No.1 is sentenced to undergoLIFE

IMPRISONMENTrand to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One

Thousand only) for the offence U/sec.302 of IPC. In default of payment of fine directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Further, the accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence U/sec.201 of IPC. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The above substantive sentences imposed on the accused No.1 shall run concurrently. The remand period undergone by the accused from 11.10.2021 to till date shall be set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C.

The Mos.1 to 6 (vide CPR.No.13 of 2022 of this Court) shall be retained for the case against the accused No.2.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20 th day of March, 2023.

FAC: Spl. Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs(PoA) Act-cum-II Addl.

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

40 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

: : APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

:Witnesses examined:

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Routhu Peddulu (LW1).Complainant. PW2:Boda Vasu (LW2).Witness and father of the deceased. PW3:Burka Naresh (LW5).Circumstantial Witness. PW4:Boda Prakash (LW7).Circumstantial witness. PW5:Smt.Boda Lavanya (LW8).Witness and wife of the deceased. PW6:Gurujala Praveen (LW9).Mediator for scene of offence and seizure panchanama. PW7:Gogineni Rajendhar (LW11).Mediatorforinquest panchanama. PW8:Kuna Sagar (LW13).Mediator for confession and recovery panchanama of A1. PW9:Dr.B.V.Naga Mohan Rao (LW15). Held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW10:K.Gouthami, the then WPSI ofInvestigating Officer and issued PS Makloor (LW16).FIR. PW11:K.Gurunath, the then CI ofInvestigatingOfficerand Police, Nizamabad Ruralarrested A1. (North) (LW17).

FOR DEFENCE:

- None -

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1:Statement of PW1.- None - Ex.P2:Crime details form. Ex.P3:Inquest panchanama. Ex.P4:Admissible portion of seizure panchanama of MO.5. Ex.P5:Seizure panchanama. Ex.P6:TSFSL report. Ex.P7:Postmortem examination report. Ex.P8:Final opinion of PW9. Ex.P9:First information report. Ex.P10: Section alteration memo. Ex.P11: TSFSL report, Hyderabad.

:: MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ::

MO.1:Jio company Mobile phone. MO.2:Boulder. MO.3:Blood stained earth.

41 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

MO.4:Controlled earth. MO.5:Samsung company mobile phone. MO.6:Iron pipe.

FAC: Spl. Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs(PoA) Act-cum-II Addl.

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

42 of 41, SC.No.160 of 2022, PS.Makloor Vs. Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman, Dt: 20.03.2023.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs/

STs (PoA) ACT-CUM-II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

PRESENT: Smt.SHOUKATH JAHAN SIDDIQUE,

Judge, Family Court-cum-

III Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 20 th day of March, 2023

SC.No.160 of 2022

[Cr.No.181/2021 of PS Makloor] Between: The State of Telangana through the Circle of Police, Nizamabad Rural (North) (PS Makloor).

.. Complainant

A N D

* A1: Dandewada Laxman @ Dantewada Laxman @ Kothabandi Laxman S/o Late Nagurao, age 22 years, Caste: Waddera, Occupation: Mason Work, R/o. H.No.1-18/4/A, Mahalaxmi Nagar Colony, Armoor Mandal, at present Rajaram Colony, Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad. A2:Pallapu Kumar S/o Laxmaiah, age 20 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Moulali, Hyderabad. (*This case tried against A1 only).

.. Accused

1Date of offence. 01.10.2021. 2Date of report or complaint. 01.10.2021. 3Date of apprehension of accused. 11.10.2021. 4Date of release on bail.--- 5Date of commitment.11.05.2022. 6Date of commencement of trial.28.11.2022. 7Date of close of trial.04.01.2023. 8Date of Judgment. 20.03.2023. 9Explanation of delay and remarks.-- Encl: Copy of Judgment.

FAC: Spl. Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs(PoA) Act-cum-II Addl.

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

To, The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

1/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

FOR FAST TRACK CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST

WOMEN CUM XI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT NIZAMABAD

RESENT: Smt. SHOUKATH JAHAN SIDDIQUE,

Spl. Session Judge for fast track cases relating to atrocities against Women cum XI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad.

Dated on this 16 th day of April, 2021

S.C. No. 1 of 2021

(PRC No. 03 of 2020 on the file of the Judl. Magistrate of

F.C., Armoor)

Committed byJudl. Magistrate of F.C., Armoor 1 2Cr.No.& PSCr.No.244 of 2019, police station, Armoor 3Description of the MohammedAmeerChaushS/o. accusedMohammed Awad, Aged 38 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Painting work & begging R/o. Rajaramnagar colony, Armoor 4Charge U/secs.302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code against accused.

5Plea of the accusedNot guilty 6Finding of the JudgeAccused is found GUILTY of the offences punishable U/secs.302 and 376 of the IPC and accordingly the accused is acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

7Sentence or orderAcquitted 8Prosecution conducted Addl. Public Prosecutor, byNizamabad 9Accused defended bySri Legal Aid Advocate

for accused.

This case is coming before me on 06-04-2021 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Md. Shadulla, Legal Aid counsel appointed for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court makes the following.

2/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020

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

1.This case is filed by police station, Armoor, against the accused for the offences punishable U/secs.302 and 376 of the

Indian Penal Code.

2.Avoiding prolixity, the succinctness of the case sans of the unnecessary details, the factual matrix germane to the prosecution case in narrow encompass is as follows:

The facts of the case are that on 01-08-2019 at 1400 hrs the complainant Sri. Battu Ramesh S/o Savanna, age: 33 yrs,

Caste: Gundla, Occ: Village Revenue Officer, Mamidipally R/o

Sahebpet of Velpoor Mandal, came to police station and lodged a telugu written petition in which he stated that today i.e., on 01-08-2019 at 1300 hrs he received a phone call from

Rajaramesh Complex owner namely Aljapoor Madhusudhan and informed him that one unknown female dead body found on their Rajaramesh Complex stairs. On receipt of the same the complainant rushed to the spot and found one unknown female corpse on the first floor stairs beside the side wall in supine position. On further observation he noticed that a slender stick was inserted in to her vagina. She was aged about 55 to 65 years, injuries found on her forehead, left eyebrow and left and right eyes. The descriptive particulars of unknown deceased are 4.9" height, fair in complexion, wore Dark blue colour jacket, orange & light pink colour design saree and also having blue, pink colour petticoat. The complainant further stated that some 3/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 unknown persons might have killed the woman by beating her with stick, and also inserted a slender stick into her vagina. The incident might have occurred in between 31-07-2019 to 01-08- 2019 night hours. Hence, he requested to take legal action.

Basing on the complaint the PW-17 has registered a case in

Crime No. 244/2019 for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and took up further investigation and dispatched Express FIR to all the concerned.

3.During the course of investigation, PW-17 examined and recorded the statement of complainant under section 161 of Cr.

P.C. and incorporated the same in Part II CD. Later, he rushed to the scene of offence and secured the presence of PW-11 and

LW-13/Sri Thoparam Pradeep Kumar, and held inquest over the dead body. During inquest PW-17 secured the presence of PWs 2 to 4, examined and recorded their statements under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and incorporated the same in Part-II Cds. He also took the photographs of deceased and scene of offence with the help of LW-11/Bharawaja Ramesh

Pawar and conducted scene panchanama and drawn rough sketch of the scene. He also seized two sticks having blood stains, one wooden flank having blood stains, control earth, blood stained earth, from the scene of offence under cover of panchanama. After that the body of the woman was got packed with the help of PW-5 and shifted the body along with stick in her vagina to Govt. Hospital, Armoor, for Post Mortem

Examination.

4/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020

4.The scene of offence is on staircase of under construction

First Floor or Raja Ramesh Complex at Mamidipally x road,

Armoor at a distance of two kilometers towards East side from the Police Station. The dead body of the deceased was found in supine position and blood was coming from her vagina, the head of deceased is towards East and legs towards West side and bent. One stick was found inserted in the vagina of deceased. Towards Eastern side NH-63 beyond it Shopping

Complex while towards West side Raja Ramesh Theatre is located Towards Northern side open place while towards

Southern side NH-63 road is located. The scene of offence was preserved by the means of rough sketch under cover of panchanama. On 02-08-2019, PW-17 rushed to Govt. Hospital,

Armoor, and during the Post Mortem Examination the team of

Medical Officers who removed the stick from the vagina of deceased, handed over the same to PW-17. The PW-17 seized the said stick along with clothes of the deceased under cover of panchanama in the presence of PW-11 and LW-13/Sri Thoparam

Pradeep Kumar. The PW-17 utilized the services of Clues Team and the Sub-Inspector, Clues Team, has collected the Finger

Tips of the unknown deceased. The team of Medical Officers

PW-16 and LW-19/Dr. Srilatha/Civil Assistant Surgeon,

Government hospital, Armoor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body, opined that the cause of death is due to "Head

Injury as per Forensic Science Laboratory report. After Post

Mortem Examination, PW-17 filed a requisition to the Municipal 5/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 Commissioner, Armoor, with a request to provide the staff to conduct funerals of deceased as she is unknown. Accordingly the Municipal authorities conducted funerals of the unknown deceased woman. On 02-08-2019, PW-17 rushed to the scene and verified the CC Footage of the shop which belonged to PW-3 and collected the CC TV footage with the help of PW-6 and saved in Pen drive under cover of seizure panchanama in the presence of PWs 12 and 13. As per the CC TV footage there is variation of time i.e. delay of 4 hours and 25 minutes apart from actual time I.e LS.T. PW-17 secured the presence of PWs 7 to 9 examined and recorded their statements under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and incorporated the same in Part-

II CD. Then PW-17 shown the CC TV footages to PWs 7 to 9 and they suspected on the accused that they saw the accused while begging at Complex and Mamidipally x road and on some occasions with the company of the deceased. Later, PW-17 to enquire about the accused showed the CCTV footage to PWs 9 and 10. PW-9 deposed that he is suspecting the accused and he saw the accused while begging near by the shop and also while the accused proceeding with liquor bottle on the day of offence. Previously he saw the suspected accused when he was proceeding towards Priyanka Wines Mamidipally side after begging. That on the day of incident I.e on 31.07.2019 midnight he saw the accused along with the deceased at

Rajaramesh complex. On the next day i.e., on 01-08-2019 at about 3 to 3.30 a.m., he saw the accused boarded an Auto at 6/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 Mamidipally x road and proceeding towards Armoor side. Then

PW-17 examined and recorded the statement of PW-9 under section 161 Cr. P.C. and incorporated the same in Part-Il CD. As per the version of PW-9, PW-15 proceeded to Priyanka Wine

Shop and showed the CCTV footage to PW-10 who identified the accused. PW-10 deposed that the accused used to come to

Priyanka Wine Shop for purchasing liquor bottles, and as per the

CCTV footage Pw-10 identified and stated that the accused seems to be like painter Ameer, who often visited his wine shop.

5.While the efforts were on foot to apprehend the accused, on 09-08-2019 on reliable information, PW-17 along with staff rushed to Govindpet X road and apprehended the accused at 10-00 hours and interrogated him. When the accused was about to confess the offence, PW-17 secured the presence of

PWs 14 and 15 and recorded the confession panchanama of the accused. The accused revealed his name as Mohammed Ameer

Chaush s/o. Mohammed Awad, age 38 yrs, Caste: Muslim, Oce:

Painting work and begging, r/o. Rajaram nagar colony, Armoor (vam) and confessed the offence. He also led the police and panchas to his house, where the police seized the clothes of accused i.e, light green colour full shirt having mud and blood stains, black colour pant, one pair of brown colour 7 number chappal under cover of panchanama in the presence of PWs 14 and 15. After recording the confession and recovery panchanama of the accused, PW-17 brought the accused with 7/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 seized articles to Armoor police station at 1230 hours, and affected the arrest of the accused by issuing arrest memo, informed the grounds of his arrest to him and to his brother

Ahmed Bin Mohammed under section 50 Criminal Procedure

Code and produced him before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand.

6.On 20-08-2019 the PW-17 forwarded the material objects which were seized during the scene of offence and inquest,

Viscera, femur of the deceased and material objects seized during autopsy, through the Asst Commissioner of police,

Armoor to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination through police constable 2415. The same was received by them vide Lr No. SFSL/(TS)/6617/TOX/2300/19, and

SFSL/(TS)/6616/SER/1381/19, Dated. 27-08-2019. On 15-02- 2020, PW-17 obtained the Forensic Science Laboratory report from the Asst Director Forensic Science Laboratory Red hills,

Hyderabad, vide Lr.No. TOX/1381/2019 Dtd: 13.02.2020 in which he opined that he analyzed the Item Nos. 1 to 12, and opined that the Blood is detected on Item Nos 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 to 12, Origin of blood stains on Item Nos 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 to 12 is human, B Blood group is detected in Item No. 2 & 3 Blood group not determined in Item No, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 to 12. On 29-12-2019, PW-17 obtained the Forensic Science Laboratory report from the Asst. Director Forensic Science Laboratory Red- hills, Hyderabad, vide Lr.No. TOX/2300/2019 Dtd. 25-11-2019 in which he stated that he analysis the Item No. 1 and 2 but no 8/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 poisonous substance is found in them. On 29-07-2020 PW-17 obtained the final opinion from the PW-16 wherein he opined that the cause of death is due to HEAD INJURY. PW-17 made all efforts to establish the identity of deceased by deputing men to various police stations and by collecting the missing woman details and also verified the same in CCTNS ecops web application with the descriptive particulars of unknown deceased with the missing persons. The case is UI for establishment of deceased since 01-08-2019 and there is no hope to establish the identity of deceased in near future. Thus the accused committed the offences punishable under sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the accused

Mohammed Ameer Chaush s/o. Mohammed Aad, age 38 yrs,

Caste: Muslim, Occ: Painting work and begging, r/o. Rajaram nagar colony, Armoor (village & mandal), mentioned in Col. No.

3 of the charge sheet is liable for punishment under sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. HENCE THE CHARGE.

7.The case was taken cognizance by the concerned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Court at Armoor for the offences

punishable under sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal

Code against the accused. The case was committed to Hon’ble

Prl. District & Sessions Court, Nizamabad, which was in turn made over to this Court. When the case was made over to this

Court the accused was under Trial Prisoner.

9/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020

8.When the accused was produced before this Court, this

Court framed the charges against the accused under sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On examination of the accused he pleaded not guilty to all the charges and also stated that he is not having capacity to defend himself. As such, Legal

Aid Counsel was appointed for accused and the matter was posted for trial. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences arraigned against him, the schedule for trial was fixed and the prosecution examined PWs1 to PW17 and got marked Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-18 during the trial. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined as contemplated under section 313(b) Criminal Procedure Code by putting the incriminating evidence of the prosecution in question form to him to which he denied and reported no defence evidence. On conclusion of trial, the arguments submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and the learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the accused were heard.

9. Now the following point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the charges leveled against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10.The prosecution in order to prove the offence under section 376 has to prove the ingredients defined in Sec 375

Indian Penal Code which defines rape as "sexual intercourse 10/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 with a woman against her will, without her consent, by coercion, misrepresentation or fraud or at a time when she has been intoxicated or duped, or is of unsound mental health and in any case if she is under 18 years of age.

11.It's rape if it falls under following categories:

1. Against her will.

2. Without her consent.

3. With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.

4. With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

5. With her consent, when, at the time of giving such a consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

6. With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of punishment in cases of rarest cases of sexual violence, the legislation was expanded to define acts like 11/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 penetration of penis into vagina, urethra, anus or mouth, or any object or any part of body to any extent into the aforesaid woman body parts (or making another person do so), as constituting an offence of sexual assault. Applying mouth or touching private parts were also classified as offences of sexual assault.

12.Murder is defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal

Code. According to it, culpable homicide is considered as murder if:

The act is committed is with an intention to cause death.

The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury which the offender has knowledge that it would result in death.

The person has the knowledge that his act is dangerous and would cause death or bodily injury but still commits the act, this would amount to murder.

13. If we see the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the prosecution examined as many as seventeen(17) witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P18. The evidence deposed by prosecution witnesses are in brief as follows. PW1/Complainant deposed before this Court that presently he is working as V.R.O,

Jakranpally village and previously, he worked as V.R.O,

Mamidipally village from the year, 2016 to the year, 2020. That 12/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 he know PW-2 who is the Raja Ramesh Complex owner. That on 01-08-2019 at about 1-00 p.m., PW-2 made a call to him stating that in Raja Ramesh Complex stairs he found the body of dead women. He immediately went there and found the body of the women on the wall of the stair case, her age may be around 55 to 65 years. That he also found injury on the left side forehead and injuries on both eyes. That he also found that a stick was inserted in her vagina. That she was found wearing very dark blue colour blouse and orange blue and pink design saree, and pink colour petticoat. That he immediately went to the police station and gave complaint. Ex.P-1 is complaint given by him.

Police examined and recorded his statement.

14.PW2/Owner of the Complex deposed that he is the owner of Raja Ramesh complex at Mamidipally x road, Armoor village and that he knows PW-1 Battu Ramesh who is their area V.RO.

That on 01-08-2019 at midnight one of his tenant by name

Gopal/LW-3 called him and informed that he saw a dead body of a women on the stairs of complex. That he immediately, made a call to PW-1 and also to police and went there. That he found dead body of a women and also found a stick was inserted in her vagina. That he also found injuries on her body. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

15.PW3/Witness deposed that he is running a Kirana shop in

Raja Ramesh shop, Armoor for the past about 10 to 12 years.

PW-2 is his owner. That usually at about 12-00 p.m,. they go on 13/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 the terrace to have their lunch. That about one year back in the same manner when he was going on the terrace to have his lunch he found the dead body of a woman on the terrace of the complex. That he also found injuries on her face and also found a stick was inserted in her vagina. That he immediately, informed the same to Pw-2. Police examined him and recorded his statement. The dead women was around 55 years of age.

16.PW-4/Owner of the Complex deposed that he reside at

Mamidipally, Armoor and he is co owner of Raja Ramesh complex along with PW-2 who is his brother and PW-3 is one of their tenants in the said complex and PW-1 is the then VRO of their area. That about one and half year back he received a call from PW-3 at about 12 pm stating that he found dead body of the woman on the stairs of the complex. That he immediately went there along with PW-2 and found that a woman was in immovable condition. That she might be in between the age ground of 55 and 60. That he also found injuries on her face and that he also found a stick was inserted in her Vagina. That they informed PW-1 and police who arrived at the scene. That in their complex first floor there was construction going on and as such there are bricks and other construction material and sticks on the first floor. That he found that somebody might have beat the woman with bricks and sticks and there were injuries on her body. Police examined and recorded his statement.

14/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020

17.PW-5/Witness deposed that he reside at Mahalaxmi colony, Armoor and works in a gold shop. That about one and half years back at about 1 p.m police called him to Raja ramesh complex Armoor. That after reaching there he found body of a woman lying on a wall near a stair case. That he also found that there were injuries on the said dead body of the woman and also found injuries on her face as if some persons might have brutally beat the said woman with sticks. That he also found a stick inserted in her vagina. That the Police conducted panchanama in his presence and he removed the stick slowly and blood was collected by the police. The body was shifted to

Mortuary, Government Hospital, Armoor. Police examined and recorded his statement.

18.PW-6/CCT.V footage Technician deposed that he is working as Technician in CC TV Shop at Sri Ram colony, Armoor. That about one years back police called him to Rajaramesh complex, at Mamidipally. Armoor, with a request stating that an unidentified woman found dead in the said complex and requested him to check CCTV footages. That he immediately, went to the Complex at Mahadev cosmetics and general stores where there was CC TV installed. That he checked the CCTV footages and found that in channel No.3 of the camera they found one man was getting down stairs smoking. That they found the record at 10-40 p.m, on 31-07-2019 but however, the recording was made on the same date by difference of four hours less. The said difference is due to complementary Metal 15/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 Oxide Semiconductor (C.M.O.S) cell problem. Because of the said problem whenever any incident take place the time will be shown wrong in the CCTV footages. That he took out the CC TV footages into a pen drive and handed over the same to S.I. of police, Srs 1 to 11 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.i Raghavender. That his statement was recorded by the police. That after two days the police collected the copies of his

Aadhar card, etc Ex.P-2: is the pen drive. PW-6 was recalled by prosecution and further chief examined on 26-3-2021 at the time of arguments. He further deposed that If there is virus in the system it will effect the pen drive. That he gave two pen drives after shifting CC T.V footage material in the pen drives in the presence of Mr. Raghavendra, C.I to police. Ex-P17 is pen drive copy of Ex-P2.

19.PW-7/ witness deposed that he runs xerox centre at Raja ramesh complex, Armoor, since 13 years. That about one and half years back he came to know that a murder of a lady took place in Raja Ramesh Complex, Armoor and he went to the scene and found the body of the women was badly injured. That the said lady was a beggar in the said complex and they used to provide her with some food whenever she used to come to their shop. She used to sleep in the same complex. That the accused was also a beggar in the same area and they found him begging at their shops. That the police shown to him the CCTV footage where he found the accused was getting down the 16/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 stairs. The CCTV camera is located at Mahadev Cosmetics shop and he can identify the accused. Police recorded his statement.

20.PW8/Witness deposed that he runs Thrimurthy hardware and ply wood shop, at Raja Ramesh complex, Armoor since about 2016. That about one and half years back, he came to know that there was murder of one lady took place on the upstairs of Raja Ramesh complex, Armoor. That he immediately went to the scene and found the dead body of the women and a stick was found inserted in her vagina. That she was a beggar in their area and some times they also found one person around the shop begging regularly. That when the police shown him

CCTV footage which was said to be taken from the next shop, in the said CCTV footage he found one person was walking along the shop. That he can identify the accused and he was the same person found in the CCTV footage. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

21.PW9/Security Guard deposed that he is working as

Security guard at Anand shopping mall located at Mamidipally chowrasta, Armoor, since about two years. That his duty is from night 8-30 p.m, to morning 9.00 am near the gate of the Mall and not inside the Anand shopping mall. That the police shown him one CCTV footage where he found one person was moving around and he can identify the said person who was a beggar in their locality. That the accused person in the Court hall is the same beggar. That on that date , at night he found the said 17/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 person he was coming from Priyanka wines towards other side of the road while smoking. That about 3 :00 am, he found the said person returned from there, boarded the auto and went away. That police examined him and recorded his statement.

22.PW10/Witness deposed that he is resident of Pipri village of Armoor, and working as worker in Priyanka wines since about ten years. That on 02-08-2019 S.I of police, Armoor, came to their shop, and informed them that there was a murder took place in Raja Ramesh Complex, and also asked him, whether he can identify the person in the CCTV footage which is with them and they showed CCTV footage and asked him to identify the person in it. That he saw the CC TV footage and found the accused in the said CCTV footage. That when the police questioned him whether the accused comes to their shop regularly he told them that the accused comes to their shop regularly. That he also told them that on 31-07-2019 the accused last came to their shop and purchased liquor from their shop, and never visited again. That he was examined by police and his statement was also recorded by the police on 02-08- 2019. 

23.PW11/VRA deposed that he is working as V.RA Armoor since, 14 years and he also know LW-13/Thoparam Pradeep

Kumar who is VRA of Mamidipally village. That on 01-08-2019 at about 2-55 p.m., police called him and LW-13 to Raja Ramesh

Complex, Mamidipally chowrasta. That they found one body of 18/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 woman aged around 55 years lying on the walls of the stairs of the said complex. She was found in supine position. That he also found some blood marks on the floor and also on some sticks, clothes along with blood on the floor, and stick injures on the face of the dead body. That the police seized blood stained earth and also plain earth from the scene and also seized two sticks with blood stains, one stick was taken out from the vagina of the women and other stick was found on the ground. That all the said articles were seized by the police under the cover of panchanama he put his signature as pancha on the scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch map. That thereafter he along with LW-13 were taken to Government hospital, Armoor and there, the clothes on the body of the dead person were removed under the cover of panchanama. That they also found injuries on the forehead, left eyebrow, on the right side of the nose of the dead person and also found injuries on both knees.

That the Inquest was conducted in their presence and they signed it.

Ex.P-3 is the scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P-4 is the rough sketch map.

Ex.P-5 is the inquest panchanama.

MO-1 is dark blue jacket.

MO-2 is saree.

MO-3 is petticoat.

MO-4 is blood stained earth.

MO-5 is plain earth.

19/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 MO-6 is blood stained stick.

MO-7 are two blood stained thin sticks .

MO-8 is another blood stained stick.

24.PW12/witness deposed that he is resident of Armoor and do hardware business in a shop in Raja Ramesh complex, since

Four and half years. That he know PW-13 who is one of his business partner. That on 02-08-2019 police came to his shop and took him to Mahadev cosmetics shop and there the police shown him the CCTV footage. In the said footage of only about 30 seconds he found one man was getting down from the stairs smoking. That the CCTV footage was of night time around 10- 00 p.m. That the accused present in the Court hall may be the person in the CC TV footage as it was night time in the said

CCTV footage. That after showing the CCTV footage they collected the CC TV footage from Mahadev cosmetics under the cover of panchanama and obtained his signatures on it.

Ex.P-6: is the seizure panchanama of CCTV footage.

25.PW13/Witness deposed that he is resident of Armoor and run hardware business in the name of Trimurti hardware business in a shop in Raja Ramesh complex since 4 years. That he know PW-12 who is one of his business partner. That on 02- 08-2019 at about 2 pm police called him to Mahadev cosmetics shop at Raja Ramesh complex, Mamidipally x road and, in their presence the police called PW-6 and got transferred CCTV footage in the pen drive and it was handed over by PW-6 to C.I 20/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 of police. That in the CCTV footage which was shown to him he found that a person was getting down stairs smoking and going away from there and that he has not seen the face of the said person properly. That the CC TV footage was of the night time and it was for about one minute. That the Panchanama was drafted in his presence and police obtained his signatures on it.

The pen drive/Ex.P-2 is the same pen drive.

26.PW14/Witness deposed that he is working as Senior

Assistant, Jakranpally and he previously worked as Revenue

Inspector, Armoor mandal, from June, 2017 to February, 2020 and he knows PW-15 who was the then working as V.RO,

Armoor. That on 09-08-2019, police called him to Govindhpet X road and after going there he asked the police the purpose of summoning me. That the police told him that they wanted to interrogate one person in their presence i.e, in presence of him and PW-15. That the police showed the accused and told them that they are interrogating the accused in their presence and told them that the accused is involved in one murder case. That the police asked them to question the accused and they asked the accused regarding the same. That the accused revealed his name and identity and also confessed the offence and the confession was recorded. Then the accused let them, and police to his house and then showed them one bag in his house.

That on opening the said bag they found one pair of chappals and one blood stained pant and one blood stained shirt and in their presence, the police seized the said articles under the 21/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 cover of panchanama and he signed the said confession and seizure Panchnama. That the accused is present in the Court hall is the same person who made the confession and led them to the seizure of the articles.

Ex.P-7 is confession cum seizure panchanama.

Mo-9: is blood stained pant.

Mo-10: is blood stained shirt.

Mo-11: is pair of chappals.

27.PW15/VRO deposed that he is working as V.R.O. Armoor, since the year, 2019 and know PW-14 who is R.I. That on 09-08- 2019. Police called him to Govindhpet x road and after going there they asked them to interrogate one person who was in the custody of the police. That on interrogation, the accused revealed his name and identity and also confessed the offence and the confession was recorded. Then the accused led them, and police to his house and then showed them one cover in his house. That on opening the said cover they found one pair of chappals and one blood stained pant and one blood stained shirt. That in their presence, police seized the said articles under the cover of panchanama and the said Panchnama was signed by him. That the accused present in the Court hall is the same person who made the confession and led them to the seizure of the articles.

28.PW16/Dr. deposed that he is working as Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Armoor, from the year, 2016 and he know LW-19/Dr.

22/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 Srilatha/Civil Assistant Surgeon/Government hospital, Armoor, who is her colleague. That on 02-08-2019 at about 9.30 a.m, she along with LW-19 conducted autopsy on the dead body of women and found following injuries.

 1) he found 2 x 1 lacerated over forehead.

 2) 3 x 1 lacerated injury over left eye lid.

 3) Contusion over labia majora with ruptured posterior vaginal wall communicating with peritoneum.

4) Intra cerebral hemorrhage.

The approximate time of death more than 24 hours before it was brought to the hospital. Based on Forensic Science

Laboratory report the cause of death to the best of my knowledge is due to Intra cerebral hemorrhage.

Ex.P-8: is the Post Mortem Report issued by her.

Ex.P-9: is the Forensic Laboratory report Dtd. 25-11-2019 pertaining to the Vicera collected by her.

Ex.P-10: is the Forensic Laboratory report Dtd. 13-02-2020 pertaining to the victim clothes and other materials( Mo.s{two pages).

Ex.P-11: is the final opinion report issued by Forensic

Laboratories.

29.PW17/Investigation Officer deposed that on 01-08-2019 at 1400 hours PW-1 came to police station and lodged a complaint basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.244/2019 for the offences under sections 302 and 376 of IPC and took up investigation. That during the course of investigation, he 23/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 recorded the statements of PW-1. That he proceeded to the scene of offence, and there he recorded the statements of Pws 2 to 4 and also took the photographs of the deceased and the scene with the help of LW-11/Sri Bharadwaja Ramesh Pawar.

That he secured PW-11 and LW-13/Thoparam Pradeep Kumar and in there presence conducted scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch map and also seized two sticks having blood stains, one wooden plank having blood stains, control earth, blood stained earth and one stick which was found inserted in the vagina of the deceased from the scene under the cover of panchanama and he also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of same panchas. That thereafter, he got shifted the dead body of the deceased with the help of PW-5 to Government hospital, Armoor, for Post mortem examination. That on 02-08-2019 during the Post

Mortem examination he again proceeded to the hospital, called

PW-11 and LW-13/Thoparam Pradeep Kumar and in their presence seized the stick removed from the vagina of the deceased and also clothes of the deceased under the cover of panchanama. That again he visited the scene of offence and collected the CCTV footages with the help of PW-6 from

Mahadev cosmetics and general stores and saved it in a pendrive and conducted the seizure panchanama in the presence of PW-12 and PW-13 and seized the said CCTV footage in the pen drive. That on seeing the CC TV footage he found that there is variation of four hours 25 minutes time due to 24/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 technical issue which is called as CMOS. That he obtained the certificate under section 65(b) from the owner of the Mahadev

Cosmetics. That he recorded the statements of Pws 7 to 9.

That PW-3 stated that they can identify the accused by seeing the CC TV footage and they state that he used to beg along with the deceased in the same area. That PW-9 also stated that on the date of incident he found accused coming from Priyanka wines to Rajaramesh complex and then boarded the auto and left towards Rajaram nagar in the early hours on the next day

I.e, around 3-00 a.m, to 3-30 a.m. That then he examined PW- 10 and on showing the CC TV footage, PW10 stated that he is painter by name Ameer who would often visit their wine shop.

That on 09-08-2019 on receipt of information he apprehended the accused at Govindhpet x road, Mamidipally. That he secured the panchas PW-14 and PW-15 and in their presence the accused confessed the offence and he recorded the confession of the accused in the presence of same panchas.

That the accused also confessed that he received the injuries when he was trying to jump into his house as the gate was locked after commission of the offence. Then the accused led them to his house at Rajaram nagar, and shown them light green colour shirt with mud and blood stains and one black colour pant and one brown colour chappal used in the commission of the offence. That he seized the above said articles under the cover of panchanama in the presence of same panchas and brought the accused to the police station, 25/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 and effected his arrest and produced him before the concerned

Court for judicial remand. That he also recorded the statement of LW-11/Sri Bharadwaja Ramesh Pawar. That the entire confession cum seizure was also photographed by LW-11/Sri

Bharadwaja Ramesh Pawar. That all the material objected seized by him were forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis and report and he got the final opinion from PW-16 in which she stated that cause of death is due to head injury.

That still the deceased was unidentified. That he deposited the case property in the Court and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

Ex.P-12: is first information report.

Ex.P-13: is eight positive photographs.

Ex.P-14: is another set of seven positive photographs.

Ex P-15: is certificate under section 65(b) given by PW-6.

Ex.P-16: is medical certificate of accused.

30. PW-17 was again recalled by the prosecution at the time of Arguments for further chief examination. He further deposed that he received two pen drives from PW-6/CCTv Technician.

One of the pendrive was for filing in the Court and another for their records. That they developed positive photos from the pictures taken through Ex-P2. That generally they keep copy of every document including the pen drives filed in the court record in their CD file.

26/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 Ex-P18 is positive photo developed from the pictures taken through CCTv camera.

31.If we see the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is based on circumstantial evidence. When the case is based on circumstantial evidence we have to follow the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as guided in AIR 1984 SC 1622. The present case rests on circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad

Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1984 SC 1622] has laid down 5 golden principles of circumstantial evidence which reads as follows:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved’. Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict, and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.

(2) The fact so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

27/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

These five golden principles, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.

32.Now let us test this case on the touchstone of these five golden principals. In the instant case PW1 to PW5 are merely the witnesses who saw the deceased woman with injuries and a stick inserted in her vagina, on the stairs on Raja Ramesh

Complex on the alleged date and reported the matter to police.

They never whispered anything against the accused. PW6 according to the prosecution is CCTV footage technician who checked the CCTV footage installed in Mahadev Cosmetics shop, downloaded a 30 second video into a pen drive and handed over to police. According to prosecution PWs7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 are the witnesses who allegedly run their respective businesses in and around Raja Ramesh Complex and they were 28/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 allegedly shown 30 second CCTV footage by police and identified the person in it as a beggar who used to beg in their locality and identified him as the accused. According to prosecution PW14 and 15 are confession and seizure panchas

PW16 is Doctor who conducted Autopsy and PW17 is investigating officer.

33.The prosecution, in the present case is banking on the circumstantial evidence against the accused, and its potential witness is PW9/security guard who is the last seen evidence.

The other witnesses have only seen the CCTV footage shown by police in which they found a person was moving along side the road smoking. Last seen together theory is one in which two people are 'seen together ' and one is found alive after an interval of time, and another is dead. Last seen theory may by itself be a poor kind of evidence establishing conviction on the same. The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the Accused and deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the

Accused being the author of crime becomes impossible. To support the last seen principal of the prosecution they got examined PW-9/security guard allegedly working at Anand

Shopping mall, his evidence shows that he is working as security guard at Anand shopping mall and he does his duty near the gate of the said mall. He further stated that the police shown him CCTV footage in which he also found one person was 29/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 moving. He went on to state that the accused was beggar in their locality and one night about two years back he found the accused coming from Priyanka wines towards the road side and at 3-00 a.m. found him returning by boarding an auto. This evidence of PW-9 from any angle do not fit into the pegion holes of the principle of last seen evidence. First of all he stated that he found the accused in the CCTV footage shown by police.

Secondly he did not give the date on which he found the accused coming from Priyanka wines. Thirdly he deposed that he found the accused coming to the other side of the road. This evidence of PW9, is no where connecting the accused to the crime nor connecting the accused with the Last seen theory because he never stated that he found the accused with the deceased when he last seen the accused. Such evidence of Pw- 9 does not prove that the accused was ever found even near

Raja Ramesh complex because Pw-9 never stated that the accused was found by him going into the complex. He simply stated that he found the accused coming from Priyanka wines shop and returning back at about 3-00 a.m., by boarding an auto. The person cannot be held guilty for coming and going on the road at any time in the night. Nor for purchasing the wine nor boarding the auto. Then with all its efforts the prosecution tried to link the chain of circumstances and produced PW-10 who is allegedly worker in the Priyanka wines. As per his evidence he found the accused in the CCTV footage and on 31- 07-2019 the accused last visited his shop and purchased the 30/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 liquor from his shop. This statement of PW-10 no where relates to the crime nor to the present case. As per evidence of PW-10 even if accused purchased liquor from his shop on 31-07-2019, that does not mean that he has committed the offence in the present case. Thirdly he only deposed that he found accused coming to the other side of the road and return at around 3:00AM by boarding an Auto. For argument sake even if his evidence is believed to be true that one night above two years ago he found the accused coming from Priyanka wines and returning at about 3-00 a.m, by boarding an auto, is no where connecting the accused to the crime nor connecting the accused with the Last seen theory because he never stated that he found the accused with the deceased when he last seen the accused. Such evidence of Pw-9 neither proves that the accused was ever found even near Raja Ramesh complex because Pw-9 never stated that the accused was found by him going into the complex. He simply stated that he found the accused coming from Priyanka wines shop and returning back at about 3-00 a.m., by boarding an auto. The person cannot be held guilty for coming and going on the road at any time in the night. Nor for purchasing the wine nor boarding the auto. Then with all its efforts the prosecution tried to link the chain of circumstances and produced PW-10 who is allegedly worker in the Priyanka wines. As per his evidence he found the accused in the CCTV footage and on 31-07-2019 the accused last visited his shop and purchased the liquor from his shop. This 31/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 statement of PW-10 no where relates the accused with the crime nor to the present case. As per evidence of PW-10 even if accused purchased liquor from his shop on 31-07-2019, that does not mean that he has committed the offence in the present case.

34. From the evidence produced by the prosecution, PW-1 is the Complainant. However, nothing has been whispered by him regarding the accused. He only stated that he found the dead body of the women in Raja Ramesh Complex, stairs and gave a complaint under Ex.P-1. Similar, is the evidence of PW-2 owner of the Raja Ramesh Complex, PW-3 is the Kirana shop owner in

Raja Ramesh Complex, PW-4 co owner of Raja Ramesh

Complex, PW-5 gold shop worker. PW6 is however only CCTV technician who allegedly downloaded the vedio from CCTV camera installed in Mahadev Cosmetic Shop. These witnesses never whispered in their evidence that either they have directly seen the accused committing the crime or stated that they have Last seen the accused with the deceased, or such facts which could incriminate the accused. In fact the above witnesses has whispered not uttered a word against the accused. They probably even do not even know the accused.

The above witnesses only stated regarding the deceased found by them in Raja Ramesh Complex stairs, and that a stick was found inserted in her vagina and that she was also found injuries on her body. As such, from the evidence of PWs 1 to 6 32/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 there are no incriminating evidence against the accused and there is no identity of the accused by them.

35.On perusal of the remaining evidence adduced by the prosecution it is seen that PW7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 are the witnesses who allegedly run their respective businesses in and around Raja Ramesh Complex and they were allegedly shown 30 second CCTV footage by police and identified the person in it as a beggar who used to beg in their locality and identified him as the accused. In fact there are different versions of evidence given by the above said witnesses. As per PW-7 he stated that in the CC TV footage he foundthe person in the CCTV footage was getting downstairs, PW8 stated that in CCTV footage he found one person walking along a shop, PW9 stated that in the

CCTV footage he found one person was moving around, PW10 stated that he found accused in it, PW12 stated that in CCTV footage he found one person getting down stairs and that person MAY be accused but however he was not sure as the footage was of night hours, PW-13 stated that he found one person was getting down stairs smoking but he has not seen the face of the person properly as the CCTV footage was night time and the footage was also of only one minute. These above said witnesses on whom the prosecution banks upon has given different versions of the said CC TV footage allegedly downloaded from Mahadev cosmetics shop in Raja Ramesh

Complex.

33/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020

36.Even to bank upon the said CCTV footage which is chain of evidence, as per the prosecution, it becomes incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the said link evidence has been downloaded and transferred by proper procedure of law. As per the evidence of investigating officer/PW17 he got downloaded the CCTV footage through PW6 and obtained section 65(B) from

PW3/Owner. For clarity and for proper understanding of the section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence act it is necessary to reproduce here section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act.

37.Section 65B - Admissibility of Electronic Records:

38.If we see the requirement of section 65(B) of the Indian

Evidence Act as stated above first of all the prosecution has to prove that the computer through which the vedio was downloaded by PW-6 in Ex.P-2/pen drive was the computer regularly used during the period on which the alleged video was captured. There is absolutely no proof by the prosecution to show that the said computer through which the contents in

Ex.P-2/pen drive which shows that a man was getting down stairs as per PWs-7 to PW-13 discussed above was being used regularly in Mahadev cosmetics. Nevertheless, neither Mahedev complex owner was examined by the prosecution nor it was proved by the prosecution that Ex.P-2 pen drive contents were extracted from the computer in Mahadev cosmetics by authorized and proper person. Astonishing fact is that PW17/IO deposed that he downloaded the CCTV footage from Mahadev 34/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 Cosmetics shop and its owner is PW3, but PW3 never whispered in his evidence that he runs Cosmetic Shop much less Mahadev

Cosmetics Shop. PW3 stated that he run a Kirana shop in RR complex. Therefore the prosecution could either prove the existence of Mahadev Cosmetic Shop, nor the alleged CCTV installed in it. Therefore, it is seriously doubtful that ExP2 and

ExP17 are the pen drives containing the CCTV footage on the alleged date of incident. There is a serious doubt on the prosecution story even regarding the existence of Mahadev cosmetics which is deposed by PWs 7 to 13 as discussed above and PW-17/IO because the Investigation officer/PW-17 in the cross examination admitted that it is not shown by him in the rough sketch/Ex.P-4 that he did not show Mahadev cosmetic shop in Ex.P-4. When he himself admitted that as per

Ex.P-4/rough sketch he did not show Mahadev cosmetics in it, there is no proof about the existence of such a shop in Raja

Ramesh Complex.

39.PW17/IO deposed that he obtained section 65(B) cerificate from PW3 owner. When PW3 never deposed that he owns and runs Mahadev Cosmetics, then the alleged section 65(B) certificate obtained by PW17 is nothing but a false story. As such obtaining such a certificate for non existing shop, non existing owner do not prove the ingredients of section 65(B).

Before proving Ex.P-2 or ExP17/pen drives it is necessary for the

prosecution to prove that the alleged camera which captured for a movement one person for 30 seconds will not prove either 35/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 the video belongs to the area near or around Raja Ramesh

Complex or prove that the person seen in said video is the accused.

40.PW-6 CCTV footage technician stated that there was a problem of CCTV camera channel No.3 allegedly installed in

Mahedev cosmetics, due to that it is showing time difference duetoerrorincomplementaryMetalOxide

Semiconductor(C.M.O.S) problem. A simple statement of PW-6 cannot become gospel truth unless it is proved with the concrete evidence. As stated earlier firstly there is no proof filed by the prosecution to show the existence of Mahadev cosmetics shop in Raja Ramesh Complex because there is admission of PW-17 in the cross examination that he did not show the said shop in the rough sketch/Ex.P-4. Secondly except bare evidence of PW-6 stating that he is technician in CCTV shop also do not stand as proof that PW-6 is a technician in the

CCTV shop. His I.D. card is not marked, his educational qualification are also not known to the police nor he stated

before the Court. There is no proof that he is actually working

in the CCTV shop as a technician and able person to handle computers and CCTV footage. Unless those points are proved even the evidence of PW-6 cannot be taken for granted that he is a CCTV footage technician to handle the above stuff. That means that the prosecution failed to prove section 65(B)(4)(C) of the Indian Evidence Act which says that the person should be able or responsible official to operate the relevant devise. As 36/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 discussed above neither prosecution proved that PW-6 is a CC

TV technician nor proved his qualification by filing any of its credentials to show that he is responsible persons to handle the computers nor filed even copy of ID card of PW-6 who is alleged to have been working as technician in a CCTV shop. In fact in his evidence he even did not depose in which CCTV shop he is working as a technician. Under such circumstances this Court cannot bank upon the evidence of PW-6 nor on Ex.P-2/pen drive or Ex.P-17/second pen drive.

41.As per section 65(B)(4) Indian Evidence Act the certificate should contain that the person handling the electronic record should identify it and describe the manner in which it was produced. He should also give particulars of the device involved in the production of that electronic record. And that the said certificate should have signed by a person occupying responsible official possession in relation to the operation of the relevant devise or the management of relevant activities. In the present case, PW-6/CCTV footage technician has not whispered in his evidence regarding the issuance of such certificate by him. Surprisingly neither PW3 who, as per prosecution is owner of Mahadev shop also never whispered about his issuance of section 65(B) certificate by him. When there is uncertainty of existence of such a cosmetic shop at the first instance as discussed above , Ex.P-15 got marked through

Investigation Officer alleging that it is section 65(B) certificate becomes worthless to ponder upon. This Ex.P-15 contains a 37/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 signature but it is never confronted even with PW-6, nor PW6 whispered that he signed any such document. And on perusal of the signature of evidence of PW-6 and Ex.P-15 the Court finds remarkable difference. As such, the alleged section 65(B) certificate even do not belong to PW-6 because in his chief examination also he did not whisper any such thing that he issued Ex.P-15. It is clear that prosecution failed to comply section 65(B) (4) of Indian Evidence Act.

42.On perusal of Ex.P-15 the court noticed that it was issued by one Ranga Prakash Kumar and the occupation he has shown in Ex.P-15 is technician. From this it is crystal clear that the person who issued Ex.P-15 is playing safe, not to get into trouble in future because he is neither technician nor a responsible person to handle electronic evidence. Person who issued it as technician does not become a CCTV technician or the software technician. Ironically he has mentioned in Ex.P-15 that the information contained in CD drive has been produced from the above computer system(DVR) during the period further which the computer was used regularly. As per evidence of PW6 he never whispered in his evidence about issuance of such certificate nor PW3 whispered about the same, then such certificate ie, ExP15 introduced by PW17/IO do not comply section 65 of Indian Evidence Act.

43.For argument sake if believed that PW-6 is a CCTV footage technician and also he has followed all the rules and section 38/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 65(B) word to word and downloaded CCTV footage in Ex.P-2/pen drive even then there is absolutely no proof that the person in

CCTV footage which is running into 30 seconds is the accused person. This Court has put the pen drive in the open Court to see the said video but he said pen drive/ExP2 was not working and the same evidence is recorded in the open Court. If we peruse further evidence of PW-6 it appears that he was recalled again on 18-03-2021 for further chief examination and that time when the Court asked PW-6 to put the pen drive in the computer system and show the CCTV footage he tried to open it but he found nothing in the pen drive and the same was recorded by this Court on 18-03-2021. The prosecution made all its efforts and again recalled PW-6 on 31-03-2021. On 31-03- 2021 PW-6 was further chief examination and stated that there is a virus in the pen drive in Ex.P-2 and if there is a virus, the files not open. He further stated that he gave two pen drives after shifting the CCTV footage materials in the pen drive in the presence of C.I of police Mr. Raghavender, then he got marked

Ex.P-17. He stated that it is copy of Ex.P-2/pen drive. If this second chief examination of PW-6 is correct that originally he downloaded CCTV footage into two pen drives why he did not depose the something when he was first examined on 24-02- 2021. That apart PWs 12 and 13 are examined by the prosecution as the seizure panchas who were present at the time of collecting the CCTV footage into the pen drive by PW-6.

Strangely even PWs 12 and 13 did not whisper in their evidence 39/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 that PW-6 downloaded the contents of CCTV into two pen drives or that he has downloaded the contents in one pen drive and madeacopyoftheother.PW-17Mr.

Raghavender/Investigation Officer who made all the efforts to get Pw-6 and downloaded the contents of CCTV footage never whispered in his evidence that PW-6 saved the CCTV into two pen drives or that he has downloaded in one pen drive or made a copy of other and handed over the same to PW-17. There is no witness among the entire evidence of prosecution except

PW-6 who stated that in his further chief examination conducted on subsequent date that he has given two pen drives to PW-7. Even PW-17/Investigation officer in his first chief examination on 02-03-2021 never whispered that PW-6 gave him two pen drives, it is only in his subsequent further chief examination on 31-03-2021, he stated that he received two pen drives from PW-6. This clearly goes to show that neither Ex.P-2 is genuine electronic evidence/pen drive nor Ex.P-17 is a genuine copy of Ex.P-2. PW-17 further admitted that when a

CCTV camera installed it covers every movement 24/7 but surprisingly deny Ex.P-2 nor Ex.P-17 shows any of such coverage except their video clip focused in it because the person who is walking around in the said video clip is not properly visible and one cannot recognize that he is the accused in Ex.P-2 and P-17. As such, video from any angle there is no pointer of guilt. Leave aside the crime the above evidence cannot prove the fact that on the alleged night the 40/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 accused was even found moving in the nearby area of Raja

Ramesh complex 30 seconds. The said video clip also do not contain the accused in it because the person who is walking around in the said video clip is not properly visible and one cannot recognize that he is the accused in Ex.P-2 and P-17. As such, video from any angle there is no pointer of guilt. Leave aside the crime the above evidence cannot prove the fact that on the alleged night the accused was even found moving in the nearby area of Raja Ramesh complex.

44.As per the evidence of PW-11 V.R.A, who was examined as scene, seizure, inquest panch shows that on 01-08-2019 he went to R.R. complex and found the deceased. As per his evidence one stick was taken out form the vagina of the deceased women and other stick was found on the ground. But strangely the evidence of Pw-17/Investigation officer shows that on 02-08-2019 he called PW-11 to the hospital and in his presence the stick was removed from the vagina under the cover of the panchanama. This contradictory evidence of PW-11 and Pw-17 nullifies his alleged seizure.

45.Very important thing in this case is that as per the evidence of PW-11 seizure panch/Material objects No.1 to 8 were seized by the police in his presence on 01-08-2019. As per the evidence of Pws 14 and 15 who are the confession and seizure panchas of the blood stained pant shirt and chappals of the accused, Mos9 to 11 were seized by the police in their 41/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 presence on 09-08-2019. As per Forensic Science Laboratory report marked as Ex.P-10 the above seized articles were received by Forensic Science Laboratory on 27-08-2019. Now the big question arises is, these articles from Mos 1 to 11 were in the custody of PW17 from 01-08-2019 till 26-08-2019.

Admittedly, Pw-17/Investigation officer did not deposit the said seized articles immediately into the Court nor hr forwarded them to Forensic Science Laboratory through Court. Mos 1 to 11 were forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory directly by

Pw-17(not through the Court) after almost one month taking the said articles in his custody. The chain of the custody is not proved by Pw-17. There is every likelihood of tampering the evidence in this one month period. Even then Ex.P-10 do not prove any facts which could incriminate the accused. The above said articles were seized by the police and sent to

Forensic Science Laboratory but the purpose of such exercise by the police is of no help to the prosecution. Because it does not relate either to the accused or to the crime in the present case.

46.All that the prosecution is relying is on the evidence of Pws 14 and 15 who are confession and seizure panchas. As per their evidence the accused confessed the offence in their presence. It is well known law that such confession before a police office is in admissible. In the present case also Pws 14 and 15 categorically stated that they found the accused in the custody of the police before eliciting alleged confession. As such, the said alleged confession is of no use against the 42/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 accused. As per their evidence and confession panchanama the accused confessed that he got some injuries while jumping over the gate into his house. First of all there is no necessity for the accused to jump over the gate to go into his own house.

Secondly, Pws 14 and 15 in cross examination admitted that the panchanama does not contain the house number or the name of the owner of the house. In fact in the cross examination Pws 14 and 15 admitted that their signatures on the panchanama on the first and second pages is to the left side of the document but not to the bottom of the contents of the panchanama. It clearly shows that the panchanama is prepared well in advance and then signatures of Pws 14 and 15 were taken on it. In all fairness Pws 14 and 15 admitted that now and then they go to the police station and at the request of the police put their signatures. These admissions are enough to show that the alleged confession and the alleged recovery is absolutely false.

Pw-17/Investigation officer in the cross examination admitted that he did not conduct test identification parade of the accused. If the Investigation officer has taken the pains to show the CCTV footage to Pw-7 and PW-13 why he did not take up the exercise of conducting test identification parade. Simply seeing the accused in the CCTV camera footage and giving to the

Court and deposing that accused was found in the CCTV footage does not render the accused as offender. As such, by taking up the large exercise of examining 17 witnesses. The prosecution is unable to prove the guilt of the accused for any 43/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 of the witnesses charged or for the any offence. Accordingly, point for determination is answered.

47.In the result, accused found NOT GUILTY for the offences punishable U/secs. 302 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly the accused is acquitted U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nizamabad, is directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required tobe detained in any other case except this case. Mos 1 to 11 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the Open Court, on this the 16th day of April, 2021.

Corrections carried out

Spl. Sessions Judge,

for trial of cases relating to Atrocities against women cum XI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION:-FOR DEFENCE:- PW-1:Sri Battu Ramesh/Complainant

- NONE -

PW-2:Sri Aljapoor Madhusudhan /witness/owner of complex.

PW-3:Sri Gopal/witness

PW-4:Sri Aljapoor Rajesh/witness/ owner of the complex.

PW-5:Sri Karthan Naga Bhushan/ witness shifted the deaddbody.

PW-6:Sri Rangu Praveen Kumar/ witness/technician collected the CC footage

PW-7:Sri Tirunagiri Ravi Kumar/ witness/suspected the accused

PW-8:Sri Bharadwaja Vimal Pawar/ witness/suspected the accused 44/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 PW-9:Sri Kavva Ramesh/Witness

PW-10:Sri Sindhikar Raghavender/ witness

PW-11:Smt Thudum Sunitha/Panch for scene cum seizure, Inquest and seizure of clothes of the deceased and stick.

PW-12:Sri. Rupaji Satish/Panch for collection of CCTV footages panchanama

PW-13:Sri. Nanda Kishore/pancha for collection of CCTV footages panchanama

PW-14:Sri. Thummala Gopal/panch for confession and recovery of accused

PW-15:Sri. Siddu Patel/Panch for confession and recovery of accused.

PW-16:Sri.Dr.AmruthRam Reddy/Conducted autopsy over the deadbody.

PW-17:Sri P. Raghavender/Investigation officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE:-

- Nil -

Ex.P-1-Complaint.

Ex.P-2- Pen drive.

Ex.P-3-Scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P-4- Rough sketch map.

Ex.P-5- Inquest panchanama.

Ex.P-6-Seizure panchanama of CCTV footage.

Ex.P-7- Confessioncumseizure panchanama.

Ex.P-8-Post Mortem Report.

Ex.P-9-Forensic Laboratory report, Dtd. 25-11-2019.

45/45 S.C. No. 01/2021 in PRC No. 03/2020 Ex.P-10- Forensic Science Laboratory report, Dtd. 13-02-2020.

Ex.P-11- Final opinion report.

Ex.P-12- First information report.

Ex.P-13- Eight positive photographs.

Ex.P-14- Another set of seven positive photographs.

Ex.P-15- Certificate under section 65(b) given by PW-6.

Ex.P-16- Medical certificate of the accused.

Ex.P-17- Pen drive.

Ex.P-18- Positive photo developed from the pictures taken through the CCTV camera.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED -

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

MO-1Dark blue colour blouse.-NIL-

MO-2Saree.

MO-3Petticoat.

MO-4Blood stained earth.

MO-5 Plain earth.

MO-6Blood stained stick.

MO-7Two blood stained thin sticks.

MO-8Another blood stained stick.

MO-9Blood stained pant.

MO-10Blood stained shirt.

MO-11Pair of chappals.

Corrections carried out

Spl. Sessions Judge, for trial of cases relating to Atrocities against women cum XI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-III ADDL.

DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD.

Present: Smt. Shoukath Jahan Siddique,

Judge, Family Court Cum-III Addl,

District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 30th day of October, 2023

OS No. 60 of 2018

Between:

1. Md. lmtiaz Hussain s/o Late Mohd. Arif Hussain, Muslim, aged about 39 years, Occu: Private employee, R/o H.No.1-10-5/1 Husnabad area, Armoor Town, Dist. Nizamabad.

2. Smt. Noorunnisa Begum D/o Late Mohd. Arif Hussain W/o Mohd. Ahmed, aged about 42 years, Muslim, Occu: Household, R/o H.No.1-10-5/1, Husnabad Area, Armoor Town, Nizamabad Dist.

3. Smt. Viquar Unnisa Begum D/o Late Mohd. Arif Hussain W/o Syed Wajid, Muslim, aged about 39 years, Occu: House hold, R/o H.No. 1-10-5/1 Husnabad Area, Armoor Town, Nizambad Dist.

4. Zahura Fathima D/o Late Mohd. Arif Hussain, Muslim, aged about 28 years, Occu: Household, R/o H.No.1-10-5/1, Husnabad Area, Armoor Town, Nizambad Dist.

…..Plaintiffs

1. Mohd. Althaf Hussain S/o Late Mohd. Osman, Muslim, aged about 61 years, Occu: Retired Mechanic, R/o H.No.8-7-609 First Floor, Dharugally, Husnabad area, Armoor Town, Dist. Nizambad.

2. Mohd. Hussain S/o Late Mohd. Osman, Muslim, aged about 55 years, Occu: Private employee, R/o H.No.8-2-156, Barkathpura Nizamabad.

3. Smt. Farahat Ummal Khair @ Farheen, S/o Smt. Farzana Begum, aged about 33 years, R/o H.No.10-5-32/2/4/A, Opp:I.K. Tailors, Mens (specialist) Ahmed Nagar, First lancer Masabtank, Hyderabad.

2

OS.No. 60 of 2018

4. Sibguthullah Khan @ Waseem, s/o Smt. Farzana Begum, aged about 33 years, H.No.1-10-17 Husnabad area, Armoor Town, Dist. Nizambad.

5. Md. Abdulllah Khan @ Musa S/o Smt. Farzana Begum, aged about 31 years, H.No.1-10-17, Husnabad area, Armoor Town, Dist. Nizambad.

6. Md. Shoaibullah Khan S/o Smt. Farzana Begum, aged about 30 years, H.No.1-10-17 Husnabad area, Armoor Town, Dist. Nizamabad.

7. Md. Saifullah Khan S/o Smt. Farhana Begum, aged about 28 years. R/o H.No:1-10-17 Husnabad area, Armoor Town, Dist. Nizamabad.

8. Smt. Rizwana Begum d/o Late Mohd. Osman, W/o Salam Choush, aged about 57 years, H.No.9-15-152, Ahmedpura colony, Nizamabad.

9. Smt. Shabana Begum D/o Late Mohd. Osman, aged about 52 years, Muslim, Occu:household, R/o H.No:1-8-40, Husnabad Area Armoor Town, Nizamabad Dist.

10. Mohd. Mazhar Hussain S/o Late Mohd. Nazeer Hussain, Muslim, aged about 59 years, Occu: Private employee, R/o H.No.23-1-953/2/A, First floor, Opp: Masjid-e-Babu's Salam, Near water tank, Mogulpura, Hyderabad.

11. Mohd. Munavvar Hussain @ Mujahid S/o Late Md. Nazeer Hussain, Muslim, aged about 51 years, Occu: Private employee, R/ o H.No. 8-1-398/PM (293), 2nd Floor, Opp; Ideal, International school, Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

12. Mohd. Masrath Hussain S/o Late Mohd. Nazeer Hussain, Muslim, aged about 45 years, Occu: Private employee R/o H.No.1- 8-41, Husnabad Area, Armoor Town, Nizamabad Dist.

13. Mohd. Masood Hussain S/o Late Mohd. Nazeer Hussain, Muslim, aged about 45 years, Occu: Private employee, R/o H.No.1-8-41, Husnabad Area, Armoor Town, Nizamabad Dist.

14. Mohd. Mudassar Hussain @ Shabaz S/o Late Mohd. Nazeer Hussain, Muslim, aged about 40 years, Occu: Private employee, R/ o H.No.1-8-41, Husnabad Area, Armour Town, Nizamabad Dist.

15. Mohd. Imran Hussain S/o Late Mohd. Nazeer Hussain, Muslim, aged about 40 years, Occu: Private employee, R/o H.No.1-8-41, Husnabad Area, Armoor Town, Nizamabad Dist.

3

OS.No. 60 of 2018

16. Mohd. Aijaz Hussain S/0 Late Mohd. Nazeer Hussain, Muslim, aged about 38 years, Occu: house hold, R/o H.No.1-8-41, Husnabad area, Armoor Town, Nizamabad Dist.

17. Smt. Anjum BegumW/o Mohd. Khaleel Khan, D/o Late Mohd. Nazeer Hussain, aged about 41 years, Muslim, H.No.16-9-749/93 (Chand Ali cottage) old Malakpet, Hyderabad.

18. Smt. Kausar Begum d/o Late Mohd. Nazeer Hussain, Muslim, aged about 37 years, Occu: House hold, R/o H.No.1-8-41, Husnabad area, Armoor Town, Dist. Nizamabad.

19. Smt. Shaheda Begum W/o Late Mohd. Akthar Hussain, Muslim, aged about 69 years, Occu: Household, R/o H.No. 1-1-69/1, Shastri Nagar, Armoor Town, Nizamabad Dist.

20. Smt. Nousheen W/o Mohd. Zakir Hussain D/o late Mohd. Akthar Hussain, aged about 26 years, Occu: private employee, R/ o H.No. 1-1-69/1, Shastri Nagar, Armoor Town, Nizamabad Dist.

21. Mohd. Umar Hussain S/o Late Mohd. Zakir Hussain, aged about 7 years, minor U/G of his mother Smt. Nousheen W/o Mohd. Zakir Hussain, D/o late Mohd. Akthar Hussain, aged about 26 years, Occu: private employee, R/o H.No. 1-1-69/1, Shastri Nagar, Armoor Town, Nizamabad Dist.

22. Mohd. Maaz Hussain S/o Late Mohd. Zakir Hussain, aged about 6 years, minor U/G of his mother Smt. Nousheen W/o Mohd. Zakir Hussain, D/o late Mohd. Akthar Hussain. aged 26 years, Occu: private employee, R/o H.No.1-1-69/1 Shastri Nagar, Armoor Town, Nizamabad Dist.

23. Mohd. Anus Hussain S/o Late Mohd. Zakir Hussain, aged about 4 years, minor U/G of his mother Smt. Nousheen W/o Mohd. Zakir D/o late Mohd. Akthar Hussain, aged 26 years, Occu: private employee, R/o H.No.1-1-69/1, Shastri Nagar, Armoor Town, Nizamabad Dist.

24. Mohd. Shakeer Hussain S/o Late Mohd. Akthar Hussain, aged about 38 years, Muslim, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.1-1-69/1, Shastri Nagar, Armoor Town, Nizamabad Dist.

25. Smt. Nikath SuIthana D/o Late Mohd. Akthar Hussain W/o Raziuddin Ahmed Siddiqui @ Riyaz, Muslim, aged about 59 years, Occu: Retired Fire officer, R/o H.No.1-1-773, B/4, Rakasipet, Bodhan Town, Dist. Nizambad.

26. Smt. Tabassum Sulthana d/o Late Mohd. Akthar Hussain, muslim, aged about 52 years, Occu: House hold, R/o H.No.G-40 4

OS.No. 60 of 2018

T.S. Genco Colony, Near DAV High school, Sri Sailam Dam West Nagar, Karnool Dist.

27. Smt. Tanveer Sulthana D/o Late Mohd Akthar Hussain W/o Nisaruddin, aged about 42 years, Muslim, Occu: Household, R/o H.No.5-149/2 Subashnagar, Near Makloor G.P., Makloor (v) and Mandal, Nizamabad Dist.

28. Smt. Asma Sulthana D/o Late Mohd. Akthar Hussain, W/o Badruddin, Muslim, aged about 32 years, Occu: House hold, R/o H.No.1-1-61/1A near Z.P.H.S. School Tadkole road, Banswada Town, Kamareddy Dist.

29. Mohd. Abdul Atheeq S/o Late Mohd. Abdul Rauf, Muslim, aged about 44 years, Occu: Electrician and Auto Driver, R/o H.No.1-6- 30 Near Bharath Supplying Company Phulong Street, Nizamabad.

30. Mohd. Abdul Rafeeq S/o Late Mohd. Abdul Rauf, Muslim, aged about 39 years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.1-7-14 Near Bharath Supplying company, Phulong Area, Nizamabad.

31. Mohd. Abdul Toufeeq S/o Late Mohd. Rauf, aged about 35 years, Muslim, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.9-20 Gousiya Masjid, Auto Nagar, Nizamabad.

32. Smt. Nusrath Rauf W/o Mohd. Sarvar Pasha, D/o Late Mohd. Abdul Rauf, aged about 42 years, Muslim, R/o H.No.3-37 Nadpally village, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad Dist.

33. Mohd. Abdul Raheem S/o Late Mohd. Abdul Rauf, Muslim, aged about 35 years, Occu: Auto Driver, R/o H.No.7-14-450 Islampura Khoja colony, Nizamabad Dist.

34. Miss Nuzhath Begum D/o Late Mohd. Abdul Rouf, aged about 31 years, Muslim, Occu: House hold, R/o H.No.7-14-450 Islampura, Khoja colony, Nizamabad Dist.

35. Miss. Nudrath Begum D/o Late Mohd. Abdul Rauf, aged about 28 years, Occu: Household, R/o H.No.7-14-450 Islampura, Khoja colony, Nizamabad.

36. Mohd. Abdul Gouse S/o Late Mohd. Abdul Rauf, aged about 27 years, Muslim, R/o H.No.7-14-450 Islampura, Khoja colony, Nizamabad Dist.

37. Smt. lshrath Fathima W/o Syed Pasha, D/o Mohd. Abdul Rauf, aged about 39 years, Occu: House hold, R/o Atkali (v) Biloli Taluka Nanded Dist.

5

OS.No. 60 of 2018

38. Mohd. Farthullah Khan S/o Late Rukiya Begum, Late Sibguth ullah Khan, aged about 64 years, Muslim, Occu: Retired STO, R/o H.No.1-10-17, Husnabad area Armoor Town, Dist. Nizambaad.

39. Smt. Puthli Bee W/o Mohd. Osman Khan D/o Mohd. Husssain, Muslim, aged about 70 years, Occu: House hold, R/o H.No.2-3-32, Chote Kasabgally, Subash road, Kamareddy.

..Defendants

This Suit is coming on 26-09-2023 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri V. Sangam, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri G.V. Rangareddy, Advocate for D1, D2 and D4 to D9 and Defendants remained exparte and after having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking the relief of partition of suit property of the land Sy.No. 401/62 admeasuring 2 acres 0.15 guntas or 11495 Sq.yards consisting 38 plots open place and roads vide lay out proceedings No.20822/89-D8 dated 21-10-1990, situated at Armoor, Nizamabad dist.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are that the father of the plaintiffs by name Mohd. Arif Hussain and the father of the defendant Nos. 1,2,8,9 and Farzana Begum by name Mohd.

Osman and the defendants Nos. 3 to 7 are children of the Smt.

Farzana Begum and the father of the defendants Nos. 10 to 18 by name Mohd. Nazeer Hussain and the father of the defendant Nos.

19 to 28 by name Mohd. Akthar Hussain and the father of the 6

OS.No. 60 of 2018

defendant No.29 to 37 by name Mohd. Abdul Rauf were own brothers. The mother of the defendant No. 38 Smt. Rukhiya

Begum and one Smt. Mahmooda Begum were own sisters of said

Mohd. Arif Hussain, Mohd. Osman, Mohd. Nazeer Hussain, Mohd.

Akthar Hussain and Mohd. Abdul Rauf, the defendant No.39 is half blood sister of them. The said Mohd. Arif Hussain, Mohd. Osman,

Mohd. Nazeer Hussain, Mohd. Akthar Hussain, Mohd. Abdul Rauf and Smt. Mahamooda Begum, Smt. Rukhiya Begum were children of Mohd. Hussain s/o Mohd. Ismail R/o Armor and Smt. Zahurabee.

The defendant No.39 is daughter of said Mohd. Hussain and Smt.

Kulsumbee. The said Mohd. Hussain died in 1966, Smt. Zahurabee died in the year 1984, Smt. Kulsum bee died in 1974, left behind them to Mohd. Arif Hussain, Mohd. Osman, Mohd. Nazeer Hussain,

Mohd. Akthar Hussain, Mohd. Abdul Rauf, Smt. Mahamooda, Smt.

Rukhiya Begum. The family pedigree is enclosed herewith this plaint. That during the life time of Mohd. Hussain s/o Mohd. Ismail r/o Armoor, he purchased the land Sy.No. 401/62 admeasuring 2 acres 0.15 guntas situated at Armoor and Sy.No.1314/4 admeasuring 1 acre 0.16 guntas situated at Armoor, kept in the name of Mohd. Osman as he was being elder son of him, which known said all sons and daughters of Mohd. Hussain, but unfortunately said Mohd. Hussain died in 1966, during his life time orally he allotted the above said land Sy.No.406/62 7

OS.No. 60 of 2018

admeasuring 2 acres 0.15 guntas of Armoor and Sy.No. 1314 admeasuring 1 acre 0.16 guntas of Armoor to his sons Mohd.

Osman, Mohd. Nazeer, Mohd. Arif Hussain and Mohd. Abdul Rauf and also allotted House Property H.No.1-10-5/1 of Armoor and land property 1 Acre 0.15 gunta of land situated at Armoor to his another son Akthar Hussain and also allotted house property

H.No.1-10-12 of Armoor to his daughter Smt. Mohamoda Bee and

H.No.1-10-11 and 1-10-17 and Land 0.22½ gts of Govindpet (v) of

Armoor Mandal to another daughter Smt. Rukhiya Begum and also allotted house property H.No.1-10-13 of Armoor to his second wife's daughter Smt. Puthli bee, accordingly the said respective persons got transfer the said property in their names respectively, in which no any property dispute between said sons and daughters of Mohd. Hussain. That the said Mohd. Osman, Mohd

Nazeer Hussain, Mohd. Arif Hussain and Mohd Abdul Rauf, enjoyed their allotted property jointly, they got as Mohd. Osman 0.23 gunta, Mohd. Nazeer Hussain 0.24 gunta, Mohd. Arif Hussain 0.24 gunta and Mohd Abdul Rauf 0.24 (gunta in Sy.No.401/62 of

Armor and Sy.No.1314 admeasuring 1 Acre 0.16 gunta of Armoor jointly sold away and got equal shares in the sale consideration later the said four brothers Mohd. Osman, Mohd. Nazeer Hussain,

Mohd. Arif Hussain and Mohd. Abdul Rauf made lay out the said land Sy.No.401/62 admeasuring 2 Acres 0.15 gunta of Armoor 8

OS.No. 60 of 2018

jointly and made joint application to G.P. Armoor and the Director of town and country planning, Government or Andhra Pradesh

Hyderabad Date:18-10-1989, the G.P Armoor also forwarded the said layout plan to the D.T and C.P Hyderabad Date 06-12-1898 which approved on 18-10-1991, G.P.L.P No. 60/1991 file No.20822 /1989, which joint layout of above said four brothers, but unfortunately Mohd. Nazeer Hussain died in 1996, later the said three brothers Mohd. Osman, Mohd. Arif Hussain, Mohd. Abdul

Rauf and legal heir of late Mohd. Nazeer Hussain his wife Smt.

Kthatteeja Begum, jointly sold away one plot No.9 in Sy.No.

401/62, L.P. No. 60/91 file No.208822/89/D8 of Armoor to one

Vittal S/o Namdev, R/o Armoor, by executing registered sale deed

No.1081/1999, Date 10-05-1999 Sub Registration Office Armoor.

That later unfortunately said Mohd. Osman died in 2000, after his death his legal heirs are sons and daughters are there the defendants No.1,2,8,9 and his daughter Smt. Farzana Begum, started to make dispute and started to claim the entire said land

Sy.No.401/62 admeasuring 2 Acres 0.15 guntas of Armoor, stated that the entire land belongs to their father Mohd. Osman and they are only entitled and filed application before Mandal Revenue officer, Armoor, requested to mutate the said land in their name, then after enquiry the Mandal Revenue officer Armoor issued a

Memo No.B4/3020/2002, date 07-04-2003, refused to mutate the 9

OS.No. 60 of 2018

said land in their name, then they filed revision petition

No.02/21/2004 before Hon'ble Joint Collector Nizamabad, after perused the record and counter of the legal heirs of Mohd. Nazeer

Hussain and Mohd. Arif Hussain and Mohd. Abdul Rauf to dismissed the said revision petition date:10-08-2005.

That after death of Mohd. Osman, the defendant Nos.

1,2,8,9 and Farzana Begum raised voice with regard to claim of entire land of Sy.No.401/62 admeasuring 2 Acres 0.15 guntas of

Armoor, meanwhile in 2002 Mohd. Abdul Raul was died, after his death some of his legal heirs wife, sons there are wife

Smt. Jaibunnisa Begum, sons defendants 29,30 and 31 (Mohd. Abdul Atheeq, Mohd. Abdul Rafiq, Mohd. Abdul Toufiq) filed suit for partition 0.S.20/2003, Dated 07-02-2003 before

Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge at Armoor against defendant

Nos.1,2,8,9 and Smt. Farzama Begum, and defendant Nos.10 to 18 and father of the plaintiffs Mohd. Arif Hussain, in which the legal heirs of Mohd. Osman filed written statement, denied the contents of the plaint and stated their father Mohd. Osman purchased the said land Sy.No.401/62 of Armoor 2 Acres 0.15 guntas and it cannot be partitioned and suit liable to be dismissed, but no any counter claim, to claim the said land for ownership and possession, the defendant Nos.10 to 18 become exparte, said Mohd. Arif Hussain filed written statement, he died 10

OS.No. 60 of 2018

in 2016 then the plaintiffs brought on record as defendant Nos.23 to 26 in O.S.No.20/2003, they also claim for partition, but on the defective pleadings, non joiner of necessary parties, as the plaintiffs not made the parties to legal heirs of Smt. Rukhiya

Begum, who is defendant No.37 herein, the legal heir of Mohd.

Hussain by name Smt. Puthli Bee (Defendant No.39 Who is daughter of 2nd wife of Mohd. Hussain) and also not made party to

Akthar Hussain who died in 2007, his legal heirs are the defendant Nos.19 to 28 and tere is no concept of joint family property in Muslim community and claim of the plaintiffs in said suit mentioned as joint family property of the plaintiffs and the defendants, in which on said grounds, the suit of the plaintiffs

O.S.20/2003 was dismissed on 13-07-2018. That the said suit is

not decided on merits, on technical grounds, the suit was dismissed, so far the claim of the plaintiffs and the defendants are not decided, hence the plaintiffs herein have no other go to file this suit for partition and separate possession of the said land

Sy.No.401/62 admeasuring 2 Acres, 0.15 guntas situated at

Armoor, which the father of the plaintiffs by name Mohd. Arif

Hussain and father of the defendant Nos.1,2,8,9 and Farzana

Begum by name Mohd. Osman and father of the defendant

Nos.10 to 18 by name Mohd. Nazeer Hussain and father of the defendant Nos. 29 to 37 by name Mohd. Abdul Rauf made layout 11

OS.No. 60 of 2018

plots, drawn plan and got approved under G.P Proceedings,

G.P.L.P No.60/1991, file No.20822/1989, which joint layout of above said persons, which the said land referred as suit schedule property. That the suit schedule property is joint possession of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 9, defendant Nos.10 to 18, defendant Nos.29 to 37, which tenants in common of plaintiffs and said defendant Nos.1 to 18 and 29 to 37. For the other defendant Nos.19 to 28 the grandfather of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 18 and 29 to 37 already allotted the property as stated above and they are not entitled any share in suit schedule property. That the suit schedule property acquired by the grandfather of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 18 and 29 to 37 by name Mohd. Hussian and during his life time he allotted to the father of the plaintiffs, by name Mohd. Arif Hussain, father of the defendant Nos.1,2,8,9 and Farzana Begum, and father of the defendant Nos.10 to 18 by name Mohd. Nazeer Hussain and father of the defendant Nos.29 to 37 each 0.23 gunta, 0.24 gunta, 0.24 gunta and 0.24 gunta in Sy.No.401/62 of Armoor, which jointly made layout and drawn plan and got approved and out of said approved layout they got sold one plot No.9 in said approved layout plots jointly, but unfortunately the father of the defendant

Nos.1,2,8,9 and Smt. Farzana Begum by name Mohd. Osman died in the year 2000, then the defendant Nos.1,2,8,9 and Farzana 12

OS.No. 60 of 2018

Begum started to make dispute, file case before MR0 Armoor,

Revision petition before Joint Collector, Nizamabad and tried to dispose the suit property, but so far not succeeded, due to pendentilite of O.S. 20/2003 before Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge

Court Armoor, which filed by the defendant Nos.29 to 31 and their mother Smt. Jaibunnisa Begum, but on technical grounds, the said suit was dismissed on date 13-07-2018, since then the defendant

Nos.1 to 9 trying to disposes the suit property and searching the purchases, through they do not have any right, still the record shows that the suit property is joint possession of the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 1 to 18 and 29 to 37, but their efforts to dispose the suit property and threatening to disposal the suit property is continuing, since disposal of the above said suit

O.S.20/2003 date.13-07-2018, they started efforts to dispose the

suit property. That Mohd. Akthar who is son of Mohd Hussain died on 16-01-2007, the defendant Nos.19 to 28 are his legal heirs, the said Mohd. Hussain who is father of Mohd. Akthar Hussain already allotted him house property H.No.1-10-5/1 of Armoor and land property 1 Acre 0.15 guntas of Armoor to him, the said landed property which the said Mohd. Akthar Hussain sold away his life time, hence he or his legal heirs defendant Nos.19 to 28 have no any right in suit schedule property.

13

OS.No. 60 of 2018

That Smt. Mahamooda Begum died on 18-05-2005, she has no issues, her father Mohd. Hussain allotted her a House property

H.No.1-10-12 situated at Armoor and land 0.22½ guntas of

Govindpet, Armoor. That Smt. Rukhiya Begum died in 1996, her father Mohd. Hussain allotted her a house property H.No.1-10-17 of Armoor, and land 0.22½ gunts of Govindpet, Armoor, her legal heir is defendant No. 38, have no any right in suit schedule property. That Smt. Puthli Bee who is daughter of second wife of

Mohd. Hussain by name Smt. Kulsum Bee, allotted her house property H.No.1-10-13 of Armoor the said Smt. Puthli Bee is party to the suit as defendant No.39 and she has no any right in suit schedule property. That the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos.1 to 9, the defendant Nos.10 to 18 and defendant Nos. 29 to 37 are only entitled the partition of suit schedule property as the plaintiff No.

1 to 4 are entitled 1/4th share in suit schedule property as being legal heirs of Mohd. Arif Hussain. The defendants No.1 to 9 are entitled ¼ share in suit schedule property as being legal heirs of

Mohd. Osman. The defendant Nos.10 to 18 are entitled ¼ share in suit schedule property as being legal heirs of Mohd. Nazeer

Hussain. The defendant Nos.29 to 37 are entitled ¼share in suit schedule property being legal heirs of Mohd. Abdul Raul as the suit schedule property is tenants in common of the said plaintiff

Nos.1 to 4, defendant Nos.1 to 9, defendant Nos.10 to 18 and the 14

OS.No. 60 of 2018

defendant Nos.29 to 37, which liable for partition and allotting the shares. That after disposal of suit O.S.20/2003 on the file of the

Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge Armoor, Date 13-07-2018, the

defendant Nos.1 to 9 are trying to sell the suit schedule property by misrepresenting to third persons to knockout the entire suit property, without allotting and demarcating the shares of the plaintiff and other defendants. Hence the suit.

3.Common written statement filed by D1 to D9 interilia contending that these defendants submit that it is a fact that whatever mentioned about the legal heirs of Mohd. Hussain S/o

Mohd. Ismail is true, but it is not true to say that Mohd. Hussain has purchased the S.No.401/62 measuring 2 acres 15 guntas situated at Armor, but it is purchased by Mohd. Osman S/o

Hussain out of his own income and have been in possession and these defendants 1 to 9 are his legal heirs and Mohd. Osman's name is mentioned as Pattedar and possessor in the Pahanies and it is not a Mathruka Property of Mohd. Hussain and regarding other properties there is no dispute and not related to this suit.

These defendants submit that the S.No.401/62 is not the

Mathruka property of Mohd. Hussain as such the division of the same in the name of four brothers does not arise. The entries in the Pahanies are only manipulated with the help of Patwari and not on the basis of any order from Mandal Revenue Officer. The 15

OS.No. 60 of 2018

land is fallow and mentioning of anybody's name in the cultivation cannot be treated as possessors or much less so owners. The alleged layout is not released and no open land is gifted to the

Gram Panchayath Armoor as such it does not carry any legal value. The registered sale deed in respect of plot No.9 is only manipulated and the alleged purchaser Vittal S/o Namdev never claimed any right therein. These defendants submit that the father of the plaintiff herein i.e. Mohd. Arif Hussain approached the MRO Armoor with a request to mutate his name along with the names of Mohd. Rauf, Mohd. Nazeer and legal heirs of Mohd.

Osman, but the Mandal Revenue Office issued a Memo in File

No.B4/8020/2002 dated-/3/2003 advising him to get the dispute settled in a court of law. In view of this memo only the Joint

Collector Nizamabad did not permit to mutate their names as legal heirs of Mohd. Osman and not any other ground of Mohd.

Osman’s right over the suit property.

That these defendants further submit that Mohd. Osman was the owner and possessor of S.No.401/62 situated at Armoor and after his death his legal heirs claimed right over the said land.

So the legal heirs of Mohd. Abdul Rauf has filed the suit

OS.No.20/2003 before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge at Armoor for

partition of the suit land who are the defendant Nos.29 to 31 in this suit. The father of plaintiffs Mohd. Arif Hussain was a party in 16

OS.No. 60 of 2018

OS.No.20/2003 and filed written statement. He deposed as DW1

in that suit and during pendecny of suit he died and that his legal heirs, the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 herein came on record as defendant

Nos.23 to 26 in that suit. The said suit is dismissed as the plaintiffs and the defendants supporting plaintiffs as they failed to prove the suit land is Mathruka property, besides the other reasons for not impleading the necessary parties and the plaintiffs preferred appeal bearing A.S.No.46 of 2018. The plaintiffs herein are defendant Nos.23 to 26 in OS.No.20/2003 and concocted the matter and led evidence and on the basis of evidence of both the parties the Hon'ble Court dismissed the suit OS.No.20/2003 and the aggrieved preferred appeal in A.S.No.46/2018. It is the

Hon'ble Appellate Court to decide the matter. That the plaintiff

cannot file any suit. These defendants further submit that the

Hon'ble Court of Senior Civil Judge Armoor has already decided

about the suit land after considering of both parties in

OS.No.20/2003 and it is for the appellate court to consider the

matter and not any court of original jurisdiction under law. These defendants further submit that the suit property is the self-acquired property of Mohd. Osman as such they are only entitled to inherit it. Either the plaintiffs or other defendants have no interest therein and not entitled to share therein. These defendants submit that they are exclusive owners of the suit 17

OS.No. 60 of 2018

property and entitled to deal with it as they like and neither the plaintiffs nor the other defendants have any right to claim in the suit property. These defendants further submit that they claimed that the suit property is of Mohd. Osman and as his legal heirs they are entitled to inherit the property in the year of his death.

They further submit that the subject matter of suit is already decided in O.S.No.20/2003 and the aggrieved party preferred appeal in AS.No.46/2018 and in view of that the present suit is not maintainable. Hence the suit.

4.Common written statement filed by D32 to D35 and D37 interilia contending that the contents of paras of the plaint are true and correct hence admitted. That the Suit Property was divided in (4) Brothers as described in para No.3, in equal 4 shares and their names also recorded in Revenue Record, and the

Revenue Record which is submitted is also admitted being true and four brothers intended to sale out the property by making

Plots as such in 1991 the layout plan was also sanctioned in the name of four brothers. That the contents of Para No.9 are also true and correct hence admitted and defendant No.29 to 37 are entitled to ¼ share as per record maintained by the Revenue

Authority and the answering defendants are enjoying possession of suit property jointly. That the defendant Nos.29 to 31 are the step brothers to the answering defendants, because father of 18

OS.No. 60 of 2018

defendant Nos.29 to 37, was Mohd. Abdul Rauf & Mohd. Rauf have got (first wife: Zaibunissa Begum) from whom defendant

Nos.29 to 31 are born and Mohd. Abdul Rauf have got (Second

Wife: Zakira Begum) from whom the defendant Nos.32 to 37 are born, as such the defendant No.29 to 37 are entitled to 1/4th share jointly in their share. It is also submitted taht the defendant

Nos.29 to 31 will get ½ share in the share which will fell upto ¼ th to the defendant Nos.29 to 37 and ½ share will be given to defendant No.32 to 37, it is agreed by defendant Nos.29 to 37, they joint memo was filed in the previous suit, O.S.No.20/2003, as such there is no dispute in between defendant Nos.29 to 37.

Therefore the suit of the plaintiff will be decreed and defendant

Nos.29 to 37 may be given ¼th share jointly. Hence the suit.

5.Remaining all defendants were set exparte and reamined exparte.

6.After having gone through the rival contention of the both parties following issues are framed:

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for

preliminary decree of partition of plaint schedule property

and allotment of 1/4th share as prayed for ?

2) Whether the suit claim is time barred ?

19

OS.No. 60 of 2018

3) Whether the suit claim is hit by resjudicata

U/s.11 of CPC in view of disposal of suit in OS No.20 of

2003 ?

4 ) To what relief ?

7.At the time of trial, the plaintiff No.1 himself examined as

PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 which are Ex.A1 Certified

Copy of Judgment in O.S.No.20 of 2003 on the file of Hon'ble

Senior Civil Judge, Armoor dated: 13-07-2018, Ex.A2 Certified

Copy of Decree in O.S.No.20 of 2003 on the file of Hon'ble Senior

Civil Judge, Armoor, dated: 13-07-2018, Ex.A3 Intimation letter

dated 4.09.2018, Ex.A4 Attested copy of case No.D2/21/2004 on

the file of Joint Collector at Nizamabad, Ex.A5 Certified copy of

Dot.No.1081/1989 dated 05-05-1989, Ex.A6 Pahani for the year 1985-86, Ex.A7 Pahani for the year 1986-87, Ex.A8 Pahani for the year 1980-81, Ex.A9 Pahani for the year 1994-95, Ex.A10 Pahani for the year 1998-99, Ex.A11 Pahani for the year 2004-05, Ex.A12

Pahani for the year 2010-11, Ex.A13 Pahani for the year 2012-13,

Ex.A14 Pahani for the year 2014-15, Ex.A15 Pahani for the year 2015-16. After the closure of plaintiffs evidence the defendant

No.2 examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 which is

Certified copy of Death certificate of defendant No.1.

8.After conclusion of trial, arguments of both side heard.

20

OS.No. 60 of 2018

9.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiffs is entitled to reliefs sought for?

10. ISSUE NO. 3 :

“Whether the suit claim is hit by resjudicata U/s.11

of CPC in view of disposal of suit in OS No.20 of 2003 ?”

In view of the adjudication basically on the maintainability of the suit, this issue has been framed and therefore this issue has been taken up first for discussion before going for other issues. As per the contention of plaintiff/PW1 earlier a suit in OS

No.20 of 2003 was filed by Smt. Zayebunnisa Begum and her sons who are legal heirs of Mohd. Abdul Rauf and sons of D29,

D30, D31 filed suit for partition before Senior Civil Judge Court,

Armoor. That the said suit was dismissed on the ground (a) defective pleadings, (b) non joinder of necessary parties, (c) non joinder of legal heirs of Smt. Rukhiya Begum/D37, (d) non joinder of legal heirs of Mohd. Hussain/D39, (e) non joinder of legal heirs of D19 to D28, (f) there is no concept of joint family property in

Muslim law, (g) the claim in O.S No.20 of 2003 was based on joint family property which is not valid concept of Muslim Law and also finally there was no counter claim to the said suit filed by the defendants.

21

OS.No. 60 of 2018

11.To support the said evidence of PW1 he relied on Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2 which is certified copy of judgment and decree in OS No.20 of 2003. The court has perused the said documents and found that Senior Civil Judge Court in OS No.20 of 2003 has elaborately discussed about the evidence and documents of the plaintiffs filed therein and dismissed the suit. Hence, this evidence of PW1 is utterly false that the said suit was dismissed only on technical grounds. Even for a moment if the contention of platiniff is presumed to be true that the suit in OS No.20/2003 was dismissed on technical grounds, why did the plaintiff not preferred appeal against said judgment challenging it that the facts and evidences are not discussed by Sub Court and that it has dismissed the suit on Technical grounds. The plaintiff did not challenge the said judgment, sat comfortably relaxed on the passing of said judgment and filed this fresh suit with same relief which by itself not maintainable.

In the cross-examination PW1 he admitted that after the dismissal of OS No.20 of 2003 they filed the present suit with respect of same relief of partition and with respect to same property. In further cross-examination he denied that the OS

No.20 of 2003 and the present suit is filed between the same parties, but in his earlier cross-examination he has categorically admitted that plaintiff No.1 to 4 (of the present suit) have been 22

OS.No. 60 of 2018

added as legal heirs of defendant No.16 in OS No.20 of 2003. On perusal of Ex.A1 it is observed that all the defendants are legal heirs of sons of Mohd. Hussain who was allegedly the original owner of suit schedule property. The above admission of PW1 that all the plaintiffs herein are added in OS No.20 of 2003 as legal heirs in D16 and the fact that all the defendants as per Ex.A1 appears to be legal heirs of sons of Mohd. Hussain proves the said fact that the suit in OS No.20 of 2003 have been filed between the same parties. It is already admitted fact by PW1 that suit in OS

No.20 of 2003 and the present suit is filed for the same property and the same relief of partition.

12.On perusal of Ex.A1 the court observed that in OS No.20 of 2003 the Sub Court has elaborately discussed about the documents filed by the plaintiffs therein and dismissed the suit on several other grounds besides the ground that there is no concept of joint family property of Joint family in Muslim law, non joinder of necessary parties and mis joinder of necessary parties. In view of the issue between parties already decided in the previous case in OS No.20 of 2003 which is also filed for partition, the present case with the same prayer between the same parties for the same property and same relief is not maintainable and hit by resjudicata. Accordingly, issue is answered.

23

OS.No. 60 of 2018

13. ISSUE NO.2

“Whether the suit claim is time barred?”

As per the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 the suit in

OS No.20 of 2003 was filed for partition with respect to same

property in the year 2003 and dismissed on 13.07.2018. Instead of preferring an appeal against the Judgment in OS No.20 of 2003 the present suit is filed again with the same pleadings seeking the relief of partition between the same parties. It is observed from the admission of PW1 in the cross-examination that the cause of action in OS No.20 of 2003 is shown as 25.11.2002 and PW1 further admitted that the cause of action in the present suit is shown as 13.07.2018. He further admitted that the cause of action which was originally started as per PW1 was on 25.11.2002 for filing OS No.20 of 2003 and the cause of action filed in the present suit is almost after 15 years. As per the provisions of the

Limitation Act the period of limitation for filing of partition suit is 12 years and the above admission of PW1 shows it is almost 15 years from the date of cause of action in OS No.20 of 2003 to the present suit, because prayer in OS No.20 of 2003is also for partition.

In the present suit the plaintiff represented that the cause of action in the present suit arose on 13.07.2018 when the suit in 24

OS.No. 60 of 2018

OS No.20 of 2003 is dismissed. Such a representation of plaintiff

in the suit is dauntless that having knowledge that OS No.20 of 2003 filed for partition was dismissed, the plaintiffs filed the present suit with simple reason that because OS No.20 of 2003 dismissed cause of action arose to file the present suit. It is really an absurd reason for the plaintiffs to show such a cause of action in the present suit. Since PW1 in the cross-examination admitted that cause of action in OS No.20 of 2003 is shown as 25.11.2002, the present suit filing after more than 15 years is undoubtedly liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation. Accordingly, issue is answered.

14. ISSUE NO.1:

“Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for preliminary

decree of property of plaint schedule property for

allotment of 1/4 th share as prayed for ?”

To prove this issue plaintiff pressed into service his evidence as PW1. PW1 deposed that their father by name Mohd.

Arif Hussain and the father of the defendants No.1,2,8,9 and

Farzana Begum by name Mohd. Osman and the Defendants No.3 to 7 are children of the Smt. Farzana Begum and the father of the

Defendants No.10 to 18 by name Mohd. Nazeer Hussain and the father of the defendants No.19 to 28 by name Mohd. Akthar 25

OS.No. 60 of 2018

Hussain and the father of the defendants No.29 to 37 by name

Mohd. Abdul Rauf were own brothers. The mother of the defendant No.38 Smt. Rukhiya Begum and one Smt. Mahmooda

Begum were own sisters of said Mohd. Arif Hussain, Mohd.

Osman, Mohd. Nazeer Hussain, Mohd. Akthar Hussain and Mohd.

Abdul Rauf, the defendant No. 39 is half blood sister of them. He further deposed that the said Mohd. Arif Hussain, Mohd. Osman,

Mohd. Nazeer Hussain, Mohd. Akthar Hussain, Mohd. Abdul Rauf and Smt. Mahamooda Begum, Smt. Rukhiya Begum, were children of Mohd. Hussain, S/o Mohd. Ismail, R/o Armoor and Smt.

Zahurabee. The defendant No. 39 is daughter of said Mohd.

Hussain and Smt. Kulsum Bee. The said Mohd. Hussain died in 1966 Snit. Zahurabee died in the year 1984, Smt. Kulsum Bee died in 1974, left behind them to Mohd. Arif Hussain, Mohd. Abdul

Rauf, Smt. Mahamooda, Smt. Rukhiya Begum. He further deposed that the family pedigree is enclosed with their plaint. That during the life time of Mohd. Hussain, S/o. Mohd. Ismail, R/o Armoor, he purchased the land Sy.No.401/62 admeasuring 2 acres 0.15 guntas, situated at Armoor and Sy.No.1314/4 admeasuring 1 acre 0.16 guntas situated at Armoor, kept in the name of Mohd.

Osman as he was being elder son of him which known said all sons and daughters of Mohd. Hussain, but unfortunately said

Mohd. Hussain died in 1966, during his life time orally he allotted 26

OS.No. 60 of 2018

the above said land Sy.No.406/62 admeasuring 2 acres 0.15 guntas of Armoor and Sy.No.1314 admeasuring 1 acre 0.16 guntas of Armoor to his sons Mohd. Osman, Mohd. Nazeer, Mohd.

Arif Hussain (their father), and Mohd. Abdul Rauf and also allotted

House Property H.No.1-10-5/1 of Armoor and land property 1 acre 0.15 guntas of land situated at Armoor to his another son Akthar

Hussain and also allotted House Property H.No.1-10-12 of Armoor to his daughter Smt. Mohamooda Bee and H.No.1-10-11 and 1-10-17 and Land 0.22½ gts. of Govindpet (v) of Armoor Mandal to another daughter Smt. Rukhiya Begum and also allotted house property H.No.1-10-13 of Armoor to his second wife's daughter

Smt. Puthli Bee, accordingly the said respective persons got transfer the said property in their names respectively, in which no any property dispute between said sons and daughters of Mohd.

Hussain. He further deposed that the said Mohd. Osman, Mohd.

Nazeer Hussain, Mohd. Arif Hussain and Mohd. Abdul Rauf, enjoyed their allotted property jointly, they got as Mohd. Osman 0.23 guntas, Mohd. Nazeer Hussain 0.24 guntas, Mohd. Arif

Hussain 0.24 guntas and Mohd. Abdul Rauf 0.24 guntas in

Sy.No.401/63 of Armoor and Sy.No.1314 admeasuring 1 Acre 0.16 guntas of Armoor jointly sold away and got equal shares in the sale consideration later the said four brothers Mohd. Osman,

Mohd. Nazeer Hussain, Mohd. Arif Hussain and Mohd. Abdul Rauf 27

OS.No. 60 of 2018

made layout the said land Sy.No.401/62 admeasuring 2 acres 0.15 guntas of Armoor jointly and made joint application to G.P.

Armoor and the Director of town and country planning,

Government of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad, dt:18-10-1989, the

G.P. Armoor also forwarded the said layout plan to the D.T. and

C.P. Hyderabad, dated: 06.12.1989 which appeared on 18-10- 1991, G.P.L.P.No.60/1991 File No.20822/1989, which joint layout of above said four brothers, but unfortunately Mohd. Nazeer

Hussain died in 1996, later the said three brothers Mohd. Osman,

Arif Hussain (Their Father), Abdul Rauf and legal heirs of late

Mohd. Nazeer Hussain his wife Smt. Khatteeja Begum, jointly sold away one plot No.9 in Sy.No.401/62, L.P.No.60/91, file

No.208822/89/D8 of Armoor to one Vittal S/o. Namdev, R/o

Armoor, by executing Registered Sale Deed, Document

No.1081/1999, dated:10-05-1999 Sub-Registrar Office, Armoor.

He further deposed that later unfortunately said Mohd. Osman died in 2000, after his death his legal heirs are sons and daughters are there, the defendants No. 1, 2, 8, 9 and his daughter Smt. Farzana Begum, started to make dispute and started to claim the entire said land Sy.No.401/62 admeasuring 2 acres 0.15 guntas of Armoor, stated that the entire land belongs to their father Mohd. Osman and they are only entitled and filed application before Mandal Revenue Officer, Armoor, requested to 28

OS.No. 60 of 2018

mutate the said land in their name, then after enquiry the Mandal

Revenue Officer, Armoor issued a Memo No.B4/3020/2002,

dated:07-04-2003, refused to mutate the said land in their name,

then they filed revision petition No.D2/21/2004 before Hon'ble

Joint Collector, Nizamabad, after perused the record and Counter of the legl heirs of Mohd. Nazeer Hussain and Mohd. Arif Hussain (Their Father), and Mohd. Abdul Rauf, to dismissed the said revision petition, dated:10-08-2005.

He further deposed that after death of Mohd. Osman, the defendants No. 1,2,8,9 and Farzana Begum raised voice with regard to claim of entire land of Sy.No.401/62 admeasuring 2 acres 0.15 guntas of Armoor, meanwhile in 2002 Mohd. Abdul

Rauf was died, after his death some of his legal heirs wife, sons they are wife Smt. Jaibunnisa Begum, sons defendants No. 29, 30 and 31 (Mohd Abdul Atheeq, Modh. Abdul Rafiq, Mohd. Abdul

Toufiq) filed suit for partition O.S.No.20/2003, dated:07-02-2003

before Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge at Armoor against defendants

No. 1,2,8,9 and Smt. Farzana Begum and defendants No. 10 to 18 and their father Mohd. Arif Hussain, in which the legal heirs of

Mohd. Osman filed written statement, denied the contents of the plaint and stated their father Mohd. Osman purchased the said land Sy.No.401/62 of Armoor 2 acres 0.15 guntas and it cannot be partitioned and suit liable to be dismissed, but no any counter 29

OS.No. 60 of 2018

claim, to claim the said land for ownership and possession, the defendants No. 10 to 18 become ex-parte, said Mohd. Arif Hussain filed written statement, he died in 2016 then thy brought on record as defendants No.23 to 26 in O.S.No.20/2003, they also claim for partition, but on the defective pleadings, non-joinder of necessary parties, as they are not made the parties to legal heirs of Smt. Rukhiya Begum, who is defendant No. 37 herein, the legal heirs of Mohd. Hussain by name Smt. Puthli Bee (defendant No.39 who is daughter of 2nd wife of Mohd. Hussain) and also not made party to Akthar Hussain who died in 2007, his legal heirs are the defendants No.19 to 28 and there is no concept of joint family property in Muslim community and their claim in said suit mentioned as their joint family property, in which on the said grounds, their suit O.S.No.20/2003 was dismissed on 13-07-2018.

He further deposed that the said suit is not decided on merits, on technical grounds, the suit was dismissed, so far their claim is not decided, hence they are herein have no other got to file this suit for partition and separate possession of the said land

Sy.No.401/62 admeasuring 2 Acres 0.15 guntas, situated at

Armoor, which their father by name Mohd. Arif Hussain and father of the defendants No. 1, 2, 8, 9 and Farzana Begum by name

Mohd. Osman and father of the defendants No.10 to 18 by name

Mohd. Nazeer Hussain and father of the defendants No.29 to 37 30

OS.No. 60 of 2018

by name Mohd. Abdul Rauf made layout plots, drawn plan and got approved under G.P. proceedings, G.P.L.P.No.60/1991, File

No.20822/1989 which joint layout of above said persons, which said land herein after referred as suit schedule property. He further deposed that the suit schedule property is joint possession of theirs and the defendants No.1 to 9, defendants No. 10 to 18, defendants No.29 to 37, which tenants in common of them and said defendants No.1 to 18 and 29 to 37. For the other defendants

No.19 to 28 their grandfather and defendants No.1 to 18 and 29 to 37 already allotted the property as stated above and they are not entitled any share in suit schedule property. He further deposed that the suit schedule property acquired by their grandfather and defendants No.1 to 18 and 29 to 37 by name

Mohd. Hussain and during his life time he allotted to them, by name Mohd. Arif Hussain, father of the defendants No.1, 2, 8, 9 and Farzana Begum and father of the defendants No.10 to 18 by name Mohd. Nazeer Hussain and father of the defendants No.29 to 37 each 0.23 gunta, 0.24 gunta, 0.24 gunta and 0.24 gunta in

Sy.No.401/62 of Armoor, which jointly made layout and drawn plan and got approved and out of said approved layout they got sold one plot No.9 in said approved layout plots jointly, but unfortunately the father of the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9 and Smt.

Farzana Begum by name Mohd. Osman died in 2000, then the 31

OS.No. 60 of 2018

defendants No.1, 2 8, 9 and Farzana Begum started to make dispute, file case before M.R.O., Armoor, Revision Petition before

Joint Collector, Nizamabad and tried to dispose the suit property, but so far not succeeded, due to pendentlite of O.S.No.20/2003

before Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Armoor which filed by the

Defendants No. 29 to 31 and their mother Smt. Jaibunnisa Begum, but on technical grounds, the said suit was dismissed on date 13-07-2018, since then the defendants No.1 to 9 trying to disposes the suit property and searching the purchases, though they do not have any right, still the record shows that the suit property is joint possession of theirs and the defendants No. 1 to 18 and 29 to 37, but their efforts to dispose the suit property and threatening to dispose the suit property is continuing, since dispose of above said suit O.S.No.20/2003 date 13-07-2018, they started efforts to dispose the suit property.

He further deposed that Mohd. Akthar who is son of Mohd.

Hussain died on 16-01-2007, the defendants No.19 to 28 are his legal heirs, the said Mohd. Hussain who is father of Mohd. Akthar

Hussain already allotted him house property H.No.1-10-5/1 of

Armoor and land property 1 Acre 0.15 guntas of Armoor to him, the said landed property which the said Mohd. Akthar Hussain sold away his life time, hence he or his legal heirs defendants

No.19 to 28 have no any right in suit schedule property. He 32

OS.No. 60 of 2018

further deposed that Smt. Mahamooda Begum died on 18-05- 2005, she has no issues, her father Mohd. Hussain allotted her a

House Property H.No.1-10-12 situated at Armoor and land 0.22½ guntas of Govindpet, Armoor. That Smt. Rukhiya Begum died in 1996, her father Mohd. Hussain allotted her a house property

H.No.1-10-11 and 1-10-17 of Armoor and land 0.22½ guntas of

Govindpet, Armoor and her legal heir is defendant No. 38, have no any right in suit schedule property. He further deposed that

Smt. Puthli Bee who is daughter of second wife of Mohd. Hussain by name Smt. Kulsum Bee, allotted her house property H.No.

1-10-13 of Armoor the said Smt. Puthli Bee is party to the suit as defendant No.39 and she has no any right in suit schedule property.

He further deposed that they, the defendants No.1 to 9, the defendants No.10 to 18 and defendants No.29 to 37 are only entitled the partition of suit schedule property as they are entitled 1/4th share in suit schedule property as being legal heirs of Mohd.

Arif Hussain. The defendants No. 1 to 9 are entitled ¼ share in suit schedule property as being legal heirs of Mohd. Osman, the defendants No. 10 to 18 are entitled ¼ share in suit schedule property as being legal heirs of Mohd. Nazeer Hussain. The defendants No.29 to 37 are entitled ¼ share in suit schedule property as being legal heirs of Mohd. Abdul Rauf as the suit 33

OS.No. 60 of 2018

schedule property is tenants in common of theirs, defendants No.

1 to 9, defendants No.10 to 18 and defendants No.29 to 37, which liable for partition and allotting the shares. He further deposed that after disposal of suit O.S.No.20/2003 on the file of the

Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge Armoor, dated:13-07-2018, the

defendants No.1 to 9 are trying to sell the suit schedule property by misrepresenting to third persons to knockout the entire suit property, without allotting and demarcating the their shares and other defendants, which not proper and against the law, the suit property is tenants in common. He got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 which are Ex.A1 Certified Copy of Judgment in O.S.No.20 of 2003 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Armoor dated:

13-07-2018, Ex.A2 Certified Copy of Decree in O.S.No.20 of 2003 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Armoor, dated:

13-07-2018, Ex.A3 Intimation letter dated 4.09.2018, Ex.A4

Attested copy of case No.D2/21/2004 on the file of Joint Collector at Nizamabad, Ex.A5 Certified copy of Dot.No.1081/1989 dated 05-05-1989, Ex.A6 Pahani for the year 1985-86, Ex.A7 Pahani for the year 1986-87, Ex.A8 Pahani for the year 1980-81, Ex.A9

Pahani for the year 1994-95, Ex.A10 Pahani for the year 1998-99,

Ex.A11 Pahani for the year 2004-05, Ex.A12 Pahani for the year 2010-11, Ex.A13 Pahani for the year 2012-13, Ex.A14 Pahani for the year 2014-15, Ex.A15 Pahani for the year 2015-16.

34

OS.No. 60 of 2018

15.After the closure of plaintiffs evidence in support of their case, the defendant No.1 to 9 examined DW1. DW1 deposed that his father Mohd. Osman S/o Mohd. Hussain purchased the suit land bearing Sy.No.401/62 measuring 2 acres 15 guntas from

Mohd. Abdul Samad out of his own earnings and became the owner and possessor of the land and entries are made in pahanies. He further deposed that the legal heirs of Mohd. Abdul

Rauf S/o Mohd. Hussain. the defendant Nos.29, 30, 31 in this suit filed the suit for Partition OS.No.20/2003 before the Hon'ble

Senior Civil Judge Court Armoor. The father of the plaintiff Areef

Hussain who was defendant No.16 in that suit gave evidence as

DW1 supporting the case of defendants Nos.29,30,31 and after that evidence he died and his legal heirs the plaintiffs in this suit

OS.No.60/2018 came on record as defendants Nos. 23, 24, 25 and

26 and after evidence of both parties the suit O.S.No.20 of 2003 is dismissed on 13/7/2018 stating that the suit scheduled property is not Mathruka Property and the Judgment and Decree passed in

OS.No.20/2003 are filed by the plaintiffs and marked as Ex.A1, A2

respectively. He further deposed that when the earlier suit filed in respect of the suit land is dismissed on 13/7/2018 no further suit for partition in respect of the suit land cannot be filed and not maintainable.

35

OS.No. 60 of 2018

He further deposed that in OS.No.20/2003 the cause of action is shown as 25/11/2002 and the suit is dismissed on 13/7/2018. In this suit OS.No.60/2018 the cause of action is shown as 13/7/2018 and there is a delay of 15 years between two suits and beyond limitation. He further deposed that his brother defendant No.1 Mohd. Altaf Hussain died on 14/5/2021 and all relations including the plaintiffs attended the funeral ceremony, but plaintiffs have not filed any petition to implead his legal heirs.

So he reported the matter to the Hon'ble Court and submitted the

Death Certificate and the Legal Heirs Certificate of his wife and two sons. The plaintiffs herein filed the IA.No.725/2022 to bring the legal heirs of defendant No.1 on record which is dismissed.

The legal heirs of defendant No.1 are necessary parties and failure to bring them on record as defendants abates the suit and not maintainable. He got marked Ex.B1 which is Certified copy of death certificate of defendant No.1.

16.The court would NOT like to go in to the discussion of the documents filed by the plaintiff for the reason that the documents filed by the plaintiff has been sufficiently discussed by the Senior

Civil Judge in OS No.20 of 2003 which is filed for the same relief

for the same property and between the same parties or legal heirs. Therefore, any discussion on the documents would cause prejudice to the parties and would form conflicting decision.

36

OS.No. 60 of 2018

Instead of preferring an appeal against judgment in OS No.20 of 2003 the plaintiff has once again filed the suit with the same relief of partition of same property between the same parties.

17.That apart there are several mistakes in the pleadings and evidence of PW1. In para No.2 of his chief-examination PW1 stated that Mohd. Hussain has purchased land in Sy.No.401/62 admeasuring Ac.2-15 gts., and land in Sy.No.1314/4 admeasuring

Ac.1-16 gts., both at Armoor. Whereas in the same paragraph he contradicted his own statement and he changed the Sy.Nos. as

Sy.No.406/62 admeasuirg Ac.2-15 gts., and Sy.No.1314 admeasuring Ac.1-16 gts. This clearly shows that in the same chief-examination affidavit he gave contradictory survey numbers about the land allegedly purchased by Mohd. Hussain i.e., in the starting of the paragraph he stated that Mohd. Hussain purchased 401/62 and later he changed the said Sy.No. to 406/62. Similarly in starting paragraph of para No.2 he stated that Mohd. Hussain purchased land in Sy.No.1314/4 and later changed the Sy.No. to 1314. Again in the prayer portion he referred the suit property as

Sy.No.401/62 without seeking any relief against Sy.No.1314.

18.The contents of para No.3 chief-examination of PW1 shows that allegedly Mohd. Osman got 0.23 guntas, Nazeer Hussain got 0.24 guntas, Arif Hussain got 0.24 guntas and Abdul Rauf got 0.24 guntas and that they jointly sold away and got equal shares in 37

OS.No. 60 of 2018

sale consideration. In the same breath PW1 stated that the said 4 brothers made layout of the said land jointly and made joint application to G.P., Armoor. When the land is allegedly jointly sold by 4 brothers and got equal shares in sale consideration, how does this layout application arises after the land is allegedly sold away jointly. The pleading and chief-examination itself is contradictory in nature.

19.In further chief-examination PW1 stated that the suit property is in joint possession of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 9 and defendant No.10 to 18, defendant No.29 to 37. When PW1 has stated that the above 4 brothers have jointly sold away and got equal shares in sale consideration then this contention of plaintiff that the suit property is in joint possession does not arise.

20.In the evidence of PW1 the plaintiff referred about H.No.

1-10-5/1 allotted to Akhtar Hussain, H.No.1-10-12 allotted to

Mahmooda Begum, H.No.1-10-11 and H.No.1-10-17 allotted to

Ruqiya Begum, H.No.1-10-13 allotted to Puthli bee. When the present suit is filed for partition of the suit property the plaintiff has not at all deposed how, when and who has allotted the above alleged shares to the above referred parties. Even presuming the evidence of PW1 to be true then as per the above evidence of

PW1 the parties have already been allotted their shares then the question of filing of this suit does not arise. That apart when there 38

OS.No. 60 of 2018

are above house properties allegedly allotted to the parties as deposed by PW1 why did he not include the said properties in the present suit schedule, because when a partition suit is filed it should include all the properties which are allegedly liable for partition. The plaintiff cannot seek piece meal partition.

21.As per his own contention OS No.20 of 2003 was dismissed on the point of defective pleadings, but it is admission of PW1 in the cross-examination that OS No.20 of 2003 was filed with the respect to same property and same relief of partition. Further if

Ex.A1 is observed the said suit was not only dismissed on the point of defective pleading but also the documents filed by the parties were discussed by the court in the said suit and along with other points OS No.20 of 2003 was dismissed on contest. Once the suit is dismissed on contest the party cannot choose to file another suit by developing his own notion that it was dismissed on some other point but not on merits. The fact admitted by PW1 that the parties in OS No.20 of 2003 are the same who are in the present case or their L.Rs itself reflects that OS No.20 of 2003 was dismissed on contest. Hence, the present case is absolutely not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

22.Even in the present case it is observed from the record that

I.A No.725 of 2022 was dismissed by this court. The same is also admitted by PW1 in the cross-examination that after the dismissal 39

OS.No. 60 of 2018

of I.A No.725 of 2022 to bring the L.Rs of D1 on record, the plaintiff has not taken any steps. Record shows that there is a petition in I.A No.725 of 2022 filed by the plaintiffs to bring the legal heirs of defendant No.1 on record. The said I.A was dismissed on 15.12.2022. After the dismissal of said I.A there are no steps taken by the plaintiff to go in appeal or revision against the order in I.A No.725 of 2022 and therefore orders in I.A No.725 of 2022 became absolute. That means after the death of defendant No.1 his legal heirs were not brought on record by the plaintiffs. Amusingly, the present suit is filed for partition and the legal heirs of the deceased party are not brought on record. On this count also the present suit is liable to be dismissed for non- joinder of necessary parties.

23.As already discussed above the fact that OS No.20 of 2003 has been disposed off on merits acts as such rejudicata is applicable to the present case. For all the foregoing discussion we hold that the plaintiff failed to prove the issue. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

24.As per the docket the arguments of the plaintiff counsel were heard on 13.09.2023. Arguments of D1 counsel was heard on 26.09.2023 and the matter was posted for judgment on 30.10.2023. Written arguments along with the case laws was filed by the plaintiff on 04.10.2023 and case laws were filed by the 40

OS.No. 60 of 2018

defendant on 28.10.2022. It is vehemently argued by defendant counsel that the written arguments of the plaintiff cannot be taken on record since they are filed after closure of the arguments on 26.09.2023 and after the matter is posted for judgment. Applying the same analogy even the citations filed by the defendant on 28.10.2022 cannot be taken on record. As such neither the case laws filed by the plaintiff are discussed nor the case laws filed by the defendant because both of them have filed the written arguments and case laws after the matter was closed on 26.09.2023 after hearing the arguments of the both sides, and one party do not know about the case laws filed by the other.

Hence, none of the case laws are discussed.

25. ISSUE NO.4 “To what relief ?”

In the result, the suit is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in this open Court on this 30th day of

October, 2023.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-III ADJ, Nizamabad. Corrections carried out:- 41

OS.No. 60 of 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For defendant:

PW1: Mohd. Imtiaz Hussain DW1:Mohd Hussain @ Baba

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: -

Ex.A1 Certified Copy of Judgment in O.S.No.20 of 2003 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Armoor dated: 13-07-2018 Ex.A2 Certified Copy of Decree in O.S.No.20 of 2003 on the file of

Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Armoor, dated: 13-07-2018

Ex.A3 Intimation letter dated 4.09.2018 Ex.A4 Attested copy of case No.D2/21/2004 on the file of Joint Collector at Nizamabad Ex.A5 Certified copy of Dot.No.1081/1989 dated 05-05-1989 Ex.A6 Pahani for the year 1985-86 Ex.A7 Pahani for the year 1986-87 Ex.A8 Pahani for the year 1980-81 Ex.A9 Pahani for the year 1994-95 Ex.A10 Pahani for the year 1998-99 Ex.A11 Pahani for the year 2004-05 Ex.A12 Pahani for the year 2010-11 Ex.A13 Pahani for the year 2012-13 Ex.A14 Pahani for the year 2014-15 Ex.A15 Pahani for the year 2015-16.

For Defendant:

Ex.B1: Certified copy of death certificate of defendant No.1.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-III ADJ, Nizamabad. Corrections carried out:-