Smt.Shruti Doota

1 of 15

O.S. No. 175 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM­

 ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT VIKARABAD, 

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Present : Smt.Shruti Doota, I Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Vikarabad, Vikarabad District. 

Dated this the 30 th day of January, 2024

O.S. No. 175 of 2018

Between:

1.Pancha Lingala Ashok, S/o. Late Chandraiah, Age about 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.10­124, S.N.Colony, Ramchandrapuram, Sanga Reddy District.

...Plaintiff

AND

1.Munnur Nagamani, W/o. Narsimulu Aged about 45 years, Occ:Agriculture, H.No.2­80/22.

2.Munnur Kamalamma W/o. Anjaiah, Age about 64 years, Occ: household, H.No.3­84.

3.Baigari Mahinder S/o. Antaiah, Age about 37 years, Occ: Agriculture, H.No.3­772.

4.Parigi Laxmaiah, S/o. Veeraiah, Age about 69 years, Occ: Agriculture, H.Nod.2­53.

5.Vijay Kumar, S/o. Balaiah, Age about 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, H.No.3­22.

All are R/o. Panchalingala Village, Marpally mandal,Vikarabad District.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 30.01.2024 in the presence of Sri. Subash Chander Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendant

Nos.1 to 5 are set ex­parte; and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

2 of 15

O.S. No. 175 of 2018

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.This suit is filed by the Plaintiff, praying this Court to pass decree and judgment in his favour against the defendants.

The Brief facts of the case are:

2.It is submitted by the plaintiff that his father Munur Chandraiah and his paternal uncle late Munur Narsimulu held joint patta of the agriculture land in

Sy.No.123/A Admeasuring Ac.1.21 gts, Sy.No.123/AA admeasuring Ac.3.04 guts, Sy.No.124/A admeasuring Ac.0.31 gts, Sy.No.124/AA admeasuring

Ac.0.31 gts, Sy.No.124/E admeasuringAc.1.21 gts and Sy.No.125/A/2 admeasuring Ac.2.04 gts which total Ac.8.11 gts situated at Panchalingala

Village, Marpally Mandal, Vikarabad District.

3.It is further submitted that Munur Chandraiah and his brother Munur

Narsimulu have divided the said lands in equal portion and accordingly the share of plaintiff father i.e., Munur Chandraiah false to an extent of Ac.4.05 gts. During life time of the Munur Chandraiah he transferred the land to an extent of Ac.0.21 gts in Sy.No.125/A/2 and remaining land which he hold is

Ac.2.04 gts in Sy.No.123/A and 123/AA, admeasuring Ac.2.04 gts,

Sy.No.124/A & Sy.No.124/AA admeasuring Ac. 1.00 and Sy.No.125/A/2 admeasuring Ac.0.21 gts which in total falls to an extent of AC.3.25 gts which is hereby referred to as “Suit Scheduled Property”.

4.It is further submitted that Munur Chandraiah had obtained Rs.8,000/­ as loan from P.A.C.S.Marpally against his own lands in Sy.No.124/E to an extent of Ac.0.21 gts , in Sy.No.123/E to an extent of Ac.1.22 gts and 3 of 15

O.S. No. 175 of 2018

Sy.No.124/AA/2 to the extent of Ac.0.19 gts which in total comes to Ac.2.28 gts, by depositing the title deeds with P.A.C.S. Panchalingala Village Bank thereby executing the registered deed vide Document No.1963/1982 dated 16.06.1982.

5.It is further submitted that Munur Chandraiah along with his family migrated to Hyderabad for livelihood giving the suit scheduled property to one

M.Kamalamma which is defendant No.2 herein on oral Batai basis. Later on

Munur Chandraiah (died) at his village leaving plaintiff herein to succeed the suit lands by way of inheritance, and to prove the same plaintiff stated in pleadings that he has filed old ration card copy and death copy of Munur

Chandraiah issued by the concerned G.P.Secretary.

6.Further it is submitted that plaintiff in order to transfer the suit scheduled property in his name, he approached the bank to get release the title deed deposited by his father Munur Chandraiah and accordingly got it released vide registered release deed document No.1254/2018 dated 17.02.2018.

7.It is submitted that when he approached the Revenue Authorities to file the succession application, it came to his notice that an extent of Ac.0.21 gts in

Sy.No.124/A/2 and 124/B is transferred by one M. Nagamani who is defendant No.1 herein to one B.Mahinder who is Defendant No.3 vide registered sale deed No.5876/2015 dated 14.10.2015.

Which is hereby referred as A Schedule Property

8.Further the lands in Sy.No.123/AA/2 to an extent of Ac.0.31 gts,

Sy.No.124/AA/2/1 extent of 0.16 gts, Sy.No.124/AA/1 to an extent of Ac.0.15 gts and Sy.No.124/E/1, extent of Ac.0.31 gts total an extent of Ac.2.13 gts to us transferred by M. Kamalamma deft.No.2 in favour of one P.Laxmaiah who is 4 of 15

O.S. No. 175 of 2018

defendant No.4 vide registered sale deed No.4753/2014 dated 17.11.2024 and in addition to that defendant no.4 illegally grab Ac.0.15 gts in Sy.No.124, which in total defendant no.4 is in possessor of Ac.2.28 gts.

Which is referred as B­Schedule Property

9.It is further submitted that then plaintiff after verifying the EC went to the Tahsildar office he came to know that in Sy.No.123/E, extent of 0.16 gts and in Sy.No.125/OO extent of Ac.0.21 gts and in both admeasuring in total

Ac.0.37 gts situated at Panchalingala village, Marpally Mandal, Vikarabad

District and out of which the land sy.no.123/E, extent of 0.16 gts herein after called the –C­Schedule property.

10.It is further submitted that the defendants have acquired the property and are in possession illegally by using the forged documents. Also the sale deeds to defendant no.3 and 4 are void illegal and sham and are not binding on the plaintiffover the suit schedule property as neither he nor his father joined in the said execution. Hence the suit.

11.On the other hand, after issuance of summons, Defendant Nos.1, 3 to 5 called present and on behalf of them, vakalath filed by the counsel. As the counsel failed to file written statement within the stipulated period, Defendants 1,3 to 5 were set ex­parte on 12.03.2019. Publication issued against

Defendant No.2 though held sufficient, no representation made by Defendant no.2. Hence the Defendant no.2 was set ex­parte on 30.08.2019.

12.Plaintiff himself has examined as PW.1 and got Ex.A1 to A15 marked. To support his evidence plaintiff has examined K.Laxmi as PW2.

13. Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and perused the record.

14. Now the point for determination is:­

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief has prayed for:

5 of 15

O.S. No. 175 of 2018

15.It is contended by the plaintiff that his father Munur Chandraiah and his paternal uncle late Munur Narsimulu held joint patta of the agriculture land in Sy.No.123/A Admeasuring Ac.1.21 gts, Sy.No.123/AA admeasuring

Ac.3.04 guts, Sy.No.124/A admeasuring Ac.0.31 gts, Sy.No.124/AA admeasuring Ac.0.31 gts, Sy.No.124/E admeasuring Ac.1.21 gts and

Sy.No.125/A/2 admeasuring Ac.2.04 gts which total Ac.8.11 gts situated at

Panchalingala Village, Marpally Mandal, Vikarabad District.

16.It is contended by the plaintiff that Munur Chandraiah and his brother

Munur Narsimulu have divided the said lands in equal portion and accordingly the share of plaintiff father i.e., Munur Chandraiah falls to an extent of Ac.4.05 gts. During life time of the Munur Chandraiah he transferred the land to an extent of Ac.0.21 gts in Sy.No.125/A/2 and remaining land which he hold is

Ac.2.04 gts in Sy.No.123/A and 123/AA, admeasuring Ac.2.04 gts,

Sy.No.124/A & Sy.No.124/AA admeasuring Ac. 1.00 and Sy.No.125/A/2 admeasuring Ac.0.21 gts which in total falls to an extent of AC.3.25 gts which is hereby referred to as “Suit Scheduled Property”.

17.Further, it is contended by the plaintiff that Munur Chandraiah had obtained Rs.8,000/­ as loan from P.A.C.S.Marpally against his own lands in

Sy.No.124/E to an extent of Ac.0.21 gts , in Sy.No.123/E to an extent of

Ac.1.22 gts and Sy.No.124/AA/2 to the extent of Ac.0.19 gts which in total comes to Ac.2.28 gts, by depositing the title deeds with P.A.C.S. Panchalingala

Village Bank thereby executing the registered deed vide Document

No.1963/1982 dated 16.06.1982.

18.Also, the plaintiff states that Munur Chandraiah along with his family migrated to Hyderabad for livelihood giving the suit scheduled property to one

M.Kamalamma which is defendant No.2 herein on oral Batai basis. Later on

Munur Chandraiah (died) at his village leaving the plaintiff herein to succeed 6 of 15

O.S. No. 175 of 2018

the suit lands by way of inheritance, and to prove the same plaintiff stated in pleadings that he has filed old ration card copy and death copy of Munur

Chandraiah issued by the concerned G.P.Secretary.

19.It is contended by the plaintiff that plaintiff in order to transfer the suit scheduled property in his name, he approached the bank to get release the title deed deposited by his father Munur Chandraiah and accordingly got it released vide registered release deed document No.1254/2018 dated 17.02.2018.

20.Further, it is contended by the plaintiff that when he approached the

Revenue Authorities to file the succession application, it came to his notice that an extent of Ac.0.21 gts in Sy.No.124/A/2 and 124/B is transferred by one

M. Nagamani who is defendant No.1 herein to one B.Mahinder who is

Defendant No.3 vide registered sale deed No.5876/2015 dated 14.10.2015.

Which is hereby referred as A­ Schedule Property

21.And the lands in Sy.No.123/AA/2 to an extent of Ac.0.31 gts,

Sy.No.124/AA/2/1 extent of 0.16 gts, Sy.No.124/AA/1 to an extent of Ac.0.15 gts and Sy.No.124/E/1, extent of Ac.0.31 gts total an extent of Ac.2.13 gts to us transferred by M. Kamalamma deft.No.2 in favour of one P.Laxmaiah who is defendant No.4 vide registered sale deed No.4753/2014 dated 17.11.2024 and in addition to that defendant no.4 illegally grab Ac.0.15 gts in Sy.No.124, which in total defendant no.4 is in possessor of Ac.2.28 gts.

Which is referred as B­Schedule Property

22.To prove the contentions of the plaintiff, plaintiff has examined himself as

Pw1 and got ex.A1 to A15 marked. On the contra, defendants were set ex­parte as such they have got none to examine and no document to be marked.

Ex.A1 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 1976­77

Ex.A2 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1985­86 7 of 15

O.S. No. 175 of 2018

Ex.A3 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 1989­90

Ex.A4 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 1992­93

Ex.A5 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 1999­2000

Ex.A6 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2003­2004

Ex.A7 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2004­2005

Ex.A8 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2007­2008

Ex.A9 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2010­2011

Ex.A10 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2011­2012

Ex.A11 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2014­2015

Ex.A12 is the certificate copy of registered release deed vide Document

No.1254/2018, dated 17.02.2018.

Ex.A13 is the certificate copy of registered sale deed vide document no.5876/2016, dated 14.10.2015.

Ex.A14 is the certificate copy of registered sale deed vide document no.4753/20114, dated 17.11.2014.

Ex.A15 is the Mee­seva 1­B ROR Namuna, dated 30.01.2018.

23. Plaintiff in order to prove that he is entitled for declaration as legal heir of

Chandraiah and owner of the Suit Scheduled Property, has produced Ex.A1­

ExA15. When the documentary evidence is looked into, it is noticed that plaintiff. Further to prove that the Suit Scheduled Property is jointly held by his father late Munur Chandraiah and paternal Munur Narsimulu, has produced Ex A1­ExA4.

Ex.A1 Pahani for the year 1976­77, reveals that in Sy.No.123A/2 to an extent of Ac.1.21 gts and Sy.No.123E to an extent of Ac.3.04 gts,

Sy.No.124A/2 to an extent of Ac.0.31 gts, Sy.No.124AA to an extent of Ac.0.31 gts, Sy.No.124E to an extent of Ac.1.21 gts and Sy.No.125AA to an extent of 8 of 15

O.S. No. 175 of 2018

Ac.2.04 gts one Chandraiah S/o. Shivappa and Narsimulu S/o. Shivappa are the owners and possessors of the land,

Ex.A2 Pahani for the year 1985­86, reflects that in Sy.No.123/A­2 to an extent of Ac.1.21 gts one Chandraiah S/o. Yenkappa and Narsimulu,

Sy.No.123/E to an extent of Ac.3.4 gts one Chandraiah S/o. Yenkappa and

Narsimulu S/o. Shivappa, Sy.No.124/AA/2 to an extent of Ac.0.31 gts one

Chandraiah S/o. Yenkappa and Narsimulu S/o. Shivappa, Sy.No.124/AA to an extent of Ac.0.31 gts one Chandraiah S/o. Yenkappa and Narsimulu S/o.

Shivappa,Sy.No.124/E to an extent of 1.21 gts one Chandraiah S/o. Yenkappa and Narsimulu S/o. Shivappa,Sy.No.125/AA to an extent of Ac.2.04 gts one

Chandraiah S/o. Yenkappa and Narsimulu S/o. Shivappa, are the owners and possessors of the land.

Ex.A3 Pahani for the year 1989­90, reveals that in Sy.No.123/A­2 to an extent of Ac.1.21 gts, Sy.No.123/E to an extent of Ac.3.04 gts, Sy.No.124/A­2 to an extent of Ac.0.31 gts, Sy.N.124/AA to an extent of Ac.0.31 gts, Sy.No.124/E to an extent of Ac.1.21 gts and Sy.No.125/AA to an extent of Ac.2.04 gts one

Chandraiah S/o. Yenkappa and Narsimulu S/o. Shivappa are the owners and possessors of the land.

Ex.A4 Pahani for the year 1992­93, shows that in Sy.No.123/A­2 to an extent of Ac.1­21 gts one Chandraiah S/o. Yenkappa and Narsimulu S/o. Shivappa,

Sy.No.123/E to an extent of Ac.3.04 gts , Sy.No.124/A­2 to an extent of

Ac.0.31 gts, Sy.No.124/AA to an extent of Ac.0.31 gts,Sy.No.124/E to an extent of Ac.0.21 gts, Sy.No.125/AA to an extent of Ac.2.04 gts one Chandraiah

S/o. Yenkappa and Narsimulu S/o. Shivappa are the owners and possessors of the land.

9 of 15

O.S. No. 175 of 2018

Ex.A5 Pahani for the year 1999­2000, reveals that in Sy.No.123/A2 to an extent of Ac.0.31 gts one Munnuri Kamalamma W/o. Anjaiah, Sy.No.123/E to an extent of Ac.0.16 gts one Chandraiah S/o. Yenkappa, Sy.No.124/A2/1 to an extent of Ac.0.16 gts one Munnuri Kalamma W/o. Anjaiah, Sy.No.124/AA to an extent of Ac.0.15 gts one Munnuri Kamalamma W/o. Anjaiah,

Sy.No.124/E1 to an extent of Ac.0.31 gts one Munnuri Kamalamma W/o.

Anjaiah and Sy.No.125/UU to an extent of Ac.0.21 gts one Munnuri

Chandraiah s/o. Yenkappa are the owners and possessors of the land to the respective land.

Ex.A6 Pahani for the year 2003­2004, reveals that in Sy.No.122/E to an extent of Ac.2.20 gts one Anji Reddy S/o. Laxma Reddy , Sy.No. 123A2 to an extent of

Ac.0.31 gts one Munnuri Kalamma W/o. Anjaiah, Sy.No.124A2/1 to an extent of Ac.0.16 gts one Munnuri Kamalamma W/o. Anjaiah are the owners and possessors of the land.

Ex.A7 Pahani for the year 2004­2005, reveals that in ,Sy.No.124E1 to an extent of Ac.0.31 gts one Munnuri Kamalamma W/o. Anjaiah, Sy.No.123A2 to an extent of Ac.0.31 gts one Munnuri Kalamma W/o. Anjaiah, Sy.No.124A2/1 to an extent of Ac.0.16 gts one Munnuri Kalamma W/o. Anjaiah, Sy.No.124AA to an extent of Ac.0.16 gts one Narsimulu S/o. Shivappa, Sy.No.124AA1 to an extent of Ac.0.15 gts one Munnuri Kalamma W/o. Anjaiah and Sy.No.124E1 to an extent of Ac.0.31 gts one Munnuri Kalamma W/o. Anjaiah are the owners and possessors of the land.

Ex.A8 Pahani for the year 2007­2008, reveals that in Sy.No.123 A2 to an extent of Ac.0.31 gts one Munnuri Kalamma W/o. Anjaiah, Sy.No.124A2/1 to an extent of Ac.0.16 gts one Munnuri Kalamma W/o. Anjaiah are the owners and possessors of the land.

10 of 15

O.S. No. 175 of 2018

Ex.A9 Pahani for the year 2010­2011, reveals that in Sy.No.123/A2 to an extent of Ac.0.21 gts, Sy.No.124/AA/1 to an extent of Ac.0.16 gts,

Sy.No.124/AA1 to an extent of Ac.0.15 gts, sy.No.124/E1 to an extent of

Ac.0.31 gts one Munnuri Kalamma W/o. Anjaiah are the owners and possessors of the land.

Ex.A10 Pahani for the year 2011­2012, reveals that in Sy.No.124/E1 to an extent of Ac.0.31 gts, Sy.No.123 A2/1 to an extent of Ac.0.30 gts one Vijay

Kumar S/o. Balaiah, Sy.No.123 E1 to an extent of Ac.1.06 gts one M.Vijay

S/o. Balaiah,one Munnuri Kalamma W/o. Anjaiah are the owners and possessors of the land.

Ex.A11 Pahani for the year 2014­2015, reveals that in Sy.No.123 A2/1 to an extent of Ac.0.30 gts one Vijay Kumar S/o. Balaiah, Sy.No.123/E to an extent of Ac.0.16 gts one Chandraiah S/o. Yenkappa, Sy.No.123 E1 to an extent of

Ac.1.06 gts one M.Vijay S/o. Balaiah, Sy.No.124 A2/A to an extent of Ac.0.05 gts one B.Ravinder S/o. Anthaiah, Sy.No.124 A2.A to an extent of Ac.0.10 gts of B.Mahendar S/o. Anthaiah, Sy.No.124 AA to an extent of Ac.0.16 gts one

B.Ravinder S/o. Anthaiah, Sy.No.124 E to an extent of Ac.0.30 gts one

B.Mahender S/o.Anthaiah, Sy.No.125 A1 to an extent of Ac.0.21 gts one

M.Bakkaiah S/o. Ashaiah, Sy.No.125A1 to an extent of Ac.0.31 gts one

M.Gopal S/o. Anthaiah, Sy.No.125 A1/2 to an extent of Ac.0.11 gts one

M.Mallaiah S/o. Manaiah, Sy.No.125 A1/2 to an extent of Ac.0.21 gts one

M.Mallaiah S/o. Manaiah are the owners.

Further plaintiff to prove that he can be allowed for declaration, has filed registered released deed vide Document No.1254/18 dated 17.02.2018 as

Ex.A12 which shows that plaintiff Panchalingala Ashoke S/o. late Chandraiah has got released the title deeds no.1963/1982 dated 16.06.1982.

11 of 15

O.S. No. 175 of 2018

To show that defendant no.2 has transferred the part of suit scheduled property plaintiff has filed the registered sale deed vide doc. no.5876/15

dated 14.10.2015 under Ex A13, which reflects that Ac.0.21 gts in

Sy.No.125/AA was transferred in the name of B.Mahinder and registered sale deed Docu.No.4753/14 dated 17.11.2014 under Ex.A14, which reflects that

Ac.0.31 gts in Sy.No.123/A/2, extent of Ac.0.16 gts in Sy.No.124/A/2/1,

Ac.0.15 gts in Sy.No.124/AA/1, Ac.0.31 gts in Sy.No.124/E/1 a total of

Ac.2.13 gts was transferred in favour of defendant no.4 respectively.

Ex.A15 is the 1­B (ROR) dated 30.01.2018 which shows that one

M.Chandraiah, S/o. Yenkappa is the pattadar to the land in Sy.No.125/UU to an extent of Ac.0.21 gts and in Sy.No.123/E to an extent of Ac.0.16 gts.

24. When the documentary evidence is concerned, it is beholded that some of the triggering points needs to be addressed. At the outset, it is contended by the plaintiff the enter suit scheduled property of Ac.8.11 gts was jointly held by his father by name Munur Chandraiah and Munur Narsimulu who is the brother of his father i.e, plaintiffs paternal uncle. But when ExA1­ExA4 is perceived, the pahanies for the year 1976­1993 shows that one Chandraiah

S/o.Yenkappa and Narsimulu S/o.Shivappa are the owners and possessors of the entire land which is contended by the plaintiff.

25. Also, it is seen that no surname has been included in the Exhibit pahanies to show, as he stated in pleadings that both Chandraiah and Narsimulu are brothers in relation. Moreover, the surnames of the plaintiff and his father according to his pleadings are observed to be different i.e., Panchalingala

Ashok S/o. Munur Chandraiah.

12 of 15

O.S. No. 175 of 2018

26. Surprisingly, plaintiff failed to file any documentary evidence to prove that he i.e., Panchalingala Ashok is the son of Munur Chandraiah. When the pleadings of plaintiff are gone through, plaintiff included that he has filed a ration card and Death certificate of his father to prove the same, but in documentary evidence, it is not flagged up. Though plaintiff shows that he got released the lands, deposited by his father via ExA12 i.e., release deed vide

Document No.1254/2018, plaintiff failed to satisfy the court that he is the son of Munur Chandraiah as he did not filed any ration card or Death Certificate of his father. And the surname of plaintiffs father is mentioned as Munur

Chandraiah whereas the surname of plaintiff is Panchalingala, which the contradiction made the ambiguity.

27. Additionally, plaintiff has lacked in documenting the court with the title deeds as contended by him that his father Munur Chandraiah dejposited the same before the bank in order to obtain the loan of Rs.8000/­. Accordingly to plaintiff’s contention his father Munur Chandraiah has deposited the title deeds in the year 1982 vide Document No.1963/1982 and the plaintiff got released the same in the year 2018 vide document No.1254/2018. It is difficult to believe, that how a person did not happen to venture into his own land during 1982 to 2018.

28. Though, plaintiff claimed that the land to his father’s share was given on oral batai basis to one Munur Kamalamma i.e., Defendant no.2. Plaintiff was unproductive in showing that they have received some sort of income from D2, all these years. Also, it is implausible to contemplate how any person, from 1982 to 2018, left his own land to some other persons without receiving a penny, and without popping around to see it.

13 of 15

O.S. No. 175 of 2018

30. To declare the plaintiff as the owner of suit schedule property as he prayed for, plaintiff has failed to show that he is the son of Munur Chandraiah in the first instance, as mentioned in the pahanies. Further, the plaintiff neither did filed ration card nor the death certificate of his father in support of his contention to prove that he is the LR. Also, plaintiff defaulted in filing affidavit to show that he is the only LR of Munur Chandriah. Hence, to declare the plaintiff as the owner of Suit Scheduled Property, as prayed in the first relief, cannot be permitted.

31. To grant relief of recovery of possession, legal dimension is that one has to prove his title over suit scheduled property and also to fulfill that he has filed the relief within the stipulated period of limitation. Whereas, as discussed above the plaintiff has neither proved that suit schedule property is in his favour nor as the only legal heir of Munur Chandraiah. Nevertheless, even, it is required to be addressed, when the contents of plaint are seen, it reveals that the plaintiff father has himself transferred the possession to Defendant no.2 in the year 1982 on oral batai basis. Whereas, the plaintiff in his pleadings stated that it came to his knowledge in the year 2017, although the possession was transferred by plaintiff’s father 35 years ago i.e., in the year 1982.

32According to Latin Maxim ­ ”Vigilantibus non doremientibus jura subveniunt” which means, law will not help those who sleep on their rights.

Regadless, the plaintiff prayed for relief stating that he got knowledge in the year 2017, he himself in contradicting on his own statements contended in pleadings stating that plaintiff’s father has transferred the same in the year 1982 to Defendant on oral batai basis, which inturn making the Hon’ble Court to unbelieve that plaintiff is sleeping over his rights for all these 35 years. As it is unclear, this court is of opinion not to grant the relief of the same.

14 of 15

O.S. No. 175 of 2018

33. Accordingly, the relief to declare the sale deeds vide document

No.5876/2016 dated 14.10.2015 and document No. 4753/2014 dated 17.11.2014 as prayed by the plaintiff, cannot be accorded, as the ownership has not proven in his favor. Accordingly the point is answered against the plaintiff. Hence, this court is of opinion that plaintiff has come to the court with unclean hands and is not entitled for declaration as owner of suit scheduled property and in the result suit is dismissed.

RESULT:

34 In the result, suit is dismissed with no costs.

Typed to my dictation on computer by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of January, 2024.

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge Vikarabad District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs For Defendants

Ex­Parte PW­1– Panchalingala Ashoke

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs For Defendants

Ex.A1 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 1976­77

Ex.A2 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1985­86

Ex.A3 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 1989­90 15 of 15

O.S. No. 175 of 2018

Ex.A4 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 1992­93

Ex.A5 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 1999­2000

Ex.A6 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2003­2004

Ex.A7 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2004­2005

Ex.A8 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2007­2008

Ex.A9 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2010­2011

Ex.A10 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2011­2012

Ex.A11 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2014­2015

Ex.A12 is the certificate copy of registered release deed vide Document

No.1254/2018, dated 17.02.2018.

Ex.A13 is the certificate copy of registered sale deed vide document no.5876/2016, dated 14.10.2015.

Ex.A14 is the certificate copy of registered sale deed vide document no.4753/2014, dated 17.11.2014.

Ex.A15 is the Mee­seva 1­B ROR Namuna, dated 30.01.2018.

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge Vikarabad District.

1 OF 13

CC. No. 427 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VIKARABAD,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Present: Smt.Shruti Doota

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge -cum- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District.

Dated, this the 20 th day of December, 2022

C.C. No. 427 OF 2018

Between:

The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Mominpet. … Complainant

A N D

A-1. Bovvolla Jagadeesh S/o. Bandaiah, Age 24 years, Occ: Mechanic.

A-2. Baovvolla Praveen S/o. Samaiah, Age 27 years, Occ: Farmer,

A3: Bovvolla Vijay S/o. Ananthaiah, Age 28 years, Occ: Farmer,

A4: Bovvolla Daveed S/o. Bandiah, Age 28years, Occ: Private Employee,

A5:Bavvola Ashok S/o. Ananthaiah, Age 32 years, Occ: Private Employee, (All caste SC (Madiga), R/o. Velchal Village, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District). … Accused 1 to 5

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 20.12.2022 in the presence of APPO for the State and of Sri. T.Venkatesh, Advocate for the Accused Nos.1 to 5, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mominpet Police Station, filed charge sheet in

Crime No.50 of 2018 against the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence punishable 2 OF 13

CC. No. 427 of 2018

under Section 326, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as

I.P.C.).

2. Brief facts of the case are : The Station House Officer of P.S. Mominpet received a complaint on 24.07.2018 at 17:00 hours from Kum. Bovvollu Maneela,

R/o. Velchal Village, Mominpet Mandal in which she stated that she and one

B. Jagadeesh who is Accused No.1 in this case initially agreed to marry each other, which Accused No.1, subsequently refused. On 23.07.2018, when she went out to fetch some water, Accused No.1 abused her in filthy language and upon questioning the same, Accused Nos. 2, 3 beat her uncle B.Balaiah with sticks, due to which he sustained bleeding injuries on his head. Hence the complaint.

3. Basing on the report LW10/ Sri K. Arun Kumar, SI of Police, PS Mominpet registered a case in Cr.No.50/2018 Under Section 326, 504 r/w 34 IPC. During the course of investigation LW10/ Sri K. Arun Kumar, SI of Police, PS Mominpet examined and recorded the statements of LW1/Bovvolla Maneela at PS in Part-II

DC, and visited scene of offence and conducted scene-cum-seizure panchanama (CDF) in the presence of LW7/Nadimidodla Nandu and LW8/ Kavali Srinivas and drew rough sketch. After examined and recorded the statements of LW2 to LW4 incorporated in part-II CD. On 28.07.2018 the LW10 visited the scene of offence and examined and recorded the statements of injured LW5 and LW6 incorporated in Part-II CD. And on 14.08.2018 LW10 received MC from Olive Hospital where the LW6/Bavvolla Balaiah and LW7/ Nadimidodla Nandu was admitted and treated by LW9/Dr.Raghava Rao. And then / Dr.Raghava Rao opined that the LW6 and LW7 received is in “Grevious in Injuries”. Basing on the Medical Certificate the LW10/K.Arun Kumar altered the Section from 324 IPC to 326 IPC. Basing on 3 OF 13

CC. No. 427 of 2018

statements of complainant, the concerned SHO added the Section 509 IPC for further investigation.

4 After filing the charge sheet by the police, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.326, 504 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 5.

5. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 5, case copies furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

6. The accused Nos.1 to 5 were examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.326, 504 r/w 34 of IPC against them, charge framed, read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 to 5 in their vernacular language for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 5, the prosecution examined witnesses PWs.1 to 9 and got Exs.P1 to P10 are marked and Ex.D1 to D4 were marked through PW2, PW3 on behalf of defense.

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on complainant

Ex.P2 is the Section 161 statement of PW2

Ex.P3 is the Section 161 statement of PW4

Ex.P4 is the Section 161 statement of PW5

Ex.P5 is the signature of PW7 on Crime Detail Form

Ex.P6 is the signature of PW8 on Crime Detail Form

Ex.P7 is the First Information Report

Ex.P8 is the Scene of offence

Ex.P9 is the Medical Certificate of PW2 4 OF 13

CC. No. 427 of 2018

Ex.P10 is the Medical Certificate of PW3

Ex.D1 is the portion of Section 161 statement of PW2

Ex.D2 is the portion of Section 161 statement of PW2

Ex.D3 is the portion of Section 161 statement of PW2

Ex.D4 is the portion of Section 161 statement of PW3

8. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 to 5 were called for examination U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, for explaining the incriminating material evidence against them, in the evidence of PWs.1 to 9, having understood the same, they denied the incriminating material evidence against them and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

9. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 326, 504 r/w 34 of I.P.C against the accused Nos.1 to 5, beyond all

reasonable doubts?.

POINT:

11.During the examination, this court has framed the following the charge as follows:-

That, A1 to A5 on 24.08.2018 at about 17:00 hours you accused persons beat with sticks and slippers there by voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons that thereby you committed an offence punishable under section 326 of IPC and within my cognizance.

That, A1 to A5 on 24.07.2018 at about 17:00 hours you accused persons abused in filthy language that thereby you committed an offence punishable under section.504 of IPC and within my cognizance.

5 OF 13

CC. No. 427 of 2018

12.To prove the above charge, the prosecution examined the PWs.1 to 9 and got Exs.P1 to P10 are marked.

13.To prove the alleged offences against the A1 to A5, the complainant/injured examined as PW.1, wherein she deposed that, she fell in love with A1 as her parents were not interested to perform her marriage with A1 she got filed a false case against A1 and his family members. At about one year back she went to

Police Station and scribed her signature on one white paper which is marked under

Ex.P1. Considering the statements, APP sought to declare the witness as hostile.

During the cross examination she denied the suggestion that she stated to the police which is in Ex.P1, but now she deposing false to help the accused.

14.PW2/ Bavolla Lingaiah, who is the father of PW1, deposed that at about 2 years back father of A1 approached him and asked for alliance of his daughter with A1. He agreed to give his daughter to A1, but they demanded Rs.4,00,000/- toward dowry to which he did not pay the said amount and hence he refused the alliance of his daughter with A1. On one evening when his daughter i.e., PW1 went to fetch water from the bore well which is adjacent to his house, A1 came and abused PW1 in filthy language. On the next day he along with his brothers

LW4/Babu and LW6/B.Balaiah questioned the A1 and warned him. On the same day in the afternoon at 2:00 PM, accused persons came along with some other persons to his house, they attacked them with sticks. A2 beat him with stick on his head due to which he sustained head injury and injury on left eye brow. When

LW6/Balaiah/PW3 came to himrescue, A4 beat PW3 withlathi due to which he sustained head injury and went to unconscious state. The said incident was witnessed by some of the villagers and now he cannot remember their names as he 6 OF 13

CC. No. 427 of 2018

was in unconscious state. Later he and PW3/LW6 were shifted to Government

Hospital, Vikarabad. After one week he returned to his home, police examined him and recorded his statement. During the cross examination he stated that his daughter/PW1 married with A1. He denied the suggestion that father of A1 demanded an amount Rs.4,00,000/- towards dowry. He denied the suggestion that marriage of PW1 and A1 is a love marriage and A1 never abused PW1 in filthy language and A2 never beat him with stick and A4 also never beat Pw3/LW6. He denied the suggestion that he gave false complaint against A1 to A5 since his daughter marry A1 neither A2 nor A4 beat him and his brother PW3 and he is deposing false at the instance of police. Further, PW2 was confronted with his statements under section 161 Cr.P.C and learned defense counsel got the same marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 respectively. The statements are that PW1 and A1 fell in love with each other and agreed to marry to which me and his family members agreed (Defendant No.1), A1 to A3 beat me with sticks, due to which he sustained injury on his left eye and on other body parts (Defendant No.2), my brother sustained head injury and frightening to the same, PW4, PW5 came tothem rescue (Defendant No.3).

15.PW3/Bavolla Balaiah, who is the paternal uncle of PW1, wherein he deposed in the same lines of that of Pw2. He further stated that accused persons and their father came along with some other persons with sticks to their house and one Narsimulu who is junior paternal uncle of A1 caught hold of his collar and dragged him outside of the house their villagers namely one Lingaiah and his wife witnessed the incident. Later he along with PW2 went to PS to enquire for not registering the case then police examined him and recorded his statement. During 7 OF 13

CC. No. 427 of 2018

the cross examination he stated that police never examined him on 17.08.2018 at his house. He denied the suggestion that A1 never abused PW1. He accepted that he had not stated to police that one Narsimulu who is junior paternal uncle of A1 caught hold of his collar and dragged him outside of the house and A1 to A5 who were having sticks in their hands beat him on his head due to which he sustained injury on his head. Immediately he went to unconscious state. Witness confronted with his 161 Cr.P.C statement and the portion of it was marked as Ex.D4 by defendant counsel. The statement is PW4, PW5 came to their rescue (Defendant

No.4). He denied the suggestion that he never stated that their villagers by name

Lingaiah and his wife witnessed and also he denied the suggestion that the accused never beat him nor he sustained injuries and deposing false at the instance of family members. He further denied the suggestion that the accused is no way connected with the alleged offence.

16.PW4/N.Balraju, who was introduced by prosecution, as witness, deposed that he do not know anything about this case. As witness resiled from his previous statements, as of which the Learned APP sought to declare the witness as hostile.

During the cross examination he deposed that he denied the suggestion that he stated to police as in Ex.P3. Nothing is elicited during the cross examination, except the usual suggestions.

17.PW5/P.Srinivas, who was introduced by prosecution, as witness, deposed that he do not know anything about this case. As witness resiled from his previous statements, as of which the Learned APP sought to declare the witness as hostile.

During the cross examination he deposed that he denied the suggestion that he 8 OF 13

CC. No. 427 of 2018

stated to police as in Ex.P4. Nothing is elicited during the cross examination, except the usual suggestions.

18.PW6/ Bavollu Babu, who is paternal uncle of PW1, he deposed same lines of that of Pw2 and PW3. He further stated on 24.07.2018 accused A1 to A5 and some other villagers came to their house and A3, A4 beat pw3 and A4 and others bet PW2 due to which Pw2 sustained injury over his head and he witnessed the same along with PW4, one Narsimulu, one Lingaiah and his wife Kistamma.

During the cross examination he denied the suggestion that he was witnessed the incident. A1 to A5 are his relatives. He denied the suggestion that PW1 was brought up by accused persons. Witness adds that PW1 was brought up by PW2.

He accepted that he was present at his house at the time of incident and PW2 and 3 were outside of their house. He denied the suggestion that he never witnessed any incident as he was inside the house. He further deny the suggestion that PW2 and

PW3 filed false case against the accused persons since PW1 married A1 against our will. He denied the suggestion that A2 to A5 never visited that village and Pw2 and 3 filed false case against the accused persons and none sustained any injuries nor they were examined by the police. He denied the suggestion that police never examined him nor recorded his statement and deposing false to help his family members.

19.PW7/N.Nandu, wherein he deposed that at about 3 years back while he was at bus stand, on the request of the police he scribed his signatures on some written papers which is under Ex.P5. As witness resiled from his previous statements, as of which the Learned APP sought to declare the witness as hostile. Nothing was elicited during the cross examination.

9 OF 13

CC. No. 427 of 2018

20.PW8/K.Srinivas, he deposed that same lines of that of PW7, which is under

Ex.P6. As witness resiled from his previous statements, as of which the Learned

APP sought to declare the witness as hostile. Nothing was elicited during the cross examination.

21.PW9/K.Arun Kumar, he deposed that, he received a complaint from PW1 basing on which he registered a case in Crime No.50/2018 for the offence under section 324, 504 r/w 34 of IPC which is under Ex.P7. He examined and recorded the statements of PW2 at Police Station and visited scene of offence and conducted scene cum seizure panchanama in the presence of PW7 and PW8 and drawn rough sketch which under Ex.P8. he examined and recorded the statement of PW4 and 5 rough sketch on 25.07.2018. On 17.08.2018 examined and recorded the statements of PW2 and 3 at Velchal village. On 14.08.2018 received medical certificate where LW9 opined that the injuries sustained by PW2 and 3 are grievous in nature.

Basing on that he altered the section of law from 324 IPC to 326 IPC and basing on the statement of PW1 also added 509 IPC. Ex.P9 which is medical certificate.

After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet before the court for the offence under section 324, 504 and 509 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A5. He further stated in his cross examination that he accepted that the examination of PW6 was not mentioned in charge sheet. He deny the suggestion that he never examined and recorded the statements of Pw6 and also deny the suggestion that he never visited the scene of offence nor conducted scene of offence panchanam in the presence of

PW7 and 8 . He deny the suggestion that he registered a false FIR in order to help 10 OF 13

CC. No. 427 of 2018

the victim family and also deny the suggestion that A1 to A5 are no way connected to the alleged office and he got registered a false case without proper investigation.

22. Prior to the appreciation of prosecution evidence, it is required to give a glance on the essential ingredients of U/sec. 326 of I.P.C:-

Section 326 IPC : Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, vol-

untarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing,

or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to

cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any

explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the

human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of

any animal.

23.When the testimonies of the witnesses produced by prosecution are considered, it is opined that there are ambiguity in ascertaining the fact or guilt of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused.

24.PW1 who is the complainant, has deposed herself that, she lodged the complaint upon the instance of PW2, PW3.

25.Further, through the deposition of PW2, PW3, PW6 also, many ambiguous statements were noticed, such as pw2 stated he fell unconscious due the injury sustained by him on his head. But, immediately, he stated that PW4, PW5 came to their rescue, Also, PW2 mentioned in his statements under section 161 Cr.P.C, that the accused persons beat him with sticks and he sustained injury on his left eyebrow and on other body parts.

26.Wherein in the chief examination, PW2 stated that he sustained bleeding injury on his head, also he fell unconscious due to that injury. The contradictory of the statements deposed by PW2 makes his evidence unreliable.

11 OF 13

CC. No. 427 of 2018

27.Also, PW3 stated the same and he is addition, deposed that one Narsimulu dragged them and bet them. Furthermore, PW6 also added that Narsimulu,

Lingaiah and Kistamma witnessed the incident but prosecution failed to produce them as witnesses on behalf of them to prove the guilt of the accused.

28.Accordingly, it is noticed through the Ex.P9, Ex.P10, that is medical certificates of PW2, PW3, nowhere it is mentioned that the injury caused to them are grievous in nature. Furthermore, the prosecution negated in bringing the doctor for examination and rendering of evidence behalf of the accused.

29.Also, it is noticed that prosecution has failed to produce the stick which is seized by the police during the evidence.

30.Putting all the discussion together, this court is of opinion that there is unclear facts that prosecution failed to address or prove the guilt against the accused. Which made it unreliable.

Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt against the A1 to A5 beyond all reasonable doubts.

31. Prior to the appreciation of prosecution evidence, it is required to give a glance on the essential ingredients of U/Sec. 504 r/w 34 of I.P.C:-

Section 504 r/w 34 of IPC: Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives

provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provo- cation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence.

32 From the above discussion nothing was elicited to prove the guilty of the accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offence alleged under section 504 r/w 34 of IPC.

12 OF 13

CC. No. 427 of 2018

The evidence of PW1 cannot relied upon as there is no corroborating evidence to the same.

33.In view of the above said discussion, it is inevitable to hold that the prosecution could not establish the offence punishable under section 326, 504 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused persons 1 to 5 are entitled for acquittal.

34.In the result, accused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 326, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 5 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. There is no case property deposited before this court in this case.

Typed to my dictation on Computer to Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20 th day of December, 2022.

ADDL.JUD. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 is B.Manila PW2 is Bavolla Lingaiah PW3 is Bavolla Balaiah PW4 is N.Balraju PW5 is P.Srinivas PW6 is B.Babu PW7 is N.Nandu PW8 is K.Srinivas PW9 is K.Arun Kumar 13 OF 13

CC. No. 427 of 2018

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on complainant

Ex.P2 is the Section 161 statement of PW2

Ex.P3 is the Section 161 statement of PW4

Ex.P4 is the Section 161 statement of PW5

Ex.P5 is the signature of PW7 on Crime Detail Form

Ex.P6 is the signature of PW8 on Crime Detail Form

Ex.P7 is the First Information Report

Ex.P8 is the scene of offence

Ex.P9 is the Medical Certificate of PW2

Ex.P10 is the Medical Certificate of PW3

DEFENCE

Ex.D1 is the portion of Section 161 statement of PW2

Ex.D2 is the portion of Section 161 statement of PW2

Ex.D3 is the portion of Section 161 statement of PW2

Ex.D4 is the portion of Section 161 statement of PW3

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--NIL--

ADD. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, VIKARABAD DISTRICT

1 OF 10

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ­CUM­ADDl

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VIKARABAD,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Present: Smt.Shruti Doota, 

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District.

Dated, this the 25th day of January, 2024

C.C. No. 151 of 2015

Between: The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Nawabpet.

….Complainant

A N D

Narla Ashok, S/o. Yadaiah, Age 27 years, Occ: Driver of Crime Vehicle Lorry bearing no. AP 29 TA 7986, Caste: Yadava (Golla), R/o. Gudur Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

…Accused 

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO for the State and of Sri. P.Sampurna Anand Advocate for the Accused; upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

:: J U D G M E N T :: 

1. The Accused has been prosecuted by the State represented by the S.I of

P.S.Nawabpet for the offence Under Section 304 (A) of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that: Station House Officer, P.S.Nawabpet received a complaint on 04.02.2015 at 11:00 AM from Meenepally Suresh in which he stated that on 30.01.2015 at about 15:00 PM the complainant along with his sister namely Golla Lalitha for attending the marriage at Lingampally Laxma

Redy Garden, Nawabpet proceeded to Balreddygudem village, Mominpet

Mandal from Nawabpet on motor cycle (Glamor) bearing no. AP 28 DS 1844.

When we reached Madireddygudem village road, a lorry bearing no. AP 29 TA 9786 which is coming in the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner 2 OF 10 hit to the complainant motor cycle, due to which pillion sider Golla Lalitha fell down and received bleeding injuries. Immediately shifted to Osmania General

Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment. While undergoing treatment the said Golla

Lalitha was died in the hospital on 04.02.2015 at 9:00 AM. Hence the case.

3. Basing on the report LW12/ P.Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, ASI of Police,

P.S.Nawabpet, registered a case in Cr.No.12 of 2015 for the offence punishable under section 304 (A) of I.P.C. 

4. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 304 (A) of

I.P.C.

5. On appearance of the accused case of the documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Section.

251 of Cr.P.C. Substance of allegation levelled against the accused was explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty andclaimedto be tried.

6. During the course of trial the prosecution had examined PW1 to PW9 and got

Ex.P1 to P7 documents were marked. And on behalf of the accused none were examined and no documents were marked.

7. The Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material available against the accused from the evidence of the prosecution was explained to the accused to which he denied the same. Reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides, and perused the entire material on record.

9.Now the point for consideration is.

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offences under section 304 (A) of IPC.

3 OF 10

10. For the sake of convenience, let us go through the sec 304(A) of IPC for better understanding. Sec 304 (A) of IPC goes as follows,

304A. Causing death by negligence.—Whoever causes the death of any person

by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.

Hence, in order to prove the guilt of the accused,the prosecution needs to prove the following:

a) There must be death of the person in question;

b) The accused must have caused such death; and

c) That such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide.

11. To prove the case against accused, prosecution has examined PW1 to Pw10.

PW1, M.Suresh, who is the brother of the deceased, stated in her chief examination that on 30.01.2015 he came to attend a marriage at Laxma Reddy

Gardens, Nawabpet. While they were proceeding towards Balreddy Garden they crossed Madireddypally gate one lorry bearing no.AP 29 TA 9786, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit their motor bike. Due to which he sustained injuries to his legs and back and his sister received injuries to back side of her head.

Immediately he shifted his sister to BNR Hospital, Shankarpally. He informed to

LW2 and LW3 on phone and then lodged a complaint on 04.02.2015 before

P.S.Nawabpet which was marked as Ex.P1 against the accused. Also, PW1 stated during his cross examination that the accident took place after crossing

Magireddipally gate on a steep road, when they were proceeding from Nawabpet to Balreddygudem. He further deposed that, there is no turning after crossing

Magireddipally gate and he had driving license and also insurance of his vehicle and filed MVOP and also received the compensation. PW1 stated that the crime 4 OF 10 vehicle was not loaded and he denied the suggestion that the present accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving and he is deposing false and lodged a false complaint under Ex.P1 only to claim compensation, but filed a false case against the accused.

12. Pw2, G.Laxmaiah, who is the husband of the deceased, deposed in the same lines of that of Pw1. Pw2 further in his cross examination stated that he is not an eye witness to the accident and also denied the suggestions put to him that though the fault was of the deceased person, they lodged a complaint against the accused.

13. Pw3, G.Venkataiah, who is the brother in law of deceased, deposed in his chief

Examination that on 30.01.2015 he was at Shankarpally, PW2 informed him that his sister in law/deceased met with an accident. He rushed to BNR Hosptial and shifted to Hyderabad for better treatment. He came to know through LW2 that the said accident took place due to the negligence of the lorry driver bearing No.AP 28

TA 9786. Pw3 in his cross examination stated that he was not eye witness to the accident and also denied the suggestions put to him that though the fault was of the deceased person and he deposing false to claim compensation.

14. Pw4, P.Venkatreddy, who is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Parigi, deposed that he received a requisition on 09.02.2015 from PS Nawabpet to inspect crime vehicle no.AP29TA9786 (HGV). On examination of crime vehicle he issued a report under

Ex.P2 stating that accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.

15. Pw5, B. Hanumanth Reddy, who is the panch witness to the inquest deposed that police conducted inquest panchanama and obtained his signatures on inquest 5 OF 10 panchanama which is marked as Ex.P3. Nothing was elicited during the cross examination of PW5 except a suggestion.

16. Pw6, B.Ramulu, who is the panch witness to the inquest deposed that police conducted inquest panchanama and obtained my signatures on inquest panchanama which is marked as Ex P4. Nothing was elicited during the cross examination of

PW6 except a suggestion.

17. Pw7, Mohamad Rasheed, who is the owner of crime vehicle, was introduced by prosecution as witness stated that he sold the vehicle prior to the incident, but he did not remember the name of the person who purchased the vehicle. He did not know anything about the present case. As the witness resiled from his previous statements, the Learned APP sought to declare the witness as hostile. During the cross examination nothing was elicited during the cross examination of PW7 except a suggestion.

18. Pw8, B.Prabhakar, who is the panch of witness to crime detail form (CDF), was introduced by prosecution as witness stated that he did not know anything about the case. Police obtained his signatures on white papers which is marked under

Ex.P5. As the resiled from his previous statements, the Learned APP sought to declare the witness as hostile. During the cross examination nothing was elicited during the cross examination of PW8 except a suggestion.

19. PW10, Vijayabhaskar Reddy, who is investigating officer in the present case, deposed that he received a complaint on 04.02.2015 from PW1, and upon completion of the entire investigation he registered a case in Cr.No.12/2015. And issued Fir under Ex.P6. He deposed that conducted inquest panchanama in the presence of PW5 and PW6. Ex.P7 is the Post Mortem Report. Further he handed 6 OF 10 over the CD file to PW-9. During the cross examination he took incident on 30.01.2015. He accepted the suggestion that there is 5 days delay in lodging the complaint i.e., Ex.P1 from the date of incident. He admitted that he did not examined any independent witness and secured the panch witness for inquest at the hospital itself. He denied the suggestion that he never conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased in the presence of PW5 and 6 and he never conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW8 and Lw-9.

Further he denied the suggestion that he registered a false case against the accused in order to help the complainant to get compensation although and accused is no way concerned with present case.

20. Pw9, P.Srinivas, who is the Second Investigation Officer of the present case, deposed that he received CD file from LW12/P.Vijayabhaskar Reddy/Pw10. On completion of investigation he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 304-A of IPC and also stated in his cross examination he denied suggestion that he had filed false charge sheet against the accused without any proper investigation.

21. Upon examining the oral evidence coupled with the exhibits marked, it was not elucidated through the prosecution witness anywhere,that the vehicle came speedily in rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle which is coming in the opposite direction that caused the death of the deceased.

In the entire evidence of the prosecution either the rash or negligent act of the accused not proved by the prosecution to attract the offence U/Sec.304(A) of IPC.

Moreover, admittedly,even though there is eye witness I,e., PW1 to the incident, nothing material to it corraborated to support the evidence of the prosecution.

7 OF 10

22.Having heard the contention of the both sides, this court is of considered view is that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/Sec. 304(A) of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt for the reasons hereafter discussed. Firstly, the identification of the accused is not proved with the support of eye witness to the incident or any other material to show that the accused was the driver of the vehicle as on the date of incident. Admittedly, the investigation officer or even the prosecution failed to produce the Statistical Report (SR) to show that he was on duty as on the date of incident. Further, it is also not proved that the accused caused the accident due to his negligence and rashness of his driving. No eye witness or any other witness stated that the accused himself caused the accident to the deceased. Though, the complainant and other witnesses deposed about the manner in which the deceased succumbed to death, but there is no incriminating evidence as deposed against the accused to bring home the guilt of the accused. It is well settled law that the prosecution has to prove the rash or negligent act of the accused with the cogent, reliable, oral and documentary evidence, mere identification of the accused would not sufficient to establish the offence. In the instance case, the prosecution neither proved the identification of the accused nor proved the rash or negligent act of the accused. As such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 304(A) of

I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt.

23.On careful scrutiny of the material evidence on record, it evidently shows that an accident occurred as a result, person by name deceased/G.Lalithain the accident. In so far as the proving the offence is concerned about the rash or negligence of the accused the prosecution failed to place the relevant and sufficient 8 OF 10 evidence on record. Hence, it is difficult to decide the rash or negligent act of the accused without reliable and cogent witnesses to the accident.

24.The evidence of above witnesses is not trustworthy and not reliable.

However, the rash or negligent act of the accused has to decided by the court by weighing the evidence on record. When it comes to the case on hand there is no proper evidence to decide the rash or negligent act of the accused. Mere identifying the accused is not sufficient, unless proving the rash or negligent act of the accused.

25.The Hon'ble Apex Court held that “it is wrong proposition that for any motor accident negligence of the driver should be presumed” held in the case of

Mohammed Aynuddin Vs State 2000(7) SCC 72(Para 7), there must be a direct nexus between the death of the person and rash or negligence act of the accused. It must be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, where death is not direct result of rash or negligent act on the part of the accused and was not a proximate and sufficient cause without the intervention of the another act of negligence, the accused must be acquitted of the charge U/Sec.304-A I.P.C. Where, it comes to the case on hand the prosecution failed to prove the rash or negligence of the accused as already discussed above.

26. In view of the above said discussion, it is inevitable to hold that the prosecution could not establish the offence punishable under section 304(A) of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

27.In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence U/Sec.304(A) of

IPC, as such he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of 9 OF 10 the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. There is no property deposited before this Court in this case.

Typed to my dictation on computer to stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of January, 2024.

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

VIKARABAD DISTRICT

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: M.Suresh -None- PW2: G.Laxmaiah PW3: G.Venkataiah PW4: P.Venkat Reddy PW5: B.Hanumanth Reddy PW6: B.Ramulu PW7: Mohamad Rasheed PW8:P.Prabhakar PW9:P.Srinivas PW10:Madhusudhan Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Complaint -Nil- Ex.P2: Motor Vehicle Report Ex.P3:Sign on Inquest Panchanama Ex.P4:Sign on Inquest Panchanama Ex.P5: Sign on Crime Details Form Ex:P6:First Information Report Ex:P7:Post Mortem Reprt

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

VIKARABAD DISTRICT

10 OF 10

1 of 7

O.S. No. 115 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM­

 I ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT VIKARABAD, 

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Present : Smt.Shruti Doota,

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District. 

Dated this the 30 th day of January, 2024

O.S. No. 115 of 2023

Between:

1.Yesu Samel Ekkely S/o. Samel, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Salbathapur Village, Kotpally mandal and Vikarabad District Present R/o. 232, Tai Bhoir Chawl, Patharli Road, Gali No.1, S.B Shelar, VTC Dombivli East, Thane District.

.....Plaintiff

AND

1.Yenkepally @ Yekkilla Yellamma W/o. Late Chandraiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Smt. Vasnthi W/o. Krishna, D/o. Late Chandraiahj Aged about 45 years, Occ: Household.

(Both are R/o. H.No.2­43, Salbathapur Village, Kotpally Mandal and Vikarabad District)

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 30.01.2024 in the presence of Sri.M.Ashok Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendant

Nos.1 & 2 are set ex­parte; and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties with metes and bounds.

2.The Brief averments of the plaint are that:

a.That originally one Ekkely @ Yenkepally Ramaiah is the common ancestor of plaintiff and defendant and owner and possessor of the agricultural land i.e., a) 2 of 7

O.S. No. 115 2023

Sy.No.10/AA, admeasuring Ac.1­33 gts and b) Sy.No.10/E, admeasuring Ac.1­ 33 gts in total Admeasuring Ac.3.26 gts situated at Pommapur Shivar Village and Bantaram Mandal, Vikarabad District. The said lands are hereby referred as “Suit Scheduled Property”. The said Ramaiah survived by five sons namely 1.Ashaiah, 2. Laliah, 3. Chandraiah, 4.Balaiah, 5. Yellaiah. The fifth son yellaiah survived by two sons namely 1.Chandriah and 2.Samel, and the said

Chandraiah died leaving behind his wife and daughter by name Yellamma, who is the defendant no.1 herein and daughter by name Vasanthi who is defendant no.2 herein and the said Samel survived by one son namely Yesu

Samel who is (Plaintiff herein). 

b) It is submitted that suit lands herein are acquired from the predecessors of the plaintiff and defendants, and the suit lands are orally partitioned among the plaintiff and defendants. As the name of defendant no.1 is reflected in the

Dharani pahani, subsequently, the defendant no.1 has obtained the new

E­Pass book in respect to the suit land. The defendant no.1 when asked by the plaintiff to the share in suit scheduled property, denied the same. Later on, the plaintiff came to know that defendant no.1 in collusion with third parties is intending to sell the suit property without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, by taking the advantage that the suit scheduled property is in the name of defendant no.1. It is further submitted that till this date the suit property is not divided between plaintiff and defendant by metes and bounds.

The plaintiff and defendants are in joint possession of the entire suit property and the same is reflecting in the pahani and father of the plaintiff name is also reflecting in the pahani from 2001 to 2015.

c. It is further submitted that the defendants have no absolute right to sell the suit property to the third parties without there being any partition in between them by metes and bounds. Immediately after coming to know about the said 3 of 7

O.S. No. 115 2023

attempt of the defendant, the plaintiff requested the defendants for partition of the entire suit property. This request made by the plaintiff on 15.02.2023 was simply refused by the defendants without assigning any reason. Hence the plaintiff left with no other option, approached to this Hon’ble Court. Hence the suit.

3.Summons served to Defendants No. 1, 2 and it is endorsed that

Defendants 1 and 2 refused to take summons. As the refusal is treated as deemed service of summons as per CPC, it is opined that Defendants 1, 2 were not interested in contesting the suit. Also, no representation made by them

before the Hon’ble Court. Hence, the Defendants 1, 2 were set ex­parte on

25.04.2023.

4. To prove the case of the Plaintiff, examined himself as PW1 and in support to his case, he got examined PW2 in favour of his case. PW1 in his chief affidavit re­iterated the contents of plaint and got marked Exs.A1 to A17.

5. Now the points that arose for determination are:

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for partition of suit schedule

property or not as prayed for?

Point:

6.To prove the contentions of the plaintiff, plaintiff has examined himself as

Pw1 and got Ex.A1 to A17 marked. 

Ex.A1 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 1961­62

Ex.A2 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1977­78

Ex.A3 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 1986­87

Ex.A4 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 1988­89

Ex.A5 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 1994­95 4 of 7

O.S. No. 115 2023

Ex.A6 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 1995­96

Ex.A7 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 1997­98

Ex.A8 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2001­02

Ex.A9 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2002­03

Ex.A10 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2004­05

Ex.A11 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2005­06

Ex.A12 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2006­07

Ex.A13 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2007­08

Ex.A14 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2008­09

Ex.A15 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2010­11

Ex.A16 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2011­12

Ex.A17 is the certificate copy of pahani for the year 2014­15

7. To prove the case, plaintiff herself examined as PW1, PW2 and got Exs.A1 to

A17 marked. When the exhibits are looked into the following facts were recognized.

8.Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pahanies for the year 1961­62 and 1977­78 respectively reveals that the land in Sy.No. 10/A to an extent of Ac.1.33 gts is in the name of Balaiah S/o. Ramaiah, Sy.No.10/AA to the extent of 1.33 gts and

Sy.No.10/E to the extent of Ac.1.33 gts were in the name of one Ashaiah S/o.

Ramaiah and Yellaiah S/o. Ramaiah as the pattadar and possessors of suit scheduled property.

9.Ex. A3 and A4 pahanies for the year 1986­87 and 1988­89 respectively reveals that the land in Sy.No. 10/A to an extent of Ac.1.33 gts is in the name of Balaiah S/o. Ramaiah, Sy.No. 10/AA to the extent of Ac.1.33 gts and

Sy.No.10/E to the extent of Ac.1.33 gts are in the name of one Yekkelli

Chandraiah S/o. Aggaiah and Yellaiah s/o. Ramaiah are the pattadar and possessors of suit scheduled property.

5 of 7

O.S. No. 115 2023

10. Ex.A5 pahani for the year 1994­95 reveals that in Sy.No. 10/A to an extent of Ac.1.33 gts, Sy.No.10/AA to the extent of Ac.1.33 gts and in Sy.No. 10/E to the extent of 1.33 gts was in the name of Yekkili Yellamma W/o. Chandraiah as the pattadar and possessors of the suit scheduled property.

11. Ex.A6 pahani for the year 1995­96, reveals that in Sy.No. 10/A to an extent of Ac.1.33 gts is in the name of Yekkili Chandraiah S/o. Ramaiah,

Sy.No.10/AA to the extent of Ac.1.33 gts and in Sy.No. 10/E to the extent of 1.33 gts was in the name of Yekkili Yellamma W/o. Chandraiah as the pattadar of and possessors of the suit scheduled property.

12.Ex.A7 to A14 pahanies for the year 1998­2009 respectively, reveals that in

Sy.No.10/A to the extent of Ac.1.33 gts and in Sy.No. 10/E to the extent of 1.33 gts is in the name of Yekkili Yellamma W/o. Chandraiah as the pattadar of suit scheduled property and it is seen in Ex.A8­A14 that the possessors of the suit scheduled property are Ekkely Yelamma (Defendant No.1) and Yesu

Samel (Plaintiff) to the equal share.

13.Ex.A15 to Ex.17 pahanies for the year 2011­2015 respectively, reveals that the land in Sy.No.10/AA to the extent of 1.33 gts and Sy.No.10/E to the extent of Ac.1.33 gts are in the name of Yenkepalli Yellamma W/o. Chandraiah was the pattadar and noticed that Yellamma and Yesu Samel are the possessors of the suit scheduled property.

14.When the documentary evidence of ExA1­ExA17 is taken for consideration, it clearly reflected that the suit scheduled property is in the hands of predecessors of the plaintiff and defendant jointly and hence the suit scheduled property being the ancestral property is not at dispute.

15.Also, it is evidently seen in the documentary evidence of Ex.A5 to Ex.A17, that the suit scheduled property is recorded as pattadar the name of Ekkely 6 of 7

O.S. No. 115 2023

Yellamma that is defendant no.1. Though the suit scheduled property is seen through Ex.A8 to Ex.17 that the same is possessed by both the plaintiff and defendant no.1, it is visible that no partition occurred among the family members regarding the suit scheduled property.

16. To disprove the same, defendant failed to contest the suit making it to believe that no partition has been taken place among the family members of the plaintiff and defendant. However, considering the same, as the suit scheduled property being the ancestral property is not at dispute and as the same is remained unchallenged, this court is of opinion that the plaintiff proved the facts of the case in his favour.

17Since, there is no whisper as to partition in the property and the defendants remaining ex­party failed to defend the suit filed by the plaintiff, made the suit remain unchallenged.

18.As there is no defense taken by the defendants to contra the suit filed by the plaintiff and as the Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 filed the plaintiff was in favour of him, this court is of opinion to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

RESULT:

19. In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed ex­parte by partitioning the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property i.e., Sy.No.10/AA, admeasuring Ac.1­33 gts and b) Sy.No.10/E, admeasuring Ac.1­33 gts and total Admeasuring Ac.3.26 gts situated at

Pommapur Shivar Village and Bantaram Mandal, Vikarabad District. Entitling to plaintiff by dividing suit schedule property into two equal shares and by 7 of 7

O.S. No. 115 2023

allotting one such share to the plaintiff, with metes and bounds. However, there is no order as to costs. I.A’s pending if any stands closed.

Typed to my dictation on computer by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of January, 2024.

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge 

 Vikarabad District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs For Defendants

PW­1 – Yesu Samel Ekkely ­ Ex­parte­ PW­2­E.Swamidas

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs For Defendants

Ex.A1: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1961­62 Ex.A2: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1977­78 Ex.A3: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1986­87 Ex.A4: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1988­89 Ex.A5:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1994­95 Ex.A6:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1995­96 Ex.A7:Certified copy of pahani for the year 1997­98 Wx.A8:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2001­02 Ex.A9:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2002­03 Ex.A10:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2004­05 Ex.A11Certified copy of pahani for the year 2005­06 Ex.A12Certified copy of pahani for the year 2006­07 Ex.A13:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2007­08 Ex.A14:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2008­09 Ex.A15:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2010­11 Ex.A16:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2011­12 Ex.A17:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2014­2015

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge Vikarabad District.

1 of 6

O.S. No. 217 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM­

 ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT VIKARABAD, 

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Present : Smt.Shruti Doota, I Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Vikarabad, Vikarabad District. 

Dated this the 09 th day of June, 2023

O.S. No. 217 of 2019

Between:

1.Krishnaveni Yadav, W/o. Mahender Yadav, Aged 42 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.4­1­560, LIG Phase­I, Housing Board, Alampally Road, Vikarabad Mandal & District.

2.Kum I.Srividya, D/o. Vijay Kumar, Aged 14 years, Occ: Student.

3.Kum.I.Usha Sri, D/o. I.Vijay Kumar, Aged 12 years, Occ: Student.

(Both 2 and 3 are minors, rep.by their Natural Mother and gurdian Smt. I.Yashoda, W/o. I.Vijay Kumar, R/o. H.No. 4­4­191 near Police Station, Vikarabad Mandal and District).

.....Plaintiffs

AND

1.Ilitem Laxmi, W/o. Late Maniah (Teacher), aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1­15, Annasagar, Village, Kotpally Mandal, Vikarabad District.

2.Ilitem Praveen Kumar, S/o. Late Maiah, aged about 40 years, Occ: Pvt. Service.

3.Ilitem Vijay Kumar, S/o. Late Maniah, aged about 35 years, Occ: Driver, (Both 2 and 3 are R/o. H.No.4­4­191, Near Police Station, Vikarabad District).

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 09.06.2023 in the presence of Sri.N.Baswaraju, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and the Defendant

Nos.1 to 3 are set ex­parte; and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

2 of 6

O.S. No. 217 of 2019

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.This suit is filed by the Plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties with metes and bounds.

2.The Brief averments of the plaint are that:

a.Originally one Ilitem Manaiah, S/o. Ramaiah was absolute owner and exclusive possessor of Agriculture land bearing i.e., a) Sy.No.4/LU admeasuring Ac.1­00 gts,b) Sy.No.6 admeasuring Ac.3­21 gts and

c) Sy.No.10/EE, admeasuring Ac.1.10 gts.

Total admeasuring Ac.5­31 gts situated at Heerapur Villagem Kotpally

Mandal, Vikarabad District. The said lands are hereby referred to “Suit Scheduled Property”. The said I. Manaiah is recorded as owner and possessor in revenue records. After the demise of the said Manaiah in the year 2015, his wife and children succeeded the said Suit Scheduled Property.

Plaintiff who is the daughter of Maniah and Deft.No.1 used to get a share in the profits along with with other sons who are D2 and D3. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters of Deft.No.3 b. The name of Laxmi W/o. Manaiah, who is Deft No.1 in the present suit, being the head of the family her name is recorded as owner and possessor in the Revenue Records. Gradually, as the time passes by the Deft Nos. 1 and 3 refused to give the share of profits. Hence the Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are no more interested to be in joint ownership and possession of suit lands and on 01.10.2019 when they called for a panchayath before the village elders and demanded for partition and separate possession of lands, the deft.Nos. 1 to 3 denied the same.

3 of 6

O.S. No. 217 of 2019

c). By taking advantage of the lands being in the name of deft.no.1 and E­Pass book issued given to her, the deft.1 to 3 offered to sell away the lands to the third parties to deprive the rights of plaintiffs 1 to 3. Accordingly on 10.10.2019, some prospective purchasers came with Deft No.1 and were verifying the boundaries of lands to purchase the same. On the protest and objection by the friends and well wishers, they left the site while the Deft.No.1 threatened that no one can stop her from selling the lands as the lands are in her name and she has been issued new E­pass book as absolute owner. Having no other alternative remedy, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 approached the Hon’ble Court.

All the Plaintiffs and defendants jointly being the legal heirs to the deceased

Manaiah are entitled for the share in the schedule properties. Hence, filed the suit claiming to allot 1/4th share to plaintiff No.1 in the suit property and the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 put together 2/3rd of 1/4th share in the suit properties.

3.Summons served sufficient on the Defendants No. 1 to 3. Inspite of the summons no representation was made by Defendants No.1 to 3, which inturn made it think Defendants No.1 to 3 are disinterested to contest the suit. Hence

Defendants 1 to 3 were set exparte. 

4. To prove the case of the Plaintiffs, Plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and re­iterated the contents of plaint in her chief affidavit and got marked

Exs.A1 to A7 marked.

5. Now the points that arose for determination are:

Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for partition of suit schedule

property or not as prayed for?

Point:

The contention of the plaintiffs are that one I.Maniah, who is the father of plaintiff No.1 and grandfather of Plaintiffs 2, 3 is the absolute owner and 4 of 6

O.S. No. 217 of 2019

possessor of the land Sy,Nos.Agriculture land bearing i.e., a) Sy.No.4/LU admeasuring Ac.1­00 gts,b) Sy.No.6 admeasuring Ac.3­21 gts and

c) Sy.No.10/EE, admeasuring Ac.1.10 gts in total Admeasuring Ac.5.31 gts which are suit scheduled property in the present suit. It is further contended that Defendant No.1 who is mother of Plaintiff No.1 and grandmother of plaintiff 2,3; defendants 2 brother of plaintiff no.1, paternal uncle of plaintiff 2,3; Defendant No.3 younger brother of plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 with a malafide intention trying to dispose of the suit scheduled property without there being any partition among the family members.

6. In order to prove the case, plaintiff herself examined as as PW1 and got

Exs.A1 to A7 marked. When the exhibits are looked into the following facts were recognized. Ex.A1 pahanies for the year 2002­2003 reveals that the land in Sy.No.4/LU to the extent of 1­00 gts, Sy.No.6 to the extent of Ac.3.21 gts and Sy.No.10/EE to the extent of Ac.1.10 gts were in the name of I. Maniah as the pattadar and possessor, Exs.A2 and A3 which are the pahanies for the year 2007­ 2008 and 2015 ­2016 respectively, also reflects the same as of Exs.A1 showing that I.Maniah is the pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property. Exs.A4 which is 1B (ROR) also shows that E.Laxmi wife of E.Maniah is the pattadar of the Suit Schedule Property. Along with that Ex.A5 which shows the land in Sy.No.4/Lu, Ex.A6 pertaining to Sy.No.6, Ex.A7 pertaining to

Sy.No.10/EE for the fasli years to the 2017 remains unchanged as of Exs.A4 and are in favour of the plaintiff.

7.According to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, the following guidelines were prescribed:

Sec.6 of Hindu Succession Act, (1) On and from the commencement 

of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) act, 2005, in a joint Hindu 

family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a

coparcener shall:

5 of 6

O.S. No. 217 of 2019

(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;

(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;

(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son.

8.As seen above under Section 6 Hindu Successor Act, daughters are coparcenary by birth and are entitled to equal share as of the sons in the family. When Ex.A1 to A7 were observed, it clearly reflects that one I.Maniah is the absolute owner and possessor of the Suit Schedule Property. I.Maniah is the father of the plaintiff, according to Section 6 of Hindu Successor Act plaintiff is entitled to share in the suit schedule property. And Ex.A4 to Ex.A7 reveals that Deft.No.1 who is the wife of I.Manaiah, became absolute owner and possessor of the suit scheduled property after his demise.

Plaintiff No.1 being the daughter of I.Manaiah and Defendant No.1 is entitled as coparcener for the share in the property. Plaintiff 2 and 3, who are the daughters of Deft.No.3 are also treated as Coparceners for the share to which is Deft.No.3 is entitled and are legal heirs of I.Maniah.

9.Since, there is no whisper as to partition in the property and the defendants remaining ex­parte failed to defend the suit filed by the plaintiff, and made the contentions by the plaintiff remain unchallenged.

10.As there is no defense taken by the defendants to contra the suit filed by the plaintiff and as the Exs.A1 to A7 filed by the plaintiffs are in favour of her, this court is of opinion to answer the point in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

6 of 6

O.S. No. 217 of 2019

RESULT:

11. In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed ex­parte by partitioning the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property i.e., agricultural land in Survey No.4/LU to the extent of 1­00 gts,

Sy.No.6 to the extent of Ac.3.21 gts and Sy.No.10/EE to the extent of

Ac.1.10 gts, situated at Heerapur Village, Kotpally Mandal, Vikarabad District entitling the plaintiffs plaintiff No.1 is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit property and the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 put together 2/3rd of 1/4th share in the suit properties. However, there is no order as to costs. I.A’s pending if any stands closed.

Typed to my dictation on computer by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 09 th day of June, 2023.

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge 

Vikarabad District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs For Defendants

PW­1 – P.Krishnaveni Yadav ­Ex­parte­

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs For Defendants

Ex.A1: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2002­03 Ex.A2: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2007­08 Ex.A3: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2015­2016 Ex.A4: Mee­seva 1­B ROR, dated11.10.2019 Ex.A5: Mee­seva pahani dated14.10.2019 pertaining to Sy.No.4/LU Ex.A6:Mee­seva pahani dated 14.10.2019 pertaining to Sy.No.6 Ex.A7:Mee­Seva pahani dated 14.10.2019 pertaining to Sy.No.10/EE.

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge Vikarabad District.