Sk Sikinder Basha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARASARAOPET.

PRESENT: Sri S. Sikinder Basha,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet.

Thursday, this the 2nd day of September, 2021

Original Suit No. 369 / 2018

Between:-

Ginjupalli Sambaiah s/o.Ankamma, Hindu, Aged 62 yrs., Business, R/o.D.No.2/26, Ganikapudi village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District.

... Plaintiff.

And

1. Yenireddy Lakshma Reddy s/o.Chenchi Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 62 yrs., Cultivation.

2. Yenireddy Raghava Reddy s/o. Lakshma Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 42 yrs., Agricultural coolie.

3. Yenireddy Srinivasa Reddy s/o. Lakshma Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 38 yrs., Agricultural coolie.

4. Yenireddy Papi Reddy s/o. Lakshma Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 34 yrs., Agricultural coolie.

All are residents of Karuchola Village, D.No.5/122, Edlapadu Mandal,

Guntur District.

... Defendants.

This suit is coming on 27-08-2021for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D. Narayana Murthy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of

Sri Ambadipudi Shankar, Advocate for Defendant No.1 and Defendant

Nos.2 to 4 remained exparte, having stood over till this day for consideration, and on hearing both, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of Suit

Schedule Property from the Defendants with the following averments:- 2

That, the Plaintiff purchased an extent of Ac.14.43 cents in Survey

No.30/B, 30/C of Karuchola Village, Yadlapadu Mandal, out of which the

Suit Schedule Property is Ac.7.15 cents, through a Registered Sale Deed

Doc.No.2444/2000 Dt. 24-7-2000. His name was duly entered in Revenue

Records and pattadar pass book was also issued in favour of Plaintiff. The

Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of entire property. While so, the Plaintiff sold an extent of Ac.7.32 cents to one J.Prabhakar under

Registered Sale Deed Doc. No.2562/2002 Dt. 31-8-2002 and delivered vacant possession to the purchaser. The Plaintiff has been cultivating the entire extent of land for himself and on behalf of purchaser also. The

Plaintiff engaged First Defendant as a Watchman, as such, the First

Defendant was permitted to stay in the sheds to enable him to keep watch over the lands. The Defendants 2 to 4 are sons of First Defendant.

Subsequently, the Plaintiff came to know that the First Defendant had indulged in several illegal activities including misappropriating the crop yields, as such, the Plaintiff terminated the services of First Defendant and asked to vacate the land. Subsequently, the Plaintiff ploughed the entire land. At that stage, the First Defendant issued a legal notice to the

Plaintiff on 8-7-2009 and only after receiving the said notice, the Plaintiff came to know that the First Defendant got prepared an Agreement of

Sale Dt. 4-3-2002 by forging the signatures of the Plaintiff. A suitable reply was got issued by the Plaintiff denying the allegations of execution of Agreement of Sale Dt.4-3-2002. The Plaintiff never executed

Agreement of Sale in favour of First Defendant. The First Defendant is trying to knock away the property. There were several cases and counter cases both Civil and Criminal and the Defendants were unsuccessful in all their attempts. The First Defendant filed O.S.No.234/2009 before the

Addl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet for execution of regular sale 3 deed. The Plaintiff also filed O.S.No. 48/2010 before the same Addl.

Senior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet for Permanent Injunction against

the Defendant herein. A common judgment was passed in both the suits on 20-10-2012. In O.S.No.234/2009 the purchaser of the property

J. Prabhakar filed his counter claim. The Court decreed the suit of Plaintiff

O.S.No.48/2010 while dismissing the suit of Defendant O.S.No.234/2009.

The claim petition filed by J.Prabhakar was allowed. Against the said

Decree, the First Defendant herein preferred appeals A.S. No.89,90 and 92 of 2012 before the Addl. District Judge Court, Narasaraopet. All the three appeals were disposed by common judgment Dt.28-10-2014.

Appeal A.S. 89/2012 against the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No. 48/2010 was allowed holding that, the Plaintiff was not in possession of the Suit

Schedule Property since,2009. The appellate court observed that, the

Plaintiff herein did not take necessary steps for recovery of possession under due process of law. A.S NOs. 90 and 92 of 2012 were dismissed.

Cross Objections filed in A.S.No.92/2012 were allowed granting relief of recovery of possession as claimed by R2/D2 (purchaser of the Plaintiff).

Hence, the plea of Specific Performance by the First Defendant herein was not granted by the trial court and appellate court. The title of the

Plaintiff herein was upheld by the appellate court. Hence, this suit for recovery of possession of Suit Schedule Property which is in the occupation of Defendants.

2. The First Defendant filed Written Statement. Defendants 2 to 4, who are children of First Defendant, remained exparte.

3. The First Defendant in his written statement denied all the plaint averments. The relationship between the First Defendant and Defendants 2 to 4 as father and sons is admitted. The pendency of litigation with respect to Suit Schedule Property is also admitted. The other contentions 4 with regard to Plaintiff is in possession of the Suit Schedule Property and selling of property to one J. Prabhakar under Registered Sale Deed and the Plaintiff cultivating entire land on his behalf and on behalf of purchaser, engaging of First Defendant as Watchman and permitting him to stay in the Suit Schedule Property to watch over the lands, the First

Defendant doing illegal activities including misappropriation of crop yields and the Plaintiff knowing about the Agreement of Sale for the first time after receiving notice, are all specifically denied by the First

Defendant.

(i) According to First Defendant, the purchaser J. Prabhakar is a necessary party and the Defendants 2 to 4 are unnecessary parties to the suit, therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. The First Defendant admitted the filing of O.S.No.234/2009 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet for specific performance of Agreement of Sale Dt. 4-3-2002 and its dismissal and filing of

A.S.No. 90/2012 on the file of Addl. District Judge, Narasaraopet and its

dismissal. He submitted that, the First Defendant preferred Second

Appeal vide S.A No.270 of 2015 before the Hon’ble High Court and the said appeal is pending. According to him, the suit is premature in view of pendency of S.A No. 270 of 2015. He stated that, the First Defendant has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession over the Suit Schedule

Property since, 2002. His possession is adverse to the title of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the First Defendant has further perfected his title by way of adverse possession. The first defendant was never appointed by the

Plaintiff as Watchman. The first defendant was not the employee of the

Plaintiff. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5

4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:-

1. Whether the suit is maintainable in view of earlier suits

O.S 234/2009 and O.S. 48/2010 on the file of Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet and their Appeal A.S

No.89/2012 and A.S.No.90/2012 on the file of Hon’ble XIII

Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet and S.A No.270/2015

on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh?

2. Whether J. Prabhakar is necessary party to the suit and

Whether the suit is bad for his non-joinder as a party to the suit?

3. Whether Defendants 2 to 4 are not necessary parties to the suit and Whether the suit is bad for their mis-joinder?

4. Whether the First Defendant is in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the Suit Schedule Property since 2002 adverse to the title of Plaintiff and whether he perfected his title by way of adverse possession?

5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of Suit

Schedule Property from Defendants as prayed for?

6. To what result?

5. During trial, the Plaintiff examined P.w.1 and marked Ex.A1 to

A3. The First Defendant examined D.ws.1 to 3 and marked Ex.B.1 to

Ex.B.12.

6. Heard arguments of both sides.

A R G U M E N T S:-

7. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that, the Plaintiff purchased an extent of Ac.14.43 cents in the year, 2000 through

Registered Sale Deed Doc.No.2444/2000 Dt.24-7-2000 and in the year, 2002 the Plaintiff sold an extent of Ac.7.32 cents to one J. Prabhakar.

Even after sale, the Plaintiff was cultivating the entire land on his behalf and on behalf of purchaser. He engaged the First Defendant as 6

Watchman to look after the property. While so, the First Defendant hatched a plan to grab the Suit Schedule Property. Due to misappropriation of crop yield, the Plaintiff terminated the services of

First Defendant. While so, the Plaintiff received legal notice Dt.8-7-2009 from the First Defendant stating that, the Plaintiff sold an extent of

Ac.7.00 cents to the First Defendant through an Agreement of Sale

Dt.4-3-2002. Only then, the Plaintiff came to know about the alleged

Agreement of Sale which is a forged document. The First Defendant filed

O.S.No.234/2009 for Specific Performance of said alleged Agreement of

Sale. The Plaintiff herein also filed a suit for Permanent Injunction in

O.S.No.48/2010. The purchaser of the property J. Prabhakar also filed a

claim petition in O.S.No.234/2009. All the two suits and claim petition were clubbed together and disposed by the trial court. The suit

O.S.No.234/2009 filed by the First Defendant was dismissed.

O.S.No.48/2010 filed by the Plaintiff herein was decreed and the claim of

the purchaser J.Prabhakar was allowed. Then, the First Defendant filed

Appeals and the Appellate Court by common judgment confirmed the

Decree and Judgment of trial court in O.S.No.234/2009 dismissing the appeal. However, the Judgment in O.S.No.48/2010 was reversed holding that, the Plaintiff has to take steps for recovery of possession. Though the

First Defendant filed S.A.No.270/2015 before the Hon’ble High Court, the said S.A.No.270/2015 was dismissed for default on 16-6-2017 at the first instance, on petition it was restored and again was dismissed on 17-9-2018, but no steps have been taken by the First Defendant for its restoration and gave false information in the written statement that the

Second Appeal is pending. In pursuance of the decree of Appellate Court, the purchaser J.Prabhakar filed Execution Petition and got possession of his property. There was a criminal case CC No. 464/2015 for offence 7 under section 326 r/w 149 IPC filed against the Defendants in which they were convicted and sentenced to under go imprisonment. Against the said decision, Criminal Appeal No.203/2016 was filed and the Appeal was dismissed and the punishment was also enhanced by the Appellate

Court. The execution of Agreement of Sale was considered by the courts and decided against the First Defendant, therefore, again on the basis of same Agreement of Sale, the First Defendant cannot make a claim.

D.ws.2 and 3 are tutored witnesses. Their evidence need not be considered by the court.

8. The learned counsel for D.1 submits that, the Plaintiff in need of money offered to sell Ac.7.00 cents of land. The First Defendant agreed to purchase the said land for total consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid on 4-3-2002. The Plaintiff executed an Agreement of Sale. After execution of the said Agreement of

Sale, the Plaintiff left to Hyderabad and his where abouts were not known. In 2009 when the Plaintiff returned, the first defendant issued a legal notice to come forward to execute registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration. As the Plaintiff did not come forward, the First

Defendant filed O.S.No.234/2009 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale. The Plaintiff also filed O.S.No.48/2010 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet for Permanent Injunction. Both the suits were tried together and by common judgment, the suit filed by the First Defendant was dismissed. Against which, an Appeal was filed. The Appellate Court also dismissed the Appeal, as such, Second Appeal filed before the Hon’ble

High Court. The Plaintiff did not take any steps to refer the Agreement of

Sale Dt.4-3-2002 to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of signatures.

The family members i.e., Defendants 2 to 4 are no way concerned to the 8 dispute. They are un-necessary parties to the suit. The purchaser of the property J.Prabhakar is necessary party to the suit, but he is not included as a party. The P.w.1 in his cross examination clearly admitted that, he was not in a possession of Suit Schedule Property. The Plaintiff stated that, the First Defendant took forcible possession of the property, but no complaint was filed by him. The P.w.1 in his chief examination stated that, First Defendant was engaged as a watchman and he was permitted to stay in the Suit Schedule Property that means the P.w.1 admitted the possession of the property by the First Defendant. The First Defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession. Under Article 65 of

Limitation Act, the suit for recovery of possession is to be filed within 12 years. The suit is barred by limitation. The Plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of possession of Suit Schedule Property as prayed for.

ISSUE NO. 1

9. Admittedly, the First Defendant filed O.S.No.234/2009 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet for the relief of Specific

Performance of Agreement of Sale Dt. 4-3-2002. The Plaintiff herein also filed O.S.No.48/2010 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet for Permanent Injunction. Both the suits were decided by way of common judgment Dt. 20-10-2012 and Appeals A.S.Nos. 89,90 and 92 of 2012 were filed and they were also decided by the Appellate Court vide

Common Judgment Dt.28-10-2014. Against the decision in O.S.249/2009, the First Defendant herein filed S.A.No.270/2015 before the Hon’ble High

Court. As per the data available in e-Courts, the said S.A.No.270/2015 was dismissed for default on 16-6-2017, the learned counsel for plaintiff submits that, on petition the Second Appeal was restored but was again dismissed on 17-9-2018. The learned counsel for the First Defendant is unable to answer the said assertion. Therefore, it is presumed that, 9

S.A.No.270/2015 is not pending on the file of Hon’ble High Court.

10. The Suit O.S.No.234/2009 was for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 4-3-2002 and schedule of property was an extent Ac.7.00 cents which is part of the property said to have been purchased by the Plaintiff through Registered Sale Deed Dt. 2444/2000

Dt. 24-7-2000 extent Ac.14.43 cents. The other suit O.S.No.48/2010 was

filed by plaintiff herein for permanent injunction and the schedule of property was an extent of Ac.7.15 cents. The present Suit is for the relief of recovery of possession and the Schedule Property is same Ac.7.15 cents as was in O.S.No.48/2010. The main reason for filing the present suit, as per Plaintiff, is that, in the Judgment of Appellate Court in

A.S.Nos. 89 of 2012 Dt. 28-10-2014, it was observed “It is settled law that a person in possession can be evicted only by due process of law and hence even a rightful owner cannot eject him by force.” and that “In the present case also D1 who is plaintiff in O.S.48/10 was not in possession and enjoyment of land shown in the plaint schedule, due to that he is not entitled to seek equitable relief of Permanent injunction against the appellant/plaintiff/defendants in that suit without taking

necessary steps for recovery of possession under due process of

law.” In view of these observations in the Appellate Court Judgment, the

Plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of possession.

11. There is substance in the contention of the Plaintiff herein.

O.S.No.234/2009 was filed for specific performance of Agreement of Sale

and cause of action for filing the suit was stated to have arisen on 4-3-2002 and O.S.No.48/2010 was filed for Permanent Injunction and the cause of action was stated to be in the year, 2009 i.e., date of receipt of legal notice Dt.8-7-2009 and the present suit is filed for recovery of possession and the cause of action is said to have arisen in the year, 10 2009 when the Defendants did not allow the Plaintiff to enter into Suit

Schedule Property and on 28-10-2014 when the Addl. District Judge

Court, Narasaraopet dismissed the A.S. 89/2012 in O.S.48/2010.

Therefore, the causes of action for filing O.S.No.234/2009 and

O.S.No.48/2010 are altogether different than the cause of action for the

present suit and the reliefs claimed in all the three suits are different except the parties being similar. Therefore, this court holds that, the present suit is absolutely maintainable. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of Plaintiff.

Issue No.2

12. The learned counsel for the First Defendant submits that, the purchaser of part of the Suit Schedule Property namely J.Prabhakar is a necessary party to the suit and the suit is bad for his non-joinder as party to the suit.

13. Admittedly, the Plaintiff sold part of the property purchased by him to J.Prabhakar through a Registered Sale Deed Dt. 31-8-2002. The said J.Prabhakar joined as a party in O.S.No.234/2009 as a third party

Claimant for part of Suit Schedule Property to an extent of Ac.3.30 cents, and his claim was decided in his favour by the trial court and damages claimed by him for his deprivation of enjoyment of property purchased by him, at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre per annum from the year 2009 till the delivery of possession were finding. This finding of trial court was confirmed and not disturbed by the appellate court in Appeal

A.S.No.92/2012. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that, in

pursuance of the decision of the appellate court, the said J.Prabhakar filed EP and got possession of the property from First Defendant herein.

The claim of J.Prabhakar was limited to the part of present suit schedule property. The clear description of property claimed by J. Prabhakar 11

O.S.No.234/2009 such as survey number, extent, boundaries are not

disclosed by any of the parties herein. The present suit is filed for recovery of possession which is in the hands of First Defendant. The said

J.Prabhakar who is said to be purchaser of the property from the Plaintiff is said to have got possession of the property through court process. The

Plaintiff has no grievance against said J.Prabhakar because he is the seller of the property to said J.Prabhakar. In any suit, it is the Plaintiff who is dominus litis to make a claim against a particular party for a particular remedy or action. The Defendant cannot direct the Plaintiff to raise a grievance against a particular party to the suit. The first Defendant has also not disclosed as to in which manner J.Prabhakar is necessary for recovery of property which is in the possession of First Defendant. Since the claim of the Plaintiff and the counter claim of the First Defendant are altogether different and no way connected to the interests of J.Prabhakar, this court holds that, J.Prabhakar is not a necessary or proper party to the suit. Even in his absence, the suit can be decided by the court. This issue is accordingly answered against the First Defendant and in favour of

Plaintiff.

Issue No.3

14. The First Defendant also contends that, Defendants 2 to 4 are not necessary parties to the suit and the suit is bad for their mis-joinder.

Admittedly, Defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of First Defendant. The earlier suits O.S.No.234/2009 and O.S.No.48/2010 were also contested by the

Defendants 2 to 4 along with First Defendant herein. The claim of the

Plaintiff is that, the Defendants 1 to 4 are creating obstruction for recovery of possession of Suit Schedule Property. On the same analogy, as stated herein above, the Plaintiff is dominus litis and he can choose his opponent and claim appropriate reliefs in a suit. One Defendant 12 cannot restrain the Plaintiff to proceed against the other Defendants in the suit. Except vague plea in the written statement, no evidence has been adduced and no argument is advanced as to how Defendants 2 to 4 are not necessary parties to the suit. Hence, this court holds that, the contention of the First Defendant that, Defendants 2 to 4 are not necessary parties to the suit and that the suit is bad for their mis-joinder is baseless. This issue is accordingly answered against the Defendants and in favour of Plaintiff.

Issue No.4

15. The contention of the Plaintiff is that, he purchased the property an extent of Ac.14.43 cents in the year, 2000 and out of which he sold

Ac.7.32 cents to one J.Prabhakar on 31-8-2002. Even after said sale, the

Plaintiff was cultivating the entire extent of land for himself and on behalf of purchaser. The Plaintiff engaged the First Defendant as Watchman, but subsequently the Plaintiff came to know that the First Defendant was indulging in illegal activities, as such, he terminated the services of First

Defendant and for the first time after receiving legal notice Dt.8-7-2009, the Plaintiff came to know that the First Defendant had fabricated an

Agreement of Sale Dt.4-3-2002 with his forged signatures. Since then, the Plaintiff is litigating with the Defendants by filing suits and criminal proceedings. Now the question is, when the First Defendant was inducted in the property by the Plaintiff for the first time.

(i) The Plaintiff himself is examined as P.w.1. In his chief evidence as P.w.1, he did not disclose when he appointed the First Defendant as watchman to look after the property. But in the cross examination, he stated that, he came to know the first defendant through one T.Krishna

Reddy in the year, 2006 and he appointed him as watchman to look after his property in the year, 2006. There were sheds in the schedule property 13 and he allowed the first defendant to stay in those sheds to watch over the property. No contra suggestion was given in the cross examination of

P.w.1 to this assertion. Therefore, it can be safely presumed that, the first defendant was inducted into the suit schedule property in the year, 2006.

However, the contention of the Plaintiff that the first defendant was engaged as a watchman, was not accepted by the Appellate Court in its common judgment in A.S No. 89, 90 and 92 of 2012 Dt.28-10-2014 which is marked as Ex.A1. The appellate court observed that, the First

Defendant herein namely Y.Laxmareddy owns a Rice Mill, hence, it is not probable that, he was engaged as watchman. In page-24 of Ex.A1, the

Appellate Court observed; “Therefore, it is improbable to believe that a person who was having rice mill and landed property, was engaged as a watchman. The contents of Ex.B1 on which D.1 (Plaintiff herein) is relying shows that Plaintiff (D.1 herein) took land of D.1 (Plaintiff herein) on lease and cultivating the same. Further D.1 (Plaintiff herein) himself stated in his written statement in O.S.No.234/09 that Plaintiff was in permissive possession who also allowed to reside in the thatched shed laid on south-western corner of D.1’s land. As admittedly there is a house of Plaintiff on south-western corner of D.1’s land, for which admittedly there is electricity connection since 2006 and D.2 filed counter claim for recovery of property in occupation of Plaintiff… ..”

16. From the above observation of the Appellate Court it could be presumed that, the Electricity connection to the premises was taken in the year 2006. This view is further supported by Ex.B5 to B8 filed on behalf of defendant. Ex.B5 is the copy of affidavit, petition , order and decree in I.A.No. 608/2009 in O.S.No.140/2009 on the file of Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. The said petition was filed by the First

Defendant herein against the Officials of Andhra Pradesh Southern Power

Distribution Corporation, Guntur seeking interim Mandatory Injunction to restore the power supply to service connection No.463 by affixing the 14 meter. The contents of affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.608/2009 disclose that, the first defendant herein based on the agreement of sale

Dt.4-3-2002 had applied for power supply connection and the Electricity

Department gave power supply connection to him on 02-12-2006 with

Service No.463 and in response to the claim made by the Plaintiff herein the Electricity Department gave notice to the First Defendant herein on 21-8-2009 to produce the documents regarding the schedule property within seven days, but without making enquiry the power supply was disconnected on 20-9-2009. The court i.e., Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Chilakaluripet passed an order on 9-10-2009 granting ad-interim

Mandatory Injunction directing the Electricity Department to restore power supply to Service No.463 and in its order and decree, the court clearly observed; “that the order is passed considering the equity and good conscience” and “that the Petitioner cannot claim possession of the

Petition Schedule Property or the house therein basing on that order”.

Therefore, a reading of Ex.B5 clearly shows that, the Electricity connection was admittedly given on 02-12-2006 and when the disputes arose between the plaintiff and first defendant herein after issuing notice on 8-7-2009, on the representation made by the Plaintiff herein, the

Electricity supply was disconnected, and for restoration the First

Defendant herein filed O.S.No.140/2009, without showing the plaintiff herein as a party to that suit, and got an ad-interim Mandatory Injunction against the Electricity department authorities, under Ex.B5.

Subsequently, the Plaintiff herein tried to get impleaded as party in

O.S.No.140/2009 by filing I.A.No.629/2009 which was dismissed by the

court on 9-10-2009 vide Ex.B6 on the ground that the dispute in

O.S.140/2009 was between the department and the consumer. Along

with I.A. 629/2009 in O.S.140/2009 the plaintiff herein also filed 15

I.A.No. 633/2009 and I.A.No. 638/2009 to grant stay of proceedings in

Mandatory Injunction petition and temporary injunction petition separately, but they were also dismissed by the court vide orders Ex.B7 and Ex.B8. The ultimate result of proceedings under Ex.B5 to B8 is that the electricity connection taken by the first defendant herein on 02-12-2006 which was disconnected in the year 2009 was ordered to be restored and the plaintiff herein was not allowed to join as party in those proceedings.

17. The contention of the First Defendant, that he purchased the property through agreement of sale Dt.4-3-2002 and took delivery of possession of Suit Schedule Property, was not accepted by two competent courts in O.S.No.234/2009 and A.S.No.90/2012. Therefore, on the basis of same assertion and on the basis of the same documents which were rejected by two competent courts, the first defendant herein cannot re-agitate to say that, he got into the possession of the Suit

Schedule Property in the year, 2002. According to Plaintiff, the first defendant was inducted into permissive possession of Suit Schedule

Property in the year, 2006 and as per Ex.B5 to B8 it is admittedly and clearly established that electricity connection was taken on 02-12-2009 hence, the first defendant cannot go back to say that he came into possession of the suit schedule property in the year 2002.

18. As regards the genuineness of the alleged agreement of sale

dated 4-3-2002, superseded copy marked as Ex.B1, the P.w.1 in his cross

examination clearly stated that, the first defendant in the year, 2009 fabricated the Agreement of Sale by mentioning the wrong boundaries and that the Non-Judicial Stamps used for drafting the Agreement of Sale were not purchased from government and they were found to be Telgi stamps. Further in the year, 2009 two five rupee adhesive stamps were 16 affixed stating that the agreement was entered in the year, 2002, but by the date of original of Ex.B1 five rupee adhesive stamps were not in the market and only in the year, 2007 the adhesive stamps of five rupee value were released. The original of Ex.B1 was notrarized by one Btyra

Prasadarao in the year, 2002. By the said date, the said Byra Prasadarao was no more. The son of said Byra Prasadarao wrote a letter stating that the signature on the document does not pertain to his father. These were the circumstances which made him to remove the First Defendant as watchman. When the Plaintiff has made such allegations in the cross examination, there were no cross suggestions to dispute the said allegations made by P.w1 in his cross examination, creating a reasonable doubt on the genuineness of original of Ex.B1.

19. The First Defendant is examined as D.w.1 and in Page-2 of chief evidence affidavit, he reiterated the same story of entering into agreement of sale on 4-3-2002. The said contention was already rejected by two courts in O.S.No.234/2009 and A.S.No.89/2012. Even then, the first defendant was hanging on the said submission which is barred by principle of resjudicata. The certified copy of superseded Agreement of

Sale Dt.4-3-2002 is marked as Ex.B1 to show the possession. But when the original of said Agreement itself is rejected by the courts, the contents of those rejected document cannot be taken into consideration for any purpose. Even otherwise when first defendant has made claim of possession by virtue of Agreement of Sale Dt. 4-3-2002, no suggestion has been put to P.w.1 in cross examination as to the manner of execution of said Agreement of Sale, receiving of advance consideration amount delivery of possession, witnesses present at the time of said transaction.

Thus, creating a reasonable doubt as to whether the transaction of

Agreement of Sale relied upon by the First Defendant had in fact 17 happened or not.

20. The first defendant has relied upon Ex.B10, a copy of final order in W.P.No.1150 of 2010. The said Writ Petition was filed by the purchaser of the property from the Plaintiff i.e., J. Prabhakar against

Revenue Officials and also the Plaintiff herein. None of the defendants herein were parties to the said writ petition. The relief claimed in the said

Writ Petition was to direct the Revenue Authorities to conduct survey of the property purchased by him. The Hon’ble High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the Revenue Authorities to conduct survey within two weeks. The first defendant also appears to have filed W.P

No. 4729 of 2010 showing the Revenue Officials and the said J.Prabhakar as Respondents, seeking direction not to demolish the residential houses and dispossess the Petitioner therein from his agricultural lands situated in D.No.26/A, 30/B2,30/C of Karuchola Village, Yedlapadu Mandal without following due process of law. In W.P.M.P No. 6086 of 2010 in W.P

No.4729/2010 Dt. 26-2-2010 interim direction was granted as prayed for till disposal of W.P No.4729 of 2010 on the file of Hon’ble High Court.

Order Copy in W.P.M.P No. 6086 of 2010 in W.P No.4729/2010 Dt. 26-2- 2010 is marked as Ex.B11. Based on the said orders, Tahsildar,

Yadlapadu Mandal issued a notice to the parties in the said Writ Petition informing the orders of the Hon’ble High Court and directed them not to demolish the residential house and not to dispossess the Petitioner therein from the said agricultural lands.

21. It is pertinent to note that, from the e-courts data available,

W.P No. 4729 of 2010 was dismissed as withdrawn on 30-4-2010 itself. It is not understood why the First Defendant is still relying on such document, if not for misleading the court, when the Writ Petition itself was dismissed as withdrawn. The effort made by first defendant, to 18 mislead the court gives rise to a suspicion on the genuineness and bona fidies of the claim of the first defendant in the present suit. In his cross examination the D.w.1 admitted that, the suit filed by him was dismissed by the trial court and in Appeal the Appellate Court observed that, he fabricated Ex.B1 with forgery. He admitted that, there was rowdy sheet against him and his family. According to him, it was opened at the instance of Plaintiff. Thus, from the mouth of first defendant himself, he is not having a good history in the litigation.

22. The first defendant relied upon the evidence of D.w.2 and D.W.3 in support of his claim to the property. The D.w.2 is a third party to the suit and he was produced to say that his paternal uncle approached the

Plaintiff in the year, 2009 to purchase the suit schedule property, as an offer was made by the Plaintiff, and the local residents of the village informed his paternal uncle not to purchase the land, as Ac.7.00 cents was sold away to J.Prabhakar and Ac.7.00 cents was sold away to the

First Defendant herein. Prima facie, this person is speaking on behalf of his paternal uncle and he never said that he was also present along with his paternal uncle. According to him, his paternal uncle approached the

Plaintiff’s close relative by name Atchaiah to purchase the suit schedule property. So, this D.w.2 is speaking about the events happened between his paternal uncle and another third party Achaiah. Absolutely, there is no conversation between the paternal uncle of D.W.2 and the plaintiff. In his cross examination D.W.2 stated that he does not know about the previous suit filed by the First Defendant.

23. Similarly, D.w.3 is another third party. He stated that, he was present at Yadlapadu,P.S when the Plaintiff and First Defendant were advised by the police to settle the issue pertaining to the suit schedule property in amicable manner. In his presence the Plaintiff demanded the 19

First Defendant to take back his money that was paid towards sale consideration in respect of Ac.7.00 cents, but the First Defendant refused to cancel the Agreement of Sale and to take back the money. In his cross examination, he clearly stated that he does not know the relief claimed by the Plaintiff in the present suit. He did not give evidence in any court previously. Thus, the entire chief affidavit prepared by the Advocate does not appear to be at the instance of witness. The evidence of D.w.2 and

D.w.3 is not at all helpful to the case of First Defendant.

24. On consideration of entire evidence and material on record, this court could come to only conclusion that, the first defendant was inducted into possession of the suit schedule property which was a permissive possession by the Plaintiff in the year, 2006 and since then the First Defendant is in possession of the same.

PLEA OF ADVERSE POSSESSION BY THE FIRST DEFENDANT:-

25. The learned counsel for the first defendant submits that the

First Defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property since 2002 to the knowledge of Plaintiff, as such, he perfected his title by adverse possession, hence, the suit for recovery of possession is not maintainable against the Defendants.

26. The law has already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in L.N. Aswathama And Anr vs P. Prakash 1 wherein it is held:- 1 (2009)(13) SCC 229 20

“The legal position is no doubt well settled. To establish a

claim of title by prescription, that is adverse possession for 12

years or more, the possession of the claimant must be

physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious and

hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding twelve years.

It is also well settled that long and continuous possession by

itself would not constitute adverse possession if it was either

permissive possession or possession without animus possidendi.

The pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually

inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the

former is renounced. Unless the person possessing the property

has the requisite animus to possess the property hostile to the

title of the true owner, the period for prescription will not

commence.”

27. Therefore, to claim the adverse possession, the first defendant has to show that, he was in physical and actual possession of the property uninterrupted, open and hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding twelve years. In the present case, the first defendant is contesting the suit on the basis of Agreement of Sale Dt.4-3-2002 which has been found to be a false document by a competent court in

O.S.No.234/2009 and upheld by the Appellate Court in A.S.No. 90/2012

and the said finding is not let down till now. As discussed above, the permissive possession of the property for the First Defendant is found to be from 02-12-2006 when the first defendant appears to have taken electricity connection. The dispute between the Plaintiff and first

Defendant was started from 8-7-2009 when the first defendant gave legal notice for specific performance of alleged agreement of sale dated 4-3-2002. Subsequently also, when the first defendant filed

O.S.No.234/2009 and Appeal A.S.No.90/2012, nowhere the first

defendant claimed that he was in adverse possession of the suit schedule property. For the first time, in Para-8 of the Written Statement in the present suit, as last resort, the first defendant contended that he has 21 been in continuous and uninterrupted possession over the suit schedule property since 2002 and his possession is adverse to the title of the

Plaintiff and therefore, the first defendant had perfected his title by way of adverse possession.

28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs

Government Of India & Ors2 held:-

“ A person pleading adverse possession has no equities

in his favour and since such a person is trying to defeat the

rights of true owner it is for him to clearly plead and

establish necessary facts i.e., peaceful, open and continuous

possession.”

29. The learned counsel for the First Defendant has also relied upon a decision reported in Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors., v. Manjit Kaur & Ors.,3 The question involved in the said decision was, “Whether a person claiming the title by virtue of adverse possession can maintain a suit under Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 for declaration of title and for a permanent injunction seeking the protection of his possession thereby restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession or for restoration of possession in case of illegal dispossession by a defendant whose title has been extinguished by virtue of the Plaintiff remaining in the adverse possession or in case of dispossession by some other person?. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further clarified the question by observing, as to whether Article 65 of the Act only enables a person to set up a plea of adverse possession as a shield for defendant and such a plea cannot be used as a sword by a Plaintiff to protect the possession of immovable property or to recover it in case of dispossession? After discussing the law on the subject, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, 22004 (10) SCC 779 3http://indiankanoon.org/doc/199096823 22 “the plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by Plaintiff under Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of rights of Plaintiff”.

Some earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself in

Gurudwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat, Sirthala 4 and State of

Uttarakhand v. Mandir Shri Lakshmi Siddh Maharaj 5 and Dharampal

(dead) through LRS v. Punjab Wakf Board 6 were held to be not laying correct law and they were overruled.

30. In the present case, the First Defendant is taking plea of adverse possession as shield but not as a sword. The decision relied upon by the counsel for the first defendant speaks that the plea of adverse possession can taken by the plaintiff as a sword also. The decision nowhere lessened the burden of proof upon the defendant to establish the claim of adverse possession taken by him as a defence. Hence, the decision is not helpful to the first defendant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

31. Since the first defendant is taking the plea of adverse possession as a shield the burden of proof is heavy upon him to establish as to since when he is in adverse possession of the property and whether such adverse possession is open, uninterrupted and hostile to the title of true owner. The Hon’ble Supeme Court in Henil vagadi Jat v.

Bihakabai7 held that; “A person claiming adverse possession has to prove (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the fact of possession was known to other party (d) how long his possession has continued and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed.” 4(2014) 1 SCC 669 5(2017) 9 SCC 579 6(2018) 11 SCC 449 72008 (6) ALT (1) S.C 23

32. In the present case, as discussed above, it has been established that the first defendant had come into possession of the suit schedule property in the year, 2006 which was a permissive possession. Such permissive possession was continued till 2009 when the disputes arose between parties and resulted in filing civil and criminal cases. Thus, the possession claimed by the first defendant is not open and it is being disturbed by the Plaintiff through process of law. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a decision reported in Dr. K.Subbaiah v.

C.N.Krishnamacharlu & Other8 clearly held that, “ If a person claims to have come into possession as a consequence to execution of a document he cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession.”

33. In the present case, the first defendant claims to have come into possession by way of Agreement of Sale, therefore, by virtue of the above decision, he cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession.

34. In the present case, initially the first defendant claimed the property through an Agreement of Sale and on his failure in the suits, converted his claim as that of adverse possession, therefore, the first defendant has no bona fides in his claim for adverse possession and no proof or evidence has been adduced by first defendant to establish his adverse possession open, uninterrupted and exclusive to the true owner.

This court, therefore, holds that, the plea of adverse possession taken by the first defendant is baseless, an after thought, without proof or evidence and unsustainable in law. This issue is accordingly answered against the Defendants and in favour of Plaintiff.

82011 (2) ALT 515 24

ISSUE No. 5

35. From the pleadings and evidence, it is clear that the Plaintiff is the true owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of Registered Sale

Deed Doc. No.2444/2000 Dt. 24-7-2000. The alleged plea of execution of

Agreement of Sale on 4-3-2002 taken by the first defendant, was rejected by two competent courts one in O.S.No.234/2009 on the file of Addl.

Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet and the other in A.S.No.90/2012 on the

file of XIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Narsaraopet. In the appeal filed by the first defendnt herein in A.S.No. 89/2012 against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.48/2010 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Narsaraopet, the appellate court observed that, the Plaintiff has to take steps for recovery of possession of suit schedule property in accordance with law. Therefore, the present suit is filed by the Plaintiff. As a title holder of the suit schedule property, the Plaintiff is absolutely entitled to have the possession of the suit schedule property from the unlawful occupiers. Hence, this court holds that, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of suit schedule property from the Defendants as prayed for. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendants.

ISSUE No. 6

36. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the

Defendants to deliver possession of suit schedule property to the Plaintiff within one month from today, on failure, the Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the decree in accordance with law.

Dictated to the Steno Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2nd day of

September,2021.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

25

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:-

P.w.1 : Ginjupalli Sambaiah.

For Defendant No.1: -

D.w.1 : Y. Lakshma Reddy.

D.w.2 : Shaik Gousulvara.

D.w.3 : Uppalapati Subbarao.

For Defendants 2 to 4: - Exparte.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1 C/c. Of Common Judgment in A.S.Nos.89, 90 and 92 of 2012 and Cross Objections in A.S.92/2012 on the file of XIII ADJ,

Narasaraopet.

Ex.A2 Cist Receipt.

Ex.A3 Pattadar Pass Book.

For Defendant No. 1 : -

Ex.B1 C/c. Of Agreement of Sale Dt. 4-3-2002. Ex.B2 C/c. Of Legal Notice Dt. 8-7-2009. Ex.B3 C/c. Of Postal Receipt. Ex.B4 C/c. Of Postal Acknowledgment. Ex.B5 C/c. Of Petition, Affidavit, schedule, Decree & Order in I.A.No.608/09 in O.S.No.140/2009 on the file of PJCJ, Chilakaluripet. Ex.B6 C/c. Of Order in I.A.No.629/09 Dt. 9-10-2009. Ex.B7 C/c. Of Order in I.A.No.633/09 Dt. 9-10-2009. Ex.B8 C/c. Of Order in I.A.No.638/09 Dt. 9-10-2009. Ex.B9 C/c. Of FIR in Cr.No.206/09 of Edlapadu,P.S Dt. 21-11-2009. Ex.B10C/c. Of order in W.P No.1159/2010 Dt. 28-1-2010. Ex.B11C/c. Of Order in WPMP No.6086/2010 in W.P No.4729/10Dt.26-2-10 Ex.B12C/c. Of notice issued by Tahsildar, Edlapadu Dt. 8-3-2010.

For Defendants 2 to 4: - Exparte.

P.S.C.J.

26

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE ::NARASARAOPET

PRESENT: Sri S. Sikinder Basha, Prl. Assistant. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.

Tuesday, this the 14th day of September, 2021

SESSIONS CASE NO. 65 / 2021

Between:-

State: Sub-Inspector of Police ,

Chilakaluripet Urban,P.S ...Complainant.

(Cr.No. 342 / 2019 )

AND

Ankam Akhil Kumar

s/o.Vandanam Raju, 20 yrs., Mala, Christianpet, Siva Sanjeevaiah Colony,

Narasaraopet.

...Accused.

This case is coming on 13-09-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of

Sri S. Srinivasarao, Advocate for Accused and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter, till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban,P.S has filed charge sheet against Accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC in Cr.

No.342/2019 with the following allegations:-

That, Accused and P.ws.1 to 3 are residents of Narasaraopet. About one year back, the Accused proposed to marry P.w.1 and the P.w.2 who is mother of P.w.1 also agreed for the same, but asked to wait till P.w.1 attain majority. Since then, the Accused used to visit the house of P.w.1 very often. About five months back, the Accused came to the house of P.w.1in the absence of her mother and asked P.w.1 to come out along with him, but P.w.1 refused saying that, her mother may scold. On that, Accused hardly hit P.w.1 over her ear. The P.w.1 informed the same to P.w.1 after her arrival to home. On the next day when P.w.2 asked the

Accused about his beating, the Accused again beat P.w.1 and when P.w.2 went to rescue

P.w.1, the Accused also beat P.w.2. On that P.w.2 stated to the Accused that she will not give

P.w.1 in marriage to him. Since then, the Accused so many times tried to talk with P.w.1, but the

P.w.1 was not talking to him. Since one week prior to 3-12-2019, the Accused expressing his wish to marry the P.w.1 and through his parents he was getting pressure on P.w.1 and P.w.2 and uttered threats that he would see the end of P.w.1 if she did not marry him. The P.w.1 went to the house of Accused in Narasaraopet and informed the family members of the Accused about their disinterest to marry P.w.1 to the Accused. While so, on 3-12-2019 around 12 noon, the Accused came to the house of P.w.1 expressed his wish to talk to P.w.1. The P.w.1 who was present in the house refused to talk. Then, the Accused pleaded to allow him to talk with

P.w.1 at once. Having accepted for that, the P.w.2 when stood at the doorway of house, the

Accused asked P.w.1 to marry him. When P.w.1 refused to marry him, the Accused picked up a blade from his shirt pocket and brushed it on the neck of P.w.1 uttering that he will kill her and as a result, the P.w.1 sustained bleeding cut injury over her throat. She raised cries to protect herself, but the Accused again brushed over her hand with the blade causing cut injury over her right index finger. On hearing the cries, P.w.2 rushed to the scene. The Accused also self- brushed on his throat with the blade causing self-inflicted injury. On hearing the cries, L.ws.4 to 6 rushed to the spot and noticed the occurrence. The L.w.6 assisted P.w.2 in shifting P.w.1 to

Lakshmi Narsimha Hospital, Chilakaluripet. On receipt of hospital intimation, police went there and recorded the statement of P.w.1 at 8.30 p.m., on 3-12-2019. The statement was registered as FIR in Cr.No. 342/2019 U/s.307 IPC, investigated into the case. The Police have seized “Super Max Blade” used by the Accused for committing crime. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

2. The learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Chilakaluripet took the case into cognizance as PRC No. 2 / 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC against the Accused. Copies of the documents were furnished to Accused under Sec.207 Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 CrPC.

3.The Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Guntur was pleased to make over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance, Accused was examined U/s 228(2) Cr.P.C and charge has been framed against Accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, P.ws.1 to 3 were examined and marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P4.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, examination of the Accused u/s.313

CrPC is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

7.Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for consideration is:-

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of

the Accused for the offence punishable under

Section 307 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?” 9. P O I N T :-

In a case for the offence under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that, the Accused with an intention to cause death or injury has attacked upon the Victim. In the present case, the Victim of the offence is examined as

P.w.1. She stated that, she does not know the Accused and had no disputes with the Accused. She did not give any statement to the police. The police obtained her thumb mark on a white paper. After declaring her hostile, in her cross examination by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, she denied having stated to the police as in

Ex.P1 statement. She also denied having stated to the police as in Ex.P2 161 CrPC statement.

10. The mother of P.w.1 is examined as P.w.2 . She also turned hostile to the case of prosecution and denied having stated to the police as in Ex.P3 161 CrPC

Statement.

11. The elder sister of P.w.1 is examined as P.w.3 . She also turned hostile to the case of prosecution and denied having stated to the police as in Ex.P4 161 CrPC

Statement.

12. Since all the material witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution and no other incriminating evidence adduced, I hold that, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of Accused for the alleged offence under

Section 307 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The point is accordingly answered against the prosecution.

13. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC and he is acquitted under section 232 CrPC. The bail bonds of the

Accused shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of Section 437-A CrPC. The unmarked case property i.e., Super Max Blade, shall be destroyed by the committal court u/s.

452 Cr.P.C, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Steno Gr-II transcribed by him,corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, this the 14th day of September, 2021.

Sd/- S. Sikinder Basha,

PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : None.

P.w.1 : Pullagura Chaitanya. P.w.2 : Pullagura Mery.

P.w.3 : Ankam Poojitha.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P.1 Statement of P.w.1. Ex.P.2 161 CrPC statement of P.w.1. Ex.P.3 161 CrPC statement of P.w.2.

Ex.P.4 161 CrPC statement of P.w.3.

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Sd/- S. Sikinder Basha,

P.A.S.J, NRT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE: NARASARAOPET

PRESENT: Sri Sk. Sikindar Basha, Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet

Friday, this the 17th day of September, 2021

S.C.NO.86/2020

Between: Kokkirala Srinivasa Rao @ Bujji, S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged about 55 years, R/o.Prakash Nagar, Narasaraopet.

...Complainant

Vs.

1. B.Ch.Prudhvi Narayana, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narasaraopet.

2. Bathula Srinivasa Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Town P.S.

3. B. Koteswara Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Rompicherla P.S .. Accused

This case is coming on 17-09-2021 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri

E. Satish Kumar, Advocate for Complainant and Sri T. Rammohana Rao, Advocate for A.1 and

Sri M.B. Satyanarayana Reddy for A.3 and case against A2 was abated as per the orders of the

Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in Crl. Petition No.7830/2013 Dt.25-10-2019 and upon perusing the

material papers on record and on hearing this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

The Complainant filed Private Complaint against the accused A1 to A.3 in

PRC.35/2008 for the offence punishable under section 448,323,324,354,506 and 342 r/w.34 of

IPC. on the file of V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and in S.C.86/2020 on the file of Prl.

Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

No representation for the Accused No.3. As per the record, the charge sheet has been filed against A.1 to A.3 for the offences under Section 448,323,324,354,506 and 342 r/w.34 of IPC. The case against A2 was quashed as per the order passed by the Hon'ble High

Court of AP in Crl. Petition No.7830/2013, Dt.25-10-2019 and the case against A.1 was quashed in terms of orders of Hon'ble High Court in Crl. Petition No.2410/20 Dt.21-7-2020.

Now, A3 also filed Crl. Petition No.1992/2021 in which stay was granted on 31- 3-2021.

As per the NJDJ Data, Crl. Petition No.1992/2021 was disposed on 6-8-2021 and the order copy has been downloaded from the Official Website. The result is , as below:- "Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 in S.C.No.86 of 2020 on the file of learned Principal

Assistant Sessions Judge, Narassraopet, Guntur District, for the offences under Sections 448, 323, 324, 354,307,506 and 342 r/w.34 of IPC are hereby quashed and the Petitioner/A3 is acquitted of the charges".

In view of the above clear decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh quashing the proceedings against A3 also there is no necessity to proceed with the case and accordingly further proceedings in S.C.No.86/2020 are dropped by recording the acquittal of

A.3 in terms of orders of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in Crl. Petition No.1992/2021 Dt.6- 8-2021.

Pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of September, 2021.

Sd/-Sk. Sikindar Basha,

PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For petitioner: For Respondent:

-NIL- -NIL-

Sd/-Sk. Sikindar Basha.

PASJ, NRT

In the Court of :Prl Senior Civil Judge

Case No. :OS/0000467/2015 State bank of India, Branch at Edlapadu Rep. by its Branch Manager Vs Kolli Sanjeeva Reddy

Date : 13-09-2021

JUDGMENT

On representation of counsel for plaintiff and counsel for D1 that the payment has been made to plaintiff Bank on OTS scheme and to refer the matter to

Lok Adalat to record the same, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat on 11.09.2021 on which date plaintiff called absent and counsel for plaintiff got passed over the matter till 5.00 pm and did not turn up . In these circumstances, the suit is reverted back to the regular court. In view of previous submissions made by counsel for parties and the conduct of plaintiff bank is not pursuing this old pending case, this court feels it unnecessary and inappropriate to keep the record on rolls. Accordingly the suit is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-xxx

Prl. Senior Civil Judge Narasaraopet

In the Court of :Prl Senior Civil Judge

Case No. :OS/0000421/2015 State Bank of India, Branch at Edlapadu, Rep. by its Branch Manager Vs Konakanchi Hanumantha Rao

Date  : 13-09-2021

JUDGEMENT

Learned counsel for plaintiff reported that the matter has been settled outside court. Counsel for defendant No.1 filed a memo along with a No due certificate issued by plaintiff Bank, that borrower has repaid the loan under OTS 2020.2021 scheme and no dues with then. In these circumstances the suit is dismissed as settled out of court.

Sd/-XXX

Prl. Senior Civil Judge Narasaraopet